Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump DETERIORATES as Manhattan DA makes move that has him TERRIFIED

Episode Date: February 9, 2023

The Midweek Edition of the top-rated news podcast, LegalAF x MeidasTouch, is back for another hard-hitting look at this week’s most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this episode, co-anchors national trial lawyer Michael Popok and former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo analyze and discuss: Why a federal judge says a constitution right to abortion may still exist, despite the Dobbs decision, the 15th appearance of former Trump fixer and attorney Michael Cohen before the Manhattan DA’s office, the latest news from the book tour of former New York prosecutor Mark Pomerantz, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta’s demand for answers after a January 6th defendant recants his guilty plea, and much more! DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: GreenChef: Head to https://GreenChef.com/LegalAF60 and use code "LegalAF60" to get 60% off and Free Shipping! Highland Titles: You can use the discount code "LEGALAF" to get 20% off at https://HighlandTitles.com SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop LegalAF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch 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 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF. We've got three hot topics for today. We're going to first kick it off with a Manhattan DA's office. It's getting hot in here and it's getting hot in the Stormy Daniels special grand jury indictment. Michael Cohen, according to his own reporting, is going in for number 16, 16 visits. He says he's had overtime with the Manhattan DA's office. He went in today on Wednesday for number 16, and it's obvious he's being prepped and primed

to testify before the special grand jury about Stormy Daniels. Who better to talk about Stormy Daniels, the Michael Cohen, who's already testified that the whole plot was hatched in the Oval Office with him and Donald Trump to pay off Stormy Daniels $130,000. So there's only two witnesses. Well, there's three, Donald Trump,

Alan Weiselberg, who cooked the books about the payment and Michael Cohen. And so we have that testimony, Michael Cohen, as long as we're at Manhattan, and Manhattan DA, old stomping grounds for my co-anchor, Karen Friedman, Nick Nipfellow. Let's talk about Mark Palmer, Rance, former special prosecutor of all things Trump and his new memoirs out. Crap's on Alvin Bragg, but he also sort of shades the story of Daniel's prosecution, doesn't

think much of that. And as his own particular opinion about Michael Cohen as a witness and we'll talk to Karen Friedman, Knifalo about all that. And then we'll talk about what is happening with the assault on women's rights and abortion rights in America. And specifically, the MAGA right wing has found their judge of choice. Mark Kazmarik, the only judge sitting in Abilene, Texas, who came out of a Christian right, right wing organization where he was deputy general counsel, where he is a religious zealot, a Christian fanatic. Yes, a Trump appointee. No surprise there. And that's the, that is the court of choice when you want to challenge abortion rights. What are they all up in arms about today? They want to ban in all 50 states.

The FDA approved 20 year abortion pill. It is the primary way that women obtain abortions today since the DOBS decision. It's not an abortion clinics. It's through FDA approved drugs delivered to their door. And if this judge has its way, sometime next week, there will be a 50 state ban on the use of the FDA approved abortion drug. And as long as we're on the topic of abortion, at the very same time, a Clinton appointee sitting in the District of Columbia in a criminal case involving right wing Catholic protesters who a year ago tried to block access with their bodies to abortion clinics in DC up on criminal charges because that's a that's a violation of federal law. Their new argument,

there's no constitutional right for a woman to have an abortion. So there shouldn't be any federal law that stops me from stopping access to an abortion clinic. And the judge sort of scratched her head and said, hmm, that's interesting. But what's more interesting is, isn't there a constitutional right to an abortion that's inside the constitution, but maybe not with the 14th amendment, which was the focus of Sam Alito's dobs decision. And the judge for extra credit and homework told the lawyers to go look at the 13th Amendment, which is the amendment that outlawed slavery, arguing that isn't a woman being forced to be an involuntary servitude to the fetus. Not making this up. Judge sent them home told them to go write briefs, come back in March and let's talk about

whether there's other places for a constitutional right to an abortion. And then we're going to end it with, you know, social media is the, is the friend of the Department of Justice. It's great for catching the 950 Jan 6 insurrectionists. It's great for convicting them in a court of law. And it's also, you know, the judges read the newspaper too. And it looks like Judge Maitre, one of our favorite judges in the district of Columbia. He's the one presiding over all the oath keeper cases. He's none too pleased to find out that right after he did a stipulated bench trial. We'll talk more about that and convicted Thomas B. Adams, Jr.

of obstruction of interference with the congressional proceeding carrying a 20-year sentence right after that. Mr. Adams gave an interview to his local newspaper on Illinois and recanted the whole thing, said he's not guilty of any crime at all. He was just a trumper who was unemployed, nothing to do on Jan 6th and decided to go and occupy the, the cradle of our democracy. That's all. Well, judge made a read. So it wasn't even the department of justice that brought it to his attention.

And he's done to please and told the lawyers in that case, he wants full briefing as to why he shouldn't vacate his ruling in the bench trial and give Mr. Mr. Adams what he wants, which is a jury of his peers to get convicted there. The sentencing was going to be in June. He was looking at 20 years, Lord knows what he'll be looking at now. If he make judge made a go through it entirely new trial, that's what we're talking about today on legal a f on Michael Pope, with my co anchor every Wednesday, former prosecutor, current defense lawyer, current great friend, Karen Friedman, Akifah, hi, Karen. Hello, Pope, how you doing today? Got to take a breath.

I had a cram all that in, bend my salad style. Yeah. After last night, exactly. After, after last night's big, uh, big state of the union address where Joe Biden showed the world, he still has it, right? Yeah, we, let's spend a minute. We, we sit at the intersection of law and politics. If anybody was questioning the them and vigor of this 80 year old president and his desire to run for reelection, I think that was all answered last night. And if it wasn't answered last night with a masterful one hour state of the union address, his off the cuff, I mean, I'm sure his handlers were like, you know, sort of white knuckling it

for that moment. But Joe Biden is the best sometimes when he's off the cuff and unscripted. He's good. And when he started doing like like a church service, a call in response between him and the Republican hecklers, like the feather boa wearing Marjorie Taylor green and the bright yellow neon dress wearing cinema and all the nose and liars, he was in his element. He got them to commit in front of the American people to support Medicare and Medicaid forever and never, never seek cuts to it. So he's on a whistle stop tour, Karen, I think you caught it. In Wisconsin and then Pennsylvania, coming off, coming off a high.

That is a win, people. If you don't know what a win looks like, that's state of the Union address. That was a win for Joe Biden. Yeah, he was great. He just still has it. So that was really great. And 1,000%.

So let's get, let's start. We're on a roll. we're on a roll. We're on a roll. We're on a Manhattan roll, hard roll with butter. Let's get to the Manhattan DA's office where you were there for some amount of time. You and I argue you know exactly what it is. I don't think you were there that long because it couldn't possibly be true. But you were there for a long time as, what was your title?

You were an assistant DA, you had a higher title than that. So there's the district attorney and Everyone under him are assistant district attorneys, so they don't they don't do deputy Well, no they no they don't it's assistant DA or assistant district attorney. I happened to be the chief assistant district attorney Which means that's it. That's it. That's it. Which means I was the number two But I held all sorts of positions in that office. I was a chief, a deputy chief, all sorts of different types of things that I did there. So, I think.

Did you ever think about changing it to chief assistant, a district attorney, AF? Was that ever thought? No, but at the office, nobody ever called me anything but KFA. That's it. nobody ever called me anything but KFA. That's it. KFA, KFA, KFA. KFA AF.

So let's talk about what's going on. There we got two big developments, right? Michael Cohen on a, I almost said competing podcast, not competing podcast. You know, it's another podcast. I was the but then along with Michael Cohen. Oh, come on. It is a competition. Let's go.

Well, then we're, then we're going to take them. We're taking you to me. We need to take them. Oh come on. It is a competition. Let's go. Well, then we're then we're gonna take them. We're taking you we need to take them. We need more. Yeah, exactly Political beat down. We're gonna beat down political beat down now. They're there one of our siblings. I know I'm But the good news about that is yeah, the good news about that Karen is that they break news like Michael Cohen even before it got leaked from your old office is that they break news like Michael Cohen, even before it got leaked from your old office, said, I'm going in for number 16, and I'm going to meet, and I believe he also said something that was very interesting on the podcast with Ben. He said, I in my heart believe that Alvin Bragg is really, really interested and has conviction, no pun intended, about going after Donald Trump this time, even if other people don't agree with me. So that was a very interesting, and that's somebody who's been interacting with Alvin Bragg

and the prosecutors around him about Stormy Daniels and other things for a long, long time. So that was good to hear. So he goes in today, we don't know exactly, although I'm sure Michael will tell us exactly what he said, but it's obvious he's being groomed and primed and prepped to testify in front of the special grand jury. Before we talk about Mark Pomerance and his views about the Stormy Daniels case pros

and cons and Michael Cohen as a witness pro and con. What do you think about my, my thought that they're obviously going to bring him into the special grand jury, Michael Cohen? What do you think? Well, Alvin Bragg, who appeared on our show recently and in the news media, has been very clear and very open that the case investigations, and there were multiple, into Donald Trump, is ongoing, and it is continuing. And we talked about it a couple of times, that it appears that Stormy Daniels matter is heating up and going into the

grand jury now because the statute of limitations will be running. It's unclear exactly when it is because there is some periods of time that will not be charged to the government based on Donald Trump being out of the jurisdiction, but I think the calculation has the statute running sometime this may. So it does make sense that that case is going in now. And at the same time, of course, Michael Cohen is a key witness in that, I think also it

makes sense because they convicted the Trump organization. And Alan Weiselberg is another witness in the Stormy Daniels matter. And I think they wanted to test drive him too and see how he would do on the stand and see whether or not they're gonna utilize him as a witness in that case. So it makes sense that this is case number two for them. Alvin Bragg has been very, very clear

that the investigation is pending, that it's ongoing. And I agree with you that given the statute of limitations issue, I do think that's going into the grand jury now. So whether or not Michael Cohen is going to testify today, that's to be seen, but I do think evidence and witnesses are going into the grand jury. I want to caution Michael, frankly, if I was the prosecutor on this case, and my witness was going out and talking publicly about the pending investigation and potentially revealing

what was going on in the office, I would have a really difficult time with that because that's fodder for cross-examination at trial. So hopefully, I thought a couple of weeks ago when he spoke about how, look, I went to the DA's office, but I'm not going to say anything about it because it's a very serious investigation and it has to, I wanna make sure that the case has integrity.

I mean, look, bringing criminal charges against anybody, it should be a sober, a very sober, difficult decision because prosecutors are given an enormous power. So I really do think that we need to remember that and treat it with the seriousness that it is and not do anything to jeopardize the case, you know, looking for headlines, etc. Because all of that can be used as a fodder for cross-examination. It gives you a bias and interest, an axe to grind. I mean, a skilled trial lawyer, such as yourself, Popok, for example, who has lots of experience

across examining, witnesses would have a field day with something like that. So, you know, in addition to the other issues that Michael Cohen brings to the table, he's, first of all, he's one of the greatest witnesses, the greatest witnesses a prosecutor could have because he was a true insider, and he's great at telling what happened and how it happened, and he's very compelling. But he does bring some baggage to the table that you've talked about, and I've talked about about his,

like how close he was to Donald Trump, and for a while he was very much on doing Trump's bidding and on Trump's side, and now he has an extra grind against him. I mean, the title of his book is Revenge, and so again, if I was representing Donald Trump, I would say you want revenge against him. And so, you know, that's why you're making this up. And this is why you're lying.

And you've been convicted of lying. And, you know, all the things that defense, a skilled defense attorney would do on cross to him, you don't want to give them more ammunition. So, again, I think Michael Cohen is just an incredible witness. It's great that he's going, that he's working with the DA's office, but I do think we all have to hope that this remains a very serious case with serious witnesses. Here's a new header for our producer.

Karen Friedman, Agnifalo, Warren's Michael Cohen, fellow podcaster, don't piss me off. No, I'm kidding, that's not. No, look at that. That's what I heard. That's what I heard. It's not me. I just, it's, it's, and again, I, I, I listened to the podcast with, with him and Ben and that I think came out this morning about this new podcast called, what is it called?

Gloves off or, political, political beat down. Oh, political beat down. Yes. The political beat down and it's great. down, yes. The political beat down. And it's great. He's great. He will make a great witness. The best part of Michael Cohen is you can't control him.

He says what he's going to say. And he could talk and talk and talk and talk and talk. There's no, there's no kind of prepping him or controlling him. But I just want to caution that you don't want to give. You want to make sure this is a you want to you want to land the plane right you want to take it across the finish line and get a conviction and so you want you don't want to give too much fodder to the defense attorney to be cross examined with so let's let's

switch gears for a minute right on that point I was a perfect segue for us Mark Parmerant who brought in by your prior boss, Sive Ants, a little bit of Sive Ants. He was there for a couple of years with Sive Ants, being special prosecutor, looking at all things Trump, all potential cases, including the ones that are over with as well. Leticia James, New York Attorney General, under her very broad superpowers, what we call executive law, 6312, which means she can give the death penalty to the company, the financial death penalty to Trump and the kids and Alan Weisselberg and the

other 16 people that are part of her case. But that's on the civil side, on the criminal side, Mark Parmerans in his new book, which he and he's now out talking about it, on what are your favorite shows I'm not making this up Karen. He appeared on Fresh Air, but not with Terry Gross. And on Fresh Air, Mark, it's a din-side joke. And then Mark Pomerance said the following about the Stormy Daniels case and by extension, Michael Cohen. And I'm only repeating Mark Pomerance summarizing. Mark Pomerance said that he didn't think

the Stormy Daniels case was that strong or that great. He didn't think the Stormy Daniel case was that strong or that great. He didn't think Sivance did either. That Sivance was a little bit of, this is my artist rendering of Sivance. Like that was a mech case because it was a Mr. Meener. Maybe they could ratchet it up to a felony. We went over in the last podcast that differences in how you, the gymnastics as a prosecutor you have to do to find the second crime or the cover-up of the other crime in order to get it to a Mr. Metre. So that wasn't a big case for him. Mark Palmer, if you take anything away from his interviews and anything away from his book, it is the financial, the magic trick, cooking of the books that Donald Trump has done with the valuation of real

estate up and down, hyperinflated and then deflated, depending upon whether he was getting alone, getting insurance or trying to get a tax credit, that is where, for him, Mark Pomerantz, the criminal case lies. So he sort of, Mrs. Myview, a little jealous of what the Tisha James is doing. He goes, he thinks them at Hatten D. A's office should have done it too. And he says, yeah, I kind of get why Alvin Bragg didn't want to do it, you know, 90 days into his job, but we made a compelling argument. I don't know why he said, I don't know why Alvin Bragg rejected it. We never had a real substantive meeting about it. But I think there was a very strong case there as the

stormy Daniels. It looks like. of meeting about it, but I think there was a very strong case there. As the Stormy Daniels, it looks like Pomeran's as big as problem was Michael Cohen as a witness. And you went over the little checklist. The pluses we all agree with. Michael was in the room and everything happened, including the Oval Office, okay, according to his testimony. Every place that if you're tracking, if you're following the money with Michael as the backman, he's in every place that you, you know, for the chain of custody of the $130,000.

So that's great. And if that was all Michael Cohen had to testify about, and that was him as a fact witness, that would be a grand slam, double grand slam, home run. But that's all the pluses. Also, you know, Mark Pomeran said that he convinced that Michael Cohen having met with him, I assume, that Michael Cohen, as a witness, is also somebody that knows a difference

between fact and fiction. That he's, he goes far to say he's a truth teller, but he said that he's somebody that understands a different truth, fact and fiction. And like you said, he talks a lot. He's got a lot to say and all that. That's on the plus side of the column. On the minus side of the column,

he was convicted of perjury. He was convicted, you know, which is the first place you go in prosecution. He actually corrected that this morning in his Michael Cohen, corrected that in the beat down episode today that he was not convicted of perjury, which is this is a big thing. So was is a convicted of he was convicted of lying,

which is different lying under oath to Congress, which is different than perjury. It's a it's a 2001 violation not a perjure or conviction, not a perjure. I am fine with that. I stand corrected. So I'll be the cross-examiner that you would be as well. So sir, you were were convicted of a 1,000-1 violation because you lied under oath to Congress, isn't that right? About some of these very issues. I mean, you raised your right hand like you did here today. You swore to tell the truth just like you did here. And then you also, you know, they'll go over the whole thing. You brought a lawsuit and challenged the Bureau of Presence and Donald Trump. You said that they kept you in prison longer than they. You should have been,

you should have been released under COVID policy, but that they retaliated against you and you actually won that lawsuit and you wrote a book and we'll put it up on the screen for the jury. Click, called Revenge. That's why you're here, sir, right, to get your revenge. So it, look, we all like Michael as a person and as a podcaster and as a truth teller, but that is different than Michael as a witness in front of a jury with our adversarial process and a vigorous cross examination by, let's just say somebody like Joe Takapina, which I assume is going to be the type of person that Donald Trump would hire who, look, Michael can hold his own, but Joe Takapina is a very skilled cross-examiner and

always has been in a courtroom. So all of that, Mark Pomerance was like, I'm not really into the Stormy Daniels case. It's good that, you know, Alvin's doing it, but that's not the case that I wanted him to do. I wanted him to do the financial fraud case. So you have kind of that out there. So I guess I'll leave it at that with you now. Having now heard Mark Palmerance's sort of view of his own views,

we don't have to get too much more into Michael as a witness. But what do you think about Palmerance's view with the stronger case? Bragg should have done it. I was right, he's wrong, and Storm, sorry Daniels is sort of wind addressing. Well, so first of all, none of us have all the information about the case, not even about the cases, not even Mark Pomerance who left the office about a year ago. So he has no idea what evidence Alvin Bragg's office has, has a mast in either case to be able to say which one is stronger or which one is not.

I think at the time that the time about a year ago when Pomeran's left, I think it was the feeling that the Stormy Daniels case was not ready for prime time and the other case was. But I think a lot has happened in the last year that has potentially made one or the other case was, but I think a lot has happened in the last year that has potentially made one or the other case stronger or both. So it's hard to comment on the merits of the case in which one should go just because by design, it's all secret. We don't have that information, so I don't know.

But as for where we are now and pomeranhas, it's a complicated, this is a very complicated knife edge that he is walking on because he, I think a lot of people thought both he and Kerry done who were the two prosecutors who were working on the Trump case. Now, I don't really know Mark Pomeran's. I think I've met him maybe once, but I've certainly never worked with him. Kerry Dunn, I've worked with for a very long time. He worked for Si when I did for a very long time.

And he was actually the attorney who argued all the way to the United States Supreme Court to get the Trump's tax returns. And so he was very much a co-partner, a co-prossicutor. It was the two of them who were in charge of the investigation into Trump. And I say that because he has been completely silent. And his letter of resignation, if he gave on, was not leaked to the press. He has not been appearing on every news show, like 60 minutes. And he certainly didn't write a book that he's going to profit from where he's going to tell all and kiss and tell.

So to me, Mark Pomerance has gone from what I thought, and many thought, was a national hero for resigning in protest in a case that he thought should be brought. And now I really think he has tarred and marred the case by doing this sort of kiss and tell and writing a for-profit book about a case that, you know, frankly, nobody elected him, DA, right? As I say, heavy as the head who wears the crown. And that's something Sivance used to say to me all the time when I disagreed with him sometimes on whether or not something should happen or a case should, whether we should give an offer on a case or not. Every once in a while, I would disagree with him, not a lot, but every once in a while.

And the one thing he would say to me is, he was elected DA. He's the one who has to make those difficult decisions. And I respected that. We used to all say, if an ADA disagreed with something we were telling them to do or asking them to do on a case, we would have to remind them that this is that basically we are helping side

vans with his caseload. These are his cases. He was elected by the people of the state of New York and the residents of Manhattan. He is the one who has to both live and die by the decisions. It's not about the individual prosecutor. It's at the end of the day, he's the one who answers to everybody about whether a case is good or strong. Go ahead. That's a very, very good point.

And I made it on a hot take recently. It's easy for even special prosecutors and all they were doing, which is a good and a bad thing, is prosecuting Donald Trump. It's like that old line about, you know, to a hammer, everything's an nail, to a special prosecutor looking at Donald Trump, there's crimes everywhere.

I get it. But at the end of the day, and I said this in defense of your boss, I said the end of the day, he's not the district attorney. And the buck stops literally on that desk to make that decision. Just as we may not have agreed with Alvin Bragg in his 90th day having to make the decision

on maybe a year later, which he's doing now, he's made a new decision about it. But let me ask you a question. I might have misread this. Did Palmer and Dunn go into law practice together? That you firm. Yeah. So I get it. The Dunn is the silent partner.

You know, he's the abbot to the Pomeran's Castello, but you know, he's in the same firm and he'll public interest law. No, and Pomeran's, Mark Pomeran's don't get me wrong. He is an extremely well-respected lawyer who has a very long history and career as an excellent attorney. And I have tremendous respect for him as a lawyer. What I don't like and what I am not happy about, frankly, but again, who died and made me, it had made me queen, right? So.

Podcasts are. Yeah, but I understand, but what I don't like, and I'll tell you what really upset me about pomerance. And I haven't read the book yet, but I did don't like, and I'll tell you what really upset me about pomeran's, and I haven't read the book yet, but I did read excerpts of it that were reported on. And again, knowing nothing about the strength of the evidence, and not necessarily having an opinion on the merits of Bragg's decision, which frankly, I'm a siphonist person, so if I thought there was enough, I tend to respect that.

So even if I were to agree with the decision under sivance that it should go forward, what I strongly disagree with is pomerance, his criticism of the career prosecutors at the Manhattan DA's office. And my understanding is that he goes after them in this book and attacks them as, quote, faint-hearted career prosecutors who, you know, who dain't to disagree with him about a decision on whether to charge a crime. And he criticized them because they spoke about the need to, quote, follow the evidence. And I'm sorry, to me, Mr. Pomeran's really misapprehends the role of the prosecutor.

And I was taught under Robert Morgan Thaw as was every ADA because this is the lesson that gets taught to every single person who's there that you prosecute cases without fear or favor. That was a tradition that was carried on by his successor Cyrus Vance and now Alvin Bragg. And Morgan thought was just as firm that a crime should not be charged if the evidence did not support it, even if the person morally deserves it or you're to get some high profile headline that was going to result from it, you can't do it. And fairness, excellence, ethics, you know, is the thing that the career prosecutors at the Manhattan D.A.'s office live by. And that's one of the reasons the Manhattan D.A.'s office is known as one of the premier state's offices in the country and it always has been. And so to go after, again, it's fair game.

Go after Alvin Brad, go after Siveans, they were elected to be criticized. They were elected to make these decisions and you can disagree with them. But the minute you go after the career prosecutors who didn't agree, they agreed with Brad that there wasn't enough to charge this case. And I want to say one other thing. If what Bragg said was, I just want to investigate more. I want more. Why didn't they, if he cared so much,

if they cared so much about the case, why didn't they stay? It was only two months. Why didn't they stay and help him develop the case? Number one, and number two, if the case is so strong, why hasn't the Southern District brought it? That's the other thing. If this case was such a rock crusher, strong case, why hasn't the Southern District brought it? That's the other thing. If this case was such a rock crusher, strong case, why hasn't the Southern District brought it? It's actually, my understanding is it's a tough case. It's not, it's a hard call. It's a hard call, but to go

after those career prosecutors, that's when I'm going to stick out, that's what I'm going to stand up and I'm going to say something because those are the finest people I've ever worked within my life. The pissed off edition of Legal AF with Gary and Friedman and Cliff Loathe. But let me make it clear, I agree with you. First of all, I got one another thing. You said two things. I like the rock crushing case. That's a great, great visual image of that.

The case was so great, so I dance what a product. I mean, everybody talks about, so I dance at to case for a year and a half, okay? And yes, he didn't run for reelection. He decided not to do that. And he turned it over to somebody else. He wanted another prosecutor, but it's not like he left a note on the new prosecutor's desk that said,

this is a really strong case for you. Don't even bother looking at the evidence and making your own decision, just in tight, in tight, in tight. It's up to the new guy. And I never thought, I'm sorry, I never thought it was fair to Alvin. And I don't know him personally, and you do.

And I didn't interview him and you did. But I never thought it was fair that the guy was 90 days into his job to make the most important momentous decision, arguably in his career, to be the only prosecutor in America to bring a criminal case against a former president. We love Faudi Willis, and I check the news every minute, but she hasn't brought it yet

either. I think she will, but she hasn't yet either. The feds haven't brought the case against him yet either. So I've vantz had it for two years and didn't. So you're right. Maybe he just was like, I need more time to be convinced. I've just got here.

And yeah, that wasn't good enough for like I said, the hammer and the nail, which is Mark Palmerance. These are our opinions. People can disagree, I'm sure in the chat. Let me look at the chat, yeah, I'm sure the chat. There's gonna be some disagreement, but you gotta be respectful. That Karen is bringing this opinion, even from

a place that I can't even bring it from, which is having worked in the Manhattan DA office, DA's office with the very people that Mark Palmer and seems to have criticized. Now, look, I don't like doing criticism of a book that neither you or I have read anything of. So, I'll make a promise to everybody. We'll read it. Karen and I will read it and we'll highlight the places for which we take exception. And we'll bring it back to the legal AF community to the family at some other time. But that's where we are at at this moment. I don't think you're going to get any better analysis than what KFA just gave you of

it all. And we've talked, I think, honestly and transparently about Michael Cohen as witness and the Stormy Daniels case of it. Now, look, if the Stormy Daniels case is the straw that breaks the camel's back on the heels of the 17 count felony convictions that they got against the Trump organization. And now they're moving here. And they're going to squeeze, as I said before, squeeze Alan Weisselberg a little more 12 mile, he's only sitting 12 miles from the DA's office on Rikers Island floating around in Queens.

It's a very close hop skip in a jump by a prosecutor. Go over there and go visit Mr. Weiselberg and tell him, hey, here's a mirror. Why don't you take a look at it. And you're looking at five to 10 years, you'll never get out of here in your natural life. You love your grandchildren. You want to look at them through Plexiglass

over the next 10, 15 years. That's your call. You want to be like Bernie Maidoff. You want to die in prison or you can cooperate and talk to us more about Donald Trump in the Stormy Daniels case and maybe some other cases. So maybe this is, you know, this is, I don't know, I'm into metaphors and analogies today. You know, you know, you know, and all the animal lovers, I'm an animal lover. you can see my dog walking around behind me. But I'll talk about frogs. It's the old joke, you don't boil a frog by throwing them into hot, scalding water.

You boil a frog by having cold water and you turn the heat up one notch at a time until the frog is cooked. And that may be what Alvin Bragg is doing. We got the Trump org, 17 counts, you know, heats up a little bit. Now we got the Trump org 17 counts, you know heats up a little bit Now you got you got the Stormy Daniels that's sort of a low hanging fruit if the jury believes it based on Michael Cohen a Weisberg testimony now the heats boy now we're now we're roiling and boiling and now we go for the kill now We go for the thing as he's watching the Tisha James

for the thing as he's watching the Tisha James, she was going to trial hell or high water according to the judge Engoron on October 2nd. He gets to watch that a little bit too. And then he goes for a second or third prosecution of, you know, we, we may be writing a different chapter about Alvin Bragg when this is all said and done. Cherry is still out. No pun intended. Let's move on. 20 20.

Go ahead. No, it's just going to say 2023, I think, is going to see at least for, if not more, indictments against Trump. That's my feeling. And I think they're going to, all, somebody has to go first. And, and, and once somebody goes first, I think you're going to see a succession of them. And I think this whole, homerance book is just going to look like sour grapes at that point. So, you know, and I, because I think that's what it is. Everybody's very, everybody's still investigating. Everybody's still going. And it's, I think, I think we're

going to see a lot of movement this year. You see the sunshine that's shining into my podcast studio slash dining room? Yes. It's 52 degrees in February and Manhattan, everybody in New York, everybody. It's like spring. I didn't even wear a coat. I'm literally getting spring sunshine flooding into my dining room during our podcast. And on a jovial moment, on a jovial note, we've got, thank God, I think the higher powers,

we got some sponsors that like to be associated with legal AF and the legal AF family and who better, who better to bring the message of our sponsors today. Then, Jordi Mycelas, Jordi Mycelas fan favorite, my favorite from almost the beginning, he's definitely my favorite brother. Uh, Jordan's gonna give us a word from some of our sponsors. Jordan, he's taken away. And now let's take a quick break to talk about our next partner, Green Chef. Green Chef has expanded their menu. Now, choose from 30 recipes weekly, with the option to mix and match meals from different dietary preferences

in the same box without changing your plan. This means you can order vegan one day and then keto the next. Green Chef is the number one meal kit for eating well with dinners that work for you, not the other way around. In 2023, help yourself to delicious, convenient recipes that support your healthy lifestyle and taste good too. Eat well without having a sacrifice taste. Also, Green Chef is the only meal kit that is both carbon and plastic offset. Green chef offsets 100% of their carbon footprint as well as 100% of the plastic in every box.

My wife and I absolutely love green chef because of how easy it is to cook the meals and how delicious each meal is. Our favorite recipe is the Parmesan cross-stit chicken. It is incredible. Go to greenchef.com slash legalaf60 and use code legalaf60 to get 60% off plus free shipping. That's greenchef.com slash legalaf60 and use code legalaf60 to get 60% off plus free shipping. Our next sponsor this week is Highland Titles. At Highlandtitlesles.com, you can become a Lord or Lady of Glenko for less than $50. Now, thanks to a quark in Scottish law, you can buy one square foot of land in Scotland

as a gift. Highland Titles has been selling these plots of land for 16 years and have more than over 300,000 happy customers. They use their profits to manage the land as a nature reserve. And the Highland Titles nature reserve near Glenco is one of the most popular nature reserves in Scotland. People travel from all over the world to find their very own plot of land. You get a personalized luxury gift pack and help conserve the beautiful Scottish Highlands at the same time. Now Highland Titles literally spread ownership of the land amongst thousands of people. It makes it impossible for developers like, um like Donald Trump to turn the landscape into a golf course.

It's a really cool gift that makes Land Ownership a possibility for everyone. You can use the discount code legalaf to get 20% off at HighlandTitles.com. With your purchase, you get a fully personalized, instantly available digital download with access to a dashboard where you can check out the webcams and the exact distance you are from your plot at any time. Just head to HighlandTitles.com and use code legalaif to get 20% off at checkout. And now back to the video. All right, let's move for the Manhattan DA's office to abortion rights, constitutional rights, women's right to choose and where we stand as a February of 2023. We're going to do it through the lens of two competing judges, if you will, two competing

cases, two competing matters. On the one hand, we've got a judge in the District of Columbia, who will talk more about, who had a criminal case pending right now against Catholic right-wing activists who were arrested for blocking abortion clinics and a woman's right to use them, which is a violation of a federal law, not the Constitution, but a federal law against doing just that. And their argument in defense is, well, we can't be convicted of that crime any longer because there's no constitutional right to an abortion. I don't know what that has to do with the federal right

that's on the books, but okay. And the DC Circuit Judge, Judge Catelli, who we've talked about in the past, including giving really amazing sentencing to Jan 6th people. She's also the judge, a Clinton appointee, who rejected and overturned Trump's ban on transgender people serving in the military just to give you a little bit of context. And she said, well, this is a very interesting argument that you're making. She didn't even get into the, why are we talking about the Constitution at all?

You were convicted of a federal crime. But having said that, if you're going to make this argument in my courtroom, that there's a link between the constitutional right to an abortion and the crime on the books that the Congress passed many, many years ago, not sure I agree with you. But why don't we do some homework? And she literally gave homework, Karen, to the, the, to the two teams of lawyers in the room and said, I want briefing. I want briefing on this issue, the entire Dobbs decision written by Sam Alito and for which they got their votes is based on the 14th amendment equal protection. Finding that there is, there isn't a constitutional right to an abortion that there never was one even 50 years ago under row versus Wade.

And so, of course, they didn't feel guilty in taking it away because they thought they thought they never should have been one, not withstanding 50 years of precedent and people's reliance on this constitutional principle. And the fact that in the history of our, our country, there's never been a a constitutional right once extended that was ripped away. Putting that aside for a minute, the entire analysis, all of the briefs that were submitted by the government, by the opponents, all the amicus curi briefs, friend of the court briefs, all of them focused on the 14th amendment.

They didn't argue that there was any other place in the Constitution that would recognize a woman's right to choose. And so this judge said, what about, for instance, the 13th amendment, involuntary servitude, arguing why is enforcing a woman to involuntarily carry a fetus to term, slavery. I'd like to see some briefing on that. That's interesting I'm going to turn it to Karen right now and then after that we're going to talk about judge Matthew Kaz Merrick who is the judge of choice for the right-wing magaset he is the only judge that sits in Amarillo, Texas in the northern district of Texas

which sits in the fifth circuit, which we've talked about a lot as a right wing circuit, that makes them kind of crazy decisions. And they run in and there's no link to Amarillo and the case against the FDA approved abortion pills, other than their form shopping and they want their judge. And the Republicans love to complain that judges aren't supposed to make law, but they want their judge. And the Republicans love to complain that judges aren't supposed to make law, but they want Matthew Kasmaric, formally the Deputy General Counsel of right-wing Christian fundamentalist group

called First Liberty, who is a devout Christian, who talks about the importance of Christianity, not just in his personal life, but in the way that he rules. And he's the judge that now going to likely do a 50 state ban on the use of the FDA approved abortion pill. Let's start with Judge Catelli, DC Circuit Court, and her on her own Suis Pante from the

bench, given homework. Why don't we talk about the 13th Amendment? Why don't we talk about religious law when we talk about a woman's right to choose? What you think about all that, Karen? Well, before I answer your question, my favorite popok is when you're professor popok. So there was something interesting that came out of this case and it's a doctrine of ratio. How do you pronounce that?

Decidendy. Decidendy. Decidendy. I thought this is perfect for professor popok to explain to the legal to the, you know, whenever you nerd out like that and you give a law school class. So first, I would love for you to talk about that doctrine and then I'll answer your question. Oh, I want to bone up on it while you talk about it. You see, I'm going to throw it back to you.

I'm going to get it right. I look, we take a lot of pride in when we educate, when we talk, not down to our listeners and followers and family and legal layoff, but educate them in a way that we kind of, you know, like an exploding diagram so that they can really understand it. So, I don't wanna do it off the cuff. I could do it even if you forced me to, I would. But give me a minute. You talk about it with a time you come back. I'll be able to

kind of break it down for all of our legal a efforts. Okay. Great. So this was a, I thought this was a really interesting decision by by judge Collar Cotelli. So she, as you said, Suis Montet or on her own raised to this issue to the parties. And basically, it's like she was almost thinking out loud and wondering out loud whether the dobs decision, which only ruled on whether the 14th Amendment required the access to abortion or right to abortion, right to abortion, whether the scope of the dobs decision is confined to the 14th Amendment. And don't forget the 14th Amendment to the Constitution

is about no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws. And she looked at all of the arguments in the Dobbs case, all of the briefings, as well as the hundreds of amicus briefs that were filed in that case. And they were all the 14th Amendment. And so what she said is that the only thing that that decision, the Dobbs decision, or she wondered out loud whether the only thing

that the Dobs decision applied to was whether or not the 14th amendment basically gave someone a right to an abortion, which they ruled it did not. Although Alito did say in his decision that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, he did not say the 14th Amendment does not confer a right to abortion. So there is that statement that the decision may have may have encompassed the whole constitution, but she wondered aloud whether the ruling is really limited to the 14th Amendment,

and are there other places in the constitution that could ensure the right to an abortion, such as the 13th Amendment, which was passed in response to slavery, or that's what outlawed or abolished slavery. And the language there is neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except if you're punished for a crime can take place in the United States. So is this involuntary servitude? And I think it's a novel interesting argument, you know, it's going to be tricky, I think,

It's a novel, interesting argument. It's going to be tricky, I think, if nobody else raised it, I think that makes it slightly tricky. But then I wondered to myself, perhaps nobody else raised it, because they didn't want the court to rule on it. Maybe the people who could have raised that said, I want to keep the Supreme Court's decision as narrow as possible, so that perhaps you could have this opportunity to make these other arguments. Who knows what the reason is,

but the bottom line is she is asking this intellectual question and she's asking the asking the parties to write on it. And what I also thought was interesting about it was that the, and what she said was that dobs doesn't just affect people's access to abortion. It also affects their access to reproductive health services, counseling and referral services, etc. So by shutting down these places that also offered abortion, I think you also impact women in other ways as well. So you know, she talked about the ratio, I thought it was decadentie, but decidendi, whatever it is. It's been a long time since I was in law school, so I'm getting there. I'm ready. I hardly remember it, but I said, Professor Poe Park, this is this is what you could do.

Yeah, and I'm ready. So tell us what it is. So the radio desidendi of the case, or the radios desidendum, which is more than one, is the principle or rule that is embedded within the precedent. It is the thing upon which the case turns. It is distinguished from dictum, which is, you know, chatter and conversation that the judge uses in the rest of the 38 or 50 or 100 pages. But there's only one or two or multiple legal precedent or principles upon which the case turns. In this case, the argument would be that the 14th amendment and the analysis of the 14th amendment was the radio-descending of the decision. And law students are often asked to figure out not just what the precedent of the case is, but what is the radio?

What upon what did the legal principle, did the case and the decision turn on? And I'm going to quote, we're going to give it to Salt. These could put it up on the screen. Yellow journal December 1930 and to answer a question, no, I was not there for it. I'm just reading. And it was written by Arthur Goodhart, and he said in discussing the nature of a precedent in English law, Sir John Salman said, quote, a precedent, therefore, is a judicial decision, which contains in itself a principle, the underlying principle, which thus

forms its authoritative element is often termed the Rattio Descendendi. The concrete decision is binding between the parties to it, but it is the abstract Rattio Descendendi, thank you, Sautee, which alone has the force of law as regards the world at large. How's that, Caron? You didn't disappoint. You didn't disappoint, but the reason that's so important is because she is that that's going to be whether or not she can make this ruling or not. So if if the crux of the

decision is the 14th amendment and Alito's statement that there's no constitutional right to an abortion in, you know, there's no right to an abortion in the Constitution is that Dicta, right, or is that the reason for the decision or is it limited just to the 14th Amendment? So I think she's aggressive in a great way. And I think that it'll be interesting to see how she rules. And I mean, look, then of course, you do the mental gymnastics of what if it eventually goes to the United States, you know, it's like until with the Supreme Court, even if she even if even even if it works then what so here's my view on this. I

don't think I think this is much to do about nothing. There's thousands hundreds of thousands of federal law passed by Congress that are nowhere found in the US Constitution. Not every federal law, in fact the supreme vast majority of law does not find any hook in the US in the US Constitution. So for them to say, well, all federal law that Congress passed about abortion is out the window because there's no longer a constitutional right to an abortion. I'm not sure that's even true. At all. I mean, unless Congress vacates the law, which they haven't done, if there's a law on the book, you're the former prosecutor, if there's a law on the book that says something is a crime, it remains a crime, even if the time period in which they passed it

was under the assumption that there was a constitutional right for a woman to choose. So I think this is interesting for those that want to know more about the 13th Amendment analysis. Start with the movie Lincoln by Spielberg, which is all about the 13th Amendment and its passage. But there's plenty of journals and approaches applying the 13th Amendment involuntary servitude to the relationship,

if you will, between a woman and the fetus that she is carrying at that time. There's plenty of religious scholarly thought, including in the Jewish religion, that the fetus is not a human being at all until birth. And therefore abortion is permitted in Jewish teaching. It is part of women's healthcare and reproductive healthcare under Talmudic law and Jewish law. It's not the only religious body. So the argument is, you know, you're forcing again, your Christian principles down the throat of Pete or another anatomical part that you shouldn't be in.

And you know, that has nothing to do with science. And that's to do with your beliefs. If Amy Coney Barrett wants to believe that a fetus, you know, is, you know, a part, a heartbeat even before it's a fetus is life that needs to be protected. Okay, she can believe that, but the argument is don't shove that down our throat and make us and women lose the right to choose. So this is, and at the same time, the way that the progressives are handling this, while they're trying to maybe look for other passages and provisions in the constitution that were

missed, maybe, in the constitution that were missed maybe in the Dobs analysis, they're going to the state constitutions and pouring through them and saying, well, wait a minute, you've got an individual state constitution that was passed by your people, your state, that says that there's a right of privacy. It's expressed, not even, you don't even have to look for it. It's there in a lot of states constitution.

Why doesn't the right of privacy protect the woman's right to choose and have bodily autonomy? So you got that going on. You got judges that are raising the issue in their courtrooms, even in criminal cases. And now we got to talk about judge Matthew Cosmeric, who's about, sorry to report, he's about to issue a 50 state ban on the FDA approved abortion pills because it doesn't line

up with his Christian politics and his Christian theology. Let's just be frank. And they hand-picked him the right, right wing extremists. Senator Hawley's, he's the Senator, right? Is Josh Hawley Senator Karen? Yeah. Senator Hawley's wife is the lead trial lawyer on behalf of a group of right wing anti-abortion doctors whose entire argument for standing, meaning how you even get into federal courts, the number one thing that has to be evaluated first, is, well, there might be a hypothetical woman, by the way, this has never happened. Hypothetical woman in the last 23 years that they've been using the pill successfully who has some sort of side effect that I have to treat and I don't want to do that. So that's my

standing. That's your standing for an FDA approved drug that's been on the books for 23 years that has that's safer than Viagra. By the way, where's Viagra as a constitutional right in the US Constitution? I don't think it's there either. So this is any other judge that wasn't right wing maga, Trump appointee like Hasmerich, would reject this case on its face immediately by saying, I don't see any particular lie, particularized harm, individual standing or harm to you. Goodbye, good day, case over. But there he's gonna, he's gonna do a what I predict it right now, Karen, he's gonna do one paragraph. He's gonna, he's gonna gloss over the whole thing. I find standing. Let's get to the substance of the case. And then he's gonna

issue the ban. And then the Department of Justice is gonna have to do fifth cert, the fifth, the two-step dance, fifth circuit, emergency application to the US Supreme Court. The thing that I found fascinating, because let's be honest, I'm a guy. I did not realize that since the Dobs decision, the number one way that a woman gets an abortion in the United States is with the FDA approved abortion pill and not at an abortion clinic. No, it was before, it was before Dobs. Right, there you go. Yeah, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. How's there you go? Yeah, no. I'm going to shut up now and let you take it for your go.

No, no. But women for a long time have been choosing the abortion pill versus the going into a place and having an abortion. Because it's, first of all, you get to do it in the privacy of your own home. You don't have to go somewhere. And it's kind of invasive to have an actual abortion.

And by taking this pill that's been around for 23 years, it's something you can do on your own in consultation with a doctor. But since dobs, what's been happening is in states that ban abortion, people are going online and getting the pills and the pills are getting mailed to them. And so they still have access to it. And what this is trying to do is stop that access so that people in those states, in all states, can't have access to these pills.

But as you said, it's safer than Viagra. And it's been around for the last 23 years. The plaintiffs, in this case, are accusing the FDA of fast tracking. The abortion pill uses two separate drugs. One of them is the one that ends the life of the fetus is called Mifip-Prestone or something like that. And they were, the plaintiffs accused the FDA of ignoring the potential adverse reactions, but even if that were true in the last 23 years,

since it was approved in the year 2000, it has been exhaustively studied and by more people, and they found that it's much safer than biagro or penicillin. So what they're trying to do is say that because of how it was done 23 years ago, somehow it's dangerous and you know it can't possibly, it can't possibly be allowed. And so I agree with you that that's what's going to happen, but the result is basically that the judge is going to impose a ban on a drug and revoke FDA approval for the drug, but no federal judge has ever done that before. And if they do do it, then people will have to go

in person for abortions. And even in the locations that do abortions, I think they are concerned that they're going to, whether or not they'll be able to handle the increased volume because so many people avail themselves of doing it with a pill. So I think that this is going to have a tremendous impact on women across the country, and all women across the country. I have a question for you, though, Popoca Procedural One, which is if this judge can, I guess it would be issuing, if this judge can make a ruling that has an effect on all states, what if a different federal judge had a different ruling?

Like in other words, one at the same level, but in a different state. Why does this judge, why does his decision win? In other words, why can't a judge in California or New York do a competing opposite ruling? And in it. Okay. They can, but the ban would be the ban, and then you'd have to violate the ban,

which nobody wants to be in a criminal jeopardy harms way. So the drug manufacturers and distributors will have to respect the ban, even if they get a better decision rejecting a ban because of standing reasons or other, you know, substantive reasons by another court, meaning there'll be a conflict in the, in the circuits in the jurisdiction and it'll be fast-tracked, I would hope to the US Supreme Court. And for those that think, for instance, I'll just want to talk about this, the fifth circuit,

which is where this case goes next. I don't think they can skip a step and go right to the Supreme Court. You can, but the Supreme Court doesn't like that usually, so they'll have to, the first stop on the train for the DOJ is going to have to be the fifth circuit. The fifth circuit just last week ruled, talk about an assault on women, that the federal law, talk about a federal law, the federal law that prevents a person who is the subject of a temporary restraining order because of domestic violence, threats, stalking against an intimate partner or child, you know, that person, the federal law said they can't have a gun, they can't have a gun. They can't have a weapon while they're under that restraining order.

Sounds like a good idea. 600 women a year die at the hands of somebody against some of which they got a restraining order against as part of domestic violence. The fifth said, nope, second, second, second amendment. Ever since the New York decision, New York versus Braun. Nope. If that regulation didn't exist back in the 17 and 1800s, then it's not going to exist

now. We're going to rip it off the book. Sorry. So that is basically hunting season on intimate partners of people that have gotten restraining orders. And of course, the thing that always gets missed and all of this textual, original list analysis, which they only use when it benefits them, which is women in the 17 and 1800s were considered the property of their husbands.

They were considered chattel. They didn't have their own rights. They didn't have voting rights. They were not considered full citizens at all. So of course there wasn't laws on the books, you know, in the wild, wild west or in 1718 hundreds wherever to protect a woman and a restraining order environment. That wasn't even a concept. This is where the ludicracy bears itself out, but this is going to be the fifth circuit that any this ban from Kaz Merrick is going to go first. So it's probably going to be the DOJ back on a teals with a bad

decision from Kaz Merrick, a bad decision from the fifth circuit and then have to see if they got the votes at the right wing mag extreme majority of the US Supreme Court, right Karen? Yeah, this really pisses me off. This one is really scary. Yeah. Yeah. So we're going to have to keep looking at it, but you see we've got these competing, competing principles and competing approaches to federal law. They're not even consistent, of course, because they don't want to be consistent. You got the right wing Catholic activists who are blocking access to abortion clinics. And yeah, the few remaining will be overwhelmed by the volume of people that no longer can get pills.

If they could even get there, I mean, the adoption decision eliminated so many abortion clinics that some women have to travel 5, 8, 12, 15 hours away and cross a state border or two in order to get an abortion. Well, what's also what's also outrageous about this is the dog's decision said, let's leave it up to the states. Let the states decide. And what this judge who sits alone in this tiny little corner of Texas who was appointed by Trump and is was not qualified to even be a judge,

that he can then come around and now suddenly say and block access to abortions for all women everywhere makes no sense. It's not right and someone has to stop him somehow. This can't happen. I mean, this is even beyond what the DOBS decision said. Well, it's going to be up to somebody like it's I'm choking on saying it. It's going to come down to somebody like Kavanaugh, corsage, or Amy Coney Barrett to join Roberts, one of them to join Roberts,

along with the the normal people, the adults on the Supreme Court, so to Mayor Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett in sorry, I said her name twice and Katanji Brown Jackson and get and count to five if they can't count to five Because with Roberts, it's four they need one more, you know, is it the The right wing It won't be Amy Coney Barrett. Right. Is it the right wing Catholic law professor with eight children? Is she the one is it K professor with eight children? No. Is she the one?

Is it Kavanaugh who, you know, we just had a documentary come out of Sundance about why he shouldn't even, you know, he basically purged himself, speaking of purgery, what he gave his testimony about sexual abuse in his own life. Is that the one? Or is it Gorsuch who's all over the map? He's okay with gay marriage, but everything else that has to do with women and sexual issues and reproductive rights and autonomy. He's on the wrong side. So, you know, Robert's better. He should start working now. You know, Robert should be working the hallway now and not and assume they'll be another leak. Now you have to, as I can't get to

the bottom of how Dobbs got leaked anyway, Robert should assume it's going to be leaked again that his hands going to be forced and he's got to try to find the vote. You should be finding votes now for these to work the lunchroom. Do something. You know, otherwise your own, you know, your legacy as a Supreme Court justice, as the Chief Justice is, you know, it's already in flames and it just, you know, just go circle the drain and go right out, go right out the drain. Let's talk finally though, Karen. I'm going to turn to the heavy lifting over to you on this one because of your prosecutor

experience. Maybe you've had an experience like this one. Thomas B. Adams Jr., which if I just gave you the name, you think, well, that sounds like a founding father. You got Thomas. You got Adams. You got Jr. No, he's an unemployed Trumper from Illinois who was bored one day barely had the gas

money. I'm not making this up. This is from his interview. And he just said, I'm going to go occupy DC. And he went with another buddy and older buddy in his 70s. And they drove to Washington. This is me driving to Washington. And they ended up at the ellipse for this beach. And then because everybody else,

the accidental tourist defense that we keep hearing, well, everybody else was walking towards the couple. So I did it too. And so he did. And he got convicted after, and I will talk about the stipulated paper trial in a minute, what that's about. That's like a new thing we can teach legal aeifers. He got convicted and he'll of obstruction, the highest count 20 years and up to 20 years. And that sentencing was going to be in June. And they, the defense lawyer who was a public defender, federal public defender on one side, and the prosecutor, the DOJ, in DC, got together and they decided

together with the defendants agreement, acquiescence, that instead of going through a full trial in front of a jury, and instead of even going through a bench trial, a real bench trial where there's witnesses called and the government puts on all of its evidence, and all of that, the defense lawyer and I guess Mr. Adams took one look at all of the evidence that the Department of Justice shared with them, like his social media, his pictures of him with the Trump flag in there and all the other stuff. And they said, hmm, why don't we do this? We'll agree on a list of stipulated facts, both sides, defense and prosecution, and we'll

list them. These 50 facts, all about Mr. Adams and Adam's junior and what he did that day. And we'll submit that to the judge. And the judge as the trial effect can issue a verdict, a ruling against or for, you know, you could acquit them. So they work together on this stipulated set of facts. And they submit it to the judge, judge looked at it, Judge Maita, who we like, who's also presiding over the oath keeper's trial.

And he said, hmm, based on these facts and the admissions that are in these facts, as they're admitted facts, yeah, he violated the law, he broke the obstruction, the obstruction of an official congressional proceeding. And so I'm gonna find him guilty as charged. Okay, Karen, we found out something about Judge Mehta. He reads the paper, he reads the internet, what happened next?

So Judge Mehta basically read what the defendant said, which was, he was this local state journal register in Springfield, Illinois, he said, the day after, right after, he said, I didn't do anything. I would still do it to this day, even though I had to admit guilt in this case. I don't feel like I did what they said I did. And so Judge Mehta was quite perturbed by this.

And he basically said that he wants both sides to provide reasons why the court shouldn't vacate the defendant's convictions of guilt in light of these post trial statements that he made. So the reason this is significant and what's going on here is if you recall in March, back in March, Judge Carl Nichols was the first federal judge, I think the only federal judge at this point, to rule that obstruction, these obstruction charges that Department of Justice are bringing

that carry a 20-year maximum doesn't apply to the Jan 6 insurrection people. And that is on appeal. And so every other judge in court is finding that to be the case. Now the question is a lot of defendants, I should say, choose to plead guilty rather than go to trial because as everybody knows, there's a trial tax, if you will. You'll get more time if you go to trial than if you plead guilty. And so what a lot of defendants do is they throw themselves at the mercy of the court and they hope

that because they plead guilty and didn't go to trial and didn't risk it, that the judge will show some leniency and that they will not get the up to 20-year sentence. But so far, I think that the most anyone has gotten is closer to 10 years on an obstruction charge. But still, it's a huge exposure. But the problem is, and the difference between a stipulated trial and a plea, so when a defendant pleads guilty in court,

they have to admit to what they did. And they do what's called a legal allocation and a factual allocation. And an allocation is just basically, you say on the record under oath, you say certain facts say certain facts and the legal allocation has to do with the law and Also, they ask you the questions like are you you know of sound mind? Are you on any drugs anyone forced you or threatened you or forced you to take this plea? No, no, no, no, no Okay, then what did you do and you'll say I

Admit to going into the capital on January 6th, and I went to the Senate floor, et cetera. And that's a plea, and that's an allocation, and those are facts. A stipulated trial is slightly different, and that is where the parties agree to the facts. They both agree to a set of facts, and they have almost like a fake bench trial, where they submit the facts to the court, and the court decides, based on those facts, what law applied to the facts, whether someone is guilty. And here he was found guilty of these stipulated facts. Now, you might ask why would someone do such a thing versus plead guilty?

And the answer is because of this judge Nichols decision that is up on appeal, the law is unclear how the appellate courts are going to rule on whether the obstruction charge applies to the kind of factual scenario of January 6. Because if you recall, and we talked about this, we talked about this in an earlier podcast back in March, that the case was more of a white collar case, it was an N-RON case that required that this law was, the statute was passed. And that's what it rep, what it applies to, sorry. And so it's more like a corporate fraud kind of case, not a case that applies to when you go into the capital and, you know, and riot essentially and try to overthrow it.

So basically, you know, Judge Nichols said that the conduct has to involve some action with respect to a document, record, or other object. And that was sort of what he, you know, what he requires for there to be obstruction. And so, as I said, Judge Metta and the other judges don't require that. And they do think obstruction applies. But by, if you plead guilty, you waive any right to make that argument. But if you do a trial, and you're found guilty a trial, but an appellate court says the law doesn't apply there, then you can have that charge back. So essentially he did it this way as a way to essentially plead guilty, but preserve his appellate options in case the appellate

court's agree with Judge Nichols in terms of that. But he'll still be convicted of the lower charges. He just won't face the higher obstruction charge with the higher penalty. So that's the reason he did it this way. Yeah, that's a very insightful analysis as to, well, why would somebody do a paper trial on rather than just plead guilty? And this exactly would. KFA just said, now, his problem is he's pissed off the judge because what you can't do is make the judge go through that exercise, have a trial paper or otherwise,

have the judge make a ruling because you wouldn't plead guilty. So you don't get that credit at set and singtime because you made the judge do something. And then go on, you know, be interviewed at your trailer in front of your double wide, you know, to your local newspaper and say, it was all a sham, it was all a farce. I don't believe anything. I had my fingers crossed behind my back. And you know, it wasn't true. I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't have mental know, I really believed Donald Trump won. I'm gonna stick with that.

All right. All right, Mr. Adams, come on down. You're gonna have another trial in this time in front of a jury. And like you said, Karen, will be you at the time of sentencing, because all of the things that he's doing, all of these back flips, like get away from his sentence, like, you know,

I'm gonna have to say, I'm gonna have to say, and like you said, Karen, will be you at the time of sentencing because all of the things that he's doing, all of these back flips to get away from his sentence, is just going to end up in the pre-sentencing report. And the judge, and the judge is going to say something in June when he says, first, you made me go through a stipulated factual trial because you didn't want to plead guilty, okay? And we did that and you signed it and you stipulated to all those facts and then you didn't like that and you wanted to have your cake You need it too and you wanted to be a big shot on your local newspaper and have another two minutes of fame because being an obstructionist insurrection as wasn't enough for you in the history books

You wanted to give the local newspaper some story and so you you, so we had to do the trial all over again with a real trial this time. And you got convicted again. And now it's time for sentencing. So whereas I would have given you under, where's the sentencing guy? He's all done. Let me run my finger. I would have given you, you know, 92 months, they're 88 months. I'm now going to give you 122 months or whatever the

stuff. He's going to get punished. Right. He's going to get punished for this. And this guy who I'm not saying this for sympathy, people know this show and know me. But he told the reporter that he he didn't have enough gas money to get back from Washington after he stormed the Capitol and went and played insurrectionist for the day. And so he got stuck in another state because he didn't have, he's unemployed, no gas money. I mean, this is the people that were crawling all over besides the ex-marines and current marines and law enforcement and police and current, but all the crazies that were there. You know, this was the average person that got sucked in like a moth to a flame

to the Trump cult and decided he actually compared himself to Occupy Wall Street when everybody, you live downtown. When everybody occupies Zucati Park. Zucati Park across the street from, where is that? It's right across from Finra and right, right? Yes. Right there. It's on Broadway. It Broadway. Liberty. It was like a it was like a sit-in extended sit-in until they were fine until they started hooking up to the electrical ball behind

them with tents and that's a whole that's a whole other story. No, the whole other story we're not going to tell right now. But it other story we're not going to tell. But it was a peaceful and it didn't obstruct a thing. I mean, maybe the people that like to walk through that little tiny triangle of a park, it wasn't a big park, by the way. It's sort of a micro pocket park that's sat in between four major streets in downtown. But he said, that's what we're doing. That's what you're doing.

You're breaking through lock doors and fire doors of the Capitol, making your way into the Senate, running around with your Trump flag and and walked right by Capitol police. This is all in the statement from the Department of Justice. We'll put that up too. Walked right by Capitol police who were fighting for their lives and fighting to protect elected officials. This Yahoo just walks right by. Hey, take selfies, take pictures, and all of that.

And I was actually surprised because, you know, the judge could have given him a Mr. Meter, could have given him, you know, failure to leave a restricted area, you know, one of the other ones. This guy got convicted of obstruction, the highest count. And yes, it's up to grabs.

Because he went to the Senate floor. He went to the Senate floor. Because he went to the Senate floor. And he said, well, I didn't take anything like I don't really understand the thought process. They really think they were on a date tour of the Capitol. And because the police let us in, the police let us do it or the police were outnumbered and outmatched. And while you were inside, parading around with a flag, they were outside fighting for their, literally fighting for their lives, stopping the Ashley Babits of the world to getting to the speakers

all way to go, whatever was in her backpack in her mind, stop in her, stop in the West terrace assault, stopping the fall of the line outside because all that would have led to is the assassination of elected officials, Republican and Democrat and independent. And this guy's taken pictures like, you know, look, hey, look at me, mom, dad, whatever. By the way, he's a father of three children just to throw that out. You know what though? He's pathetic until like a Donald Trump. I'm just saying, you know, like he's pathetic. The really bad guy is Donald Trump. And until Donald Trump is held accountable along with all these other pathetic guys,

it's not gonna be fair. That's just how I see it. Yeah, all right, great. I'm not here to say, but we're saying the same thing, but I wanna make it clear for the audience and for the trolls in chat. Because they haven't yet brought down the kingpin, the godfather doesn't mean along the way.

You don't take out all of the soldiers and the capos and all of that. You do them too. So it's not like people think it's some sort. I've seen arguments like, I don't want to hear about the other 950 till I see Donald Trump and chains. Okay. You got to do it all. You know, you got to walk and shoot gum at the same time.

You got to take out the nine 50s. I'm okay with it. As long as they do it all, but you shouldn't get a pass either on the nine 50 because they haven't brought down Donald Trump yet. But we all agree there is one person who is responsible, or as Mark Pomerant said, just to bring it home today, as Mark Pomerant said, this was a crash of an airplane where it was pilot error and the pilot error,

the pilot was Donald Trump. So I get it and I believe me, the day that he is indicted somewhere and somebody has the temerity and the balls to purplify him, which, wow. And we hope and if we're wrong, we're wrong. I mean, I know I see a lot of people, balls to perp walk him, which wow. And we hope, and if we're wrong, we're wrong. I mean, I know I see a lot of people,

you know, and you see my dog down here, she gets very excited by our podcast. This is Lily for those that can see her. By the way, the balls are gonna be a judge that will set bail and hold them in. That's where we're going to see. Oh, yeah. Right.

And they let a lot of them out, like, band and walked out the front door the first day. He was a dite. But if this is like, you know, it depends on which crime he's indicted for. You know, it's this 2016 cover up of Stormy Daniels. I'm not sure that's a purple. Well, yeah, that's not even qualified. But bail qualified. But for, you know, what he just the what, trying to overthrow our government and our election,

I mean, and, and basically pointing an armed crowd at the Capitol to try and stop the counting of the votes, the electoral college, I mean, in the fake electors game, you know, that's as close to treason as it comes. So I don't think a judge will have the, you know, the temerity, the ability to do that. But that, that to me is the, the, the, the, the prosecutions, I think are going to be coming. And it really feels like that, like that's the case for the first time I have to say, they all feel like they are coming.

But we'll see. That's only, that's the case for the first time I have to say, they all feel like they are coming. But we'll see, that's only step one. Yep, well, we've reached another end of another decision. I know, Lily. I know, Lily. I know Lily, such a good girl. Podcast, podcaster and I'm playing tug of war with her under the table. She's such a good girl.

She's a good girl. End of another edition of legal AF midweek edition Michael Popeye, carrot-freebent, nickname, we bring it to you every Wednesday in between. I do hot takes and you can follow me at atmspopeyec. Karen, what's your social media handle? KFA legal at KFA legal. At KFA legal, easy to remember. And we do this every week on Wednesday,

come hell or high water, come rain or shine, nothing stops this podcast, doesn't stop the weekend edition with Ben Myceles and me. And people say, how can you support us, support our sponsors, really important? You can also do things like buy our merchandise. We've got legal AF wear that you you can here we go right here. You got some t shirts, you got some long sleeve t shirt,

short sleeve t shirts, you got coffee mugs. And you can just do the thing that's the cheapest thing to do, but really is we appreciate it because it keeps the show on the air and helps with the ratings and the algorithm. You just watch the show and then if you like it on YouTube, go over and do a listen or a plus, a subscribe free, or follow of the audio version. And we're on every platform that you can get your podcasts

from Spotify to Apple to Google and all of that. Go do that. Do both. That really helps us if you're watching. And then, you know, because we get 10,000, we'll get 10,000 tonight in the chat overall between Facebook and YouTube. You know, then you're 10,000, we'll get 10,000 tonight in the chat, overall, between Facebook and YouTube. You know, then you're like,

oh, I missed a lot. There were a lot of really good points that Karen made, and Popok nodded about. And so, you can go get it from the audio version, and that's really helpful to us too. So, that's the way shout out to the Midas Mighty Karen. Last word, until next Wednesday. Last word, I have no last words.

You hate when I throw you the last word? Well, no, sometimes I do, but today, this was an emotional episode for me. And I got unusually, unusually emotional about all the topics, frankly, not maybe not the third one, but the first two, you know. So very, very, this is why you're such a great podcaster and a close friend.

You're authentic in your opinions. You're you bring a voice that's unmatched. And you had the last work as you gave a very, a very searing analysis of really every one of our cases from the, the abortion future ban of all abortion pills by a small, a small judge in a small town in Amarillo, Texas to constitutional analysis of whether there's a right to choose to the sentencing of or the soon to be new trial

of an insurrectionist and one close in near and dear to your heart which is an attack on line prosecutors and career prosecutors in the Manhattan DA's office, which you found to be uncalled for. Yeah, so don't go after my people. So don't go up. We're going to leave it at that. Don't go after my people. Karen, free, magnificent. See everybody next week. Shout out to the minus mighty. you