Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump HIT with the CORPORATE DEATH PENALTY as Federal Judges are FED-UP

Episode Date: September 28, 2023

Michael Popok & Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back with a new episode of the midweek edition of the Legal AF pod. On this episode, they discuss: A New York Judge finding that Trump and his businesses are guilty of “persistent fraud” and hanging a “going out of business” sign on all of their business ventures; A DC Federal Judge denies Trump’s desperate effort to disqualify her from presiding over his Election Interreference criminal case; A Georgia Judge grants the prosecutor’s motion to use an anonymous jury for Trump’s and other co-conspirators’ criminal trials to protect them from Trump’s attacks; a Florida Federal Judge finally grants a motion by Special Counsel Jack Smith and will hold a hearing to figure out why 2 lawyers represent 7 different criminal defendants and witnesses in one Mar a Lago case, and other breaking legal news from around the US. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSOR! Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGLAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF 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 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 MAGA Uncovered: https://pod.link/1690214260 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Salesforce, we're all about asking more of AI. Questions like, where's the data going? Is it secure? Are you sure? Are you sure you're sure? Get answers you can trust from Salesforce at AskMoreVai.com. They're selling the main Trump corporate entities for scrap

and Trump and junior and Eric are all busted and barred from ever operating a New York business again as Judge and Goron of the New York State Supreme Court finds Trump and the rest guilty of persistent fraud in the operation of all of their business affairs. The court has ordered the company's beat dissolved, liquidated, a receiver appointed to sell the assets including Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago, and that a financial monitor stay in place with a trial in October just to decide how much of the ill-gotten gains are to be returned to the people of the state of New York, bidding is starting at $250 million plus for the

Discordsman Order. Oh yeah, and all of his attorneys got taken to the woodshed too, and hit with fines for persistent, frivolouslyargument. Appeals and stays may be, but overturning the ruling highly unlikely. You heard of speedy trial? Well, how about one that is turbocharged. Judge Chutkin, DC federal court judge, is strongly considering punishing Trump's increasingly bad form and behavior, not just by gagging him to stop hammering with threats of violence, witnesses, prosecutors, and potential jurors, but by speeding the election interference trial up from March. Did someone say January 2024? Trump claims this is all about his first amendment rights against the Biden DOJ as he runs for office.

But once again, he misses the point. A candidate and an indicted defendant's first amendment rights do not give him the right to interfere with the administration of justice and not in Judge Chuckkins courtroom. Continuing our speedy justice episode of Legal AF, Judge McAfee, the Fulton County Criminal Court judge, can do more in a one-page order than any judge we've seen in recent memory. Now we have his ruling on Fulton County DA, Bonnie Willis's September 6th motion to protect the future juries in the Georgia election

interference case from being harmed or attacked. Guess by who? We have the second anonymous jury ruling against Trump in a year, and we will tell you why this protects Trump's right to a fair trial, even if he doesn't understand that. Finally, Judge Cannon, the anti-judge McAfee in Juddkin, has set hearings too far out, writes confusing and conflicting orders all in the Mar-a-Lago case. This time, she's going to hold a conflict of interest hearing

about lawyers who are representing way to many witnesses in the same criminal prosecution and whose interests are probably not aligned, but she'll do it in her own convoluted way, not the right way. We cover all of this and so much more on the midweek edition of Legal AF with, I'm so proud, to always be with Karen Friedman Nifalo, and this is Michael Popox exclusively

on the Midas Touch Network for Legal AF Karen. I don't know where you are. You're in some sort of old, tiny bedroom there, but we are ready to launch. And I have a big smile on my face and so do you. And people always comment on that on the chat.

Oh, this is going to be a good one. Pullback and Karen have big smiles on their face. We have big smiles on our face because for people that were sort of like looking, it's like when you're waiting for the bus to come and you look the other way, and then you turn around and a bus is right in front of you That's what happened with judge and gore-ons civil fraud case

We knew it was coming but we all been looking the other way at the criminal cases Wondering when Donald Trump's gonna be brought to justice. Well if you can call taking the very essence of his DNA and ego and heart, ripping it out and showing it to him and then tossing it into the street. That's what Judge Anguoren has just done by basically, effectively, in granting summary judgment for the New York Attorney General, the Office of Attorney General, the OAG, as we like to call it in the neighborhood, against Donald Trump without the need for trial, he has found, as a matter of law, that the Trump organization and all the things under it, and all the people under it, including Donald Trump, have been conducting persistent fraud

in their business dealings, and that requires an extraordinary set of remedies that could only come from a New York attorney general and a New York state judge, which is we're going to shut down all your businesses, cancel all of your certificates of operation, liquidate your company, and then we'll have a trial on how much you owe us in addition to that. I mean, if Donald Trump has always run, not as the master showman, but as like the consummate business person, we should have a business person in the White House. I always reminded people, the guy went bankrupt four times. He's the only person in America who went bankrupt running a casino. Okay?

We're talking about money and over fist. And now he's the whole, you know, the emperor has no clothes, although that's a disgusting thought in Trump's view, because his business model has been laid bare and laid away by this judge saying, you've only been able to do whatever you've been able to do, because you guys are fraudsters, hyperinflating the value of property, including Mar-a-Lago,

ironically, and Trump Tower and other properties, by not just a little, by a lot, by hundreds of millions of dollars per property, and then deflating it and fighting the tax assessor when you wanted to pay less in tax or giving out easements like in the Mar-a-Lago, conservation easements, meaning you can't develop certain aspects of your property. You have to keep it like a park for public use because that lowers your tax burden, but then claiming to the lenders, oh, I can develop every inch of Mar-a-Lago and put towers and buildings all over it. a log of it, put towers and buildings all over it. And so that is the fraud, right? And that is that inhibits and animates every action Donald Trump has ever done since

he inherited this company from his father. I would like you, the inevitable Karen Friedman Ignifalo, prosecutor, former number two, I don't know why he's former one of the heads of the New York for the Manhattan D.A.'s office who work closely in matters involving the New York Attorney General who has a little bit of criminal power, but a big civil, a big civil stick that she gets to wield or whoever occupies that office. And you've worked closely in parallel in parallel matters related to this, including a little bit of Trump, but not this particular one.

So, I'd like you to sort of talk about what the 35-page decision, but fundamentally, what does this mean for Donald Trump and then we'll round it out at the end of the segment where what does Donald Trump do from here and what are his chances of prevailing at any of the two last stops on the train. The first department of pellet division would sit over the New York State Supreme Court first level appeal or all the way to the highest court in New York, which is the Court of Appeals. Yeah, this is a case that I had to read this decision at least twice because it is so substantive and so chock full of information and it is just a below to Trump to his adult children

and to his organizations and everything else that is Trump world. I mean this decision is just absolutely the civil death penalty. It's the biggest remedy I think that you could ever give against, you know, like a judgment or a punishment, if you will, against somebody civilly. You know, normally in civil cases, you just, it's about money. It's about how much money, you know, that someone has to pay. This puts them out of business. This makes them sell all of his

cronjual properties and he loses his licenses to operate certain things in New York. And it also cuts to the heart of who he is. I mean, he holds himself out as this great business man and here at the judge in black and white, in no uncertain terms, over and over and over again just really talks about how he's a liar, a cheater, and he steals. I mean, and he didn't just call him those names.

He actually spelled it out for all the world to see property by property, business, by business, and it's just stunning. You know, and he overstated the value of his assets by more than $2.2 billion per year when it came to a trying to get loans, right? Because he wanted to be able to take more money out of these properties. So it was worth it to him to have them valued more. And then a fraction of these amounts when he was paying taxes. Because you don't want to pay taxes on something that's worth hundreds of millions or billions

of dollars. You want to pay taxes as little as possible. So you try to get it valued as little as possible. And look, that's something that is done to an extent. But the way he did it, the way Trump and his henchmen did it in this case, and that was spelled out in black and white, was just absolutely stunning. And what I think is going to happen next, I think we're going to potentially see Alvin Bragg say,

you know what, now that there's a judge that is found, that Donald Trump has, again, it's a different standard. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt. But in black and white terms, has absolutely lied on business records. And the fact that he, a lot of this came from his deposition, right? That the deposition that Leticia James took, and he sat for, he didn't take the fifth, the second time,

the way he did the first time. And now Alvin Bragg has all of that evidence that he could bring in a criminal case. And Judge Arthur and Goron in his decision actually points to statements in his own deposition that are in conflict with things that were on paper. And so I think the evidence is there, it's in black and white, you've got Donald Trump's words and you've got the statements, you know, one of the things Judge and Goron said was, look, this is essentially a document's case, right? You look at the documents and gore on said was look this is essentially a documents case,

right? You look at the documents and you see what they say. And you know, when you look at the documents, they don't say what you say they say Donald Trump, you know, that Donald Trump lives in a fantasy world and you know, not the real world. And you can't just make stuff up and say that, you know, things are, whatever they, they're worth whatever I want them to be worth. And, you know, and you can't also rely on this thing that Trump always talks about, which is this worthless clause that he calls, right? This disclaimer. And so Judge Engoron really went through and, and just took took him to task and took him apart piece by piece by piece. And said, look, Trump, you filed from 2011 to 2021,

or even before that, but this case is from 2021. Every year, you filed these statements of financial administration, right? And in them, you put information about your finances and you did things like over and flate the amount of square feet that your penthouse is. You could say, okay, I think it's worth more money than it is, but that's very different than saying on a piece of paper.

No, it is 30,000 square feet. That's what we said is because penthouse was at a 30,000 square feet. And in fact, it's about 11,000 square feet, right? And you can't just lie and make that up, you know? And Trump, at one point, said, you know, well, it's subjective, you know, things like square footage is subjective, object interpretation. But not something that's triple, right? That's ridiculous. That you can have a difference between 10,000 square feet or 11,000 square feet and 30,000 square feet. So the judge really goes through a property by property and talks about in Scotland,

his golf course, he inflated the value by 3,500 percent in You know, in seven springs, you know, the value over $200 million more than the largest appraisal and on and on and on. And you know, he found that the defendant had a propensity to engage in persistent fraud by submitting these false and misleading statements. And then as you said, you know, did this preliminary injunction, you know, that he's now turning to an injunction. And he's joining him from doing business in New York, you know, all his LLCs have to be are now no longer valid. And you know, one of the things I loved about this is this decision is in addition to in addition to taking going

through these properties one by one and and giving such a strong punishment. He also tells Donald Trump, you know, look, you can't just say, for example, I have a worthless clause, right? You know, you can't just say that it means that I can say whatever I want because, you know, he actually puts this clause on the judge puts this worthless clause or this thing, the words of it in his decision. And, you know, he said that in your sworn deposition, he puts that also in his decision, you kept saying it's a disclaimer, it's a worthless clause because it makes a statement worthless. You know, you say, quote, I have a clause in there that says, don't believe the statement, go out, do your own work.

The statement is worthless, it means nothing. So Trump said that under oath in his deposition. But the judge then points out, look, this clause, your reliance, it doesn't use the word worthless at all in this clause. It doesn't use the word useless, it doesn't use the word useless. It doesn't use the word ignore. It doesn't use the word disregard or anything similar, right? You can't just talk about, you know, things that it might be the value in the future when it is the value now. And so just, I think rather than just doing a one-page decision, which says, you know,

I find this, he did a really good job, I think, in explaining exactly what everything means and what it means as a punishment. He's going to be put out of business, he's going to have to sell everything and that's that. I mean, it's just shocking. And really, like I said said it's like the civil death penalty. You know, there was count that was for count number one. There's counts two through seven that he said still have to determine liability right of the of the as well as the amount of of, um, uh, uh, discouragement of profits.

Yeah. The, the, the, um, the main defense is the Donald Trump wanted to put on a trial, which he won't have an opportunity to do and tried to argue in the papers. We're all shot down similarly by judging Gora on the first one. As you mentioned, it Karen, um, was that there was a clause that was at the bottom of all of his financial statements that said basically his version was, you can't rely on a darn thing that this piece of paper says because you got to go out and do your own two diligence. That's not what the clause says. In fact, quite the opposite. The clause says that I, Donald J. Trump, hereby certify the validity and the accuracy and the

appraise value or whatever it's going to be in this financial statement that it complies with generally accepted accounting principles. And the judge says that became especially more acute because your own auditor, measures, measures decided to back out and back out noisily from an 11 or 12 year engagement by saying, everything that we've said in the audited financials of these companies for all these past years, you can't rely on that. Can't rely on it at all because we don't believe it any longer and so and goodbye. And that of course, royal the investment market and the banking market because they're like,

what do you mean you don't have an auditor? Your auditor backed away and disclaimed 12 or 13 years every financial statements. And the judge says, yeah, once mazers backed out, then it felt squarely on Donald Trump. Donald Trump is using his own credit, if you will. His own honor, that's a hard word to use in the same breath as Donald Trump.

It's in order to secure credit. He's saying, trust me, trust me. I'm Donald J. Trump, which he likes to tell everybody. My word is my bond. And then he signed on the dotted line because banks were like, okay, well, you don't have audited financials. We have to take something, at least tell us that what you're telling us is true. And he said, yes, where do I sign? And then that's the first problem. And the judge pushed back and said, yeah, there's no such thing as a worthless clause that says, don't believe what I'm saying.

Who are you gonna believe? You're gonna believe me or your lying eyes, paraphrasing a famous marks brother routine. This is from the judge, who I love. Anybody that paraphrases, quotes the marks brothers, I'm in. Secondly, they're second defense which Judge shot down like one of those, you know, games at the arcade with the balloon and you have a you have a little toy gun Was the worth was the there's no victim judge. There's no victim. We paid back all the loans the bank made money

The banks love us. They give us a lollipop and a toaster every time we go down, they're an open and account. What are you talking about? Just says, you don't get it. Using fraudulent statements in your business operation, which I have found that you have done is against the law and it violates the executive law and it allows the attorney general to shut down persistent fraud in the operation of a building. And you say there's no victim. First of all, there doesn't need to be a victim because the marketplace is the victim because you're getting to borrow more money than you're entitled to at a lower interest rate than you're entitled to because you're going to the bank and telling them that Trump Tower or the Trump Tower apartment or whatever is, you know, a $300 million apartment when it's really a $300 million apartment

when it's really a $30 million apartment. It's a nice apartment, but it's, it's a love this sketch. But it's not, there's a big difference between 300 million and 30 million when you're going to borrow, especially when you're borrowing it, some percentage of the loan against the value. And you're getting a lower interest rate

because it's so, let's say I wanted to borrow $100 million and the properties worth $300 million as well, they're going to give you a lower interest rate because if you default, they're over secured because there's $200 million of equity and they're like, okay, well, worst case scenario, we'll get all our money back. So they lower the interest rate. But if you're borrowing 100 million in the apartment, it's only worth 30 million, then the bank unbeknownst to them is underscured, meaning they lent money they shouldn't have at a rate that they shouldn't have. So he got a low rate in too much money, and the next guy in line got less money, because

banks only have a certain amount of money they can lend on their balance sheet. And so that is the fraud. So you can't, so the two, no victim defense. Go on. And the third one, this is like a family feud. And the survey says third one is that a val, I love this one, value appraised value of a property is a state of mind. It's a state of mind. So whatever Donald Trump wakes up, he once wrote him, he was once put in a book from about 15 years ago in which he said his net worth is a function of his feelings. Isn't that adorable? His feelings, not a appraised value and of property, jewels, cash, his feelings. And he continued with that in the deposition that the judge quoted but quoted in a way to embarrass Donald Trump with his

ridiculous under oath statements when Donald Trump went back in for an interview, haven't taken the fifth amendment along with Eric Trump hundreds of times before that. When he finally got in there to try to like I don't know a barris Embarrassed Latisha James like he like he tried to do to Kristen Welker recently. It's different It's different when you're under oath and you're against the powerhouse litigator turning general like Latisha James and he said Yeah, it's you know my buildings are like masterpiece paintings on the wall How do you put a price on the Mona Lisa? You know, it's whatever somebody will pay.

And I love the way and go on pop that balloon so elegantly and really got Trump. Trump said in his deposition and the judge quoted it. He said, it's whatever my properties, I could put up some huge price. I'll get somebody from Saudi Arabia to pay for it. And the judge says, I don't know if that's an example of the market or influence peddling. That you're trying, that they're buying, they want to get close to Donald Trump so they're

willing to overpay for property. So that wasn't a good thing for Donald Trump. So after the judge shot down the three defenses and then rejected Donald Trump's attempt to get some rejudgment because they are always me too. Me too, we want some rejudgment, but we think there's no case. Judge said, yeah, there's a case, there's so much a case, you don't understand basic New York law, which is a problem. Not surprising, because the two main lawyers are a New Jersey lawyer and a Florida lawyer.

So you can understand why they didn't get New York law. They didn't have like a New York maven next to them. The Karen would be able to whisper in their ear and say, wrong law, that's not the right thing to argue. And so the judge says, you don't know fundamental law about 63-12 of the executive law. You don't understand how discouragement works. You don't understand the damage or no damage

that has to be proven. And you keep bringing up time and time again, frivolous arguments. So frivolous, why don't I just sanction the lawyer? So he sanctioned all three of the law firms, $7,500 bucks that goes to a victim compensation fund related to that. And now, the only thing left is let's get to a trial in October.

And the only thing that would stop that, I want to talk about it in a moment, would be a stay granted likely by, if a stay is going to be granted, it would be granted by the first level of pellet court. But the first level of pellet court's already still chewing on whether there should be a trial in October at all. Before the summary judgment's got granted, we think they're going to get a decision by tomorrow, maybe, about whether the October trial should go far, but now it's so narrow. All it is is all it is.

It's about whether the issue of discordsment in front of Bench or a jury is going to go forward. But I want to put up before we chew on that. And I want to hear your view about Alvin Bragg and statute of limitations, whether he has a problem or not, because I think that's interesting, is I want to put up the social media post from Donald Trump. This was one of his many, and I want to just, I just want to acknowledge why this is so wrong under so many, so many circumstances, just, and just, we'll just read it here. Let me just pull it up in my own,

my own way so I can read it. So he starts with, we need justice in our country. Okay, I don't, I don't debate that. This political hack judge who values Mar-a-Lago, the most spectacular parcel of real estate impome beach, and perhaps all of Florida at 18 million in order to reduce valuations, which in fact lowers my actual net worth must be stopped. Okay, stop right there. It's valued at $18 million because Donald Trump petitioned to lower the value of Mar-a-Lago and to apply a conservation environmental easement on it so he wouldn't have to pay high taxes

in Palm Beach County. That is the price after he petitioned Palm Beach County that they set on so he could pay less in taxes. See, that's the fraud. Up, up, up, up fake numbers for loans, down, down, down for taxes. So you have that. Then he says, I've had a very unfair set of judges since entering politics, but nobody has been as unhinged as this guy. I would beg to differ. I think that judge Angoran dealt a very difficult hand with Donald Trump in a very complicated case, has not only done it exceedingly well and been affirmed a number of times by both state and federal courts around the country, but I do not think there is reversible error that will help Donald

Trump at the appellate level. He says he goes back to Mar-a-Lago being worth 100 times more. That's back to value as a state of mind. It's whatever. He says it's worth. He says he could not have defrauded the banks who all made money and were all paid back. He misses the economic point of how he's victimized the marketplace and stopped the guy from behind him from getting the loan that he was entitled to because he over, he got an

over loan, if you will, and also that he got it at a lower rate than he should have and it was under collateralized, which could have jeopardized the bank if the shit had hit the fan. And then finally, he talks about what Karen outlined, the disclaimer clause on the first page, which is nothing of the sort. It's at a attestation by Donald Trump that he is a testing to the truth and the veracity of all of the financial information. He signed it. He signed his name to the bottom of that fraud and the judge kind of hit him with it.

Karen, what do you think about, you mentioned I love the Alvin Bragg thing from your old office. Everybody, the only criticism I've seen in the hooray about the decision my judge Angora on his gosh darn it, Alvin Bragg see he should have brought his criminal case too. Now, here's the question. We know that that Letitia James had some issues on some of her claims because they fell off the statute of limitations timeline because she had six years to bring them. What's the deal with the feds? I mean, the feds, with the criminal prosecution.

Can Alvin bring it now? And does he have any type of, because his persistent fraud, does he have a limitations probably with filing? Yeah, I mean, that's a great question. because it's persistent fraud, does he have a limitations problem with filing? Yeah, I mean, that's a great question. So, normally in New York is a five year statute of limitations and, you know, this, Latisha James brings this case, you know, it's from 2011 to all the way through 2021

and don't forget the monitor here, Barbara Jones, who actually found that he was engaging in fraud during the pendency of him being monitored by her. So, which is what one of the things that Judge Sites in his decision, which is he's still engaging in fraud, you know, despite the fact that that he has this independent monitor. So I think he'll be fine for much of it because it is a five year statute, but there are some things that will toll the statute of limitations in New York as well.

One is if you're continuously outside of the jurisdiction during that time, and he was outside the jurisdiction during the time that he was president, right? He wasn't living in New York and he can't be prosecuted as a sitting president for a crime. So I think they would argue that that period of time tolls the statute, you know, doesn't count in the five years. And he changed his residence to Florida, et cetera. So I do think he has time to bring some of the charges, if not many of the charges,

if he is planning on doing it. So we'll see. Well, here's the question that all of the audience I'm sure is waiting for. If you are Alvin Bragg, knowing what you know now from the order and all the evidence we've seen, would you, if the buck stop with you, would you prosecute? If I could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, absolutely. You know, it's a different standard, right? It's not preponderance of the evidence which is here Which is, you know, the the about the scales or you know are exactly equal, right?

And you put a feather on it and it goes and I need it and that's that's you know what it that's what it's preponderance I love that civil standard. I mean, I love the best standard ever, you know, what I love When I left prosecution, I mean, and you know, now I do a lot of civil work. It's my favorite, it's my favorite part of it. Like to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt is not easy. You know, you have to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that all have to agree as to every element of every crime beyond a reasonable doubt. So go ahead. Well, I was gonna say you 30 years on the, with the more extreme burden, now that you've moved over a lot to civil,

it must be like you used to run a record time with a 50 pound vest. And now you've shed, you know, like those vests and you've got rid of the vest and you're just running down the track. You have no idea how much I love it. I'm always like giddy, you know, like, that's it? That's all you have to do.

Anyway, so I do think, you know, I do think, I don't know the evidence and the witnesses, in that case, but I do think that if he can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, I think he should, I think he can, and it is largely a documents case. So, you know, and between that and the depositions under oath, et cetera, I think it's certainly he should be looking at it again or still.

And, you know, the only question is, does he wait to see the trial? You know, there's still going to be a trial, right? There's still going to be testimony at a trial to discuss some of the conduct here because one of the things that Patricia James is going to want to determine is the egregiousness of the conduct, right? And how much money of the profits were ill-gotten

or need to be disgorched. And so a lot more evidence will be developed through that trial. profits were ill-gotten or needed to be discouraged. And so a lot more evidence will be developed through that trial. So perhaps he wants to wait to see how that goes and the witnesses testify, et cetera, that's another thing he's waiting for. Yeah. And I know what people are waiting for here. They're waiting for us to get to our other segments on legal AF.

And we're going to talk about Judge Chutkin, who's now has a fully briefed issue related to the gag order in the Jack Smith DC election interference case. Donald Trump's brief is in and we could have written it. We could have written it before he did. We knew exactly what he was going to argue and we'll talk about what Judge Chutkin does with a misbehaving and I'm putting it mildly, Donald Trump was busy attacking witnesses and potential jurors and the rest. She's already laid out what her potential remedy for misbehavior was. I'm not sure it's a gag order, we'll talk about that and what could possibly happen in

the courtroom and we'll talk about Scott McAfee So who so far has done nothing but impress me with the At the velocity at which he makes rulings the clarity of them the intellectual honesty of them Even though he's a young Republican federalist society judge He is bringing me back face in the justice system that it doesn't matter who appointed you or where you studied if you're gonna Follow the law and justice and you do it properly good things happen for the rest of us in the public and so we'll talk about Judge McAfee and his new ruling to protect Chers from one Donald Trump and the rest of the 18 co-conspirators and then finally we'll talk about places where justice seems to, you know,

be going through a corkscrew. And that's Judge Catton's chambers as she's continuing to struggle to get a handle on the law underneath undergirding Mar-a-Lago and all of the witness issues. I get she's a young new judge and I get she might be doing all these things for the first time. But, a young new judge and I get she might be doing all these things for the first time, but you know, we're watching sausage making and it's not pretty. We'll talk more about all of that on the midweek edition of Legal AF, but first a word from our sponsor. Did you know that your temperature at night can have one of the greatest impacts on your sleep quality? If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend you check out Miracle Made's bedsheets. Inspired by NASA, Miracle Made uses silver infused fabrics and makes temperature regulating bedding so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long.

Using silver infused fabrics originally inspired by NASA, Miracle Made sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long. So you get better sleep every night. These sheets are infused with silver that prevent up to 99.7% of bacterial growth, leaving them to stay cleaner and fresher three times longer than other sheets. No more gross odors. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands. And feel as nice if not nicer than bentchete's used by some five star hotels.

Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores, causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with Miracle. Go to trymiracle.com. Slash legal AF to try Miracle Mate Cheats today. And whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, if you order today, you can save over 40% and if you use our promo Legal AF at checkout, you'll get three free towels and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product,

it's back with the 30-day money back guarantee and if you're not 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle made, go to try miracle.com slash legal AF and use the code legal AF to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40%. Again, that's try miracle.com slash legal AF to treat yourself. Thank you, Miracle made for sponsoring this episode. And thank you, judge Chutkin, because as we were about to break for the commercial, she very kindly waited for us to be on break to break new news. We have breaking news, folks, and it's great.

Judge Chutkin has rejected and denied completely Donald Trump's efforts to recuse or disqualify her from presiding over his case. We literally just got it. I think when one of us is talking, the other one will read it, but we can give you the last line and then we can backfill during this episode for the reasons that she states in her 20 page opinion,

the defendant's motion for recusal of the district judge, meaning her, is hereby denied and And that is it. You can try to take an appeal, but it's almost never successful. They are the first arbiter of their own ethics, if you will, at the trial judge level. And we have a very, as we said earlier today, we've got examples in this legal AF of judges who are on the ball, who run a disciplined courtroom of discipline minds, well-trained, and it runs the gamut from new judges to a judge's but on the bench for 15 years, Judge Chutkin.

And what we're seeing when that happens, we see justice. We see intellectual integrity and decision making. And we can, we can, like, it a little bit of a sigh of relief I think that's the best feeling for me that we've got a an adult in charge who has the best interests of the administration of justice in mind I know that Trump spends all of his time You know railing about you know add a control Marxist leftists You know, railing about, you know, out of control, Marxists, leftists, judges who are out to get them and aren't looking at the law

or the facts, but the opposite is true. And when you use examples like Judge McAfee so far in Judge Chukkin, we should be proud of the work that they do and the decisions that they make. And this one is another one of them. So I'll frame what I was gonna start with with Judge Chukkin. And then by the time we're done, one of us or both of us will have learned

enough about some, some bone bolts, some amazing phrases that I'm sure buried within Judge Chuckkin's order and we will bring them to you. Let's start with what we thought we were going to talk about off the break, which is Judge Chuckkin deciding also. And let's just, we can, we can tie things together here. She already said the Trump This is my phrase not hers go after yourself. I'm not going anywhere I'm presiding over this case and I'm gonna be ruling on all the motions in front of me including the motion for a limited gag order

We call it a gag order Jack Smith didn't call it that a limiting order on what Donald Trump can do and say that goes beyond the pale of his First Amendment rights trying to balance that against the proper administration of justice. And particularly, Jackson Smith and his filing said, you gotta make him stop judge attacking witnesses, prosecutors, and polluting the future jury pool, the jury, the jury veneer, because we'll never be able to get a fair and impartial jury. Not for what Donald Trump said in his paper.

He has it actually 180 degrees asked backwards. He says, well, we're going to try to argue that the more Donald Trump talks, the more we're going to convert a DC jury into a Trump jury. That's 95% Democrat. No. That's not the argument. The argument is the same as Fawni Willis makes in Georgia. It's that we won't be able to get a fair and impartial jury for the accused for Donald Trump. It's not that we're worried that he's making Trump jures. It's that the justice system represented by the Department of Justice, it's in their name, is worried that we won't be able to get an impartial jury

that already doesn't have its mind made up to like hate and or be scared of Donald Trump in order to render a proper opinion, a proper decision verdict under the Sixth Amendment and do process. That's the fear. Of course, they make it into a straw man in Trump's legal papers in order to destroy it. We don't think you could ever convert DC people into Trumpers. That's not the argument at all.

That's not the constitutional argument that's been raised by the Department of Justice. And so although they, although Jack Smith's papers did not put in there and also make him stop attacking you judge, we know he's attacked Judge Chukkin, Judge Angoran, Judge Middlebrook's in Florida. Every judge he doesn't like. Silence for Judge Cannon in the Mar-a-Laga case never attacks her. Always lauds her. Silence, he has an attack macchophy yet. He will, the judge up in Georgia and Judge Mershon in presiding over the Stormy Daniels criminal case that we don't talk about much because things are sort of moving along towards

a trial date there that maybe reset up in New York. So she's got two things she can do. She can grant some version of what the federal government is asking for, which is to make him stop attacking witnesses, jurors, and prosecutors and social media. You can do everything else you want. That's one, through himself or through his proxies. And the second thing she can do everything else you want. That's one. And through himself or through his proxies. And the second thing she can do is say,

I warned you once in my courtroom, that your First Amendment rights are cabined, limited, by the fair administration of justice. You don't get to say anything that you want because you're claiming First Amendment rights because there's a broader public policy here of a proper trial administration and I'm not going to let you overcome that. And she said, if I find that he can't comply with orders and be civil, so to speak, in a

criminal case, I may just speed up the trial. Now she set the trial pretty quick. We thought in March, but there are, there are a number of months up the trial. Now she set the trial pretty quick. We thought in March, but there are a number of months between basically what's now the first of October and March. January comes to mind. Could she Karen based on the hearing, say, I'm gonna enter some sort of order,

but I'm gonna do it one better. I don't like what I'm watching. I don't like what I'm watching. I don't like what I'm seeing. I don't like the attacks to hang and kill General Mark Milley, who's going to be a witness we know in the Gen 6 case, is attacks on prosecutors and doxing them. Fony Willis talks about it in Georgia as well. Racial violent assassination efforts. Judge Chutkin got an assassination threat to her chambers.

And she could say, I think I'm going to do two things. I want to hear what your opinion is. Do you think Judge Chutkin is going to move this trial to something like January to also punish, if you will, or try to modify the behavior of an out of control Donald Trump. No, I don't think she will. I don't think she can. She has to be just careful about punishing him by essentially what would be considered violating his due process rights.

He has a right to prepare for his trial and you can't just rush it to punish him where he would say I need more time. It's already going fairly quickly and so I don't think she can do that in the same way that I think she has to be very careful in issuing any sort of gag order because not only is he a candidate for president, many of the witnesses or at least at least one of the witnesses, you know, Mike Pence, in the case, he's a witness in the Jan 6 case, he is going out and talking about Donald Trump. And in his running for office and Trump, you know, has an argument that he should be able to respond.

Certainly, that's what he says. And I just think the first amendment here is really tricky given the fact that everybody's running for president and we're in the middle of an election. So, you know, look, I just think I don't think she's going to issue a gag order. I think she'll issue another very stern warning. She might say, look, you can't, I'm ordering you not to threaten or intimidate witnesses in some ways, I guess, you know, could be not really a gag order, but an order of what she can and cannot do.

Although Sherry has done that, I don't think she's gonna do much more than that. I mean, I don't think they're gonna move the trial quicker because that that violates another amendment, you know, not just. Yeah. Comment. Yeah. Sorry. I don't mean that. So I don't disagree with you, although we'll stop to see what she's going to do. Comment on what they're trying, what they're seeking in the gag order or what you think the judge with the end. If you want to comment on the briefing,

relate it to Donald Trump saying, my first amendment rights, I get, I'm running for office and you gotta let me talk and Joe Biden's trying to shut me down. You want to comment a little bit on that and then we'll get prepared for the, the bombshell for today, which is Chuck and said,

go through the passage. I read it while you were talking. Yeah, I read it down. Then we can talk about it. Good, you want to talk about what this part, then we'll go back to it. Yeah, just that the argument here is the Trump said, look, you know, Jack Smith, you filed the speaking indictment and you press conference and you may enter tax on the president saying he fueled an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy.

And this was inflammatory rhetoric. And it poisons the Trump defense, you know, and it poisons the jury pool against Trump. And the jury pool is already, you know, very much a pro-biden, 95% pro-biden. And so you're saying that I'm the I'm the one who's, who's potentially leading to poison the, the jury truly pool. You're the one who's poisoning the jury pool, um, Jack Smith and, and you, and so I have to have a right to, um, to respond to this. And then, of course, he talks about the first amendment and he says, Joe Biden knows he, he was losing against Trump. And so he brought these cases as a political pretext which is ridiculous. You know, you could argue that Trump

actually ran for office in order to prevent these cases. These investigations were going for he declared and so if anyone was using was trying to manipulate the criminal justice system and etc. it's Trump not not Merrick Garland by way of appointing a special counsel Jack Smith that has literally nothing to do with Joe Biden, but Anyway, so he he complains and says now you're trying to muzzle me and you know Smith has not identified a single potential juror who's been present and why can't you know why can witnesses like P Pens attack me, but I can't respond, you know, on and on and on. So he just basically says you can't, you can't do a pro-restraint slash gag order, you know, and talk about how, you know, this doesn't meet

the strict standard, the strict scrutiny standard that would be required to pass muster, to infringe on someone's first amendment, right? So, I mean, also says like my post don't need to be injured in one and all those kind of stuff. All the things he would expect him to say, but, you know, I think, I think, you know, here, the, I do think, although his arguments are a little bit suspect, I do think that the judge has to be very, very careful and tread, very carefully here. You know, look, though, Donald Trump has walked that line, and he certainly has, has, you know, walked a very fine line. You know, more than that the funny thing is, I think it's dangerous to put a gag order on him. And I think it's dangerous to, and by the way, to do process rights in order to speed this up,

what I don't think is a problem is putting him in. Put him in jail, which is what you would do to any other defendant who would threaten judges and threaten prosecutors and threaten witnesses and behave in the way he's behaving. But nobody but me seems to like that as an option, but that's what happens in the normal course. So let's turn to the disqualification motion. You and I have had a chance to spend a minute basically looking through it, but you know, I tell people, I tell people like my clients that minute is, you know, 32 years in the making, because that's that's how long I've been practicing and

training to answer that question. And so it's a minute, but it's a long I've been practicing and training to answer that question. It's a minute, but it's a good quality minute by you and me. What did you pick up from? And then I'll give you my favorite quotes. For me, the Watergate analogy, I think, is really sums it up best, but I'll do it in my end. Okay.

So, to me, what I liked about this is she said, look, you know, yes, you point out that the so, so look at Trump said, I want you to be accused because in two other cases, you made statements, Judge Chutkin, that you, that show that you have a pre-determined animus against me in two other sentencing's when you sentenced other Jan 6 defendants, you made comments about well the guy who Inside this he's not being held accountable etc. And therefore you have shown that you are anti-Trump But what she did a really good job at showing was look in any sentencing in any federal case there the judge you know the defense puts on mitigation

evidence and where the judge, you know, the defense puts on mitigation evidence. And what happens is the judge listened to the mitigation evidence, and what the mitigation evidence was, was both defendants said, look, you know, I'm not the one who, who incited this. I was doing this at the behest of somebody who's not, you know, who's not being prosecuted for this, meaning Trump. And she agreed with that, or at least acknowledged that. And so she said, look, this was an appropriate response

to something I'm required to do, which is considering mitigation in a case. So that's number one. And you're taking my statements out of context. These were intrajudicial statements is what she called them and said, and they were a response to what was being said in other cases.

And then she went through the law and showed what the law is that would require recusal. And she sums it up in the end and says, you know, basically this court has been beginning repeated its commitment to ensure an orderly administration of justice in this, in any other case, that commitment echoes the court's solemn oath to administer justice without respect to persons to do equal right to the poor and to the rich and to faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all

duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Based on a review of the law and the facts and record, the court concludes that a reasonable observer would not doubt its ability to uphold that promise in his case. And I just thought that was a beautiful paragraph and that's why she denied the motion because she can be fair and anyone looking at what she does

and says we'll see that she will be fair. Yeah, so I loved her breakdown of it. She basically took them right at their frontal attacks on her, two different Jans X defendants who blamed Donald Trump at some point to try to get leniency in their sentencing. And she went through a description of both of their heinous acts against the seat of our democracy and the arguments They were being raised by our lawyers and the comments that she made in full not just the clipped version of them that were in Donald Trump's papers to explain why First setting out the facts then the legal standard that you need to set out and for me when she got into Watergate which I've always said is, of course,

is the analogy, she said legal precedent also councils against her being disqualified in the case who were accusing. The DC circuits on bonk decision, meaning all the judges of the DC circuit in United States versus hall- Menn, which is the famous case involving the attorney general that went to jail that used to work for Nixon. She says it's particularly instructive. In that case, the circuit reviewed a recusal motion against district judge Sirica. Judge Sirica, for those who don't know, was the judge who presented over a lot of the water gate trials and convictions and is sort of a lion of the legal world. And they try to get rid of them, some of the later defendants who were being prosecuted

for their participation in the Watergate conspiracy. Judge Schuckin goes on on page 15 to say, the motion relied in relevant part on statements made by Judge Serica in prior cases involving other Watergate defendants, almost exactly on all fours, as we like to say, as Donald Trump is arguing here. In particular, the judge says Judge Serica had during those earlier proceedings expressed a belief that criminal liability extended beyond the seven persons

they are charged. Boy, is this eerily similar to the case in front of her? And even suggested persons whom the prosecutors might consider calling before the grand jury investigating Watergate, that was Judge Sirica. The circuit court affirmed Judge Sirica's decision not to back out of the case, holding that his statements did not reflect a disqualifying state of mind, and observing that, quote, no disabling prejudice can be extracted

from dignified though persistent judicial efforts to bring everyone responsible for Watergate to book. And she's basically painting herself properly as the heir to Judge Serica in the Watergate case that says, just because I presided over other Jan 6 insurrectionists and defendants and formed all my opinions in court, in court, not outside the court by watching television,

which is what they accused her of. I know what I saw, and I know what the video I've watched. I'm allowed to take that with me and my mind and my brain into the next set of sentencing. As long as I don't use that to show favoritism to one side or the other, because I prejudge the case. And since there's no examples or evidence of that, your motion is denied. She's going to get upheld if they try to appeal it. They're not getting out from under Chutkin

and Chutkin is going to have to make that decision on that gag order and whether to speed up trial or not. I'm sure it's going to come up. She's not going to be happy and we'll be reporting on her hearing when it happens. One of the things she said that I really like in there was how basically, the recusal motions can be used as a sword to go out and judge shop. You can't just do that because you don't like your judge.

And she points that out, right? That you can't just because you don't like your judge, you can't use it to go try to get a new one. So I think it's important that she very much went through, pointed out what the law is and showed how she doesn't even meet that standard in the law. Well, we got a one page order in by contrast by judge, literally one page. Second page was just a signature. Responding to Fawney Willis, Fawney Willis, other news today is asked for a protective order to make sure that Donald Trump's, when she turns over material to Donald Trump and the others, that it doesn't leak out into the wrong hands.

It's the same kind of protective order that all the federal prosecutors have been seeking and obtaining, one by one. And now F Fony Willis is asked for it as well. We'll follow that. But the news this week that we want to cover at the midweek is judge McAfee in the one page order granting Fony Willis' efforts proper to protect the jury from all of the things the parade of horribles that she listed in her moving papers on the 6th of September, in which she talked about her office, her people, being attacked, address is posted on the internet,

even on Russian websites, the under the control of the Russians, to try to, including the 23 special purpose grand jurors, their names, where they live, who they love, where they worship, where they study, and what kind of pet they live, who they love, where they worship, where they study, and what kind of pet they have, all posted on Russian websites, and they've all been subjected to terrible doxing violent attacks, violent threats. And so, as Fony Willis is office, and she wanted that jury to be anonymous,

taking a page out of Judge Kaplan, a federal judge up in New York, who in a civil case for the digital rape, a sexual abuse case against Donald Trump that E. Jean Carroll prevailed on, in a civil case, he on his own decided that the jury needed to be protected from Donald Trump and made a whole list of findings against Donald Trump attacking jurors, grand jurors,

jury for people, prosecutors, judges, and the like. He did that on his own. The only time I've ever seen that was when organized crime or drug lords are being indicted and tried and they want to protect the jury. But now here, the only people that objected to this Karen or the media who wants to get their hands on everything because this trial is televised. Meaning we'll get to see the action. We'll get to see the juice. The witness is the judge, the lawyers, but what we're not going to get to see either by sketch or photo or my information or details is the jury at all. What do you feel about that decision and what do you think that

shows for judge McAfee's control of this courtroom? He's amazing, right? So far, he's shown himself to be a true pro. He knows exactly what needs to get done. He knows the law. And, you know, he, I love that it's a one page. You know, this is what we're doing order. So I think it's great. Like this is it was interesting that the defense didn't jump up and down about about this because you know I've never had an anonymous jury in one of my cases. It's always been denied my right when I was a prosecutor because the defense attorneys would jump up and down every time and say you're signaling to the jury that my client is so dangerous that you know it's so bad that they have to remain anonymous,

and I don't want that to, it's gonna prejudice my case if they're so scared, that they have to remain anonymous, et cetera. So I thought that was sort of interesting. Nobody objected except the press, but I think the right thing. I mean, you see what happens to, these are just ordinary citizens

who are doing their civic duty. And they shouldn't have to be subjected to, you know, the horrific behavior of people who follow Donald Trump, you know, that doesn't matter whether it's Trump himself who has threatened prosecutors and threatened witnesses and, you know, know post pictures of you know the baseball hat to to Alvin Bragg's head or you know whatever we've seen so many examples of him

threatening doing things that are threatening especially January 6th right and he says oh you know I didn't do he he says I basically denies having anything to do with any of my violence, but we all know that he is the guy who makes all the violence happen to everybody, whether it's Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss, whether it's January 6, whatever it is, all the death threats, et cetera. And no, no, no, no, average citizen should have to, they're doing their civic duty, they're going to jury duty, it's not, it takes time out of your day. And they shouldn't be subjected to that.

So I think it's absolutely the right thing to do. All it says is that, you know, you can't videotape them, you can't, you know, sketch artists can't do something realistic about them, you can't put their images or phone numbers or addresses or any identifying information they'll be referred to as numbers. And the only thing you'll be able to record or hear is the voice during the verdict or any questions that they have for the judge during the election. But just the voice. Yeah, I totally agree with you.

In fact, I said something similar to what you just said when the motion, it was really the judge up in the E. Jean Carol case who on his own one Friday or Saturday sent out an order. You and I are then covered it, which he said, I'd like to hear from the lawyers as to why whether there should be an anonymous jury, who's just out of the top of his head. You know, and we thought, oh, here we go. It's going to be Joe Takapena and Alina Haba. And they're going to argue just what you argued which is, no, that prejudges him.

The jury's gonna be like, shit, we need protection from this guy. It must be a bad guy. And it was like, nothing, it's just like here, nothing. Because it's almost like I feel like the lawyers are convinced that they need an anonymous jury to protect their own client from his worst instincts, because if they give him what he naturally wants, which is tell me who they are and tell me where they live, bad things will happen.

So sometimes, I had a case that you and I like to joke about, involving a very famous musician. And when I got him sanctioned, because of his poor conduct during a deposition and attacking me and everybody else The judge basically had me write the Admissions or the warnings that she was going to read him before the next deposition And she said why don't you prepare the mr. Popo can send them over to the other side For edits and so I made them really really like this is my this is my wish list

This is like my Christmas list of everything that I wanted thinking I'm going to have to dial it back. I sent it over to them and they wrote back, we're fine with that because they knew, right? They let me get, we never got to that deposition, that case settled because of that, but they knew that they had an out of control client that even they couldn't control. And they needed me to help discipline him and have the court on the bad. I think it's something sort of similar psychosis psychology is going on here. Speaking of psychosis, let's talk about Judge Cannon down in Florida as we round out

to the legal AF midweek. And this one's interesting. I'll set out, turn it over to you for the Garcia hearing. Garcia hearing is the shorthand name, based on a case for a hearing involving conflicts of interest for lawyers who represent multiple criminal defendants or witnesses in the same trial, whose interest may not be aligned

because somebody jumps off sides. They cooperate with the government. They were once, there were once three clients with one lawyer and now one has escaped and made its way over to the prosecutors and are going to testify against the other two. Makes it sort of difficult for the lawyer to cross examine his former client when they're on the stand and hence every court, state or federal has some version of a Garcia hearing. It's what it's called down in Florida. And we already saw a version of it involving Mar-a-Lago because the hearing took place in the District of Columbia very well, very well handled by the Chief Judge, Jeb Bozberg,

in which you sealed Tavaris, the IT worker who used to be represented by Stan Woodward, one of the lawyers in the hearing that's coming up in Florida, when he got his own independent lawyer, he made a different decision, which was, I just perjured myself in front of the grand jury and I need to recant all my testimony and cooperate with the federal government, the federal government said, come on in.

We'll redo the entire indictment in Mar-a-Lago based on your new testimony. And that's what can happen if it's properly handled, where you have an independent lawyer, usually a public defender standing by, witnesses, and all of that. That's up in Washington. Judge Cannon has a different idea about how to run a Garcia hearing and care. I want you to take it from there. And what do you think the end result is with Stan Woodward, one lawyer, and John Irving,

another lawyer lawyer who collectively represent 10 different defendants and witnesses all in Mar-a-Lago, and they don't think there's a problem with it. Even though a couple of them are now flipped and cooperating with the government. This is going to have two hearings on October 12 in Fort Pierce. DeLavira is going to be at 1 o'clock in the afternoon, and Waltein Nata is going to be at three o'clock on the same day. The judge ordered the defense attorneys and special counsel to be present, but she said

the potential witnesses, so the other people that the defendants are representing don't need to come. And everybody has to be prepared. The special counsel has to be prepared to articulate the nature and scope of whatever conflict they think exists and the defense have to respond. And the court at its discretion may elect to hold part of the hearings sealed or ex-part A,

which means with not in the presence of both parties is what ex-part A means. And that's something that the defense asked for was like, you know, sure, you can talk to my clients and ask them questions, but I don't want Jack Smith and his people to be there. So the court reserved that ability to do that. And so we'll see what happens. You know, it's just a matter of time. I'm not thinking about that.

It was all, I was like, it was long to be asked. I'm not sure if she's going to be able to get this case to, you know, almost ensure that there's a delay and it doesn't go when she said it for trial next May. And you basically said in his motion that, you know, that defendant on Nauta and Deoleviera must be told what the risks are and wave it on the record because it's so precarious to have a defendant represented by a lawyer who represented witnesses who will be testifying and the subject matter is about this exact case. It's one thing, it's like, okay, I'm cross examining a former client, it doesn't matter. It's about this case.

And so how's that going to work when, let's say, your client, your former client told you something as a lawyer, Stan Woodward, you know, you represented, you know, employee number four who is, you seal Tveris, right? And he's going to be testifying. And so let's say he did something in confidence during the attorney client relationship. And, and you then, it turns out you're going to go to trial and he says something on the stand different than that, right?

You can't use what you know to cross examine him. And so how is that going to work? You know, you have divided loyalties. And because, you know, Tavaris isn't going to wave his right to confidentiality or loyalty or conflict free representation. And so what Woodward said was, look, I'm not aware that he said anything, you know, incriminating about my client now, et cetera, et cetera.

So, but he's, you know, it's a very strange line to walk. And you know, the, so Jack Smith in his motion talks about all of the different potential conflicts that both lawyers, Dan Woodward and Johnnie have based on the different people they represented. And, you know, points out though, it was very interesting. He didn't ask for a specific remedy, if you remember. He didn't say, therefore, get Stan Woodward off the case or John Irving off the case. He's, because he would, because, you know, the Sixth Amendment does give you a right to the Council of your choice. And so, Jack Smith is smart. He's not trying to take away Council of their choice because he doesn't want to

infringe on his 6th Amendment right. So he says, I just want you to make sure that you apprise them of all the parade of horribles that could happen and tell them what the conflicts are and all the things they're not going to be able to do on behalf of their client and just make sure they waive that on the record and then do what you want. And basically what this is is he's protecting his record. That's the only thing prosecutors think about. It's not just about getting a conviction.

You have to get a conviction and you have to make sure that it doesn't get overturned because what good is a case, a trial, if it gets overturned. And so he's protecting his record here. And that's what he did by asking for these Garcia hearings and pointing out what all the conflicts could be and are so that at these hearings, the judge will hopefully do her job and inform them of what these potential conflicts would be, although Jack Smith put them in his motion. So it's there. And make sure they waive them on the record.

And if they do, and they say they still want to be represented by these lawyers, knowing that they can't potentially use this information for minutes, that's on them. Yeah. I don't like the way she's conducting the hearing. I think Chief Judge, uh, Postburg has a better method having an independent lawyer standing by and

taking in witness testimony if necessary. But if this is the way she's going to do it, it's a, it is a Garcia hearing. Um, uh, I think it'll survive the 11th circuit precedent. And again, my, my opinion, and I think it's joined by the other, my co-leaders of K of legal AF, I said legal legal KFA, that's good too, is you know, Mar-a-Lago is the stocking horse. He's he's ex Donald Trump has recently added a couple of new lawyers to esteem, but so as Jack Smith, to try to backfill, you know, because it's a very hollow group here. This is, you know, there's four total lawyers. Now, even just six total lawyers, not six firms, six lawyers for Donald Trump,

in all of these cases, it's not enough, frankly, to run a case properly with a couple of paralegals here and there against the United States of America and Jack Smith at an unlimited budget and dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens, and I'm leaving off dozens of prosecutors and investigators against you. So the more that he, Jack Smith, exhausts and tires out with motion practice down in Mar-a-Lago, you know, where the main case is in DC with Judge Chuckin,

who's not going anywhere. And so I like the fact that there's these two cases, and yes, Mar-a-Lago's important, and I wanna put him away for all these things. But if God came down and said, Popok, pick one, pick one where there's a conviction. I'd be like the election case in DC with Judge Chuckin. And Judge Smith knows that.

And so it's a great way. They've opened up another battlefield, another down in Miami, exhausting and pinning down Trump's lawyers while the real work for justice is being done up in DC. We'll continue to follow DC, Georgia, New York, Florida and all things Trump with seven trials in nine months for Canada Trump on all things Trump with seven trials in nine months

for Canada Trump and who's an indicted felon in 91 different felony charges on the midweek edition of legal a after weekend edition of legal a after you can only get it one place exclusively on the Midas Touch Network. Help us get the two million free subscribers on the YouTube channel. They're so close. Be the 2 million, be the 2 million person. The bigger the network is, the bigger that platform is, the more your voice is heard, period, bar none. And everything I'm going to describe

about the ways to support us and make our content come to you, the way it's coming, and the volume and the volume of the quality is to support the Midas Touch Network. Go on the audio version of this if you're watching it on YouTube. We drop the audio a few hours later. Click on to that, that's free. Watch, listen, listen, watch, go back and forth. It helps the algorithm.

We are beholden to Almighty Algorithm to keep us on the air. Leave a comment, participate in our live chat we do. And leave a review, leave a five star review. I always sound like an Uber driver when I say that, because it helps keep us kind of pumping along here. And then Karen, Ben, me, three liters of K of legal, let's go ahead and do it again.

Legal AF, we bring you hot takes about every hour on the cutting edge at that real speaking of real estate, the really important real estate at the corner of law and US politics. We sit there, bring you these stories with our collective 75 years of experience so that you don't have to and we hope we do it in a way that's really informative educational and at least mildly entertaining on your Wednesday and Saturday nights and throughout. So until the next legal AF which is coming up this Saturday and the one with Karen and me next Wednesday, this is Michael Popok, Karen Friedman, Agnipfalo.

I'm signing off. it off.