Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump LOSES CONTROL of Trial in FINAL MOMENTS…

Episode Date: May 16, 2024

Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back for the Midweek edition of the top-rated Legal AF podcast. On this episode, the anchors discuss and debate: (1) the Trump Trial, including Michael Cohen’s direct examination and the effectiveness of Trump’s cross examination and how the prosecutors should handle the “missing” Allen Weisselberg problem, (2) how the Bankruptcy Court judge will in the end liquidate all of Giuliani’s assets and has denied him the right to even appeal the $148 million dollar defamation judgment against him, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Join the Legal AF Patreon: https://Patreon.com/LegalAF Thanks to our sponsors: Smileactives: Visit https://smileactives.com/legalaf to get this exclusive offer! Smalls: Head to https://Smalls.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF at checkout for 50% off your first order PLUS free shipping! HumanN: Find out how you can get a free 30-day supply on bundles of new SuperBeets Heart Chews Advanced and save 15% for a limited time only by going to https://SUPERBEETSRADIO.COM, promo code LEGALAF 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! 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

What's behind the Dairy Farmers of Canada Blue Cow logo on your favorite dairy products? It's high Canadian standards, which means we meet 42 food safety requirements, we work with animal care experts, and work towards a sustainable future. That's dairy farming forward. DQ presents, how to officially start your summer. Step one, head to DQ. Step two, try the new summer blizzard menu. And step three, dig into new peanut butter cookie dough party, new picnic peach gobbler, and more. Make it official, only at DQ.

Happy tastes good. This episode is brought to you by Secret. Secret deodorant gives you 72 hours of clinically proven odor protection, free of aluminum, parabens, dyes, talc, and baking soda. It's made with pH balancing minerals and crafted with skin conditioning oils. So whether you're going for a run or just running late,

do what life throws your way and smell like you didn't. Find secret at your nearest Walmart or Shopper's Drug Mart today. At Miele, our partner is the planet. Until June 30th, every Miele dishwasher purchased supports the planting and preservation of Canadian forests through the Miele Forest Initiative. Join us in making an impact today for a better tomorrow.

Visit Miele.ca to learn more. With Ancestry, putting together your family story is made easy. Using an intuitive family tree builder, you could discover and preserve new details, photos, and stories about your ancestors. Uncover new relatives and branches of the family with automated ancestry hints. Connect the dots with access to millions

of historical documents, and then share what you find in one central place. Visit Ancestry.ca and start discovering your family story today. Day 512 of the Trump Trial. No, it only feels that way. It's really now going to be Legal AF Midweek, the political beatdown edition. Come on, Karen. Give me some gloves. She doesn't want your gloves. Yeah, right.

Okay, no gloves. There we go. This is the midweek of Legal AF. We're gonna talk about what else? The Trump trial. It seems like it sucked all the air out of the room about anything else going on anywhere else anyway. It matters not just to New Yorkers, it matters to the electorate.

And Michael Cohen, for as much as we talked about Michael Cohen and we prayed about Michael Cohen, for as much as we talked about Michael Cohen and we prayed about Michael Cohen's testimony, Michael Cohen did remarkably well in every way, on his direct, in what has been about a third of the way through the cross-examination. And if I were the prosecutors, and I want to ask my friend and colleague and former prosecutor from that office her opinion about the prosecution. If I were the prosecutors and a little fairy came down and said, this is what I'm going to give you

for the Michael Cohen testimony so far, I would be like, I'll take it. We'll talk about his testimony, his artful way of handling cross-examination that Todd, where Todd Blanche, the lawyer for Donald Trump, made it all about him at the beginning and all about the Midas Touch Network and all about our merchandise store, which was an interesting way to start your cross-examination.

And then where we think the ball has now landed in the back and forth between these two seasoned trial lawyers, Karen and me, talking about that and other developments in and outside the courtroom around it as Donald Trump continues to make his trial a campaign rally and a tryout for the vice presidency. You want to be vice president? Come on down and sit in the back of the courthouse and then go outside of the bicycle racks and make statements against the witnesses and the trial judge and the judgethouse and then go outside of the bicycle racks and make statements against the witnesses and the trial judge and the judge's daughter and anything else that you can think of because the Republicans aren't busy passing any legislation

that's helping Americans. So they might as well show up at the Trump trial and do that which Donald Trump has been gagged from doing, which is criticizing live witnesses, especially in real time while they're testifying. And then when we're done talking about how well Michael Cohen is doing, and more importantly than that,

or as importantly than that, Michael being one of 12 or 13 witnesses already, how do we think the case is doing? That's what people come to Legal AF for. How's the trial going? How's the prosecution going? What can we glean from what's going on in the room to the things that we think are interesting and aren't going well with the jury? Are they really not going well with the jury? I don't know Karen and I'll talk about it

We'll figure it out here on the legal AF podcast and then we got to talk about Rudy Giuliani Rudy Giuliani tried in his bankruptcy to have the bankruptcy judge judge Lane who I know I don't know if Karen knows him, Judge Lane, who's usually no-nonsense. And there was a lot of nonsense over the last four or five months, which I was surprised by. Because as I've said before, there's no federal judge with more powers other than the United States Supreme Court than a federal bankruptcy court judge. It is amazing the powers that they have, inherent authority that they have under the bankruptcy code to do all sorts of things that even regular federal judges can't do. And yet Rudy Giuliani was just playing fast and loose with the rules again, flouting the orders, flouting the requirements, not filing his financial

statements, filing ones that were incomplete, filing bank statements that were for the wrong year, not doing a darn thing to sell Marshall his assets or sell his property and pay the creditors, including the judgment creditors, mother daughter team, Shea Moss and Ruby Friedman, the defamed election workers in Georgia who are holding onto $148 million judgment running with interest against Rudy Giuliani. And he acts like he doesn't have a care in the world. Get fired from his radio show? Why not?

Publish a book about how to go after Joe Biden and the Biden-Kram family? Sure. Sell an asset? I don't think so. And this was all troubling to any casual observer of bankruptcy processes, let alone the one about Rudy Giuliani. Well, Judge Lane had enough, and he's also had enough with Rudy Giuliani delaying the inevitable, which is paying anything towards the judgment for Ruby Friedman

and Shane Moss. We'll cover all of that and so much more on Legal AF only on the Midas Touch Network and with my colleague and friend, somebody I'm gonna see really soon. I'm really happy about that, Karen Friedman-Iknifilo. Hey, Karen. Hello, how are you doing, Bobot? Doing great. And thank you for doing this today. I know you're in a sort of cramped quarters there, and on the road and we, the audience appreciates it. And you're getting you're getting quite a reputation for the backdrops whether it be in a moving van hurtling down some New York highway or

the it's it's uh that's sorry I'm moving around so much I'm just trying to shaky cam this is this is shaky cam recording. Yeah, you know what? Let me put this down right here. There we go. Okay. No problem. No problem. Much better. But I want people to know whether she's on the law and order set or the back of a van

or a taxi cab or a black car hurling across New York. There's a reason. It's because it's like we're like the postman. Neither rain nor sleep nor dark of night are gonna stop Legal AF from going on the air. Whether Karen's doing the morning and afternoon rap for the New York trial in between her other gigs and practicing law the way I do. I just wanna tell you,

and I'm sure it'll come up in the chat now, I really appreciate everything you do with us and for us and for your personal friendship. I can't express it enough to you. Aw, thank you, Popok. It means the world to me. Yeah, I mean, look, you know, and I'm very appreciative of you guys so much,

but also of all of our listeners, watchers, and followers that, you know, they are so encouraging. You know, and I was so worried at some of the, you know, the train, the car, whatever, and now I'm tragically visiting a family member in the hospital. And, you know, it's one of those things that like either you could not do it, or you can do it and not have the best Wi-Fi connection or the best backdrop, but everybody is incredibly supportive of that and understanding and appreciates that we are going to provide the information even in not perfect conditions. So I'm appreciative of you in particular, Popak, for always being so accommodating with

time and that sort of thing. So thank you. Yeah, my pleasure. One of the great, as long as we're continuing to pat each other on the back in the network, one of the great joys of mine has been all of my peers here at the Midas Touch Network from the brothers. I started my relationship with Ben.

It morphed into a relationship with you. And then the brothers, and then the production team, and Salty, and Jeremy, and Sidney and everybody else who literally drops everything at a moment's notice to jump on. And we cover for each other. Michael Cohen was a little busy yesterday. I don't know if people knew that. And he couldn't do political beatdown. And there's Dina Dahl. And continuing the theme, Ben's going to be a little tied up on Saturday for

his nuptials. And a number of us are going to be there. Yes, there'll be photos. And I got to do like the Saturday show with not with the not with the groom to be but Dean is gonna step in because you'll be in the air and so Dean is gonna step in and do it with me on Saturday but that's the network man it's like you know we're you know we're putting it what was the old I'm really gonna take myself now what was the old Judy Garland and Mickey Mickey Rooney we're putting on a play we're putting on a musical I mean this is what we do and so here we are so let me let me be very

very mindful of your time because we do have Karen for a short amount of time today for the reason that she mentioned. So let's dive into the trial. I don't think you and I are gonna be opposed to debating this, but let me throw out, you and I didn't talk beforehand, so let me throw it out there.

I am personally very impressed with Michael Cohen, how he's composed himself, how he's responded to things, the way he's adopted his response technique has been for me very honest, very authentic. He admits what he obviously has to, but he does it in a way that I think is almost endearing. Especially when by contrast, Todd Blanchard, I think he's doing a terrible job. He made it all about him in the cross-examination. We'll talk about the direct first, but in the cross-examination, it became all about, you don't like me, and you called me a little shit. Or whatever he said from social media, that's how he let off things.

I would not have let off with that. I would have let off with Michael's well-documented issues in places presided over by judges and in cases to kind of orient the room to who Michael Cohen was, but that's not what they did. They almost, for me, played well into Michael Cohen's hands. And Michael, who I thought did a gentleman's be in testimony in the New York attorney general

civil fraud case, of course, the result was an A plus $465 million judgment, but I thought Michael himself seemed very nervous in that one, sort of shrunken. But now for this one, at this moment, all ego laid at the courthouse steps before he entered the room and just I thought did a very, very good job. It's the best job I think the prosecutors could have asked for in putting Michael on. But that's enough about me. Let's turn to you, Karen. What did you think about the direct and Michael's performance and then where Todd

Blanchett looks like he's about a third of his way into his cross-examination. And again, to remind people, we're on a dark day today, a down day today, and the trial is scheduled. So he's off on Wednesdays to accommodate legal AF, I think. And then on top of that, there's like a short day tomorrow, and then there's Barron graduating fundraiser in Minnesota Friday. So we're getting the bulk of what we need to talk about right here on Midweek. Go ahead Karen, sorry about that. So one of my absolute favorite things about you, Michael Popok, is the sun literally never sets in Michael Popok's world. It's true. Everything is always positive,

everything is always great. And it's amazing actually. And it's a way that I aspire to be because, you know, I'm the one who's always like, well, it's very early. We still have a long way to go. My co-host, the Grim Reaper. I know. But it's just, it's so, I just love it. It's literally the sun never sets in Popok world or Popok land.

Anyway, so it is still early. So I am I am a guardedly optimistic at how Michael how Michael Cohen is doing. But it is still very, very early in the cross. And I think that tomorrow's cross examination is what's going to make or break this case. Unfortunately or fortunately, there Michael Cohen is a critical witness in this case.

And the prosecution pre corroborated absolutely everything they could pre corroborate, which the direct of Michael Cohen was just brilliant in my opinion, the way they set this up. And I think they realized that he was going to be key to this case. And so what they did was they pre-corroborated him.

The whole beginning of the trial was a setup for his direct examination. All these quote unquote boring witnesses where they introduced phone records and that no one knew what they were about or why they were relevant or text messages or calendar entries, all the things that they had to painstakingly put into evidence. It's boring. It takes time. It interrupts the flow. You don't want to interrupt Michael Cohen's flow by he's telling this really

riveting part of the story and all of a sudden you're like, oh, hold on, directing your, you know, I'd like to show you what's in what's marked for identification as people's exhibit 53. Do you recognize this? Yes, I do. What do you recognize this to be? You know, is this a fair and accurate representation of, you know, blah, blah, blah? Is this what it's like, and all of a sudden his flow is interrupted. And all of a sudden you're like going down the rabbit hole of some phone record that the defense didn't wanna stipulate to, fine.

So they did a really smart job at introducing all of that into evidence, which means you don't have to interrupt his flow. It means they're already in evidence. And so, because there's these foundational questions that you have to ask in order to get already in evidence. And so because there's these foundational questions that you have to ask in order to get something into evidence. And that's like, it's like a technicality, but it has to be done.

So they did that all in advance through other witnesses. So every time he spoke and his entire flow of what happened and they just were like, and okay, is this an example? Is this what you mean? When you say that this recording was interrupted by a phone call, is this this an example? Is this what you mean? When you say that this recording was interrupted by a phone call, is this the phone call? Is this your phone records?

Is this the time that it happened? Okay, great. And so it just kind of showed to the jury. Number one, it showed that that evidence got to be talked about twice. So that's always a good thing to reinforce strong evidence to a jury. But number two, it showed that everything he said was corroborated.

It's corroborated. It's corroborated. And it's not that corroboration is necessary. If you believe someone and their credibility, that's enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't have to have corroboration in New York State Court for a criminal conviction. However, in this particular case, because there are some obvious issues with Michael Cohen's

credibility and his bias towards or against, I should say, Donald Trump, and that there was some extremely obvious to anyone who's a lawyer or a practicing lawyer of what those cross-examination areas would be. And those were so obvious that the prosecution absolutely predicted every single area and decided to take the sting out of it, decided to deflate the balloon before it could blow up. There's no aha, isn't it true that you did this,

that you did that? It all came out and the prosecution is not hiding from it. Michael Cohen's not hiding from it. They're like, yes, I did all these things and I am who I am, just like Starrie Daniels, you know, this authentically owning

who she is and not hiding from it, not running from it, not sugar coating it. And so they set themselves up brilliantly and perfectly. And so I thought the direct of Michael Cohen was just absolutely brilliant on the part of Susan Hoefinger, who has spent most her career

as a trained criminal defense attorney. So I think that gave her a great, she was a prosecutor too early on in her career, but this gave her a great perspective in terms of what the most effective way to present Michael Cohen would be. And because she was a defense attorney for so long, she knows what the cross would be. So she was able to prepare him and prepare herself for what, what to put into evidence, how to corroborate him and how to handle all of the issues in the case.

Now, before you move past direct, what was the most compelling one or two, whatever you like, what do you think Susan was able to establish with Michael that resonated with the jury? That's a great question. I think that, I think what resonated was, it's a great question. I think that the two things, number one, it was clear through Michael's testimony that of course Trump knew about this and that wasn't clear before. You know, that wasn't, it was, it was obvious and there was no other explanation, but it was clear that, yeah, Trump knew about this.

He was intimately involved in all of it. And he caused the falsification of business records to occur. Now, I say the word caused because the other direct and cross examinations of the other witnesses was all about, well, Donald Trump doesn't know that there's only a drop down of this, not that. And for five minutes there, you had some people worried, oh my God, are we gonna be able to prove

the falsification of business records charge? Right? Because that's what this is about in the end. This is about calling it legal fees when it's not legal fees, when it's the actual false entries in the records. And they were doing kind of a decent job at distracting people in terms of, well, how would Donald Trump know that Alan Weisselberg and Michael Cohen decided to call it this

or invoice it like that or do it a different way? And that was kind of a good point, right? They did what they needed to do there. And there was a few people who were a little bit concerned and they were like, oh my God, we have to tie Donald Trump to that. But when you reread the law and you reread the jury charge, it's not just making the false entry.

It can, it's also if you cause the false entry to be made. And Michael Cohen did a brilliant job, I think at on direct at, at, at, um, closing that small gap and showing that this absolutely without a doubt, he, they could have easily just paid back the $130,000, right? Right. And this wouldn't have been a crime, you know, just paying back, let Michael pay it, pay it back as an NDA, whatever. And then you're done. But no, they decided they wanted this to, they wanted to hide it. They didn't want to have to declare it to the campaign They didn't want to have to pay taxes on it

They didn't want to have to have it tied back to Donald Trump And so what did they do they structured it so that we're gonna, you know, call it legal payments We're gonna gross it up for the income We're gonna, you know set it up so that it you pay it back over time and call it something different You know that they even have this, I think it was exhibit 35 and exhibit 36 was like the best exhibit I've ever seen, two exhibits I've ever seen in my life. When do criminals actually draw a picture

with float charts and call it? Yeah. Here's the bank, you're sitting in the getaway car, you opened the vault. Exactly. You gave me the cashaway car, you open the vault. Exactly. Hand me the cash. Exactly. Exactly.

So, so, so yeah, so that's why. Let me jump on, on jumping on with you. This is exactly this attempted sleight of hand of trying to make it look like Alan Weisselberg, who we'll talk about him in a minute, and Michael Cohen went rogue and did this of their own accord out of the goodness of their heart to pay off Stormy Daniels and recorded in the books and records without the boss knowing. They tried this sleight of hand, this magic trick, in front of the jury two years ago when Susan Necklis was also the lawyer for the Trump organization major subsidiaries for tax fraud and business record

fraud. And the jury came back with a 17 count conviction, because they didn't buy that. So the fact that they're trying to pull this elephant out of a hat again, and try to make it look like well, Donald Trump is just so busy, that he would never know, right? We're not saying he pulled out a pen and entered it into the books. We're saying that, as you said, he caused it, a part of the conspiracy,

led the conspiracy to do all of this. Did you have another direct gold nugget that got developed by Susan Hoffinger and Michael? I mean, I- There's so many. Yeah, exactly. There's so many, you know, I think, I think what Michael Cohen really did a great job is painting the urgency around the election. In other words, if there was any doubt that this was election related, there's, there's no doubt that this was

about the election and only about the election. And I thought Michael Cohen did a really great job at, again, eliminating this- I agree with you. About Melania part. If he did nothing else, tying Donald Trump as the leader of that conspiracy to cause those books and entries, and then the second crime, right?

The second shooter, the election interference, which they have to prove in order to make the felony. That's Michael Cohen. I mean, that's why Alvin Bragg finally had to get right with Michael after he wasn't originally, when Mark Pomerantz was pushing him, about having Michael have to prove some fundamental elements of the crime. Let's switch to cross. I have to laugh already. Todd Blanche, why don't you outline from your perspective the cardinal sins and violations of cross-examination 101 that Todd Blanche committed in front of the jury and then how Michael Cohen is artfully handling that cross-examination. With the caveat, I agree with you, we're only a third of the jury and then how Michael Cohen is artfully handling that cross-examination.

With the caveat, I agree with you, we're only a third of the way up the mountain. We're not even at base camp three. I get you. And we got to get to the top of Mount Everest. There's a long way to go without oxygen. But how do you like the approach so far and how Michael's doing. So there's great lawyering, there's good lawyering, there's bad lawyering, and then there's ineffective assistance of counsel, which can cause a reversal. Just to give you the whole scale of where lawyers fall. I thought you were going to end with, and then there's Todd Blanch. No, I'm giving you the whole scale. Here's Todd Blanch. Now, I'm giving you the whole scale.

Had Donald Trump gone with Alina Haba, for example, as his lawyer in a criminal case and was convicted, I actually think they could be set up for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. That's where I think she falls, that type of lawyer. And I just think she really is not qualified to be a criminal defense attorney based on what I've seen in her other civil matters.

And then you have really good lawyering. And I think the surprise really, really good lawyer that I've seen so far is Emile Beauvais. He's done a few cross examinations. He's surgical, he gets in and out, he's effective. For Trump, for those that are tuning in. Trump's lawyer that is the partner colleague of Todd Blanch in their office. Yeah. Yes. And he's not considered one of the lead lawyers. He was someone no one had ever really known of as a criminal defense attorney. Whereas Todd Blanch and Susan Necklis are well known

and have really good reputations amongst defense attorneys. But I think I think Emile Bove is doing a really good job, actually, and is kind of rising up as this good defense attorney cross examiner. Susan Necklis, when she cross examined Stormy Daniels, I thought it was not her best cross. And I got the impression, because of what I think the tactical mistakes that were made, if I were a defense attorney, now I'm thinking about it from that perspective, I got the impression that that was largely driven by the client, that, because I think she's good enough

that if she were permitted to do her own tactical cross-examination, I don't think she would have gone into certain areas that she went into or taken a different tactic. I could be wrong, I don't know. I just it just seemed like she's better than what I saw there. And then we get to Todd Blanch and Michael Cohen. And again, it's early.

He has all of today to prepare because there's no court on Wednesday. So we'll see what happens Thursday. But I mean, there is a cross examination of Michael Cohen that is blistering and, you know, frankly, potentially devastating to the prosecution and and Todd Blanch didn't even scratch the surface. In fact, if anything, he started out in the weirdest way. He made it personal, which, you know, you started out in the weirdest way. He made it personal, which, you know, you don't ever want it to be personal.

That's very strange. It's almost like you're pitting your credibility against the witness to the jury. And that's not at all. It shouldn't be about you. Um, and, and he asked, he asked Michael Coney started it with, you know, you called me some name and I can't remember what it was and, you know, Michael Cohen, he started it with, you know, you called me some name and I can't remember what it was. And, you know, Michael Cohen's like, yeah, sounds like something I would do, you know, like a dipshit or something like that.

I don't remember. But, you know, like you have something against me. Like you never make it personal. Or a prosecutor. That's just not appropriate. And it's, more importantly, not effective. And then he, you know, look, the prosecutor. That's just not appropriate. And it's more importantly, not effective. And then he, you know, look, the, the, And the judge, the stay in the, what's his name? Blanche got three objections out of the first two questions and they both got shut down. He knows better than that, but go ahead.

No. And also when the, when the, when the transcript came out later, cause they were up at sidebar when the transcript came up, came out later, when the transcript came out later, because they were up at sidebar, when the transcript came out later, apparently Judge Marchand was talking about, like, don't make this personal, you know, what the heck, like even Judge Marchand was surprised by this. So yeah, it's totally, totally bizarre. And I just don't think, you know, he went right into this whole, you know, first of all, he then started talking about Midas Touch, right? And the Midas Touch Network and you know, his podcast, and he got appreciate, we appreciate but he got some basic facts wrong that, you know, anyone should be able to tell what it is. And Michael Cohen corrected him.

He attributed our merch store, for example, to Michael Cohen and it wasn't good. Sorry. No, no, no, I didn't mean to interrupt. It had nothing to do with him. And the reason that's significant is it makes you look bad to the jury. It's like, well, when you're using something

to cross-examine someone and let's say they don't come clean, you want the jury to think you're right and they're wrong. But if you got it wrong, that's not good. You lose credibility to the jury. And don't forget, he's already one of the best judges. How do you get such fundamental things wrong?

And then you've gone, first mistake, I agree with you, was going down the rabbit hole of let's go over all of your tic tocs, and all of your social media postings about my client. And let's get into, you know, Von shits and pants and turds and orange dust and whatever the Michael likes to use on his things, which is very entertaining. That's not where I would have started. But by the way, as long as we're talking about,

because people are now interested, and as I joked on my ex post recently, welcome Todd Blanch, our new head of marketing for Midas Touch. So we do have an actual MidasTouchStore.com. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Salty. You know where my head was going. So if you wanna buy the stuff

that only Michael Cohen has talked about and Top Blanch doesn't understand, go to store.midastouch.com. You can get all of our legal AF stuff and convict 45 and all the rest of the stuff that now is part of legal lore. But I digress. In fact, Karen, when we come back,

let's talk about not only the cross, but as you started to do, what the impact is going to be so far on the jury of Michael's testimony, what he's testified to, and the beginning of the cross. Maybe Todd Blanch can recover, maybe. Or maybe because of what you said earlier about Susan Necklace and he being warped and influenced by a greater force, which is their client, about how to conduct this trial. You know, because Donald Trump's track record as a trial lawyer is so enviable. I mean, he's 0 and 80. He's lost every grand jury and juror that he's ever faced for hundreds of millions of dollars, but sure, he's paying the bills. I'm sorry, his followers are paying the bills.

So listen to him. We'll talk about all that and more. But first, a break for our sponsors. Have you ever wished you had whiter and brighter smile? Well, before you've been visited dentists, 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, 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 smile actives.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 smile actives. 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, like fruit trees, palm trees, evergreens, houseplants,

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 LE code LegalAF at checkout. That's an additional 15% off at fastgrowingtrees.com

using the code LegalAF at checkout. Fastgrowingtrees.com code LegalAF. Offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. Okay, we're back. All right. Let's let, so what do you think, let's talk about the jurors, right?

We got nine jurors. Two of them are lawyers, although one's a young corporate lawyer and another lawyer. They're not litigators, they're not trial lawyers, but they're smart. They went to law school, they live on the Upper East Side, the Upper West Side, Gramercy, wherever they live.

And then a bunch of other people that are in there that are all taking notes. Still the reporting is no eye contact with Donald Trump as they leave the room, which is always a terrible sign by the way. I mean, no smiles. Nobody's making a gesture at all. There is some giggling and tittering when Todd Blanch had to say things like, you know, Cheeto dusted whatever and turd and all this stuff. One of the guys we know, one of the jurors on the panel gets his news partially from Michael Cohen at Red Yes, Donald Trump spokesman also follows Michael Cohen.

So people know who he is in New York. So how do you think this is being received by the jury? That's really what matters at the end of the day. We're talking about performative art and we're giving critiques about, because we're lawyer geeks, about this and that. How do you think it matters to the people that matter, which is the jury? Look, juries have this incredible ability to sift through the bullshit and only see what's authentic. They notice everything. They notice the fact, for example,

that a room full of Donald Trump, entourage type people like Vivek Ramaswamy and those types of people came in late and all came in at once and sat in the second row. I mean, I've been to that courtroom. I've been to that trial. It's not easy to get in. You go all, everyone goes in at once and sat in the second row. I mean, I've been to that courtroom. I've been to that trial. It's not easy to get in. You go all everyone goes in at one time.

Everyone you can't leave until Donald Trump leaves gets out of the building with the Secret Service. We all have to sit there. We are held captive and then we get to leave. It is the most controlled courtroom because of Donald Trump and the Secret Service people don't come in and out like other courtrooms. And so for them to just saunter in this entourage, get these prime seats right behind Donald Trump and to come in late,

it was just so clear what's happening to them. And they're going to notice that. They're going to notice that this is a political pressure campaign for the witnesses. They came in during Michael Cohen. That's got to be difficult for him. Right. They see that they see that Melania hasn't come to court once. They see that his other adult children have not come to court once

other than Eric a handful of times. So they notice that stuff. They notice everything that's going on. The other thing, one of the things that worries me that they're gonna notice, again, this is my, you know, my anti-popach, you know, cautionary side is they're gonna wonder where Alan Weisselberg is. And that is something that I don't feel has been dealt with yet or has

been dealt with appropriately. There's three heads to this beast. There's three people in this conspiracy. This is an agreement between Donald Trump, Alan Weisselberg, Michael Cohen, and I guess also partially David Pecker at some point. And you've got Michael Cohen saying one thing, you've got Donald Trump not saying anything, but through his lawyers arguing that Michael Cohen is wrong and it's not happened, didn't happen that way. And you've got somebody who could break the tide and nobody's calling him. He doesn't show up and nobody's explaining why. I don't know how that's going to cut for the

jury, but that's something that we can't pretend is not a giant elephant in the room and that they're not going to notice and they're not going to wonder. Could it be reasonable doubt? I don't know. And that's one of the things that worries me a little bit. Well, we've talked, you and I have talked about it in the past. So let's bring it full circle. The one time you reported with me, you thought as part of the plea deal, he wasn't going to be called, right? We said that when during one of our shows. Well, it's not that he wasn't required to testify as part of his plea deal. That is correct. All right. So let's leave it at that. Okay, good. I mean, good. No, no, no. But he is available to be called as a witness to either side.

He can be immunized by the prosecution if they wanted to. So why aren't they doing that? We talked, Ben and I talked about it last week. The judge obviously said, let's do a vodder, bring him out of jail. Let's talk to him. Let's see if he's going to take the fifth. And of course you can always immunize him if he is. What's the reporting going on in the courtroom about where the judge left off on that? Because he wasn't going to make a ruling about the severance agreement, separation agreement, which quote unquote, bars him from testifying, but not a criminal case, until he had more information. We've had a couple of dark days and we got caught up with Michael Cohen. But do you know where the judge left it or where the prosecutors are going to,

whether they're going to bring them out of Rikers Island and do a proffer in front of the judge or Gaudier? No, and the judge ruled that, no, they're not. And the judge ruled that the severance is not coming in. All right. So they. Yeah. Well, you said early on not to quote you back to you. Well, I like doing that. You said early on when he got when he took the plea deal the

second time, that he was so radioactive. Because I took that, you know, popachium thing where I said, oh, well, this will put him on a very short leash, should they ever put him up on the stand. And you said a version of they're never going to put him up on the stand. He's now kind of disqualified from anybody using him, including Donald Trump. And we kind of talked about, all right, that's good. Well, he can't help Donald Trump again, having been convicted twice. But I guess we left open this third thing, which is that the prosecutors would have to answer the question in the jury's mind that you've raised, which is where is Alan Weisselberg? Now, to their credit, anticipating this,

remember the opening. It's not a four part harmony in their opening of this conspiracy. It's a three part harmony. They said the Trump Tower conspiracy consists of Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, and David Pecker. And this jury is gonna hear from two thirds of that. How Allen Weisselberg was the money man for the back and the fourth, I assume now they

just think that they're going to do well enough with Michael and all the documentary evidence, which has equal weight to the testimonial evidence in a courtroom, that they're going to leave it open. But you're right, there is an empty chair in the room. I did a hot take on it a week or so ago, and I thought they'd be more artful. You've been in the office. What do you think without,

I know you don't have any insert knowledge here, but what do you think's going on with Alan Weisselberg and the prosecutors? Why are they leaving this loose end sort of flapping in the wind? I think that they, because they did interview him for the Trump Organization tax case, they do know what he's going to say, and they know he's not going to give up Donald Trump no matter what he's just not. And he's willing he's gone to jail twice for him right now, right now serving his second five month sentence.

He also is he can't he's convicted. He was convicted of perjury. And you don't want to be like, oh, here's another witness convicted of perjury. It's kind of, it's not a great thing. No, Michael was never convicted of perjury. I know, he was convicted of lying. To Congress. To Congress, I know, it's slightly different. But it's definitely, I understand why they're not calling him. I think the jury's gonna wonder though,

why isn't Donald Trump calling him, right? I think they're gonna hold it against Donald Trump and think, well, clearly he's in Donald Trump's pocket. So if he had something favorable to say, even though they're not supposed to consider things like that because he doesn't have to put on a defense, the prosecution has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But I think logically they're going to hold it against Trump.

Can you, can I ask you, let me ask you a question on New York practice on that, on the note of you can't, let's assume Trump doesn't take the stand. You still believe Trump's not going to take the stand or you believe he is? You know, I've come around to believing what you say. I don't think he is going to, and I'll tell you why, because he's not, I think it's so clear that he had an affair with Karen McDougall and Slept with Stormy Daniels.

There's just no way that he, for whatever reason he's decided that's his defense. And that's the other thing, by the way. I think he could have got, I think, look, he could still get acquitted. But if I were representing him, not that I ever would, my defense tactic would be, if I were allowed to, would say, yes, he slept with her.

Yes, he didn't want his wife to know. I totally agree with you. Yeah, you know, and, but I think- he can't do it. It's the E. Jean Carroll thing. He can't do it. And you're right. It's almost like they wouldn't say it this way, but it's almost like his lawyers know they'd be suborning perjury if they put him on the stand about the affairs because he'll lie and they know he'll lie about it. So for all those reasons I agree with you. Now this is the question I had for you though. Can

you, without running afoul of New York law, can you as the prosecutors now say in your closing, you didn't hear from Allen Weisselberg. Donald Trump didn't call Allen Weisselberg. Can you do that? So, you have to be careful. There's something called burden shifting. You can't shift the burden of proof to the defense and he has no obligation to put on a defense. He has no obligation to call any witnesses. He has no obligation whatsoever to do anything at trial. He doesn't have to open, close, cross examine nothing. The prosecution is the only burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. So the minute you start arguing things like that,

right, I agree. But so what can you do? Yeah, it's the but is the people come here for the but Karen. Let's say he puts on a defense. Let's say he puts on a defense case. He's going to call a witness, don't you think? He might call an election expert or something to say this wouldn't have been illegal. I think he puts on a case. Yeah, he puts on it some sort of case in chief.

So okay, you and I are okay. So he puts on a case. Go. Okay. You and I are, okay. So he puts on a case, go. But if he put on a case, let's say, and he called multiple witnesses, but not Allen Weisselberg, I think you could then say, well, where's Allen Weisselberg? He's still, you know, let's say he testifies and he admits that Allen Weisselberg worked for him forever, is still loyal to him, is still on his payroll. And, you know, all that kind of stuff. Let's say he gets it all out that he's in Donald Trump's control and he would be in a position to be able to support what he says,

but they don't call him. I do think you could make that argument in summation. Yes, but certainly not yet. Right now they have not opened the door to that and you have to be really careful about that. How about if you asked Michael, I'm trying to be artful here, how about if he comes up during the Michael Cohen cross or read? Yeah, look there's a world that they could open the door to that argument on cross. They haven't yet. No, you're right. And we'll be following it closely. We're going to, I want to hear more from Karen and you and I can bat it around a little bit

about what we think is resonating and impacting with the jury and what we think is really interesting for us to talk about, but really is not moving the needle. And just to, I want to get your opinion on this. I've said it before, you know, in my study of jury science and all, juries, this jury's already, I'm just gonna say it out loud, this jury's made up its mind already. This jury, it's not, they're not the only jury to have made

up their mind. 22 days or whatever we are, 18 days into a trial, most juries make up their mind after the openings, after checking out who's wearing what tie on the trial and who they trust, and the first roadmap witness. Maybe they wait for the second witness, but I mean, it's a stubborn thing. As you said, they have a good bullshit-ometer and they can figure out what the case is about early on and what side they're on. Now, we don't poll a jury early, they don't poll each other, they're not supposed to talk or deliberate

until they get to the very end. But I'm telling you that while this might be, even if Blanche grows a brain and an ability to properly cross-examine and changes and finds another gear, because he's grinding the same gear, he's got a one gear gear because he's grinding the same gear. He's got a one gear guy. He's like grinding that gear.

If he finds another gear between today and tomorrow, I know people are like, don't give them any eye. Trust me, they're not watching the show. They don't even know where to shop for our merchandise. Okay? But if he finds another gear, it may be too little too late for the jury because they've already formed an impression

as far as I'm concerned about Michael Cohen and his taking it on the chin and admitting and falling on the sword where he had to about his past troubles and his complexities as the prosecutors said in the opening. The baggage of Michael Cohen has already been adequately addressed. We'll talk about that and then we're going to pick up Rudy Giuliani, not being, for those that wonder what's gonna happen to that judgment that Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss got, and is he gonna win on some sort of appeal because he doesn't think he should have gotten defaulted

by the federal judge for having violated all of her rules. That's not happening. We'll talk about all of that more. But first, our last word from our sponsors. I'm a parent and a grandparent. I wanna live a healthy lifestyle our last word from our sponsors. I'm a parent and a grandparent. I wanna live a healthy lifestyle in order to be around for my kids and my grandkids for a very, very long time.

And living a more heart healthy life will fuel everything you do. So this three in one blood pressure support that Super Beats Heartchoose has created is just a absolute game changer. So if you pair it with a healthy lifestyle, the grape seed extract in Super Beats is clinically shown to be nearly two times more effective

at promoting normal blood pressure than a healthy lifestyle alone. New Super Beats Heartchoose advanced support healthy COQ10 levels are an important nutrient for heart health. I love SuperBeat heart chews, first of all, they taste absolutely delicious. They help you be mindful about your heart health. And I just feel good knowing that I'm having something

that's good for my body every day. I literally eat one or two or three of them every single day. I look forward to them. They are healthy. They are good for me. And like I said, it's like having a nice little sweet treat. So it's just this absolutely delicious, effective and clinically researched product super beats. It's the number one doctor pharmacist and cardiologist recommended beat brand for cardiovascular

heart support health. Something important at my age for sure. So they also support healthy circulation and there's no stimulants, which I love. So find out how you can get a free 30 day supply on bundles of new Super Beat Heartchoose advanced and save 15% off for a limited time only by going to superbeatsradio.com

promo code LegalAF that's superbeatsradio.com promo code LegalAF Don't tell anyone but I'm actually a cat person and I don't like cat food it's disgusting either it smells bad

or those little hard terrible things that with hard food that cats don't like cat food. It's disgusting. Either it smells bad or those little hard, terrible things that with with hard food that cats don't like. My cats don't love that food and I don't like it either. I don't like giving it to them. But our next partner has truly made a positive impact

on my little kitty cat who I love, who you've seen jump into some of our podcasts or into my hot takes or even my ad reads and I'm talking about my kitty Cooper who's just a sweetheart and so I am so so happy that Smalls is is absolutely one of our great new sponsors it's a cat food that is protein packed and these recipes are preservative free. These ingredients that you would find in your own fridge and it's delivered right to your door

and that's why veterinarians, veterinarians.org, they rate Smalls 10 out of 10 for ingredient quality and when I gave Cooper Smalls, he loved it. He ate it all up. Unlike those little hard, crunchy nugget disgusting things

or that smelly food. He absolutely loved it. He prefers it more than he preferred his old food. And I even put side by side his old food and Smalls because I wanted to see, you know, is it true? I'm going to be doing this ad read. And guess what?

Cooper chose the Smalls. Yay. So I love Smalls. It's definitely made it more pleasant for me to feed Cooper. And it also makes it so that the house doesn't stink like cat food. And I don't know, I just feel better knowing that I'm giving Cooper a really good quality with

good ingredients cat food. So I love it. It's great. And I think you will love it too. I think you'll love this protein packed meal for your, your loved one too. If you love your cat as much as I love mine. So after making the switch to Smalls, 90% of cat owners reported overall health improvements

in their cats. And I think that's a really big deal. This team at Smalls is so confident your cat will love their product. You can try it risk free. That means they will refund you if your cat won't eat their food. Pretty great, right?

So now's the time to switch to Smalls. Head to Smalls, S-M-A-L-L-S dot com slash legal AF and use promo code legalAF at checkout for 50% off, five zero percent off your first order plus free shipping. That's the best offer you'll find out there, but you have to use code legalAF for 50% off your first order. So that's promo code legalaf at smalls.com. That's plural,

smalls.com for 50% off when you insert code legalaf plus free shipping. Okay, we're back. You think this jury's made up its mind already? Or you think the jury's still out, as we like to say? So I have two thoughts on that. Number one, when it's like a violent crime or a simple crime that is, you know, did somebody rob them or not, right? Those are the types of cases that I think I agree with you that juries make up their minds in advance. Cases like this are not necessarily in advance. Cases like this are not necessarily clear until summation. There's a lot of pieces that were put together in this case that they have no idea what the evidence means yet.

They don't know what half the stuff means or why it was relevant. It's coming clear now with Michael Cohen's testimony now that they're using a lot of it. But I think that this is a more complicated case. So I don't know that I agree that the jury has made up his mind. The other thing I will say is the jury is not one thing. There are it's 12 jurors.

There might be some who have made up their mind in one way. Some might have made up their mind in another way. Some that aren't sure. And I've actually been on a jury before and I've deliberated. It's fascinating what happens. You go in and you have a thought and then you have a long discussion that can last days, sometimes certainly hours. And you get read back and you sort through the evidence and you sift through it and you kind

of make, take what, you know, there's certain arguments that you like that the lawyers make and certain ones you don't. So you look for evidence to kind of try to figure it out and piece it together. And these are 34 counts and they're all very different counts. I do think that this jury is going to be out for quite some time. I do think they're going to look at every single count individually and make sure that every one was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. and make sure that everyone was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And I think that you'll see some people change based on the deliberation process.

Deliberations is a very important part of the trial process, and a lot happens back there. And so I agree that there are people who may have some opinions. I don't know that that is not going to change, especially after summation. Over a cocktail when I see you next, you'll tell me which law firms allow the deputy chief of the Manhattan District Attorney to sit in on their jury. We'll put that aside for a moment, unless you were out of the office. No, it was. Well, let's just say I was a line assistant at the time. It was a long time ago. Okay. All right. And it was civil. It was civil case. All right. I got you. It still bounced you.

It was a fascinating experience. This is why I think it's... I didn't mean to interrupt you, sorry about that. No, no, no, no, no, go on. I was just going to tell a little bit. This is why I think it's a little bit, and I've done complicated cases and I still believe what I said. And not that you haven't, I'm just telling you from a civil standpoint. It is complicated.

There are counts, but when you break down the counts, as you and I have diagrammed before, it's 11 checks, 11 invoices and 10 entries. And for me, it's much more binary and I think that's what the prosecutors are going to tell them. The light switch is either on or it's off. He either conspired to pay Michael Cohen in this way in order to avoid and interfere with the election and enter the books and records and had them enter to cause them to be entered that way, or he didn't. And if he did, he's in for a penny, he's in for 32 counts or whatever it is. If he didn't, I don't think it's like, well, this, it's not like they're going to go, well, this payment to Michael Cohen for 75,000.

This one was definitely, but the other ones weren't. I don't think, I don't think they see it that way. I don't think that's the way the prosecutors here are going to present it. No, but they could say, you know what? I agree that he caused the fake checks, but the drop down menu and the business and you know, of calling it a lawyer's whatever. Like, I don't know, I could see them parsing it that way.

I could see them saying, I'm not sure that he meant for this to happen here, but he did there. I don't know. I just, that's what I'm kind of starting to do. But in order for the jury, in order for the, and I just so people know, you know, we're not in the same location. Sometimes we talk over each other on Zoom. It's just the Zoom thing. If we were in the same room, no, we'd still do it. But if he, here, I just can't see, can you imagine a jury going back to deliberate and say, all right, I think it's possible

that in order to pay $130,000 payment because he was embarrassed or he didn't want his wife to know about it, he, Michael Cohen set up a fake LLC that Donald Trump didn't know about originally, but found out about later, and then paid invoices that totaled three and a half times the amount, and then listed that as legal fees and gave Michael a bonus on top of that, and then the only thing ever in the history of the Trump Organization grossed up legal services in order to pay somebody's taxes.

I think that's possible. I just can't see a reasonable juror concluding that. And I'm hoping that the two lawyers, although just to remind people that don't follow it as closely as you, me and Ben, one of the two lawyers is not the jury for person. Seat number one in New York is a jury for a person. And that's an Irish American person came from Ireland.

I forgot what his job title is, but he's not the lawyer. So but the lawyers will take over a little bit, you know, and like they'll look to the lawyers like, what do you think about this piece of evidence? They're not supposed to do that. But they will. The jury that I was on I Was not the leader No, I thought I would be I assumed I would be but I But I I had and this is interesting. I had my view, you know, I knew what I thought and

Other people had a different view. They knew what they thought. There was this guy who also happened to be an Irish-American and worked in a bar, so strange. This bar center, who turned out to be the one who was like, well, what about this? What about that? Look at this, look at that. I was already so far in this camp that it was just fascinating.

I would have assumed I would have emerged as the leader, but I didn't. And I love watching what happened. You're right about that, but you're also very elegant in your way. And I could see where you would say, I'm gonna let this process play out. I'm not gonna big foot it.

I don't know, we don't know that much about, one's a corporate lawyer, one works on financial services world. We'll see. Look, it'll all be fascinating and then you and I and Ben will have weeks of talking and dissecting hopefully what comes back from that jury. What do we know before we turn to Rudy? What do you know? What are you hearing about? Because Michael is not the last witness for the prosecution, I don't believe. Who, and Todd Blanch has told Bershon that he's like one third of the way through, so there's hours of Michael Cohen left to be had. Who do they end with? What are you hearing on that? Well, before you leave the jury, I wanted to say one more thing about them. I hope if there is a conviction and hopefully there is,

the jury is free to speak after the fact and fire way to get a post conviction reversal is for them to say something like, oh, I, you know, you just I yeah, my I saw something on my phone or someone talked about something or or yeah, I knew I found out something or whatever you just. or, or, yeah, I knew I found out something or whatever, you just, you know, loose lips, sink ships, and they should absolutely not talk to media, people are going to want to talk to them. So I'm hoping that they don't speak publicly if he's convicted. And so who's the last witness, you know, look, I heard last week, I heard them say there's two witnesses left. I also heard them say he was gonna be the last witness. So I didn't know if that was misreported or if instead they reached an agreement and stipulated to whoever the last witness was going to be.

I know that the prevailing wisdom is you don't want to just end with Michael Cohen, although if he does, great, you do want to end with him. Well, that was my wisdom. The Times is reporting it's the last witness, but I heard what you heard, which were there was one or two left after Michael. But you're right, there's stuff going on behind the scenes sometimes that we don't know about. We say last witness, we mean there's been 19 witnesses for the prosecution, including Michael Cohen. Then they'll rest. So let's assume for the purposes of this, because we don't really know. And it looks like that at all times is usually right on these

types of things, that he is the last witness. Then it turns to the defense. I think you and I both think there's gonna be some sort of defense case, whether it's recalling a witness that was already put on and doing it now in direct, as opposed to just being limited to cross. You can't do that.

You can't do that in criminal cases. Oh, you can't, you can't, you know, you can't see? There you go. You can't recall? Nope. Oh, that's interesting. You had your opportunity. You had your opportunity with that witness. You can't recall? Nope. Oh, that's interesting. You had your opportunity. You had your opportunity with that witness.

You can't recall them. None of those 19 are coming back. So you gotta come up with somebody new, right? I see. Okay, good. So let's say they put on one or two or they don't, but maybe they do. And then they're gonna have to make that hard decision

about Donald Trump at some point. And then there's a rebuttal case. I think the judge is gonna ask Donald Trump directly. I don't think they're gonna rely on what the lawyers Gag order not allowing him to speak. I think he's got to have it. You know, you're not you're not that's fine Right you waving your right His right and the gag order has nothing to do with that. So I could see I think he's gonna make him Talk about that and

Who will he put on? I don't know, you know who he'll put on. I like what that guy David Schiller What you know, why doesn't he put David Schiller on to say I never talked to Stormy Daniels. She's delusional I wasn't didn't write her up his his room I didn't stand outside well I think the bodyguard bodyguard yeah like why don't they like they should call him you know but yeah that would be I think somebody they could call if they put on one person does the prosecution get a rebuttal case? Yeah. All right. So, but only to what they just said, it's the rebuttal case is limited to the scope of the defense case. Okay. So let's say that if Michael's

the last witness and they have very, so I mean, this jury could be getting this case by mid next week. Yeah. Right. So, so Friday, there's no Fridays's the baron's graduation. Thursday's like the four o'clock day. Yeah, right. Right. And so I think that you could, let's say, let's say he's the last witness.

I'd say they, I think we would sum up soonest on Tuesday. I don't think they would sum up Monday because I think Monday they, I think we would sum up soonest on Tuesday. I don't think they would sum up Monday because I think Monday they would give them a chance to decide over the weekend about whether somebody's test, you know, whether they're putting on a defense case, what they're doing. So I think you'd see summations potentially Tuesday. And the defense goes first, then goes the prosecution goes last. It's not like in the feds where it's a sandwich summation where they go the prosecution goes first then the defense then the

Prosecution gets to go last. This is just um, this is just the defense first and then the prosecution goes last and then comes the You know, they have to have a charge conference at some point Which I don't think they've had I haven't seen that in the record where they discuss the jury charges. And I haven't seen that in the, in the, in the, I think that's going to be a bloodbath. I think they're going to want, you know, like what is said about this intent to commit another crime and the elements of those crimes, if they have to bring that in or not, that that's the biggest legal question out there. I don't think that they have to bring that in or not. That's the biggest legal question out there. I don't think that they have to give the elements.

Some people think they do. So we'll see what happens there. So I think the charge conference could take a half a day. And so I think the judge is gonna give them a half a day with no jury to do that. And then charging the jury takes time. It takes probably an hour or two and then deliberations. So, and I think next week is a short week too, because it's the Friday before

Memorial day. And I think on the Thursday, the jury, what juror has to leave it for. So you might not have a verdict next week. Yeah. Okay. Well, we'll follow it closely. I'm respectful of your times. I know where you're at. Can you stay with me for the next, the last little Rudy part or do you need to? Yes. I have five minutes. All right. Let's do it. Let's do it in five. We got our sponsors under our belt. Let's go right to Rudy. So I'll do the two minutes of and turn it over to you. Rudy's not playing

nice in the sandbox. He's peeing in the sandbox in his December filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which is a plan of reorganization bankruptcy claiming that he's got a way to get out of bankruptcy, which I don't see. He's listed $500 million worth of debts, including $148 million owed to Shane Moss and Ruby Friedman, the mother-daughter election workers who were awarded on a default judgment because Rudy Giuliani didn't play well in the sandbox in the DC case of defamation in front of Judge Beryl Howell and violated her orders at least seven times, was found in contempt and finally was found to have a default judgment against him as a sanction and a penalty. He wanted to appeal that, but we all want to do a lot of things. I'd like to have a unicorn in my backyard

that craps gold bricks, but I don't have that either. And so Rudy decided that he wasn't going to participate in the bankruptcy code world in front of Judge Lane, which I thought he was playing with fire or dynamite because Judge Lane doesn't put up for that. At least not the times I've been here in front of him. But there was no trust over the bankruptcy estate, so nobody was like pushing Rudy. It was left to the creditors' rights lawyers, the creditors' committee lawyers, which are represented by Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss, and Noel Dumphy,

who claims to be, who had been an unpaid sex slave for Rudy Giuliani when she worked for him, and she's got a case against him, and Dominion Voting Systems has a claim against him. And so he hasn't done a darn thing. He didn't sell any of his assets. He didn't file his reports. He didn't liquidate anything. He didn't offer to pay. He hasn't filed a plan of reorganization and it's been like six months. And then in the meantime, he gets fired, whether it's on purpose or not, from his radio show on WABC, and he doesn't seem to have that many sources of income. And so Judge Lane threw the book at him yesterday and said, I find you disturbing. I find what you're doing to be disturbing and that you're not following my rules. And I don't like the fact that you're defaming continuously

Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss, even though there's another courtroom for that. Judge Beryl Howell, he wasn't in the courtroom, so he told the lawyers, tell Giuliani from the judge to knock it off and don't use my process in an abusive way. But more importantly, Karen, why don't you tell the audience quickly

what he did about Rudy Giuliani trying to get to lift the stay of bankruptcy in order for him to spend money to prosecute an appeal to try to reverse the judgment in bankruptcy. I'm going to let you explain that because I tried to understand it. I don't understand this. It's so confusing. What I want to understand, I have questions for you, Popok. What if he does nothing? What can the judge do? What's the ultimate power of the judge? I couldn't wait for this because I want to learn from you. This is fascinating. As soon as a bankrupt files a legitimate and good faith bankruptcy. And I think it's good faith in the sense that his assets are far in, his debts are far in excess of his assets. That's first ground for bankruptcy. But then you have to participate

in the bankruptcy process properly. You have to file your reports. You have to comply with the orders. You have to turn over your financial statements. You have to sit for an accreditor's interview, a creditors' committee interview, all of that. He's done none of that. None of that at all. And had all sorts of excuses nobody really listened to. And I thought Judge Lane was going to get annoyed with him last time. And what he can do is he would appoint a trustee. The problem with that is it drains the assets

of the estate more because they gotta get paid. But he appoints a trustee who also hires a lawyer and accountant and they go grab all of Rudy Giuliani's assets because he's a bankrupt and they have the power to do that and over kicking and screaming from Rudy, they sell the Upper East Side apartment for $6 million and they sell the Florida apartment near Mar-a-Lago for three and a half million, whatever it is, and they take in that nine million dollars and then

they go grab Rudy Giuliani's, they make him turnover with a turnover order, his Yankee rings that he didn't earn but he happened to be mayor when they won the World Series, and they sell them at a memorabilia auction for thirty thousand, and they throw that into the estate and everything else that he has. And then they try to go after the pension. I'm not sure he's going to lose the pension, but they'll have a discussion about it. And then they start distributing it. And the judge, if they won't propose a plan of reorganization, the judge will impose through a trustee recommendation, a plan of reorganization or dissolution, or complete liquidation. I don't think he's a candidate for Chapter 11. I think he's a candidate for Chapter 7, which is a complete liquidation of his assets and you pay the

creditors. He can't come out of the left. What happens if he drops dead? But then the estate of the estate, then you have the estate of Rudy Giuliani, who is the judgment debtor, ultimately, by substitution, because of all these people that have judgments and claimants, and they come in to represent the bankrupt estate, right? But the bankrupt estate is really represented by the bankruptcy judge and the trustee. So it becomes an entity in and of itself that lives beyond Rudy. And then it'll just go right into no reorg. It'll go right to chapter seven liquidation.

Everything will get sold, fire sale, and the judge will come up with a plan and the estate of Rudy Julian again comment on it, but they'll just override him. Because a criminal indictment, for example, gets abated by death. It does not follow you. When you die, your indictment dies. It's not like the bankruptcy. It's just interesting.

Like you can't commit suicide and stop your bankruptcy, your assets are being liquidated. But to answer the other question, the big takeaway from what the judge did, which was my volume here. When a person files bankruptcy, they get an automatic stay of all litigation around them. It's another added benefit to filing bankruptcy. It's not permanent and you can move as a creditor to lift the stay to argue that the claim that is in bankruptcy is not properly dischargeable in bankruptcy, meaning it can't be discharged, it can't be erased. I had a case recently where we had, we represented a plaintiff in a hashtag me too case out in California, Ricky Garcia, it's public, and we won a $6.5 million judgment against him

about three weeks ago, against, not him, against his former manager for sexual misconduct. And that guy tried to go bankrupt and bankrupt out our claim. And we convinced the judge, that's an intentional tort. Sexual misconduct, you raped somebody, that's going to be dischargeable in bankruptcy. And she said, you're right.

So she lifted the stay, allowing us to sue him there, even though all the other things against them were stayed. Rudy, this is like a reverse stay. He wants the stay lifted in order for him to be the plaintiff or the appellant to bring an appeal of the $148 million judgment issued by, ultimately by a jury combined with Judge Barrell Howell. And the judge says, because of all of his misconduct,

including what got him into trouble in DC, the judge said, no, I'm not lifting the stay for you to go prosecute your appeal. So you can't prosecute your appeal because all litigation is stayed by the bankruptcy judge unless he agrees to lift it. And I am not lifting it, the judge said, which means your judgment is your judgment.

You've chosen to come here to bankruptcy court, you're going to adjudicate your issues of bankruptcy court, you're not gonna go appeal your judgment, especially when you haven't made good on any of your representations. Plus, the judge is pissed off that he spent $120,000 last month when he said he didn't have any money. So, like, we're done. The musical chairs are done in bankruptcy court. They're going to, they're very quickly, you and I and Ben are going to be reporting about the liquidation wholesale liquidation of all of, of, uh, of Rudy Giuliani's assets. The thing I can't believe Karen is how is a major publishing house publishing a book by Rudy Giuliani called the case against the Biden crime family. And it's Simon and

Schuster. It's like a legitimate publisher. How is that possible? I don't, I actually understand that. I don't know. That's unbelievable. I don't get it. Is it like fiction? Is it the science fiction section? I don't know. That's unbelievable to me

that Simon and Schuster would do that. Really, really shocked. But we've reached the end of our Legal AF and a little bit of a breakout session on bankruptcy code and bankruptcy law. You find it only one place on your dial, no other place does this. Legal AF on the Midas Touch Network.

We do it Wednesdays, we do it Saturdays at 8 p.m. Eastern time right here on this YouTube and then on audio podcast platforms of your choice Wednesdays it's Karen Friedman, Nick Niflo and me. Saturday it's Ben, my cellist and me and then we've got hot takes about every hour and Karen throughout the trial. And Ben are doing these great morning and evening sessions

about the trial, around the trial. And of course we've got our entire rest of our contributors and shows sort of geared around, orbiting around this trial as well, because it's historic, it's important. And it sits right where we sit at the intersection of law and politics. If you enjoy what we're doing,

and you wanna learn more about at the molecular level of the law side of law and politics, we got a Patreon, Patreon, sorry, patreon.com, thank you, Salty, slash Legal AF, where we do teachable moments and breakout sessions and pop-up talks and Ben, Professor Ben's and all sorts of things and some early access to hot takes depending upon which of the paid memberships you join. I think it's the lowest level membership is two cups of coffee in New York, one cup of

coffee everywhere else every month. But I think it's a fun thing. It's a fun way to support the show and the network and all of that. Legal AF, patreon.com slash legal AF. Midas Touch store, store.midastouch.com. You've heard all about it. It's on the news. It's made global news. You want that t-shirt that Todd Blanch cross examined inappropriately? Michael Cohen on. You can buy it in the store, bitistouch.com. So, Karen, really appreciate you. I don't know if you left her. I really appreciate you being here under the circumstances. Can't wait to see you and give you a big hug in a couple of days on the same time zone in the same place.

I can't wait to see you too, Phil. You too. And safe travels. And we'll see everybody else this coming Saturday with Dina Dahl sitting in for Ben Misalas, who's getting married, as we all know. And then again, we'll pick up right where we left off next week, and we'll be able to update you on everything that's going on at the intersection of law and politics with me and Karen Freeman at Kniflo. Until then, shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal Aid efforts.