Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump is NOT DOING WELL at Trial, Prosecution SHINES

Episode Date: May 2, 2024

Legal AF host Karen Friedman Agnifilo is joined by Ben Meiselas filling in for Michael Popok to discuss breaking legal news and review the most important developments at Donald Trump’s criminal trial. Join the Legal AF Patreon: https://Patreon.com/LegalAF Thanks to our sponsors: One Skin: Get started today at https://OneSkin.co and receive 15% Off using code: LEGALAF Lumen: Go to https://Lumen.me/legalAF and use promo code LEGALAF at checkout to get $50 off your Lumen Fast Growing Trees: Head to https://www.fast-growing-trees.com/collections/sale?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=description&utm_campaign=legalaf right now to get 15% off your entire order with code LegalAF! Smileactives: Visit https://smileactives.com/legalaf to get this exclusive offer! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/coalition-of-the-sane/id1741663279 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

That's the sound of unaged whiskey, transforming into Jack Daniels Tennessee Whiskey in Lynchburg, Tennessee. Around 1860, nearest green taught Jack Daniel how to filter whiskey through charcoal for a smoother taste, one drop at a time. This is one of many sounds in Tennessee with a story to tell. To hear them in person, plan your trip at tnvacation.com. Tennessee sounds perfect. Wednesday means no Trump criminal trial in Manhattan,

but it certainly doesn't mean that Trump would be on good behavior or violate gag orders in other locations. Donald Trump gave a speech, if he even wants to call it that, in Wisconsin, and I believe he violated the gag order in the Washington DC federal criminal case. We'll see what happens there. I want to get your take, Karen Friedman-Agnifilo, if you think that is a violation of the gag order and the import on the fact that Donald Trump's already been

found in contempt, in criminal contempt in the Manhattan case, if that's going to impact other gag order violations in other jurisdictions. Of course, we will recap all of the highlights, lowlights, and Donald Trump whining about being cold each and every day of the Manhattan criminal trial thus far with, I think the two major witnesses to testify are David Pecker and Keith Davidson will break down everything that's taken place up until this point as that trial proceeds and as Donald Trump whines

that he has to sit there and it's taking too long, but also that it is moving too fast. Nothing that he says really makes all that much sense. Also I think that it's worth talking about the fact that it is now May 1st and Judge Eileen Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago document case has not moved the trial date. She still has trial scheduled for May 20th. There was a hearing back on March 1st where special counsel Jack Smith suggested that trial be moved to July because Judge Cannon had not set basic deadlines in a classified document case. Donald Trump requested sometime late in 2025. Judge Cannon, as we previously reported, sounded very sympathetic to a late 2025 date.

She told special counsel Jack Smith that his proposal was unrealistic. Yet here we are May 1st after that hearing, March 1st, and the trial date has not been moved. How strange is that? We'll talk about that and more here on Legal AF. This is the midweek edition. I'm filling in for Michael Popa, Karen Friedman Agnifilo. It's been a real honor to be able to do the morning summations, the evening summations with you,

describing everything that's happening in that criminal trial. I think that the coverage that you've provided here, your leadership here at the Midas Touch Network, it's unprecedented. It meets the moment and we're so grateful for you. Thank you for everything you're doing, Karen. Hi, Ben. So good to do this with you on a Wednesday. I'm usually just me and Popak. Yeah, but I'm so glad that we are able to do this twice a day, every day, just to talk about this historic trial that's going on in my old office. So, you know, here we are.

We've been with Midas Touch now for how long? Three years, three plus years. And lo and behold, the case that nobody wanted, the case that everybody thought, why this case is turning out to be kind of a blockbuster case. And certainly much more serious than anybody realized that, I think at the time they kept saying, oh, it's just, he paid off a porn star. No, he didn't. He stole an election. That's what he did. He actually succeeded in stealing the election because he was able to suppress this information.

So it's just great that we are able to comment and have the time that we have on this great network to tell people what's really happening in the courtroom. Because as you know, it's not videotaped. It's not, I should say broadcast. It's not video or audio broadcast. And so all people see is what Donald Trump talks about when he leaves the courtroom and whines about how cold it is and talks about things that go on in the courtroom. But this way, because we are able to do this, we can tell people facts and just

give them the information about what's been going on. Karen, one of our slogans here at the Midas Touch Network is, truth is golden. Another one is meet the moment, to build the infrastructure, to build a team, to meet these pivotal moments right now and to be a difference maker in how we report. Speaking about meeting the moment, you worked at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office for nearly 30 years. You were the number two at that office at times you even served as the acting Manhattan District Attorney. Do you feel as we are in week three that the prosecution team from the Manhattan District Attorney, do you feel as we are in week three that the prosecution

team from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, that they are currently meeting the moment right now if you were to judge them? Absolutely. And you know, the thing is, like I said, everybody was just really complaining about this case and it's not that serious and why is this one going and why this case and You know, there's a guy who's been who wrote Who wrote a New York Times piece? Judge Sugarman who really pooh-poos this case and he's been debating people He's been debating people on I think MSNBC and other other areas about

This about why this case and that this case isn't very serious. But I really disagree with his premise. I disagree with everything he says about it. And I think it just goes to show it's kind of the difference between state court and federal court. And I think if you're used to being a fed, if you're used to being a federal prosecutor, you're used to things being a certain way,

being a certain seriousness, et cetera. And I think that there's really this kind of elitism, frankly, that's anti-state court and state prosecutors. And of course, since I spent my entire career as a state court prosecutor, never was a Fed, I just see it very differently. And this particular case that the Manhattan DA's office is bringing, they from day one, if you read the indictment that they also filed a statement of facts from day one, they have said, this is a case about election interference. I think others liked to call it in shorthand, oh, it's just a hush money case. Oh, it's just a porn star. Oh, he cheated on his wife. Who cares? Oh, he falsified

some records. What's the big deal? But again, if you're used to practicing in state court where the average Joe gets prosecuted for falsifying business records every single day, this case is really just like those cases. Nobody's above the law in New York. This is a statute that's enforced all the time. When you look at the purpose behind why Donald Trump did it, and that's the evidence that I can't wait for us to dig into and talk about what's going on at the trial, we see that the whole reason they did it was to hide these payments that they were paying off to Karen McDougall, to Dino Sijudin, and to Stephanie Clifford, who's also known as Stormy Daniels, in order to hide this information from the electorate. And, you know, back then, it was very different in 2016. It was very different than it is today, where we're just used to Donald Trump. And it doesn't, we seem to be desensitized as a country to his behavior, his language,

and the things that he does and says. But back then, he was very, very concerned about this information getting out, and they hid this from the electorate. And as we've talked about many times and is widely known now. Donald Trump won the election by three swing states and 80,000 votes. That's a tiny number. I mean, we get more than, I mean, think about it, Ben. We sometimes have 80,000 votes,

or 80,000 people have watched Legal AF at the end of an hour, right? I mean, it's crazy. That's how few people swung the whole election in 2016. And what if this is what made the difference, the fact that he suppressed this information? In some ways, this makes it more serious than the January 6th case, because there at least Pence ended up doing the right thing and he didn't succeed in stealing a second election. So I'm not saying it's more important, but it's certainly as important.

It's certainly typical of the Manhattan DA's office to meet the moment as you say, and to do things that are really important. And so I'm beyond proud that my old office is doing this case and that Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA, is carrying on the tradition of the Manhattan DA's office, which has always been a leader in all areas of criminal justice. So there was no trial today, tomorrow morning on Thursday, bright and early. I think the first thing that will be taking place, and Justice Mershon told the parties,

be ready, we will be hearing oral argument on the People's Motion for a further contempt finding, criminal contempt against Donald Trump. In the last day of trial, Donald Trump was found to have been in violation of the gag order. He was held in criminal contempt. Justice Murchon indicated in that order that he would, if he had the authority under New York law, which caps the financial penalty for criminal contempt at $1,000, but Murchon said, I would consider close to $150,000 or more if I was so empowered, but I am not. And then Justice Mershon also warned that future violations could be met with an incarceration as a punishment and penalty, although the statements that are subject of this next contempt order hearing

occurred before that warning was actually made. But something happened, Karen, earlier today in Wisconsin. On Donald Trump's day off, he went to Wisconsin to campaign. He gave what he refers to as a speech, although to me, these are just like hate rallies and the rantings and ravings of a bit of a lunatic. During this speech that he gave, Donald Trump made statements about Cassidy Hutchinson, who is a witness in the Washington, D.C. federal criminal case, where there is a gag order in that case. I want to play it, and I want to read for you the gag order and I want to get your

take if you think that was a violation of the gag order that's in place and if there will be additional ramifications now that Trump's already been found to be in criminal contempt and got that warning. To be clear, Cassidy Hutchinson is not a witness in the Manhattan case. She's a witness in the Washington, D.C. federal criminal case. But Jack Smith could use Justice Mershon's warning of incarceration and show that Donald Trump is aware that that's a possible penalty. So first, let me show you what Donald Trump said in Wisconsin. Let's play this clip first.

Instead, they'd be, I want to go down. These people are crazy. And then I think you change your testimony. You heard that because the people testified that none of this stuff happened. But a friend of mine said, you shouldn't fight that because I gained such respect. I didn't know that you were that strong and that tough that you would take on a black belt in karate So, calling a witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, crazy in front of a crowd like that. Of course, she's anticipated to testify in the Washington DC federal criminal case. She testified before the January 6th committee and her testimony in the Washington DC criminal case would likely be consistent with what she told the January 6th committee and here's what Donald Trump is attacking her for saying.

Let's play this clip. We're going back to the West Wing. The president had a very strong, very angry response to that. Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of, I'm the effing president. Take me up to the Capitol now. To which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing. The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm said sir you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol.

Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Angle. And when Mr. Ronaldo had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles. And here is the gag order in the DC case as affirmed, Karen, by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, largely on December 8, 2023. Specifically, the order, the gag order, is affirmed to the extent it prohibits all parties and their counsel from making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding. And as that's going on, you have Donald Trump's lawyer, Alina Habba was out there posting videos of herself jumping into ball pits. I'm not sure if you've seen this at all, Karen. She makes videotapes. That's Donald Trump's lawyer

right there and having a good old time while all this is what she makes videotapes. That's Donald Trump's lawyer right there and having a good old time while all this is taking place. Karen, you think this is a gag order violation? What's going on? Yeah, I think so. I mean, if it's clear that he's talking about Cassidy Hutchinson and her testimony, I do think it's a violation because, look, Judge Chutkin specifically said, although that case is on pause, right? We know it's on pause. She said the conditions of bail and the conditions of release still apply. And the gag order is part of that.

She said her ability to kind of manage the case and control the case still applies. Trump can't be required to work on the case, but the rest is still there in place. So things like that they can't share, the protective order on the discovery, the gag order, the bail conditions, all that stuff still stands. And so it, to me, if it's clear that that's who he's talking about, if he's talking about Cassidy Hutchinson, and did he mention her name or did he just describe it? I was, I'm sorry, but I was so transfixed by,

he seems to have changed colors. He, his spray tan has gotten to be quite dark. And so I was kind of focusing on that, I apologize. And his voice is really high. So I just, I don't know, I found it very distracting. So I didn't notice if he mentioned her by name. Let me refer to her by saying these people. You mentioned Donald Trump's appearance also, like in court. Have you just been seeing him leaving the courtroom looking exasperated? Of course, there have been reports of him falling asleep constantly in the courtroom,

but that's him there. There are these photos of him with these blowfish kind of cheeks. There's another photo of him right there. I don't think he said the name specifically, but he was clearly referencing the witness case. Yeah. He was referencing her. He was also referencing the Secret Service agent, I believe, right? That he is alleged to have grabbed. So I think you could argue that he is referencing them.

Look, he does this thing constantly where he walks up to the line and steps on it, right? He refuses to, he doesn't quite cross the line. It's almost like when he reposted stuff for the gag order. It's like, well, I'm just reposting, you know, I say it reminds me of a toddler who you say, you know, don't want you don't leave your room, you cannot leave your room. And the toddler walks up to the door and like, puts his foot, you know, right in the in the door jam, and then like moves his toe forward, you know, it's kind of like and stares at you like, what are you going to do? And that's what Donald Trump constantly does, right? Well, in New York, Judge Mershon specifically said, by the way, buddy, when you repost things,

that is a violation of the gag order, just to be clear. But here he's not naming anybody. So, because I didn't hear her name. So I'm glad it wasn't just that I was distracted by his strange appearance and his weird gestures and his unusually high voice. Um, and so I was, I was, you know, but, but if he's clearly referencing both Cassidy Hudson, Hutchinson, as well as the secret service. Agent, I think, I think judge, Chuckin is not going to like it. Yeah.

You know, here are the photos I was referencing of Trump as he's been leaving the courtroom. You know, he's also been talking about how cold he is. It's an ice box. They're making me go back into this ice box. I'm freezing. It's so cold in there. I can't believe I have to sit in there.

It's so cold. There was also some reporting as well from a number of outlets, how Donald Trump's lawyers are trying to keep him awake by giving him things to distract himself with because he keeps falling asleep, giving him papers to read, printing out articles that they think he will like just so he doesn't constantly fall asleep there. When everything they do is projection and confession, when they call Sleepy Joe, Sleepy

Joe, I mean, I've never seen somebody so weak as Donald Trump fall asleep like this all of the time. But Karen, as much as people want to hear me talk about Donald Trump falling asleep and how weak he is and the blowfish face and Alina Hobbit jumping in ball pits. I think that people want to hear your analysis of the top witnesses. Um, how significant you think the testimony was from Pecker, Keith Davidson. I thought the C-SPAN archivist really kind of backfired on Trump for making this guy show up. I thought it made the presentation even more dramatic when they played Trump's clips versus

just actually showing the clips as would normally take place in a criminal case. And one of the things that you led all media by making clear, and I heard everybody talking about it, but you said it for the first time is Donald Trump is making this trial last longer by not stipulating to basic records and authenticating records. And then he's whining about how long the case is taking, but he's adding time to this by not doing the things that happen in all criminal cases.

I wanna hear about that and more. Let's take our first quick break of the show. Have you ever wished you had whiter and brighter smile? Well, before you've been visited a dentist, you should know that their whitening treatments can be very expensive and it's not just the price. You also have to book an appointment, schedule the time away from work or family

to sit in a dentist office chair while undergoing a procedure. It's hassle. And fortunately, now you can try Smile Actives at home or anywhere, anytime. Smile Actives offers safe and affordable alternatives to those expensive whitening procedures. I have had bad experiences with whitening agents. It's made my teeth feel sensitive. I haven't liked the way it made me feel. I didn't like the taste. But Smile Actives makes a teeth whitening gel that you can simply add to your

toothpaste every time you brush your teeth. So there's no change in your routine, no extra time, no more messy strips, trays or lights, and it doesn't taste terrible. Simply add smile actives pro whitening gel to your regular toothpaste. It's been formulated with poly clean technology to boost stain removal and deliver active whitening ingredients into teeth, grooves and crannies and get better whitening. 97% of smile actives users in a clinical trial reported up to six shades whiter on average all within 30 days. Smile actives is for everyone who's ready to invest in the next level of self-care. Tap into the personal power that comes from having a bright smile. I care a lot about my smile.

I take care of my teeth and I use Smile Actives. Visit smileactives.com slash legal AF today to receive a special buy one, get one free offer with auto delivery plus free shipping and handling. That's smileactives.plural.com slash legal AF. Terms and conditions apply. See site for details. Do you know Fast Growing Trees

is the biggest online nursery in the US with more than 10,000 different kinds of plants and over 2 million happy customers in the US? They have everything you could possibly want like fruit trees, palm trees, evergreens, house plants and so much more. Whatever you're interested in, they have it for you. Find the perfect fit for your climate and space.

Fast-growing Trees makes it easy to order online, and your plants are shipped directly to your door in one to two days. And along with their 30-day alive and thrive guarantee, they offer free plant consultation forever. I love Fast-growing Trees. I recently got their most popular small avocado tree at a great price. They have an amazing selection to choose from and their customer service is incredible.

And the cherry on top? I save so much money by not using an overpriced landscaper. You don't need to have a yard or a lot of space. You can grow lemon, avocado, olive, or fig trees inside your home on top of the wide variety of houseplants available. The experts at Fast-Growing Trees curate thousands of plants, so you can find the perfect fit for your specific climate, location, and needs. You don't have to drive around in nurseries and big gardening centers. Fast-Growing Trees makes it easy to order online, and your plants are shipped to your door in one to two days.

Whether you're looking to add some privacy, shade, or natural beauty to your yard, Fast Growing Trees has in-house experts ready to help you make the right selection. With growing and care advice available 24-7. You can talk to a plant expert about your soil type, landscape design, how to care for your plants, and everything else you need. No green thumb required. This spring, they have the best deals online, up to half off on select plants and other deals.

And listeners to our show, well, they get an additional 15% off their first purchase when using the code LEGALAF at checkout. That's an additional 15% off at fastgrowingtrees.com using the code LEGALAF at checkout. That's an additional 15% off at fastgrowingtrees.com using the code Legal AF at checkout. Fastgrowingtrees.com, code Legal AF. Offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply.

Even with Popak's day off, he's with us with that great ad read. Karen, great ad read. Thank you to our pro-democracy sponsors. The discount codes are in the descriptions below. We're talking about the Trump criminal trial in Manhattan for falsification of business records to interfere with the 2016 election. Every day thus far, Donald Trump's walked into court.

He's whined about how cold the courtroom is Here's the latest example of Donald Trump saying that he's forced to walk into an ice box play this clip So I appreciate you being here. Thank you very much And I'm gonna go into the ice box now and sit for about eight hours or nine hours I'd much rather be in Georgia. I'd much rather be in Georgia. I'd much rather be in Florida. I'd much rather be in states that are in place, states that, you know, I'd like to be able to campaign. Bye.

An interesting thing that I'm just noticing there for the first time, Karen, that I didn't, when he talks about states that are in play, he's talking about states as well there that if you were to speak to some of the Republicans spin people they would say, oh well you know Donald Trump's doing well in those states but listen to what he was actually saying there and it actually hints at where he's nervous about having

exposure and if he's nervous about those states he's got major issues as well. It was a little bit of a tell there but we'll save the politics for other shows here on the network. Karen, if you can now, we'd love to hear from you. Now that we're on week three, we'll be starting tomorrow, day 10 of the criminal trial. The highlights, the lowlights, the surprises. Break it all down for us, Karen. So I want to start with a book that was written

by my friend Norm Eisen, and it's called Trying Trump. And it's a book that he wrote because he was putting together a trial binder. And a trial binder is what we all use when we go to trial. And you put together all the relevant documents, you put everything in one place because you wanna be able to refer to it and have everything at your fingertips.

And it's something that I go to regularly to kind of make sense of what everything is because it's really confusing to be honest. There's a lot of people, a lot of players, a lot of names. And so I just wanna give a shout out to be honest. There's a lot of people, a lot of players, a lot of names. And so I just, I just want to give a shout out to this book. Salty, if you want to, I think I think we have a copy of the book cover if you want to put it up. I just want to give a shout out. There it is, a guide to his first election interference criminal trial. It's really, really, it's really,

really helpful. It has everything you want to know about it, including the legal filings, the facts, everything. So for anyone who wants to follow this in detail, I highly recommend this book. And interestingly, I've heard from somebody in the courtroom who had a copy of the book sitting next to them, because it's a good reference, right? It's really good to refer, okay, what's this person talking about? What was this?

What date? You know, it's hard to follow sometimes when you look at these trials and a court officer said to them, put that away. And the person was like, what are you talking about? It's just a book. And they're like, we don't allow political material in here. So I thought that was really interesting that that was that's what somebody reported about that book.

Anyway, but the trial is very much going in as I think, better than I ever imagined, but certainly exactly how the DA's office has planned. Let's just remind ourselves what the charges are here because it makes the evidence extremely important and relevant. The charges are 34 counts of falsifying a business record in the first degree, which is a class E felony, the lowest level felony in New York. It is essentially when you make false entries in a business record. So that's normally a misdemeanor in New York. But if you do it with the intention to commit a crime,

if you are either violating, if you're either committing a crime or concealing a crime or aiding the commission of a crime, then that bumps it up to a felony. If the reason, in other words, if the reason you're falsifying your business records is to cover up a crime. So that's what makes it a felony. And that's what Donald Trump is charged with. And so the prosecution has said the crime

that they were trying to conceal that they were committing was election fraud, right? It was a violation of both New York state election laws and federal election laws and state and federal tax laws. And the specific violation of election laws was they didn't wanna declare the money that they were spending, because you do have to declare it

if you're a political candidate, you have to report that you get donations and who they're from. And there are certain campaign donation limits and it's those limits and those things that they didn't want to report because if they reported it, it would reveal that Donald Trump had these extra marital affairs. Okay. So that's essentially what it is.

It starts with it. So the crime actually is the cover-up, right? The falsifying business records is the cover-up, because he's not charged with the crime of election interference, right, or election fraud, or any of the election-related crimes. He's charged with the cover-up of it. So it's this strange kind of hybrid New York charge. And that is what this is all about. So that gets us to the witnesses. And the most important witness so far, and maybe the most important witness in the case, to be honest, was David Pecker. And Pecker testified all about this relationship

between AMI, the National Enquirers, parent company, and Donald Trump, and that he is the one who sets the table that, look, we engaged in catch and kill. We engaged in this buying stories and never publishing them. If they helped Donald Trump or doing things to help him, or also doing things for celebrities, et cetera. But it was always to help the bottom line of the national inquirer, right? They would buy stories. It was checkbook journalism. It was this really kind of seedy underbelly of news, and I put this in quotes because I don't know if you want to call it news, but of how that tabloid journalism works. And it was very revealing, I think. But what was so interesting is, Pecker could not have been clearer

about what the purpose of the three things that are charged, that are alleged here, the doorman, Karen McDougall, and Stormy Daniels, that that was about the election and it was different. And I had no idea, I think a lot of people didn't realize that David Pecker would be so critical and such a critical witness in this trial. And he held up on his own and he was a great witness because he very much was like, Donald Trump was my mentor, he was my friend.

It's clear he still had affection for him, but I'm here to tell the truth. I'm just telling you how it happened. And so I thought that was really compelling. But I want to kind of go over the chronology of events with people because they are hard to follow. And it comes from this book that I was talking about that Norm Eisen has published. But I just wanna talk about a few highlights of the chronology because it really then will explain why these witnesses were so critical and so excellent in my opinion.

So in 2004, this goes all the way back to 2004, okay? As far back as that, American Media Inc, AMI, which was the parent company to the National Enquirer, they were already turning away stories and tips that could paint Donald Trump in a bad light. And that had to do with the friendship that they had with David Pecker and the fact that Trump was feeding Pecker good stories that was boosting their sales.

Right. And so that dated back a long time ago. They were such close friends that Pecker even went to Trump and Melania's wedding in 2005. Okay. And then Michael Cohen didn't start working there until 2007. So these things were going on. This relationship existed even before Michael Cohen. Again, very significant because Michael Cohen is kind of a difficult witness for the prosecution that the prosecutors talked about in their opening, that he's made some mistakes, that he has served time, and that he also has admitted to lying under oath, or he's been charged and convicted of lying under oath. So that's tricky for a prosecutor who, you know, the cross-examination is sort of obvious what they're going to say about him and the summation. So to the extent that they can corroborate everything that he says and make it so it doesn't depend on

him necessarily, but there's so much corroboration, that's what the prosecutors are trying to do. And so the fact that this relationship went back so far with David Pecker and predated Michael Cohen, I thought was kind of a critical fact. But also, I don't know if I truly appreciated that in 2005 is when the Access Hollywood tape was actually filmed, okay, because it didn't come out until 2016. But it was a recording that happened in 2005 where Trump identified some woman through a bus window and then he made the famous, you know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful women. I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the P word. Okay. So that's what they caught on the hot mic. So then in June of 2006, that's when

Karen McDougall and Donald Trump meet and when they start their affair. Okay. So that again, predated Michael Cohen. It was two years or a year and a half or so after he married Melania. And I believe she was pregnant with their child. And then they go on and they have dates about this when their first date was at the Beverly Hills Hotel. And in July of 2006, okay, that was June, the next month in July of 2006, that's when Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, she met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, which is located half in California, half in Nevada.

And that's when they had sex in his hotel room, right? So just married Melania, right? She cheats on her right away pretty much with Playboy model and then cheats on the Playboy model who he's having a relationship with with Stormy Daniels. So this is all back 10 years before the election, okay? Then in 2007, Michael Cohen starts working there and At various times throughout the next few years, there are times that these women try to sell these stories. Mostly Stephanie Clifford actually is trying to sell her story, but there was no market for it. Okay. And it wasn't until later where when, you know, when, when, when a woman tweeted something out about the fact that Karen McDougall was, you know, having an

affair with Donald Trump, that this started to come out and that had that coincided at the time of this election. Okay. And so that's what David Pecker was talking about was, Look, there were women trying to shop stories or people doing stuff. We just, you know, we weren't interested back then, there was no market for it. And, and, you know, yes, I, we caught and killed stories, but, but we weren't really doing any of that. So like I said, like 10 years go by, there's rumors, there's, you know, there's rumors coming out that, um, that these affairs happen. There's lawsuits, you know, this, this information is bubbling up. And so again, if Donald Trump was concerned about Melania and his family finding out,

he would have paid them off then, right? In 2010, 2011, but there was no market for it and he wasn't running and so he didn't care. So it wasn't to protect his family. And again, that all came out at the trial through David Pecker. And that's to me, that's just astounding, right? That it's so clearly about the

election. And so then in March of 2015, Trump formed his exploratory presidential committee. And in June, he of 2015, he announced his bid for the presidency. And in August of 2015, Pecker talked about a meeting that Trump, Michael Cohen, and David Pecker had at Trump Tower in Manhattan. And this was basically saying that this is where the conspiracy was formed, okay, the criminal conspiracy to get together and to catch and kill stories to help the campaign. Okay? So there's no doubt this was about the campaign. Michael Cohen's going to testify about it, I assume, but this is what David Pecker said. He was there. He was part of this. And that, I think, that is the thing that really, I think, is key to making this criminal and tying this to the election.

And then after that, so that was in August, then in October or November, Pecker learns about the doorman, they agree to pay him $30,000. And then as it's again, the time is the time is passing. They they they buy the story and they kill it. And then as time is passing and they go, you know, after that, they start learning about these other stories. Now we're going into 2016. And in March of 2016, he wins seven of the of the 11 Super Tuesday states. And right after that, he gets a call

about Stephanie Clifford slash Stormy Daniels. This is in April, 2016. And this is when they are trying to see an opportunity that look, now he's gonna be the nominee it looks like, and maybe now there's a market for my story. That's when things get interesting and things start to really heat up. We get into, I want to call him Pete Davidson, but it wasn't Pete Davidson, it was Keith Davidson, who's an attorney who represented both Karen McDougal and Stephanie

Clifford slash Stormy Daniels. And he starts negotiating with an individual who we're not going to hear from, Dylan Howard, who was the kind of number two for David Pecker. And it became this negotiation between this attorney for the two women, Davidson, and the number two person for Pecker, Howard, okay? So Davidson and Howard begin to negotiate in June, in July, and they're negotiating these stories and the purchasing of these stories.

And when Davidson was testifying, he apparently, by all accounts of people who were in the courtroom, came across as extremely credible. He talked about how this was absolutely about the election, And he talked about how he was dealing with Michael Cohen and on behalf of Donald Trump, when it came to Stephanie Clifford and Stormy Daniels and how, because the National Enquirer walked away from the Stephanie Clifford story, they didn't wanna pay for that for various reasons,

including the fact that they didn't want to be in bed with the porn star, also because they had already paid off the Karen McDougall 150,000 and the doorman for, I think, 30,000, and Trump wasn't paying them back. And they're like, we're not at piggy bank. So this is all coming into shape. I thought it was really powerful and I thought he did a really good job. He's still on the stand.

There's still a lot more to come. There's going to be cross-examination of him. And so I expect that to be, we'll see how that goes. But that's where we are, is the prosecution is spending a lot of time really corroborating Michael Cohen's story. And the way you can tell, first, we didn't know who was going to be next and what witnesses because we have a breakdown in communications between the parties, the prosecution is refusing to give over their witness list because Donald Trump was violating the gag order and tweeting about them, et cetera. And so they weren't gonna tell them who's next. And so we had to kind of glean from who the witnesses are

about who's next. And you can tell what they're doing. First, they set the narrative with Pecker, right? And now they're talking about kind of what happened with the attorney and how this came about and those details and those facts. But they're also doing, as you were saying, Ben, the financial records, the videotapes, they're putting on the record custodian witnesses,

who Trump's lawyers aren't even bothering cross-examining. That's how much they're irrelevant. These are record custodians. They're not substantive. They're like, yeah, I went to the archives, I pulled the video, and it's this date. I mean, it's coming in whether you stipulate or whether you make them call a witness.

But by making the prosecutor call a witness, not only are you delaying the case, you're also making it so that the jury, this important evidence that the prosecution wants to show, they're gonna show it now multiple times because now they're going to show it when the witness puts it into evidence, but then you're going to use it in the narrative of your story that you were going to use it in at some later point. So now you're like, now it's like getting drilled into getting drilled into the jury's

mind. I mean, it was always the defense that wanted to stipulate. I never wanted to stipulate. I want to prove my case as a prosecutor. I hated stipulating to things because I want the opportunity to prove my case. I want witnesses on the stand and I want to be able to use the evidence multiple times, right? And so, you know, I don't know who they think they're punishing besides themselves by doing it this way, but it's clear that that's what they're doing is there is they're going to do that I don't expect you're going to see michael cohen for two weeks. That that would be my guess You know michael cohen told us on the last political beat down As of yesterday that he had as far as he knew he was not had not been contacted yet He didn't know he was comfortable at a leash area that he did not know

when his testimony was going to be. So I thought that was at least a data point worth mentioning. And look, I think that there was a lot of missteps Karen as well with the defense. As good as the prosecution's been, there are some things that I would have expected the defense to do differently, but I guess when Donald Trump's your client, you're constrained also by his ego. I was surprised the defense bought into the narrative, and I can say this now because it's already done.

They can't contradict what they've already said, but they put David Pecker on a pedestal as though he's like a real credible person. You would think that he was running like a real major media company at the end of it. And the defense embraced that versus if I was doing the cross exam for the defense, and again, I'm not giving them advice. It's done. They've already done it. I think I would have gone to Pecker and said, hey, look, here's, you did this story on aliens.

You did this story on Bigfoot. You did this story on that. But they made it clear that he was a very serious and credible journalist during the cross exam. And it gave credence to something. And in Donald Trump's mind, you know, he was, which is why Donald Trump was using him for a catch and kill. Also, they're not authenticating these basic records as allowed the archivist to come in from C-SPAN and then they don't cross examine them. So, the jury is immersed in the drama. They don't fully know what's going on other than an archivist is coming in, the C-SPAN archivist, the defense has no cross or rebuttal to it,

and the prosecution gets to play this in a very dramatic fashion. I want to talk more about the C-SPAN archivist because actually, Karen, I thought that was one of the most powerful aspects of it. It was short, but it was so critical, I think, in showing the type of person Donald Trump is. And we know that the prosecution has dozens and dozens of other exhibits like that ready to go. Let's take our last quick break of the show. Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It's a device that measures your metabolism

through your breath. And on the app, it lets you know if you're burning fat or carbs and gives you tailored guidance to improve your nutrition, workouts, sleep, and even stress management. How good is that? All you have to do is breathe into your lumen

first thing in the morning and you'll know what's going on with your metabolism, whether you're burning mostly fats or carbs. Then lumen gives you a personalized nutrition plan that for the rest of the day is based on the measurements that it obtained when you blew into the to the lumen. You can also breathe into it before and after workouts and meals, you know exactly what's going on in your body in real time. And lumen will

give you tips to keep you on top of your health game. Your metabolism is your body's engine. It's how your body turns the food you eat into the fuel that keeps you going. And because your metabolism is the center of everything your body does. optimal metabolic health translates to a bunch of benefits, including easier weight management, improved energy levels, better fitness results, better sleep, etc. Lumen gives you recommendations to improve your metabolic health. And it can also track your cycle as well as the onset of menopause or features of menopause. It also allows you to adjust your recommendations

to keep your metabolism healthy through hormonal shifts. So you can keep up your energy and stave off cravings. The key to metabolic health is something called metabolic flexibility and that's where lumen really shines. It refers to your body's ability to efficiently switch between using different fuel sources like carbs and fats. There are preferred times to use each and how well you can switch places you on the metabolic

flexibility spectrum. After getting to know you through your breath, Lumen gives you a metabolic flex score that you can track and improve. So if you want to take the next step in improving your health, go to lumen.me and use LegalAF to get $100 off your Lumen. That's L-U-M-E-N.M-E and use legal AF to get $100 off your lumen that's LUM en dot me and use legal AF at checkout for $100 off lumen Thank you so much for sponsoring this episode. This episode is sponsored by one skin, one of my favorite products that I've been using now for a while. And I am so thrilled with Mother's Day coming up or as I'd like to now call it Grandmother's Day coming up to take a quick'd like to now call it Grandmother's Day coming up,

to take a quick moment to appreciate not only the moms out there, but anyone who's taken on the role of a caregiver. You do everything for everyone else. Now it's time to do something for you, starting with your skin. So today's sponsor, which is OneSkin, has simple, scientifically validated routine that keeps your skin looking and feeling good. And here's the best part. It targets the root cause of aging, something that is very near and dear to my heart. The secret is one skin's proprietary OS one peptide. It's the first ingredient proven to switch off the aging cells that cause lines, wrinkles and thinning skin. And they've got several studies to back it up. I've been using their products now for a while and I'm completely hooked. Don't just take my word for it It has over four thousand five star reviews and was recently recognized by fast company is one of the most innovative brands of

2024 people often are surprised to learn that I am a 57 year old grandmother I think it's because of my skin largely and it's because I take very good care of my skin with products like OneSkin. There's really been a game changer. Even my mother who can be very honest has noticed a difference. And so for a limited time, you'll get an exclusive 15% off your first OneSkin purchase using the code LEGALAF.

When you check out at oneskin.co, that's one skin, O-N k i n dot c o. You do so much for others try one skin today and do something good for yourself. One Skin is the world's first skin longevity company by focusing on the cellular aspects of aging one skin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer get started today with 15% off using code LegalAF at Oneskin.co. That's 15% off Oneskin.co with code LegalAF. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them.

Please support this show and tell them that we sent you. Karen, with the ad reads, I got to say, Karen, having your breakdowns about this trial has been one of the most invaluable experiences for me, you know, just as a lawyer. I mean, the amount of things I learned from you, but you explain it in a way that everybody can understand. And you've been leading like what's so incredible about your coverage and your leadership here is I noticed that whenever your analysis leads the coverage of what we see in all of the kind of major media networks as well. And I think that's an important role for this network to play and to have experts like you share this analysis has I think been a real game changer in explaining the ins and outs to people of this trial. You talked about some of these other witnesses who may be, you know, have certainly far lesser roles in Pecker or Keith Davidson, but like, let me tell you why I think the C-SPAN archivist was so devastating for Donald Trump. C-SPAN archivist, he's a doctor, works for C-SPAN for however long.

Um, Dr. Browning or Rowning or something shows up and they go through the video footage of Donald Trump. Trump tried to object previously through pre-trial motions from Trump's own words being used in the trial. But here's just, I want everybody to kind of visualize this. You have some professorial type person show up, the jury's captivated. They all have their notepads. They're taking notes.

They've heard an opening from the prosecution and thus far the prosecution's delivered. And then they've heard an opening from the defense. Don't believe what the prosecution's saying. They've seen Donald Trump kind of falling asleep. The jury's not sure yet. They've heard David Pecker, and David Pecker's talked about the catch and kill, but the jury's eager to hear. So is Trump just, is he denying that he did anything with women?

Was he really trying to cover it up? We're trying to get in the minds. And then this video that C-SPAN has from June of 2016 plays. This is Donald Trump's mindset at the time. As you have seen right now, I am being viciously attacked with lies and smears. It's a phony deal. I have no idea who these women are. Have no idea.

I have no idea. And I think you all know I have no idea because you understand me for a lot of years. Okay? When you looked at that horrible woman last night, you said, I don't think so. I don't think so. Whoever she is, wherever she comes from, the stories are total fiction. They're 100 percent made up. They never happened.

They never would happen. I don't think that happened with very many people, but they certainly aren't going to happen with me. Just think about it. You're in the jury. You watch that a witness shows up. That gets authenticated and it's like, yeah, it felt like that's a mic drop moment. Think about other things that Donald Trump said that have not been introduced yet, but

the types of statements that he's made about Stormy Daniels that could come in in the future in this trial one after another. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. I'm not saying these specifically will, but statements like this, like Donald Trump continuing to refer to Stormy Daniels as horse face and saying, no affair, she's a horse face, no attraction. Play this clip. To bring charges against me for now ancient no-affair story of Stormy Horseface Daniels, no attraction. No affair, I call it no affair.

Where there is no crime anyway. No affair calling her a horse face. Think about what happened in the 2018 period as well. What Trump was having all of his people like Sarah Huckabee Sanders say. Here, play this clip. This is from 2018 Let's play it the president approved of the payment that was made in October of 2016 by his longtime lawyer and advisor Michael Cohen like the president has addressed these directly and Made very well clear that none of these allegations are true

This case has already been been won in arbitration, and anything beyond that I would refer you to the President's outside counsel. When did the President address specifically the cash payment that was made in October of 2016? The President has denied the allegations against him, and again, this case has already been won in arbitration. Anything beyond that I would refer you to outside counsel.

Did he know about that payment at the time, though? I've addressed this as far as I can go. But that payment, did he know about the payment at the time? Not that I'm aware of. And again, anything beyond what I've already given you, I would refer you to the president's outside counsel. Steve. Has he talked to Michael Cohen about that since this has become a news story this week?

Has he talked to Michael Cohen about it? If I can just ask one more time. I'm sorry? Has he talked to Michael Cohen about that this week since this has become news? week. Has he talked to Michael Cohen about it? If I can just ask one more time. I'm sorry. Has he talked to Michael Cohen about that this week? I don't know. So this has become news. I'm not sure. Karen, here's the thing.

It's not a Democrat thing, a Republican thing. It's they're a liar. They lie and they lie and they viciously lie. The only clip the jury's seen thus far was the first one of Donald Trump. But Karen, as you know, there are dozens and dozens of clips of Donald Trump, his own posts, his own statements that are all lined up and ready to go when the DA is ready for it. And I think you're going to have moment after moment and the jury's going to be

sitting there. How could you not detest Trump sitting there lying to your face like that? I mean, look, you know, it's it's that's the thing. You play a video like the one you played where he's denying it and the jury doesn't realize the significance of it yet because all they see is he's denying it. But as you said, there's going to be piece by piece of evidence proving that he did know these women. For example, Rona Graff was one of the witnesses who also has testified. I think she testified she's worked for the Trump organization for 34 years. She was his executive assistant. She worked for him for a long time

and she had a Rolodex and lo and behold, Stormy Daniels slash Stephanie Clifford was in there and so was Karen McDougall. And so, for him to say he doesn't know whoever they are, I mean, that's just a lie. He not only knew who they were, their information was in his Rolodex. So of course, he's going to say, well, yeah, it turns out they were on Celebrity Apprentice. He makes excuses for

things or that this was about Celebrity Apprentice. I don't know, whatever. But you're going to see witness after witness testifying about his inconsistent statements, things that they're going to say are admissions and that it's consciousness of guilt, the fact that he's denying it and lying and changing his story. And they're going to get to wrap all that up in summation, right? That's what the prosecution is going to do. So it's just crazy to me that they didn't stipulate to that because, again, then the jury is going to get to hear it over and over and over again. But that's how they're handling it. Karen, I want to talk briefly about what's going on in the Mar-a-Lago

case to give everybody an update there though, but want to get your kind of final word though of what do you expect happens the remainder of this week in New York? And then let's just talk briefly to remind everybody just some of these other cases that are happening. Yeah. So I just want to say two things. Number one, I'll answer that question second. Number one, last Thursday was just a crazy day because I was on the balcony outside of court in the freezing cold reporting with CNN from like

nine in the morning till one o'clock. You have Trump coming out whining that it's freezing cold in the courtroom and how cold he is. I'm looking at these reporters who sit there and cover him day in and day out. They have to have warming blankets and hand warmers. And I mean, they actually sit in the freezing cold and wind and rain was blowing sideways at them. And I'm thinking, what a whiner. These are people with real jobs

who are out there doing that. And I was freezing. And I'm just like, it just felt really, really whiny. And you think about all the people whose jobs are outdoors, you know, the, the people who the construction workers, the people, the road workers, you know, just all the people who really do have hard jobs out, outdoors, and he's like whining that he's freezing cold sitting inside a courtroom. But the reason I bring that up is because that day, I'll never forget that day, because I literally was listening to the oral argument in front of the United States Supreme Court on presidential immunity that was being broadcast. I wanted to hear it and digest it and

understand it because obviously we talk about it and we talk about these issues. But at the same time, I didn't wanna miss anything that was going on in court. So I'm reading all the tweets that are the people like Adam Clasfeld and others are providing from, almost like a transcript from inside the courtroom. So I'm like doing, I'm listening with one ear and I'm reading with another and trying to follow along.

And the third thing that happened that isn't getting as much reporting, but I just want to talk about it every minute that I can, is the Harvey Weinstein decision came down and that was overturned and I think intentionally dropped during the news of all of this because it was so that way it could get buried, because it is outrageous that that case was reversed. I'm not gonna talk about it in detail. I'm not gonna go into it. But the one thing I do wanna just put a pin in for everybody is the reason it was reversed

is because the court of appeals in a split decision ruled that some of the prior bad acts because the court of appeals in a split decision ruled that some of the prior bad acts that the prosecution used in that case, the other sexual assault accusations coupled with the fact that they were going to be allowed to cross examine him on other bad acts, essentially deprived him of his right to a fair trial and it was reversed. And I bring that up because now that that is happening

in the midst of this trial, it's happened after Judge Marshawn ruled on the stand of all the same, if Trump takes the stand, what he can ask him about, and these prior bad acts, what they can talk about. That is now the law in New York. That is the highest court in New York that has come down. And so it's binding on Judge Murchon. And so I just put a pin in it because regardless of whether he changes his ruling or not, he's definitely analyzing that case. He's the judge. He's analyzing it vis-a-vis Donald Trump. You might see a change in his ruling or you might see him buttress his record with why

he believes these things are important. But it's something to just not forget because it is a part of this case now because this case has mollineaux evidence These prior bad acts that are coming in and are part of the case and if he testifies there are things that he that they can cross examine him in the civil the civil eagyn Carroll case the the judge and Goran civil fraud case those things things. So I just want to remind people and just put it out there that it could potentially have some impact on this case. Regardless, the judge is going to make sure

that when he charges the jury, that when he allows certain pieces of evidence in, when he makes a record, that it comports with this new law that just came down in the Harvey case. So I just wanted to kind of mention that. Now, going to your second question, what do we expect? I think what we expect is more cross-examination, obviously, of this lawyer who, you know, this Keith Davidson, he's going to, when he finishes his direct, he'll be on cross. And I think they still have some direct left of him.

And that could last, let's see, tomorrow's Thursday. I think he's going to go most of the morning, if not up until, I bet he goes until lunch, because first thing in the morning, they have a hearing on the gag, the last four violations of the gag order. So that's what we're going to see Thursday morning. I think the judge will find him in contempt again for more, but he's not going to put him in yet because he hadn't done the warning yet. So then we'll finish up with Mr. Davidson.

And then I think he could go all day potentially because he's pretty substantive. So depending on how long the cross is and the redirect and all that, that could take up Thursday. And then Friday, I think you're going to see more records, witnesses. I mean, prosecutors think on Fridays in general, they're not going to want to put on a really substantive witness because their direct would take most of the day. Even if it doesn't take most of the day, cross starts on Friday afternoon. You don't want to give the defense, I hate to say it, the whole weekend to really prep and work on their cross.

You're not going to put a real substantive witness on on a Friday if you can help it, if scheduling permits. So I think you're going to see more record type witnesses. You're going to have like bankers and bank records and all the documents because this is kind of a documents case in the end. And then I think you're going to see next week focused on proving the false business records. You're gonna see people from the Trump Organization and testifying about ledger entries and invoices and bank records.

And I think it's gonna be a falsifying business records type week. And then you're gonna see the catch and kill scheme. I think that's when you're going to see the Hope Hicks, because she was very much involved in the campaign and the talking about suppressing stories, etc., and getting these stories so that they don't come out during the campaign. But I think that's going to be the order of things. I think it's going to be the falsified business records witnesses and then the catch and kill witnesses that would include Michael Cohen, who I think you're going

to see toward the end. If I were trying this case, I'd want to corroborate everything he says. I'd want him to be, I wouldn't want to rely on him for any facts. I'd want all the facts to come in from everybody else. He would provide the color. everybody else, he would provide the color and then end with somebody really strong. I don't know, maybe end with Stormy Daniels. I'm not sure. But that's how I would see the rest of the trial going. I heard a prosecutor talk about ending with some of these other clips of Donald Trump's own words. After you have Michael Cohen, after you cross-examine him, all the clips of Donald Trump in real

time saying what a great lawyer Michael Cohen was, how important Michael Cohen was to him. Karen, would you do that before Cohen testifies? We saw one of that from the C-SPAN archivist. Do you show more of that you think before Cohen testifies or after? It's a great question. I think both. I think, like I said, I would want to put in every single, everything substantive that Michael Cohen is going to testify about.

I would want to prove that ahead of time. I wouldn't want to roll. I know it. Look, I know he's part of the Midas network and he, you know, he's a friend to many on the network. I've never really talked to him or met him or anything like that. Although the firm I work for does represent him. So I'm recused from that case.

I have nothing to do with that case. I don't advise him or know anything about the case. So I say all that because just objectively, he's got some serious issues as a witness. And so as a prosecutor, I would think of him, frankly, more as an exhibit in a way than a witness because you can't really rely on it. Anything that relies only on him, I think,

is a little bit tricky for a jury. So I'd wanna corroborate everything he's going to say that's substantive from other witnesses. And there are other witnesses, there's co-conspirators, look, the records are what they are. And that's black and white. And there's also a lot of text messages and emails that were sent contemporaneous to the time.

Like witnesses can come in and talk and testify and you can accuse them of lying. You can accuse them of changing their story or you can accuse them of having a bad memory even. But to the extent that you have anything in black and white front that was contemporaneous to the time that it happened, I think that is also very powerful. So if I'm the prosecutor, I'd want to just put everything in that I can ahead of time. And then including Stormy Daniels, actually, now that I think about it, I would probably, I think I'd probably put her on first before Michael Cohen. I wouldn't put Karen McDougall on,

nor would I put the doorman on. You don't need them. And I also think that by putting them on, frankly, you run the risk of potentially putting too much in of this prior bad act stuff, and you run afoul to Weinstein. So the fact that you can mention it, talk about it, it had to do with the election, it's relevant,

it's significant, but having them testify, I think might be a bridge too far, kind of like what the judge did with the Access Hollywood tape. He said, you can talk about it, but I'm not letting you admit it. So if I'm the prosecutor, I probably wouldn't call them as witnesses,

because again, I don't want my case reversed if there's a conviction either. So I would I'd probably not call them as witnesses. And I would I would save Michael not for the very last but for close to the end. And then I'd want to again, end on a high you want to end on a real high note, and something that you really want the jury to think about, focus on and know, because after that comes summations and the defense goes first. It's not like the feds where the prosecutor goes first

and then they have, I call it a sandwich summation. It goes prosecutor, defense, and then the prosecution gets to rebut it again. That's how the feds do it. That's not how you do it in New York State. In New York State, the defense goes first, then the prosecutor goes to the bathroom and throws up because they just heard all the things that are terrible about the case. And you're like, oh my God, how am I going to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? And then you get, you know, splash cold water on your face. You remind yourself of what your summation is and you go out and you say it and you say

it to the jury. But, and that's how it works. But yeah, that's how I think I would do it. You know, I still don't, I see where the defense was kind of going with Pecker. We'll see their cross with Keith Davidson. So far, not very impressive. I thought their opening statement was not that compelling. I thought the cross on Pecker, what were they going to cross them on really? But not that compelling. We'll see what they do

with Keith Davidson, how they treat that. I'm just curious to see where they're going with this and what their plan is. But we will, of course, be keeping all of the legal efforts up to date on everything happening there. Finally, I just wanted to talk briefly about what's going on in the Southern District of Florida case against Donald Trump for the willful retention of national defense information, including our nuclear secrets, as well as war plans that Donald Trump stole. They're Donald Trump's defenses that he has the right to steal anything he wants, and

it's not stealing if you were once holding the presidency. It belongs to you. You could declassify things with your mind, and you can convert our nuclear secrets into personal records. We'll see if that has a receptive audience with the modern day right-wing Supreme Court. I'm sure the United States Supreme Court would be glad to have our nuclear secrets become personal property of people. And I'm not saying that sarcastically. I think that's the status of our right-wing Supreme Court based, Karen, on why this 2016 situation was so significant, why this case is so important is that the

dynamics of the Supreme Court, the rights that had been taken away from Americans, it traces back to Donald Trump winning certain states by about 80,000 votes, losing the popular vote. And would that have been the result had these facts been known and there wasn't catch and kill and Trump falsifying business records. But I digress going back to Judge Eileen Cannon. She previously held a hearing on March 1st, which she only recently set, to which Trump's lawyers had requested that that date be moved based on the Manhattan criminal trial taking place. She's yet to reach any significant rulings really about anything. I mean, she's addressed certain motions to dismiss by Trump and his co-defendants, but

she was supposed to rule on this trial date. And Karen, you got, it's May 1st, as we're recording this, you know, it's May 1st, trials May 20th. This is a federal trial. How does a judge hold a hearing on March 1st, indicate she's going to move the trial date and just as a matter of just basic courtesy and just the most basic of diligence? How do you not change the trial date? There's a hundred things that need to be done when you're preparing for a trial.

And again, setting aside even this case and her horrific rulings and all of the things she's done that I've been very, very critical of, and we've been here. The most basic thing is organizing your docket. And you haven't moved the trial date when your last hearing, which March 1st, and you indicated you were going to move it. I don't care. I'll leave this with you. What do you think she's like? Is she disorganized? Is she trying to pull something here? Like what, what do you have any clue what it is? Have you ever seen anything like this? I've never seen anything like it. I mean, in federal court, again, just talking the difference between state court and federal court in state court, it's cases are on for trial and people show

up and say, Oh, we're not ready or I need time. And these cases kind of churn and it's frustrating because if you want a case to go to trial, you don't always know. And the judges are quite lenient actually sometimes about setting a trial date on certain cases. And, but in federal court, it's totally different. When there is a date for a trial, on certain cases. But in federal court, it's totally different. When there is a date for a trial, that's it.

It's kind of like the way Judge Mershon did Trump's case where he said, no, this is the date. He picked it almost a year in advance and said, everybody clear your calendars. This is the date we're going. And so judges will signal when that's the case. And in federal court, that's always the case. The trial date is a real date. It's never kind of this wishy washy, loosey goosey.

So to see a judge, a federal judge do it like that, I've just never seen anything like it. Federal judges keep incredible control over their courtroom and tremendous order in their courtroom. And it's not this loosey goosey. I mean, there's no way, even if everyone showed up and said, we're ready to go to trial, the case can't go to trial. It's not ready.

As you said, there's lots of rulings that haven't happened, hearings that haven't happened, motions that haven't. I mean, the case is just not ready. So for her to have a trial date, that's not real and not set a trial date is just, I almost don't know what to make of it because it's so head scratching and I've never seen anything like it, but the case is not going. I don't know when it's going. It just doesn't, I don't know what's happening on the case. It just doesn't seem to be moving. It seems to just be in this weird posture where she's not pushing it. And she's making these very, very odd rulings when she does. She cares more about making certain things public than she does about moving

the case along and moving it forward. So clearly no there's no sense of urgency, but there's also no sense of honesty. Just set a trial date. It's clear it's not happening May 20th or 19th or whatever the date is. It's not happening this year. You know, I don't think it could happen this year based on how she has not ruled. So just be honest about it. Be transparent and set a trial date. That's the thing about the justice system is it belongs to the American people. It doesn't belong just to the government or to the judge or to the defendant. It's really the American people who have a right to know what's happening in a public. The right to a public trial is guaranteed

in the Constitution because, and that's why reporters and the press and everybody, they have a First Amendment right to know everything that's happening. And that's why they fight to get to the sidebars and to be able to know what's happening when they're talking on the bench, why you have to make a motion to seal something, and why it is. Because it's not just like, oh, we'll show it to the defense and we'll have a protective order. No, that's not good enough. There has to be findings on the record about why something is sealed and not matter of

public view. And the press will often make motions to open these things up because there is this constitutional right and part of that is the right to have honesty and transparency and legitimacy in the court system. And she just is not, she is absolutely being disingenuous again. And you know, look, it's, I still struggle with criticizing a judge, especially a federal judge, but any judge, because I have such respect for them. I in some ways revere them, you know, you call them your honor.

And like, there's, I have friends who are judges, and I still call them judge, even if they're retired, you know, just because it's such an honor. It truly is an honor. And the honor is because you're not an advocate. You don't do things based on an agenda. You're not political. You literally call balls and strikes and do justice. You do the right thing. The prosecutor might argue for prison and the defense says no, set them free. And but you as the judge, you're like, you know what, maybe what's the just thing here is something else, right? And I'm gonna do what's just, what's right, and rise above the whole thing. And that's the role of a judge, that's the role of the court.

And so for there to be such just dishonesty in this particular court and seemingly a political agenda just is so upsetting and I struggle with it. And I struggle with being able to say what I really feel because she is a judge and she was, you know, she's somebody who just, I am trained to revere the position, the court and the institution,

but she really is making it hard and it's challenging for me, given how she's handling this case. Well, Karen, you and I will be covering all things Trump criminal trial tomorrow. We hope everyone's been appreciating these updates here on Legal AAF and on the Midas Touch Network. I wanna give a special thanks to all of you out there

for spreading the word and letting others know about this network, about the Legal AF show, the audio podcast. Make sure you don't just subscribe here on the Midas Touch YouTube. It's free to subscribers. You just hit subscribe. But also wherever you get audio podcasts,

it's super simple. Just wherever you listen to audio podcasts, just search Legal AF, look for our logo, and then make sure you hit the plus sign or the subscribe button, and make sure you get the audio version as well. And that goes a long way to help our, to help with the algorithm right there.

I wanna thank everybody for watching. Karen Friedman-Ignifilo and I will be back tomorrow with more analysis. Thanks to our pro-democracy sponsors. You can check that out as well. And we'll see you next time on Legal.io. Shout out to the Midas Mighty. Thanks for letting me do this with you, Karen.

Popak, we wish you the best. Enjoy your time off. Have a good one.