Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump REEKS of DESPERATION as Fox Gets HAMMERED in Court

Episode Date: April 13, 2023

The midweek edition of the top rated legal and political podcast Legal AF is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this special midweek’s edition, anchors national trial attorney Michael Popok and former top Manhattan DA prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo discuss: 1. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s new preemptive injunctive suit to stop further interference by the right wing MAGA House committee and Jim Jordan into the Trump prosecution and attempts to have a former special prosecutor testify before congress about the case; 2. The recent rulings in the E Jean Carroll civil rape/defamation trial scheduled to start in 2 weeks, including those to further protect the jury from Trump’s bad behavior (the anchors are joined by Lights On podcast host Jessica Denson); 3. A Delaware Judge sanctioning Fox for misconduct less than a week before Dominion’s $1.6 billion dollar defamation jury trial begins; 4. Trump retaliating against Michael Cohen with a new federal law suit filed in Miami, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! RHONE: Head to https://rhone.com/legalaf and use code LEGALAF to save 20% off your entire order! NEUROHACKER: Go to https://neurohacker.com/LEGALAF for $100 OFF, that’s only $39 a bottle and use code LEGALAF at checkout for an extra 15% off your first purchase! SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You may not know Jack, but if you don't know which Trump prosecutor now has bragging rights, then you haven't followed. The Manhattan DA's historic federal court filing yesterday to stop MAGA House members and Jim Jordan in their tracks, from interfering with an active Trump prosecution and investigation, and to have a former prosecutor on the case marked pomerance, testified a congress about his work on the case marked pomeranhas, testified a Congress about his work on the case. Just what is that lawsuit about what does Alvin Bragg want the federal judge a Trump appointee to do, and why did the presiding judge already deny a temporary restraining order

for Bragg to stop the subpoena, and does that mean anything in the log run? Then we are only two weeks away from a Manhattan federal jury being picked to try the civil rape and defamation case brought by E. Jean Carol versus Trump and the judge has made moves to protect the future jury once again. Why did both sides ask to have the names of the jurors in advance and will Trump show up at all for the trial? And that's not the only trial going forward this month that will rock Trump and Fox World, the $1.6 billion dollar Delaware defamation case against Fox and on air personalities is going forward brought by Dominion voting machines and it starts in less than a week.

What did Fox and its lawyers do already to piss off the judge and what defenses this Fox even have left and what is Dominion prohibited from mentioning to the jury and why finally Trump has just filed today in Miami a federal suit against Michael Cohen of all things for $500 million according to the press release masquerading as a lawsuit arising out of his pro previously being the lawyer for Donald Trump. We don't know who the judge is going to be yet, but we're going to unpack all of the allegations in that complaint on the midweek edition of Legal AF, the top rated politics and law podcast with your anchors, Michael Popock and Karen Friedman at Nifalo. When we get to the E. Jean

Carroll, part of the matter will have Jessica Denson, Karen, of Lights on Joining us. Karen, how you doing? I'm good. I'm good. I can't keep track of all the stuff going on. We kept adding topics and changing things. I mean, it's so much going on.

It's really intense. Yeah. For those that like that kind of stuff. So I was on a plane when a lot of these segments that we're developing and curating for you today, we're changing by the hour. Michael Cohen got filed. And so we're tweeting and texting each other about that and a developments in Fox Dominion with the judge being really annoyed and about to sanction Fox even before they step into the courtroom to pick their jury and all of those things.

So, we try to be as about as up to the minute as we can. And this one, you know, we are right at the moment, right on the moment. And so I'm so happy to see you, Karen, because I can't think of anybody better to talk about our first segment or any of our segments today. Let's kick it off. Let's talk about Alvin Bragg has had enough, or as I like to say, who you're going to call it's Alvin Bragg? For those that questions, Alvin Bragg's brass to go after Donald Trump on the right case, prosecute him for the right things and not take it, not take his his his crap. I think that has now been resolved in Alvin's favor. If people thought it was just going to be the general counsel for

the Manhattan DA's office writing a nasty letter to Jim Jordan telling him to back up, you don't have jurisdiction over over a New York prosecution of local crime, which is effectively what this is. At all, remember, we're sovereign, we're a sovereign state and all of that. If you thought that was just going to be it, you were wrong because he filed Alvin Bragg in his own name on behalf of his office, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. It's already been assigned to judge. And he immediately saw it and injunction to stop a few things. One, to stop the continued interference, obstruction and persecution of the Manhattan

DA's office and everybody affiliated with them in the Trump criminal prosecution by Jordan, by Maga Republicans, by the House Oversight or whatever that committee's called in their tracks done. And because the thing that set this off is that Mark Pomeran, so we've spoken a lot about who for a time was the special prosecutor that was hired along with Carrie Dunn by Sive Vance, which of course Carrie will talk a lot about because she worked under Sive Vance, worked for Sive Vance as his number one right hand for a long, long time. That set of prosecutors that were hired at a private practice to look into the all things Trump. They quit 90 days after Alvin Bragg arrived because they didn't like that Alvin Bragg wasn't ready

on his 90th day in office, having just been elected by the people of the state of New York for this job of being a prosecutor. They didn't like the fact that he wasn't willing at that moment or he wasn't going to indicate to them. Remember, they worked for him, not the other way around, that he wasn't ready to and he was ready or not ready to indict and made the charging decision yet. So they left in a huff, pomerance more than done, pomerance then went on to write a book called People vs Donald Trump in which he revealed insider information and comments made by Alvin Bragg and his own Mark Palmer ads view of all of the different investigations

that were still ongoing in the office, including the one about Stormy Daniels. So he was like crapping on the Stormy Daniels case for which he was just a special prosecutor working as an insider, which Cara will give her opinions about that. It's that Mark Pomerance that Jordan wanted to subpoena, has subpoena to appear before a congressional committee to give testimony as a prosecutor about his view of the case to try to set up some debate between him and the real prosecutor who is Alvin Bragg. Okay, that's the frame. Now let's get to the molecular with Karen Friedman, Agnifalo, formally the number two in the Manhattan DA's office, who was involved with everything that's listed in the complaint, including the law that was cited to support the complaint against measures, which was the accounting firm for Donald

Trump. Start from wherever you want to start, Karen. Start from the filing. Start from brag. Where you go. So, as you know, this is just for everybody who's listening to remind them what Alvin Bragg is bringing against Donald Trump is a criminal case in state court. But what has was filed yesterday is a civil case in federal court and one might argue why is Alvin Bragg filing a civil case in federal court and it's to try and stop Jim Jordan from interfering in a criminal prosecution. And really what Jim Jordan has done is he has said, he sort of first says, we're going

to look into this to see if there are any laws that we should change, and then he says, are there any, do you use federal funds? In this case, oh, you used $5,000 of federal funds. Okay, we want now to hold a hearing on that. Then he's going to says he's going to come to New York, I think next week and hold a field hearing to talk about with crime victims, all the people who were victims of crime, who Alvin Bragg didn't prosecute the

perpetrator because saying he picks and chooses his cases and he doesn't go after violent crime, he just goes off after political crime. So Jim Jordan makes lots of different accusations about Alvin Bragg but he's trying to find a place in a way that he can have oversight over the criminal case. Because typically, Congress cannot interfere in a criminal investigation, especially a state and local one. It's with the DOJ, that's slightly different. But even there, I don't think that Congress can interfere

in a criminal case or a criminal investigation. It's first of all a different legislative branch, but with the states, it's even more so because this is Alvin Bragg's an elected state prosecutor and there's federalism issues, meaning that the feds have given the police powers and law enforcement to the states and the states have the authority

to manage and prosecute their own crimes. And so the question then is, what is Jim Jordan trying to do? He's trying to find a way in. And the only place he has a little leg to stand on is this $5,000 because what happens is the Manhattan DA's office and other DA's offices receive federal funding for various, there's various federal grants that you can receive. One's called the Violence Against Women's Act grant. Another one is the Justice, it's like JAG, Justice Assistance Grant, and prosecutors all

around the country get these. There's also something called asset forfeiture money, which is money that prosecutors seize from criminals, whether it's a drug dealer or a bank that, you basically take illegal money from them and you seize it. And some of these seizures happen federally, So the states, the under-error side-vants, the New York County DA's office prosecuted these big banks and was in coordination with the Feds and so it was done through federal asset

forfeiture. And so when you have federal asset forfeiture money, it still goes to the DA's office. You just have different restrictions on what you have federal asset for a mature money, it still goes to the DA's office. You just have different restrictions on what you can use it for. But using the money on a case or on cases is totally valid use of these types of funds. Well, the Manhattan DA's office apparently used $5,000 on one of these cases. I think it was the Trump work case,

which is a tiny amount, by the way. I wonder why they even used it. It was probably inadvertent because that's really not a lot of money to use on a case or an investigation, especially when this magnitude. But that's the hook that Jim Jordan is trying to use to have oversight over this criminal case. But it's clearly pretextual, right? It's clearly a pretext. And he is in cahoots with Donald Trump in order to intimidate and somehow stop this criminal

prosecution. And how do we know that? Because that's what Alvin Bragg set out in the 50 page complaint that he filed in the Southern District. It's a painstaking recitation of the facts and it's worth reading. He even goes in, he felt the need to have to defend himself because of this hearing. That crime is actually down in Manhattan since he's taken office and he cites the NYPD crime statistics that murders are down.

Violent crime is down significantly actually since Alvin Bragg has taken office. So he also cited I think 22 different photos or memes or text messages that he attached as exhibits showing this campaign of intimidation and collusion between Donald Trump and Jim Jordan and that this is really not an appropriate or legitimate legislative fact finding that this really is an intimidation campaign and trying to get Alvin Bragg to back down on this criminal investigation. And so he really methodically goes through the facts and builds the case showing how this is coordinated and an intimidation campaign. And how as a result of this, and he shows the kind of cause and effect with when someone

does something and then something happens. Alvin Bragg has received over a thousand death threats since Jim Jordan and Donald Trump have waged this campaign against him. And he lays that out in this complaint as well. And so it's just very interesting to read it and it really paints a picture of what is going on and what the impact is of this politically motivated, unprecedented and really inappropriate legislative interference, which is what the what Jim Jordan and Kevin McCarthy and Trump are trying to do in legitimate state criminal

prosecutions. So that's what's happening there. I think I read today that there was another white powder incident at the Manhattan D.A.'s office. Popoak, did you hear that? Did you see that? That there was something another threat today? We're putting it up right now. Yeah, that, that, what I loved about the filing besides the brass

that it shows Karen from your old office, what I loved about the filing, besides the brass that it shows, Karen, from your old office, which I know you're, you're properly proud of for how they are not taking it, right? You got to take them, you got to take the lunch money from the bully, and that is what Alvin Breck is doing. The complaint, I, I, I, I completely, um, hats off to the Manhattan DA and their outside law firm Gibson-Tun for the eloquent way that as you pointed out, Karen, they mixed and matched and showed the cause and effect the coordination between the House, the Speaker of the house, Jim Jordan, Donald Trump, in their social media, in their tweets,

all timed out at a coordinated attack on Alvin Bragg. Alvin was also able to pull together appropriately and put in the complaint photos of the tweets in which he's called an animal and a racist and depraved and also it's a criminal, a thug by Donald Trump. His wife has gone after he mentions Judge Mershon, the presiding judge in the court of the street, in the state court of the street. The Manhattan Supreme Court, in which the judge is wife and daughter were attacked. The judge was attacked. He put up that picture, that cringy picture, the Karen that set you off with us anyway that

led us to go on the podcast about a month or two ago, where basically Donald Trump has put up a photo. We'll put it up here with a baseball bat next to Alvin Bragg's head threatening to brain him. Okay, if people didn't think that Alvin and his office and his team around him and whoever the current current Friedman-Ignifalo in that office is don't have eyes and ears and weren't watching all of this. We've talked at length on legal AF about the gifts that Donald Trump is giving to prosecutors and judges and they're taking advantage of it. We're going to see it later in a segment, you know, Lewis Kaplan, who's presiding over the

E. Jean Carroll case, and has this case, and all of this injected into his courtroom. He comments on all of the terrible things that Donald Trump tweets, his Syracuse tweet about things that Donald Trump tweets, his sericates tweet about judges, juries, prosecutors, their family, calling them animals to crave dirty, filthy thugs, calling for death and destruction. For anybody out there that's new to the law, it just came to it because of Midas Touch and Legal AF. This is not normal. Prosecutors don't get attacked like this by notorious people, a public figure, a former president on a regular basis,

and then we've talked about stochastic terrorism where you blow the whistle into the ether and some crack pot picks it up and attacks Alvin Bragg and sends white powder tries to assassinate him, you know, and sends letters and all sorts of things. I mean, that's how, unfortunately, in this country, that's how mass shootings happen. That's when how terrorist cells get activated by comments that are made, that are irresponsible and dangerous and treasonous by the former president, right?

The businessman, Donald Trump, as he identified himself in the courtroom during his prior when he was being booked and arrested. And then he goes on, Karen, Donald Trump. And this is where Alvin gets the upper hand because now it's in his federal filing, almost a page out of Donald Trump's book. There are parts of the filing where I was like, hmm, Alvin didn't really need to talk about that, but he is delighting in the ability to roast Donald Trump and Jim Jordan and Congress.

Yes, underneath it, there is a sophisticated legal argument about plenary police powers, the sovereign, the sovereign doctrine, the sovereignty doctrine of states versus federal, the underpinnings of our US Constitution and how we set up the federal versus state system. And the fact that there was never going to be because the founding fathers did not want the federal government to have basically police power in that way. That's why the government runs in armed forces. Okay, and there's the yes, there's a national guard, but doesn't do local policing or criminal justice.

And that's for a reason, because we didn't want a super grand jury sitting in Congress. That was the founding fathers. So yes, in there, in the complaint are all the foundations, all the Supreme Court press in it. One in particular I want to talk to you about, Karen, I think you were there for it. The underpinnings and the factor analysis for when it is appropriate for Congress to give oversight,

an interfere in local prosecutorial conduct and local prosecutorial investigatory matters is based on a Supreme Court case from just a few years ago involving who else Donald Trump and measures is now disgrace the counting firm who subsequently said everything that we've written about Donald Trump in our workpapers and certified his financials for the last 10 years, you can't rely on them. That's measure.

So there was a US Supreme Court case involving measures, their documents, Donald Trump and a subpoena. And Cara, why don't you talk to our legal A.F.ers, law students out there about how that case developed and why it's cited so heavily in the complaint filed by Alvin. Yeah, so there was a grand jury subpoena that under-siveance was issued to the mazer's accounting firm to get the taxes of Donald Trump and the Trump organization. And of course, Donald Trump fought that and said that you should not, you shouldn't be

able to get my taxes, because he never wanted them released. What normally happens is when a lawyer wants to fight a state grand jury because this was a state grand jury. Normally, they go before the state grand jury judge. That's what happened in this particular instance regarding the tax returns, but Trump said, no, I'm the former president, and therefore this should go to the... into federal court. So he ended up having it removed to federal court, and it ended up... there was a lawsuit and then a counter-suit, and it went up and down, up and down in federal court all the way

up to the Supreme Court twice. I actually watched the argument in the Supreme Court, and it went up and down, up and down in federal court, all the way up to the Supreme Court twice. I actually watched the argument in the Supreme Court, and it was carried on, who's one of the prosecutors that resigned when Alvin Bragg came into office, and he did a brilliant job of arguing why the state should be able to have the tax returns. And in that case, the Supreme Court set out

four factors of when you can actually, what four factors that are appropriate for legal analysis in this particular case. And so what ended up happening was Alvin cited those factors and cited that case here as precedent about why he's perfectly within his right to bring this case and prosecute this case and to keep it in state court. I want to just mention one other thing that you were talking about, which is Mark Pomerance,

who's a defendant in this filing that brag brought in the Southern District. And he, in addition to it being Jim Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee, it's also a defendant is Mara Pomerance. And I think the way you explained it in your hot take was he was a necessary defendant because he's a necessary party.

He's the one who's being subpoenaed here. I found that sort of interesting because of all the claims that are being made, I wonder whether he's slightly vulnerable since he already wrote a book on this and has been very public has gone on TV to speak about these things. Do you think he might be able to be compelled to talk about the things he's already talked about and maybe even waived? Number one, and number two, I'd love for you to talk about what you think of the federal judge that they pulled in this case. Yeah, yeah, we'll talk about her second.

There's already been a sort of a bad ruling by the judge, although I'll try to explain it that I'm not sure it means that she's not going to properly as even though she was Trump appointed, she's not going to properly evaluate the facts here, but I will talk about an order that she just made that wasn't great for Alvin on the way in. Let me start with that one since I'm there. And then I'll come right back, Karen, to the question that you asked about a pomeranz waiver and him being compelled and forced to testify before Congress. And I think that's that's where we've got some solid ground as outlined by Alvin Bragg. The judge that's been assigned by random selection in the Southern District of New York is Mary K. Viscousel. She was a long time bankruptcy lawyer, bankruptcy lawyer, for a major firm, well known firm

in town. She got appointed to the bankruptcy court long time. And then Trump, you know, some people think it's an elevation elevator to federal judge, as opposed to just full-time bankruptcy judge. But it's somebody that obviously Trump liked. She really doesn't have a notorious reputation for doing anything inappropriate or being some sort of maggot Trumper. I wouldn't expect that in New York at Southern District. But the first thing that Alvin did when he filed his papers, just so people understand how that works, you have a complaint, which we've shown many, many times

on legal AF, which is the initial file document in a civil case or in a criminal case, it's an indictment in a civil case, it's a complaint. And then there's an answer or there's motion practice around a complaint, motions to dismiss, and then later summary judgments. I'm just sort of reminding everybody where we are in our coursework here

at League of Law University. But when you file the complaint and you ask for a couple of things that are it, let's say money damages, you ask for in this case, you're not asking for money You're asking for it in injunction which is to stop something from happening to prevent something from happening or To force something to happen. That's called a mandatory injunction and then you often ask for what's called a Declatory judgment which is a declaration by the court

It's exactly what it sounds like of rights. I think that Congress has crossed the barrier between state and federal improperly, that they have violated sovereignty of the people of New York and what resides in the Manhattan DA's office. And I want that declared by you, judge. So you often see when there's no money being sought, like a, you know, it's not like a, a, a breach. Um, and it's not like a breach, but, um, it, uh, so it's not money, but it's injunctive

relief, right? So that's what they're going for here. And they filed with it papers. They filed with it papers about it getting an injunction and they wanted what's called an ex party, a temporary restraining order. And there you're asking the judge, don't tell the other side, you don't need them here for this. Here's the, here's our papers. Give us an injunction right now to stop the April 19th or 18th testimony that's being sought of Mark Pomerantz, our former prosecutor about an ongoing investigation

and prosecution. And I keep saying investigation and prosecution because, yes, he's indicted under Trump's indicted for 34 accounts, but they're not done in the Manhattan days office. There could be a superseding or amended indictment, adding new counts and claims. In fact, Karen, you've said in the past that there likely will be to add counts. So this is an active investigation and a prosecution by way of a current indictment. And so you can't have the precedent of every time Congress and the Republicans get a wild hair and they want to help Donald Trump. They're going to pull a local prosecutor across state federal lines to come answer for it

in the House of Representatives. I mean, the founding fathers are spinning in their graves. So you ask for a joke differently. You ask for it to be early and without the other side giving notice. So the judge said, you know what, I'm going to deny that. I'm going to deny the temporary restraining order without notice. Give notice to the other side. In other words, serve Jim Jordan in Congress,

which there's a way to do that. And let them brief it. And let's all come back for a hearing on April 18th, fully briefed on your request for an injunction in a declaration. So it's going to go fast, but it's going to go on briefing and not on kind of a secret order

that then Jim Jordan has to fight against. I was sort of okay with that, but I saw some publicity. There was like federal judge, Denyze, emergency temporary restraining order. It was like, oh crap, the Trump or did it again, but that's not how I interpret it at all. So as to your last question or your question, Karen, on Mark Pomerance, he's got a big problem. I don't think waiver, even though I think he there's aspects of it that he did plays into it. Look, that privilege, the prosecutorial privilege, as you know, resides with the current occupant of that office, Alvin Bragg and the people of New York, not

Mark Pomeran's. That he went off and put things in a book that you and I were like smack on our forehead about why would you comment about the Stormy Daniels case? You don't even know if it's being prosecuted yet and your information is a year old because you left the office a long time ago. Why are you talking about your private conversations with Alvin Bragg? So I don't think it's his privilege or his whatever to waive. That's why he's a defendant, a nominal defendant in the case because the subpoena

is directed to him, not as Mark Pomerantz, but he's Mark Pomerantz, former special prosecutor in the Manhattan D.A.'s office. So who comes in, intervenes, the boss. And the boss says, that ex-employee of mine, let's get this down to labor law, boss says, that ex-employee of mine, let's get this down to labor law, employment law. That ex-employee of mine doesn't have the right to go testify before Congress about anything. And by the way, you don't have the power to subpoena because you have a limited Congress oversight abilities and you've abused that for political purposes in a retaliatory way in a trumped up show in order to help Donald Trump. And that's the entire gist of this lawsuit. But you and I are going to talk a lot about it Karen because there's going to be a hearing that's going to be relatively public. It's not a secret grand jury. That's the other

thing that Alvin Bragg has told the judge in his filings. He wants an injunction to protect the sanctity and the secrecy of the grand jury and the grand jury process because you can't have you know people poking around what happened in the grand jury and he ended it with this Karen Alvin and his lawsuit. He said if, if Donald Trump thinks that what I'm doing is political, which by the way, Donald Trump says everybody is doing something and if they're black, they're racist and if they're Democrat, they're political

to give them a Scott free pass on his own crimes. He called, you know, letitia James, New York Attorney General, racist and it's political. He went to three courts and each court told him they're not. So everywhere he goes to attack the prosecutors, he makes that attack. And Alvin said, you know what, if you think I'm bringing, if you think it's a political vendetta, this is for a man who did not run on a campaign of going after Trump. I know I've seen it in the papers where people have said, yeah, you ran on a campaign.

No, he did not. if anybody ran on a campaign It was Latisha James the New York Attorney General, but not Alvin Brak and I voted Yeah, he didn't run on I'm gonna get Trump it came up But it came up during debates because there was eight or nine people who ran for DA and Don't forget the DA whoever was going to win whoever took took over the reins of the helm of the Manhattan DA's office, was going to be handled in a indictment against Alan Weiselberg and the Trump org, and at least one, maybe two cases, investigations, that were pending. And so it was always a question of, can you handle a Trump case?

Because there were Trump cases, right? That's what it was about. It was just trying to see, you know, the different politicians who were running, the different DAs who were running, could they take on a former president and Donald Trump? Because not because this is such a complicated case, but because he's a man who will threaten,

he's a man who will try and intimidate, who will try to use the legal process frivolously to try to delay things, make frivolous arguments and never, ever try to be held accountable. In fact, he's somebody who declared his candidacy in order to avoid criminal prosecution. These investigations and prosecutions were well underway before he ever declared his candidacy. So these were their first and Donald Trump declared just so that he can say this is a political witch hunt and they're trying to interfere with the election. No, these existed first. He's the one who's trying to make it political. So that's where that is. And look, I agree with you that ultimately, Mark Pomeran's probably can't be required to testify

because, you know, look, Alvin Bragg was clear. He put in his papers. We told you, we asked you not to write this book. We asked you not to go on TV. We asked you to, can we see a copy of the book in advance? And you said no. So, I mean, his objections, Bragg's objections to Mark Pomerance are on the record. And so he didn't, he didn't waive that either. But that being said, Jim Jordan, just take, pick up Mark Pomerance's book and read it, read from it, it you're hearing.

Oh, but yeah, but he doesn't want yeah, he doesn't want to do that. He wants to show circus in New York to order to promote Donald Trump's agenda. You can't just say, hey, read people versus Donald Trump. You want to like a barrage, the prosecutor. Yes, of course, he'll do that too. But he can put actors, I mean, I'm not kidding. That's, you can put people in place to pretend to be,

and they will ask questions. What did you think of the assistant DAs, an actor to pretend to be Mark they will ask questions. What did you think of the assistant DA's, you know, an actor to pretend to be Mark Pomerantz and a questioner? What do you think of the assistant DA's in the Manhattan DA's office and read from page, you know, 46 of blah, blah, blah. Oh, well, they couldn't make a decision and they weren't very good and they were political, whatever. He can go on and on. He made disparaging remarks about Alvin Bragg. He made disparaging remarks about Alvin Bragg. He made disparaging remarks about the career prosecutors

in the case. He talked about the internal deliberations in the office regarding this case. And he talked about his own opinion of Donald Trump. And I just think it's really created a scenario that is just politicizing something that should just be a legal case that goes to trial and let a jury decide. Yeah. Well, good on Alvin Bragg for drawing a line and telling Congress back the F up. This is not New York and you're not going to retaliate or intimidate this office, Manhattan, DA. And for those that are asking, and I see it in the comments,

isn't it a crime? It is. There are crimes of intimidation related to the prosecutors. This is a civil case is current outlined in the Southern District, asking for declaratory and injunctive relief. That's it.

It doesn't mean that Alvin Bragg also could not bring other crimes and a dike Donald Trump for it if it continues, not Jim Jordan, so to speak, but it could be Jim Jordan. So we'll leave that for now. And let's take just a moment for a word from one of our sponsors. This is Michael Popok from Legal AF. If you like me, you understand the pains of choosing what to wear. Let's face it, most clothes are uncomfortable or too tight or are never actually the size

you really are. Not to mention the annoyance of trying to put a good outfit together. And when you do have a good fit, you can only wear it for a few hours before you have an important meeting or dinner. And then you got to change all over again. Everyone wants to dress the best and look good at all times because, frankly, it's a confidence booster. So here's the deal.

Men's closets were due for a radical reinvention and Ron stepped up to the challenge. Ron's commuter collection is the most comfortable, breathable, and flexible set of products known to man. And here's why. Ron helps you get ready for any occasion with the commuter collection, which offers the world's most comfortable pants, dress shirts, one-quarter zips, and polos. You never have to worry about what to wear when you have the Rone commuter collection. Rone's comfortable for-a-way stretch fabric provides breathability and flexibility that leaves you free to enjoy whatever life throws your way, from your commute to work to your 18 holes of golf. It's time to feel confident without the hassle.

With Rones Rakell release technology, Rakell's disappear as you stretch and wear the products, it's that easy. And with its gold fusion anti-odor technology, you'll be smelling fresh and clean all day long, and on top of that, Rones 100% machine washable so you can ditch the dry cleaner altogether. I absolutely love Rome. As you can see, this has truly become my go-to commuter fit and on the legal AF podcast recordings. We're on the move a lot, whether it's jumping from meeting to meeting or catching a flight or an important dinner, the Rome commuter collection has never let me down.

The versatility and comfort of the collection is undefeated. Even after I wear it all day, I still feel super fresh because of that gold fusion anti-order technology. The Commuter collection you can get you through any workday and straight into whatever comes next. Head to Rhone.com slash Legal AF and use code legal a f to save 20% on your entire order. That's 20% on your entire order when you head to our H O and E slash legal a f promo code legal a f. Find your corner office.

And we're back. Let's talk about e gene carol. That trial is coming up. And I don't care what Joe tech could be Takope and Lena Haba think, that trial is going forward on the 25th of April in the federal court, another federal court, another another federal court room in the Southern District of New York, this time in front of Lewis Kaplan, who's been running as most federal judges do, run in a very, very tight ship here, often, often making both sides, both lawyers unhappy in his rulings. He's running the show. He's wearing the black robe. So, look, what's the case about civil rape? It's a civil rape case back in 1995 or 1996, E. Jean Carol has been consistent in her allegations and her narrative. She's been tracking ever since that she was sexually assaulted and raped in a dressing

room of a major department store that happens to be across from Trump Tower. And the other part of the case is all of the defamatory things. If she's right and Donald Trump is wrong, all the defamatory things that Donald Trump said about her after he was no longer president and no longer had any kind of immunity whatsoever. So that's the case. And the case that's gonna be presented to some combination

of jurors between six and 12, that's how it works in federal court. I think there'll be about nine here. They'll work that out among the lawyers, along with all alternates, is going to be, you know, here's the witnesses. E. Jean Carroll is going to testify, of course, at length, about what happened to her. Supporting witnesses that she told what happened to her back in 95

and 96 will take the stand at least two women who claim that they were sexually assaulted by Donald Trump with no relation to E. Jean Carroll will take the stand. The access Hollywood tape of him talking about sexually assaulting and abusing women and touching them without their consent will be played and Trump will testify. Now Trump will testify either because he'll take the stand in his quota, quote, own defense in the civil case where he'll get, he'll get dragged in kicking and screaming through a trial subpoena issued by E. Jean Carroll's lawyers. And if he doesn't want to take the stand, they'll just play the depositions that were videotaped of him, which did not go

well for him. We've seen not all of the transcripts, but we've seen a lot of the pages of transcripts already that were that were filed in the case, and therefore we got access to them and we talked about them. And that's not going to go well for Donald Trump, including his inability to pick out E. Jean Carroll, thinking it was his wife or his future wife, Marla Mapples, and all sorts of other things that show them to be completely dishonest. For those that think, I'll take the Fifth Amendment, he will not, because he won't be able to. In order to take the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, there has to be the ability

that there is a reasonable likelihood of a criminal prosecution. And because the statute of limitations in New York has run for the criminal rape that she could have been the victim of and ask prosecutors along forcemen to go after him for. He has no legitimate claim to a criminal prosecution related to her. And therefore he won't, it has it not taken the Fifth Amendment. Now the judge has made some rulings on his own. He's decided for the protection of the jury.

They will be anonymous. Nobody fought back on that in March. He asked for the opinions of the lawyers. They were both like, sounds okay to me, keep them anonymous. Then somebody woke up, Karen, and the lawyers woke up and said, well, we'd like to know their names in when they're potential jurors, you get a list,

basically, when you're picking a jury, Karen and I have pictures. You get a list, it's called a panel or a veneer of all the potential jurors. And usually sometimes they fill out a questionnaire about their background occupation, who, you know, siblings that work in law enforcement, and maybe relationships to Trump or things like that. And then, you know, you go through a voidier process, which is a selection process, a searching, searing inquiry of questions

that in federal court is usually led, almost invariably led by the judge, state court, a little more freehand for the lawyers to do the jury selection and questioning, federal court, it's almost always the judge, the lawyers to do the jury selection and questioning federal court. It's almost always the judge. The lawyers can add questions. The judge can use them or reject them. But the purpose is to get a fair and impartial jury selected from this group of 100 or 200 that are brought down by the by the marshals and the people that are responsible for jury selection from which to choose. So then you get to your nine or your 12 with alternates going back and forth.

Somebody woke up on the both sides and said, oh, we want to see the names. So we got to know the names in advance. Maybe the jury becomes anonymous once they're picked, but we want to know who they are in advance. Don't worry, Judge, you can trust us. The lawyers will just know their names. And the judge said, yeah, we're not doing that. I told you that Jerry's going to be

anonymous. You'll learn their names when we're doing the selection process. I'll protect them and keep the media out of the room, of course. But that's the earliest you're ever going to know them. So we're not doing that. And then Karen, I want to, I want to bring in now Jessica Denson, who's our colleague on lights on. Hi, Jessica. Great to see you. Great to see you again Karen. It's been a while. Jessica, how are you? Great, great. And Jessica, you know, the has a great new show that she's on, Ben Mysalis is on there with her sometimes. But is a great new voice on the Midas Touch Network, and we're thrilled to have our joy in us for today.

We were talking, we thought this was a good segment because who's better at beating Donald Trump at his own game in a lawsuit, which is what Eugene Carroll's trying to do now, than Jessica Denson. Jessica, why don't you tell those that haven't crossed over and also seen your show or haven't seen the Midas Touch Brothers shows that you've been on. Tell them a little bit about, you know, your claim to fame. What you did to take down Donald Trump and see if we can tie that back into E. Jean Carroll. Yeah, well you absolutely have this, this, you know, powerful woman in E. Jean Carroll who has brought this case forward and I

have so much respect for her in this case. But I really, I'm with the news of Alvin Bragg's lawsuit against Trump. It reminded me so much of my own playbook, so to speak, my own legal trajectory in taking on Trump for the viewers who have maybe never heard of me. I initially worked for Donald Trump's campaign in 2016 and initially worked for Donald Trump's campaign in 2016 and I've come full circle 180 degrees out of that brainwashed mesmeric vacuum of right wing propaganda. I talk a lot about that on on our new show lights on, but I worked for him in 2016, had a terrible discriminatory defamatory experience. Year later later had an existential crisis ended up suing the campaign for human rights violations and other common law claims.

I filed this lawsuit on my own as a pro-Saleit again. And right out of the gate, the first maneuver of the Trump campaign in classic Trump style was to retaliate against me with a non-disclosure agreement and a 1.5 million arbitration demand. Now, I'm representing myself at this point. I haven't even found a lawyer because I didn't have the time for the money to do so before I came to this kind of existential realization that I had to take action.

So I'm juggling this unbelievable kind of pressure and intimidation and harassment of this retaliatory NBA action that they brought against me and not knowing exactly what to do, what I ended up doing was I ended up handling it proactively. I never entered the arbitration that the Trump campaign brought against me. Instead, I filed another pro-say lawsuit in 2018 to invalidate Trump's non-disclosure agreement that he had all of his staffers on his 2016 campaign sign. And through many legal hoops in and out of court and arbitration, I event end of course amassing a legal team. Wonderful legal team was now joining me. I have invalidated that NDA in court. So when I saw Alvin Bragg yesterday file this lawsuit, I was so encouraged and just happy for him to be confronting this head on as I

did saying, no, we're not playing your games. We're not entering into your perversion, inversion of justice, where you try to turn things on your head. We're going to handle these things proactively and challenge these subpoenas that are just weaponized, politicized, attempts to defend Donald Trump from his sick of fancy in Congress. And I think you know you may have some hiccups in the beginning certainly there's there's so much I have

learned this over the past what are we at now going on six years battling with the Trump campaign there's a lot of delays there's a lot of hurdles to overcome but I think that was an excellent opening posture that Brad brought against Jim Jordan to say, this is where we stand, we are not going to be cowering back, we're going to handle this proactively, and it's that kind of attitude that defeats this paper-tiger pretense of power that the Trump world tries to put out both through the legal system and the political scene. Yeah, that's that is a curaging for somebody like E. Jean Carroll. The E. Jean has also an added benefit. She's got Robbie Kaplan, who Karen and I interviewed, Roberta Kaplan, Powerhouse, Rockstar, trial lawyer, who's doing all the right things.

Cara, why don't you talk about the recent filings that Joe Takapina and Alina Habba in a letter brief, basically a day after or hours after their client appeared with Tucker Carlson talking about the Manhattan DA case and other things, what they filed into to try to delay the case for 30 days, whatever that means for a cooling off period. And then Robbie Kaplan's almost instantaneous response, which I think handed them their hat. I've told people I've never seen a live vivisection where somebody's heart was pulled out of their chest and shown to them. But Robbie Kaplan's letter brief was about as close to it as I've seen. Talk to the audience about what you took away from those two filings. And what do you think Judge Kaplan's going to do about it?

Yeah, the case is scheduled to begin April 25th. And Trump is asking for a adjournment. He's saying it's because of pretrial publicity. He said since his indictment, there's been a deluge of prejudicial media coverage. He asked for a one-month postponement. They indicated in there that holding the trial of this case a mere three weeks after these historic events will guarantee

that many, if not most, prospective jurors, will have the criminal allegations top of mind when judging President Trump's defense against Miss Carol's allegations That was that was a quote by the way and Joe Takapina one of the lawyers asked for a cooling off period and He said you know just we just want a month so that we can Have everybody cool down, but let's think about what's going to happen in that month's time, okay? During that in that month's time. Okay. During that, in that month's time, he is going to be Donald Trump's likely going to be indicted again this time in Georgia and probably also by Jack Smith soon thereafter,

if not before. So really things will get worse, not better in a month's time. So given that and the fact that who created this media frenzy, who created this deluge of media attention? Donald Trump did. Donald Trump is the one who left court and held a rally at Mar-a-Lago. Donald Trump is the one who appeared on Sean Hannity. Donald Trump is the one who is going out

and making it so that there is a ton of media attention here. He's the one who called for protests and death and destruction, et cetera. So he has created the very situation that he's now complaining of. I think that there is no way in hell that the judge is going to give this adjournment. It's not happening. This judge is going to make this trial occur. It's going to start now because, as I said, I think things get worse for Trump in terms of media attention, not better in a month.

So this is just one more attempt at delay, delay, delay, because that's what they do. They just want to make these things just not go forward because going forward would mean being held to account for what he did. So I just really don't think that there's a chance in hell that the judge does this. I mean, what do you think? Yeah, what I let, I'll turn it over, then I'll turn it over to Ajeska.

What I liked about Robbie's letter brief back is it started with picking up because Joe Takapina has a tin ear. He's deaf because the judge just got through the day before telling the lawyers that he the judge is going to handle what dear that it's going to be a searching inquiry to get an impartial jury and that the judge is obviously fully aware of things. The judge even pointed out, I said two weeks ago that this jury needed to be anonymous for their own protection and under federal protection because of all the things Donald

Trump had said. And it got worse, the judge said. Since then, he's gone after Judge Mershan, the sitting judge presiding over the criminal case down the street, his family, his friends, his daughters, his wives. It's gotten worse, not better. So Robbie started her letter with, Judge, you're going to do the what-deer. You're going to do the jury selection process. And we trust you and your ability to pick a fair and impartial jury. Plus, this is my part where they, Robbie, just stuck it to Trump because Trump's ego is like,

everything is all about me Like I think salty. We have it where he's now told people that they were that they were courtroom personnel that were crying and apologizing Really like the guy that hit him with the door and didn't bother holding the door for him I mean Karen you and I are around New Yorkers all day long Yeah, I'm sorry. No one in New York in the court is trying. Even if they're Trump supporters, they're not crying, okay? That's what you're doing.

So in her letter brief, she said, well, Takapena and Haba make a big deal out of doing Google search. Not a lot of law in their brief, but they did a Google search. And they said, oh, 60,000 stories of Trump's indictment went on. And Robbie said, that's not the proper way to do it. You do it with Google trends. And if you look at Google trends within a day or two of the indictment,

the interest in Donald Trump's indictment dropped by 85% almost back to pre indictment levels. In fact, she went on just a stick at to him and said New York is behind Akron, Ohio and in between Akron, Ohio and Vegas in interest. And her quote was just withering and devastating her quote, which I'm going to read is that apparently it appears that New Yorkers aren't as fixated on Trump as he thinks they are. And then went on to say, and what does 30 days do?

How was a 30, this is where Taca Pino from the first paragraph, almost the first sentence of his filing lost. 30 days, I mean, if you really seriously thought you needed a cooling off period, you'd ask for a longer period of time. 30 days is not enough to cool off everything around the Donald Trump circus.

And as you rightly pointed out, Karen, more indictments coming in Atlanta, more indictments coming out of Jack Smith, more things going on in the Manhattan DA's office, it's never gonna cool down. He doesn't want it to cool down. He's fomenting it. So you can't, we joke about this before before and I'll turn it over to Jessica. You know, it's,

it's the old orphan mercy. You kill your parents and then you ask the court for mercy because you're an orphan. You created this problem. This is going to be a loser. This thing's going to I'll, I'll eat my, I'll come back on the show and eat my hat, eat my hat. If this doesn't go to trial on the 25th of April of April What did you have it? Another week's Did you happen to catch the judge said no more delays due to their advanced ages because Trump is 76 and the aging Carol 78 But I love how cuz they're always talking about how Joe Biden, you know, whatever Trump is you know getting up there too

So yeah, of course are whatever Trump is, you know, getting up there too. So, of course, are Jessica, what are you, first of all? I was gonna say when you were talking about New Yorkers, not liking Trump, it reminded me of my Jose days fighting. I was in that New York Supreme courthouse so many times because I filed a paper lawsuit. I didn't do it electronically when I first filed. So I had to literally like bring my motions into the motion practice room in New York. And I remember the first time I went and I sat before it, and I was like, yeah, good job. So there's a little bit of the sentiment of New Yorkers not to mention in the in the courts in New York for Donald Trump. And there were

so many times I was doing this on my own for so long that I had to get other people to serve papers for me. I couldn't even put an envelope in the mail myself because I'm a party, so I would have to get somebody else to do. And I would literally just walk on the street outside of New York Supreme Court House and find a New Yorker who was happy as anything

to be helping somebody and will also you to get his Donald Trump. So that's the New York sentiment for Donald Trump. And yet we don't care about you. But I think, I think Jessica's a testament to a couple of things. One, this is what we do Karen and you and I for a living. Is brain surgery.

As my mother always said, you need a good doctor, you need a good tailor, and you need a good lawyer in your life. There's a reason for that. But you can do it yourself. It could be the ultimate DIY project, which is what, which is what, Agestica has done to take down Donald Trump and all the lawyers around him the way that she did. So if you now add on Robbie Kaplan, and I'm waiting and I wanna hear from both of you on this,

because you have a perspective that I don't have. I have it from experience, but you have it from your vantage point. You've got Joe Takup, this is the only two lawyers. I thought a long time ago they were going to replace the lawyers. As this case got closer to trial and the seriousness of the allegations became clear that this could really nail Donald Trump because the jury, if they find civil rape and they find defamation, they're going to write a big fat check against Donald Trump. Okay. And he's going to go down in history. You know, the S- 34 counts are interesting up the street for stormy Daniels and paying off a woman he had sex with, but civil rape. That's a whole

different branding of him for history. I thought he replaces lawyers with better lawyers. I'll be honest with you. He brought in Joe Takapina and I said, all right, he's going to be the lead lawyer. Okay. And then, but Alina Hobb is still there. Who cross examines? This is very delicate. E. Jean Carroll is it, Jo Takapina, who has shown no nuance, no velvet touch at all. And any of his, he's the pit bull. He's the pit bull in the Chinatown shop to mix metaphors. Is he the one that's gonna suddenly be a,

a, I'm Miss Carroll, I'm the lawyer. I'm just going to ask you a few questions, or is Alina Haba? Well, right, his coloring, I called it a coloring book during the last one. Or is it, or is it Alina Haba? These seem to be the only two choices. And, and I want to hear it from Karen having done this and done sex assault cases when she was a prosecutor and violent crime, that kind of thing. And then from you, Jessica, and just being a absorber of all things legal from your perspective about how that would play out for a jury.

Karen, who does this and what do you think the impact of the jury is going to be on who's chosen to be the cross-examiner of E. Jean Carroll. So yeah, so oftentimes, criminal defense attorneys are, they believe that in sexual assault cases, it's better to have a woman do the cross-examination of another woman so that the man doesn't come across as too heavy-handed. And it's also a little bit awkward, especially when a woman is talking about a sexual assault, having a man talk about things in detail, because you have to ask detailed questions

during cross-examination. So they often bring a woman in to do that. In fact, now that I'm a criminal defense attorney, I've had multiple requests to be that person in a trial, to do that. And, you know, they're typically shopping around for a woman. So I wouldn't be surprised if Joe Takapina isn't, even if he can soften his voice, and he's an experienced trial lawyer, even if he can tone it down and soften it. It's creepy and awkward to have, you know,

you have to go into detail and cross examination. That's typically what's done to try to show that it either lacks detail or somehow doesn't make any sense. And so you're talking about body parts and private things and who touch to where and when and what came first. And it's really not only awkward and creepy but offensive to have a man talking to a sexual assault survivor in a trial. So I wouldn't be surprised if it brings a woman in. What do you think Jessica? I would think that if they have any hope at all,

they would bring a woman in. I just as you you're talking about that, knowing the kind of persona of Joe Takapino, thinking about the Trump lawyers that are on the Trump campaign, in my case, all male. One of them I went head to head with in an oral argument when I was pro-saying, and he was literally like shaking. I don't think they quite knew how to handle me, but if they have any hope at all, I think they've got to bring a woman. I think that Jean Carroll is just going to really give them something that this case, you know,

we've never seen anything like this case. And I cannot envision as much as he might tone himself down, I cannot envision it being a good look for them to have Joe Takapina across examining aging, Carol, on sexual assault issues. Yeah, I will just wrap it. That's a very two powerful observations, one from a practitioner and one from a sophisticated legal participant. I don't know, Jessica, I wanna call you a lawyer, but you're not there yet.

You will, one day, you'll be there. But your observations are great. The thing that kills me when I read social media about it is the Trump's been successful in getting out talking points against E. Jean Carroll that are a not-sensical, that be not true, like she was on Tucker, she was on one of the CNN shows with Anderson Cooper and said, rape was sexy. You have to watch the entire interview and the point that she was being made that

is so taken out of context and not what she was talking about at the time, but that's what you get pushed back on. She is going to, they're going to do across of her. It's going to be a very good day for the plaintiff after E. Jean Carroll testifies because as everybody here has said, and everybody has said in general, when a witness like this one is so consistent in her story, so authentic in the telling, and is unshakable in her story, so authentic in the telling. And it's unshakable in her resolve, the jury that resonates with the jury, especially a jury here in New York, it's gonna hear this story.

And they're not gonna have to, you know, I'm pretty sure in one of their motions, the judges are gonna allow Takapena and Haba to even say, well, you waited, the date is the date, it's 95, 96, but they're not gonna be able to make a big deal about that because there was a new statute that was passed just in November. And she was case number one that was filed under it. And so they don't want to get the jury all wrapped up. But why'd she wait so long? Because for a long time, her her her statute of limitations

had run. And then it was reopened for a one year period of time. But I think she's going to do well on on stand in her direct. I think then they're gonna, but they'll try to score some points. It could well backfire the way that we've just described at your front of a jury. If it's not, this is real brain surgery. And if they don't do it just right,

it's gonna backfire on the lawyers that are cross examining her and it's gonna benefit her. And then of course, Robbie Kaplan, just to round out our trial practice segment here of Legal AF. Robbie and her team gets to come back up and do what's called a redirect

if they think they've been hurt on any particular thing, if they want to give her a better opportunity to speak. As you remember, in cross examination, generally it's done in a yes or no format. In fact, if she's not answering yes or no, the judge will often admonish the person and say, you got it, you can explain it. You can do that when your own lawyer gets up, but you got to answer this question because it's framed as a yes or no.

We call that a cross examination question, a leading question. But with your own lawyer, you're not led. In fact, you're not allowed to lead technically and you have to answer and you can give us a little longer narrative, so answer. So the lawyer will get back up. So she'll have the last word, literally, Robbie Kaplan and E. Jean Carroll,

after getting through a, what I think will be somehow a vigorous cross examination. Then the rest of the witnesses come on. Then Donald Trump's going to have to come on and give his BS, which is I don't know her, I don't like her. She's not my type. All this other retic, I was locker room talk in the Axis Hollywood. I, the woman in the first class, I never grope to her.

The woman lies, lying people, people magazine at Mar-a-Lago. I never put her up against the wall and forcibly kissed her. This is like a death by 1,000 paper cuts. I mean, how many of these does the jury just gonna roll their eyes in? Who wouldn't that jury as Robbie Kaplan put in her papers? And impartial jury doesn't mean one that's ignorant.

I mean, we're not looking for people who don't know who Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States was, or that he lived in New York, or that he had a career, or that he was celebrity apprentice. They're not finding that. It's just knowing all of that,

can you be fair and impartial, applying the law to the facts? Yes or no, that's the question. That's it. That's the litmus test for everyone. Not whether, you know, you know anything about it. It doesn't require ignorance of the defendant. So I think we're gonna have to watch it closely.

It's gonna go on the 25th. There's gonna be a ruling by Judge Kaplan off these competing briefs that have just been filed about delayed, delayed delay. And I think, as I said, Takapena shot himself, I don't know about in the foot, but in the head by arguing that he just needed a 30 day cooling off, cooling off period between the the arrangement about an unrelated case having nothing to do with EG and Carol, even at worst, Stormy Daniels is about paying off woman you had sex with.

It's not exactly attacking her sexually. Right. That's what I was I forgot to I'm glad you mentioned that. I forgot to mention the NBA's and women. It's a lot to keep track of. Yeah. No, but that was the most ridiculous argument that he made was it's so similar. It's so similar. I'm like it has one's a white woman, a taller paper case, and another one's a civil rape case. Like I'm like it has one's a white woman or paper case and another one's a civil rape case like I'm sorry They're nothing alike other than that. They're both involving women, you know one in it is consensual sex and one is is rape

I don't know. I thought that was a ridiculous argument as well. Yeah, and we'll talk at the end The next segment or the segment after at the end about this new suit that Donald Trump has filed against Michael Cohen and why he's done it because Michael Cohen of course is the lead witness as we know now in the indictment of Donald Trump related to Stormy Daniels. Jessica, I'm so pleased that you were on.

I know, Karen, what do you think? We should have her come on more regularly, right? Yeah, it's always nice to have someone else come on. So, and it's great to see you. I think this is the first, great to see you. This is the first pop-up and I have shared shared a screen. But Karen and I got to know each other over the summer with the Gen 6 hearings.

And I absolutely love doing them with you. I was always coming off. You were coming on after me. I jumped in. You came. I know. We never made it on at this time. Right.

Well, thank you so much for having me. Of course. And we're going to come on your show. I think you and I talked about having time, me or some combination. Want to want to go under both at some other time. So for those that are just kind of waking up and listening and watching Jessica Denson, she's the anchor of a new

podcast from a really great perspective and a serious important voice on the Midas Touch Network called Lights On and you can find it everywhere you find our stuff right on the Midas Touch Network on YouTube and in every place you can pull your podcast. Jessica, that's the thanks for being with us. Jessica, we're live live every every Friday at seven Eastern for Pacific Live Live just like this. So come on over and join us live live one Friday. And Jessica, just I wanted to say one thing, you are such an inspiration because really,

it's, it takes a lot to take on Donald Trump and his machine of intimidation and threats and harassment. As we're seeing, he's him doing to Alvin Bragg, as we're seeing that he does, but you know, Alvin Bragg's an elected official, he sort of signed up for that, right? You are a person, right? You're just a normal person, you're a woman, you're smart, and you took him on. And it's not just that what's impressive isn't that you did it, pro-say without a lawyer, what's impressive, I mean, yes, that's also impressive, but what's really impressive is that you had the strength

and the fortitude to take him on despite what he does to people. So it's really amazing what you've done. It's an inspiration and hopefully your strength will give other people's strength who come forward because he's just a disaster. Thank you so much. It means the world coming from your parents. Thank you. much. It means the world coming from you, Karen. Thank you.

Well, before Jessica takes her job as lawyers, we're gonna go, wish her well, but we're gonna go to one of our law school yet. But I might be going to law school so. I would be surprised. Let's go to one of our sponsors to come back and do two segments.

We're gonna come back to, we're gonna do Michael Cohen, getting sued by Donald Trump just today. Talk about real time in Miami in the Southern district of Florida. We'll talk about why that was filed there and what do we think is going to happen next and why and why why Florida at all. We'll talk about that and we're going to talk about what is happening with the trial that starts on Monday, Dominion voting machines versus Fox, Fox is stepped in both feet in both buckets in front of this judge has is getting sanctioned by them. Even before the jury selection has happened, major rulings have gone against Fox news

before in Fox Corporation. Even before they enter the room, the jury's got very little to do because the judge already ruled against Fox on three major issues. We're going to talk about all that after this note from our sponsor. Let's take a quick break to talk about our next sponsor, Neurohacker, Qualia Mind. Just like you, throughout the course of a work day, we hear at legal AF are juggling a lot of different task and assignments, stories and shows, analysis and hot takes. That's why we're so proud to partner with Neurohacker, Qualia Mind to keep us focused and improve our memories. Transforming willpower and productivity can in turn transform tons of

life habits for the better. From workouts, the job performance, the life goals, and that's why it's so important to have a sharp memory in today's working environment. Look, we've all misplaced something before, whether it be your keys or something at work, and we ended up down in ourselves, because, well, how can I forget that? Well, worry no more. Our sponsor, Neurohacker, combines 28 of the most research-backed, newtropic ingredients on Earth into the ultimate brain fuel formula, quality of mind.

And it's been changing people's lives for years now. For my daily mental performance and supporting long term brain health, quality mind is indispensable. It's so cool to take a health product where you don't have to wonder if it's working because I noticed the difference in just days to my focus, my mood, my memory, and my willpower to get things done. The formula is non-GMO, vegan, gluten-free, and the ingredients are meant to complement what another, factoring in each ingredient's effect on mental clarity. And get this, it's backed by a 100-day money back guarantee.

So you have almost three months to try qualia Mind at no financial risk and decide for yourself. See what the best Spring Fuel Formula on Earth can do for your mindset. Go to neurohacker.com slash legal AF for $100 off. That's only $39 a bottle, and as a listener of legal AF, use code legal AF at checkout for an extra 15% off your first purchase. That's neurohacker.com slash legal AF to try qualia mine with code legal AF and experience life-changing mental performance. I need neurohackers to get through all of our segments today and my head

is spitting from all the developments. Let's talk Karen about Dominion and Fox and the big trouble they are in even before they enter the courtroom. Let's start with two concepts. I'll frame it. I'll turn it right back to you, Karen. We've got a defamation case brought by Dominion voting systems and election software and hardware company that was just doing their job, selling safe and effective, cyber secure, voting machines to different election precincts and counties around the country. At a Canada, that's where they got their dominion from. It comes from a reference to the woman's suffrage movement in Canada of all things. And it was invented as a company after the hanging Chad 2000 election that put Bush over

Gore by a five to four vote of the US Supreme Court. If you're wondering where the company came from, has no relationship to Venezuela, you go Chavez, a bribery conspiracy with the George Election officials, smartmatic working with Dominion. This is all the fevered pitch opium dreams of Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani who brought their Schlach Show onto Fox and put it on Maria Barteromo and Lou Dobbs and all the rest of them and trafficked and all of this garbage and defamatory statements about dominion killing

their business and sacrificing their professional reputation on the altar of the greed of Fox. So two entities got sued that are important. Fox News, which is the one, I don't know why we call it news, Fox whatever, that you watch on television with Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram and the rest and Fox Corporation, which is the parent company that rupert Murdoch it is on Lockwood Murdoch run and control. That's the defendants.

And in the case of a civil case that's now in Delaware Superior Court, we're moving through a lot of courts today. This is like our fifth or sixth court and court system federal versus state that we're going to talk about. This one, Superior Court Delaware judge Eric Davis sitting down in in Delaware in Wilmington, Delaware, where this where there's resides Joe Biden's backyard backcountry. And the case got filed by Dominion there because Fox is a Delaware corporation as half

of the Fortune 500 is because of the laws that are down there. So that's how we got there. This case is going terrible for Fox almost from day one. And it backfired when they brought a motion for summary judgment. As did Dominion about a month ago telling the judge, the jury shouldn't even get this case judge. Both Fox at the same thing. What we said was not defamatory about them. It's opinion. It was in fact, we're journalists.

We have the protection of the first amendment. We have a protection of a body of law under the US Constitution and the Supreme Court called Times, New York Times versus Sullivan, which says that I can say anything I want about anybody, and it can be defamatory. New York Times versus Sullivan, which says that I can say anything I want about anybody and it can be defamatory if I wasn't a part of the media, as long as I don't make that statement and publish it with actual malice, meaning I know it's false when I said it, or I have a reckless disregard for whether it's true or false. I really don't care because I'm all about the ratings. That's the doctrine in a nutshell. The judge took a

look at the papers, took a look at the thousands of emails, the thousands of internal emails among the news side, the editorial side, the business side, Rupert Murdoch, the president of news court, the three talking heads, Hannity Tucker and Laura Ingram and all of that and concluded already before the jury even got in, it is picked on Monday, concluded that everything that Fox said about dominion is false. Falsity, which is the first element of defamation, already established by the judge, judge is going to tell the jury, there's three elements to defamation, falsity of the thing said, publication that it got said to a third party in writing or orally and damages. I'm taking two away from you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

I made a ruling before you even got here. Falsity is proven and publication is proven. And for Fox News and for Fox court, all all proven all you got to do now is do damages Right a check figure out whether they've been damaged Of course they have been and write a big check for it 1.6 billion is what dominion wants and look at one one major defense The only defense that really Fox news and Fox corp have which is Actual malice was their actual malice. Was there actual malice? The judge said, I looked at all the emails. It looks like you knew or should have known that everything you're putting on the air was complete and utter horseshit. This is my words, not his. And therefore,

it's pretty close on actual malice. I'm going to let it squeak by and get to the jury. But it's pretty close that you would have lost this case just now on summary judgment. But the judge is pissed about something on top of all of this based on some revelations that came out late in discovery. I mean late like yesterday and we're going to trial a Monday. Okay, and the judge is just hearing about these issues now because the Fox News is just continuing to dump documents on the other side at this late game. Karen, why is the judge pissed and what does he say about what he's going to do about it when the trial, you know, even during the trial or after the trial is over?

Yeah. So, like Judge Eric Davis, who's the judge here, sanctioning Fox for withholding information and evidence in the case, said that he's likely to have a special master appointed to do an investigation into Fox's handling of documents during the discovery process and whether it would help details about whether Rupert Murdoch was a corporate officer or not. And those are the two areas where the judge was pissed off, frankly, where Dominion's lawyers said that the information was withheld from them, really important relevant information and materials, as well as this status

of whether Rupert Murdoch had a corporate role or not. So Dominion said that Fox only turned over recently, like I think it was a week ago, certain recordings that existed between Maria Barteroma who was talking to Trump's lawyers, Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani. And the judge said that if Dominion had to ultimately do additional depositions or redo any that are already done because of these late disclosures and late discovery information that was turned over, that basically Fox will do everything they can to make whoever the person is available if they have to do it.

And it will be at their cost. They'll have to pay for whatever this cost, this late discovery. And the judge, since very likely he's going to appoint a special master to investigate Fox's handling of these materials, of these documents, and whether they inappropriately withheld this information from Dominion and whether they withheld details about Rupert Murdoch's role as a corporate officer of Fox News. So apparently they knew that he was a corporate officer of Fox Corporation, but they didn't know that he had a role in Fox News, which is relevant here because it has to go, it has to do with whether or not they would have

subpoenaed certain documents or asked certain questions in deposition because it's Fox News that was making some of the decisions, the editorial decisions about what to put on and what not to put on the news that turned out to be false. I think Jerry Selections tomorrow and openings are Monday. And I think this is starting actually tomorrow as in Thursday. And the judge thinks this is very serious. He thinks that there's been misrepresentations made to the court. Anytime a judge says that, it's one thing

to abstain, sustain, overruled. It's one thing to lose an objection, right? And that happens and you go on with life in your trial. But if a judge is accusing you of withholding information from the court lying to the court, that's pretty serious and it's not going to bode well for for Fox and their lawyers during this trial. So I think it's a very big deal. This trial starting

tomorrow. They wanted to see Fox wanted to decouple I think as the word they use or I can't remember the word they use but they want to deconsolidate. Deconsolidate. Yeah, I know it was something like that. They wanted to deconsolidate these trials and have Fox News go and not Fox Corp or vice versa and the judge wasn't having anything of that. So we'll see, I think this is one to watch. Well, let me tell you what he could do because I've been involved with cases like this, not on the Fox side, on the dominion side.

And let me just frame this for people who don't think that if people are out there, maybe not in our chats and watching our show, that Fox is gonna be able to dance through the raindrops without getting wet as that common phrase is, on actual mouse, they're not. There is a video, there is a recording of a conversation between Maria Bartoromo

that just got produced the last couple of days, and Rudy Giuliani and Powell in which Powell's then center Bartoromo as supporting documentation and email from somebody that Powell said supported their fraud software China, you know, Venezuela had infiltrated dominion and flip votes in favor of Trump. The person in the email says that one of the ways that she was able to discover this information is because she is a time traveler. I'm not making this up everybody. She

is a time traveler and used her time traveling skills to deter. And this was sent to Maria Bartoromo, who then... Special powers. She said she had special powers. Special powers. Bartoromo, bless her soul. She's also a defendant in the case, sent a email back to Sydney Powell referring to Eric Trump, that Eric Trump, and said, this is very important information.

I'll let Eric know you provided it. So look, either that's tongue in cheek or she didn't want, she didn't want that, look, nobody had Fox wanted the jig to be up because ratings, ratings, ratings, and they're losing a news max and they needed to continue to run these crazy stories. But that's also defamation and that's also actual amalice.

Let me tell you what the judge could do. People are under reporting this in the news because it just came out today that the judge said, you misled me about the role of Rupert Murdoch, what hat we sometimes call it, dual had itness, which hat he was wearing. I asked the question of the lawyers for Fox about whether Rupert Murdoch had an operational executive role at news. And I was told point blank, no. And now that is not true. I feel misled.

This is the judge on the record. And you're now providing documents late about the role of Rupert Murdoch in the company and things that you should have produced like the Rudy Sidney Powell Marta Romo show in video that you didn't produce. So you are to save lawyers for Dominion, I'm sorry for Fox, all of your internal correspondence and emails about the production of documents and on these issues, because I'm going to a point, I'm looking at appointing a special master. Here's what the judge could do.

The judge could do, pardon me, the following. At the end of the trial, he could sanction Fox by striking their pleadings, striking their answer, striking their defenses and giving it to fault judgment in favor of dominion. He could do that at like any time during the trial. So for people that don't think the person in the black robe doesn't have a lot of power, they do. It's called contempt, it's called striking pleadings. They have inherent authority to make sure there's a proper administration of justice in their courtroom.

And this judge feels like he's been had by Fox and its lawyers. And that's a terrible place for them to be. This could happen. We'll watch it. It's going to be parallel to could happen. We'll watch it. It's going to be parallel to what's happening in the actual trial in the courtroom is going to be when the jury's not around in the morning and in the evening, the judge holding hearings about whether he's going to take this away from the jury and sanctioned Fox, which he can do for these kind of violations.

He could give them that equivalent of a death penalty if he finds that this violation was so great. As to the depositions, people might be saying, well, what happens? The game starts on, I don't know if it's this week, I still think it's Monday, but whenever it is, when the trial starts, people are like, well, it's over. They won. They held, they hit all the documents. No, there can be, I've done this. There can be breaks in the trial. the judge says to the jury, we're not meeting on Wednesday, he doesn't tell them why. We're not meeting on Wednesday, there's things the lawyers and the judge have to do together. We'll see you Thursday morning, and in Wednesday, they're scrambling to go crammed depositions in at Fox's expense and trying to catch up there. So you can build this plane, this trial plane while you're flying it.

It's not ideal. I've done it. You break out of the trial and you go do a series of deposition, then you come back and the jury kind of goes on ice for a while. So we're going to watch closely what this pissed off judge with lots of powers could do and throw the book at Fox. So that's what we have there. Sure, of course. So we have't have depositions in criminal cases, right? That there is no opportunity to speak to a person or take questions from them in a criminal case. So I have a question for you.

So these depositions that are done, can you play them any time during your case or do you have to wait to see if the person will testify or not first and then you cross examine them with that? If they're not, in other words, is there a requirement? How does a deposition versus live testimony, if you understand my question? Yeah, I do. In civil courts, it's different in different jurisdictions, but I think in this one,

because there was sworn testimony under oath, they're going to be able to play parts of it, even in their opening, without having the live witness give the testimony. So in courts in Florida, and even in New York, I've played video clips in advance and then had the witness on the stand. Of course, I used the video to also impeach them when they when they when they are not on point or they change their story, but that's when they're on the stand. And you can also do it with your witnesses as well as the opposing side or. It's usually the adverse side, but because of different hearsay rules and things like that. But some courts are like, no, you're not playing any deposition videos, get all your witnesses live in the courtroom, you can use that for impeachment.

So really, you're going to have to play, as I know, you have a national trial practice, you're going to have to look at the rules in each of the courtrooms. I think in Delaware, and I've done a little work in Delaware, I think they're going to be able to, like like in their opening Play this at the very least Ripper Murdoch has been told show up for your depa's for your live testimony as a witness in the courtroom Because he tried to oh, well, why do I have to go? Yeah, you got to go because there's lots of emails and fingerprints with your name on it in which you knew that Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell were lying And you commented on it, in which you knew that Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell were lying and you commented on it to your news chief, who of course is listening to the owner of

the company. It's like Logan Roy on succession calling over to ATM and telling them what to put on the air. It's exactly like that. For those who don't think succession was based on Cooper Birdock and his family, it was. So we have that going on. So he's going to appear, Hannity is going we have that going on. So he's gonna appear, Hannity is gonna have to go,

and their Tucker Carlson's gonna have to appear live. You know who's not gonna follow this on their network is gonna be Fox News. You're not gonna see a thing about the lawsuit on any of their major outlets, except where these people are gonna be talking about things. We do have a clip that salty found for us of a uh... trump campaign official

acknowledging during a phone call with a fox producer that there was zero evidence of any issues of corruption with the dominion voting machines salty got that clip are any of the machines i know it was on war room the other day with steve banan have any of the machines been looked at he had said that one was looked at in georgia uh...

i've been checked on that in terms of georgia i know during the audit it checked on those machines you're really do we just offer off the record for one second? Yeah, of course. I don't want us to say it if it's not that's why we're talking I would I would I think they have looked at the machines But when the Secretary of State did its audit There there was a lot I think a fair bit of looking at the machines You know the audit came in pretty darn close

to what the machine count was with the receipts. So, you know, I don't know the outcome of those but our understanding, again, this is with Secretary of State's office, was that there weren't any physical issues with machines of those inspections. Well, if you wanted to know what actual malice sounds like, Alex courtesy of Alex Wagner, we just heard it.

And so will the jury when that's played aloud for them. All the stuff that we geek out over, you me and Ben on legal AF, when all of that treasure trove of emails got, got filed with the papers by both Dominion and by, and by Fox and we're like combing through them and doing hot dicks and going on the show, wait till this is curated by a really amazing group of Dominion lawyers who have been eating and sleeping and drinking this case for the last two and a half years. And they put on this beautiful presentation of clips

and audios and time travelers, superpowers, and then the testimony of Bartteromo and Lou Dobbs. And then as we talked about Karen, I didn't talk about it, but I did a hot take on it. They're worried. They just settled a $250 million defamation case brought by the Venip, the poor Venezuelan businessman. I don't even know where Sydney Powell. She must have gone through a Venezuel and yellow pages to find this guy and

Claim that he was the mastermind of the entire conspiracy linking smartmatic a competitor to Dominion who they'd never heard of each other to Venezuela to Hugo Chavez to software to Georgia bribes none of which happened all of which Sydney Powell software to Georgia bribes, none of which happened, all of which Sydney Powell told Fox News had happened. And this poor guy was the mastermind. He was like the Kaiser Sozi of Sydney Powell's bullshit. They just settled with him. He brought a case piggybacking on all of the treasure trove of information that had come

out with smartmatic and Fox in federal court in New York. And they just did a confidential settlement. We don't know what the number is, but it started at $250 million. They gotta get rid of this guy, because I'm sure Dominion is gonna bring him in. And Fox would at least like to have him say, be a little happier, a little sonnier when he testifies,

because otherwise he is the guy that's 50-Powell pointed to and said he's the link between Dominion. He was just the poor Venezuelan business man. God caught up with this mouse drum created by said any power to gin up ratings and support for Donald Trump Crazy. It's just lie. It's just Never own which have another podcast they just lie, but I just don't understand how you can just outright lie. It just makes no sense to me because look what they're, they look, what mileage they get out of it. Yes, I don't know.

It's like one thing to have different differences in opinion, right? I, I believe government should be big. I believe it should be small. I believe in whatever the things, you know, climate change or I don't or whatever it is, whatever people believe it or don't is one thing, but to just flat out lie, I don't get it. It just doesn't make sense to me how they can do that over and over and over again. Anyway, we should get to our fourth issue because it's very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very This is going on here. So we don't call out how undisciplined we are in our presentation. You know, we went on. We had a special guest. There we are. But let's get to the thing that we weren't even going to do. We were going to do three, three shows tonight. And then as

I was in the thing, we had to, we had to ignore Michael Cohen getting sued in federal court by Donald Trump. Oh my god. All right. This is, this is, if this is like Ali Foreman, round three, you know, the thriller in Manila is like Ali Foreman, round three, you know, the thriller in Manila is like the third time these two have battled it out. Michael Cohen sued Donald Trump in the past. Now Donald Trump has decided because he knows he got hurt terribly by Michael Cohen with the grand jury and about Stormy Daniels and everything else. And Michael Cohen, look, he's not a shrinking violet.

He's been very public. He's not the mightest Dutch network. He talks about either it's on May a culpa or it's on political beat down with Ben and his interviews. There is, he's an open book. You can say whatever you want about Michael Cohen, but he is transparent.

And he's an open book. And he's a chased man. And he's talked about his seeing the light and testifying truthfully now about his relationship with Donald Trump and all the dirty deeds that he did on behalf of his boss at the time Donald Trump. Donald Trump didn't like it. He tried to throw Bob Castello, Robert Castello, a former prosecutor who's been a defense lawyer for people like Bannon and everything else. a defense lawyer for people like Banan and everything else. And at one time, because this very incestuous how all of these trumpers use the same lawyers. And one time when Michael Cohen was inside of the tent and with Trump in his camp, he used apparently Castello, or at least Castello claims he did as his lawyer. And so Donald Trump has decided, I got to hit back at Michael Cohen. I got to do a press release,

but I'll just make it a federal lawsuit instead. And I'll attack Michael Cohen for breaching his fiduciary duties and rules of ethics when he was a New York lawyer. He's no longer a New York lawyer. He was this part of his crimes because he and I want to hear your take on this character. You may be left on something before we got going today about, I don't understand the case, Pope, but this is what I took away from it. I'm going to let you do it. But he's suing him in Florida. Now why I'll give the because I practice in Miami.

I'll give the insider baseball on Miami. Then I'm going to turn it to you on the on how ridiculous the lawsuit is. Why Miami? Donald Trump lives in Florida. So when he wanted to go, come up the works on Mar-a-Lago, remember, he went up to the northern, most furtherous part of the Southern District of Florida, but still in the Southern District of Florida,

Federal District, and found that one judge sitting there, Eileen Cannon, up in, not Port St. Lucie, but the what, a Viro beach of all places. And filed it there, they typed like the Jessica talk today about filing a paper lawsuit. They did that, they took a paper lawsuit,

they ran it up to, you know, 70 miles north of West Palm Beach in Mar-a-Lago and they filed it, they got Eileen Cannon. Then they filed in Southern District again, and I think they tried for Fort Lauderdale, and they got Judgeileen Cannon. Then they filed in Southern District again, and I think they tried for Fort Lauderdale, and they got Judge Middlebrooks, and that was the case of Lita Habibrat in which they sued Latisha James.

And there's two cases, that got assigned to Middlebrooks, but the first case was the Hillary Clinton case, where Donald Trump sued Hillary Clinton and basically the entire leadership of the Democratic Party, and a bunch of other people for who knows what, civil rico, racketeering, organized crime, all this stuff. Now I'm in that case, get dismissed, but then Middlebrook took special delight in writing 30 pages or more, sanctioning Donald Trump and Alina Habba for bad faith filing and over

a million dollars in fines and basically literally laughing them out of his courtroom. The case that he brought against Leticia James to try to stop the New York Attorney General case, which goes to trial in October 2nd. He brought in Florida, that got transferred to Middlebrook's and he quickly dismissed the case. He's like, oh, crap, I'm not to a Middlebrook's again. This time they filed in Miami,

Middlebrook sits in West Palm Beach. If we, salty, we have a map of Florida, there are about 65 miles apart, but still part of the Southern District of Florida, hoping they would get a more Trump-Trumpy-type judge. Because in Miami, there are judges that are come from Republican background, there are judges in the federal courts in Miami that are federalists,

proclaim federalists, and he's hoping to get one of them, right? In the random selection. Now, as of airtime tonight, we keep looking. A judge hasn't been assigned, so that'll be a change. When I know who the judge is, I can almost tell you what the result is going to be for him. But the case is for fiduciary duty breach, breach of contract, breach of his confidentiality agreement like, like Jessica Denson. Okay, Karen, you went through it.

Make your observations for art. I just texted you and I said, what am I missing? Because I was looking through it and thinking, you know, where's the defamation claim? Because, you know, first of all, he, he goes through this painstaking, you know, um, Michael Cohen worked for me for this long. He said all these wonderful things about me. He said he was loyal to me and that he never saw that I did anything wrong and he whatever. It's just this thing about how great Michael Cohen thought he was and he does that for a while. Then he goes on to go then April 9, 2018, the FBI executes a search warrant in Cohen's home and Cohen is a criminal and unstable. And he goes through all the reasons why he's a liar. He's lied about this.

He's lied about that. He Costello said that Cohen was in a manic state pacing like a wild tiger and like frat. Like a tiger and a cage and was frazzled. He said he was suicidal. He goes on and on that that's what Costello said when he represented Cohen during that search warrant execution in the DOJ case that he ultimately played guilty to.

And what he also put, what Trump also put in this was that Costello said that Cohen said multiple times over and over and over, over several hours of talking that he said, I swear to God Bob, as in Bob Costello, I don't have anything on Donald Trump. So he's odd and odd about how he was given the opportunity to turn on Trump and he's swear to God that he had nothing on Trump and that he decided on his own

to take care of Stormy Daniels. So Trump then goes on about how Cohen's a serial liar and then he put guilty to tax evasion, making false statements, et cetera, et cetera. And basically, he just goes on and on about how terrible Michael Cohen is. But then comes paragraph 56 and onward. That's where he starts talking about how Michael Cohen

breached his professional ethics in New York. He violated New York's ethics rules by breaching the attorney-client privilege, as well as an NDA or secrecy contract that he entered into, that everyone has to enter into when you go into the Trump world. So his whole claim is all about how the professional code of conducted New York rule 1.6 says that an attorney client can't divulge anything that's likely to be embarrassing, detrimental, etc, etc. or confidential. So in my view, I'm thinking, okay, if he's saying that Cohen can't

say these things because they're confidential, what he's saying is they're true. Either that or he's saying they're false. And if they're false, he should be wearing a defamation claim. So it made zero sense to me because I thought, is he admitting that these things are true? But even if he is admitting that they're true and that they're covered by the attorney client privilege, I would argue that the crime fraud exception applies because at the time, that's when Michael Cohn was Trump's fixer.

So you can't have it both ways and it's either fiction and then it's defamation or it's true and confidential. So which one is it? So it didn't really make any sense to me at all. And then I realized why? Because this isn't a real lawsuit. This is an attempt to once again intimidate, right? Trying to intimidate witness, trying to intimidate Michael Cohen. I mean, look at the timing of this.

He waited until after the, he was arraigned on the indictment, and he waited until after the judge warned him not to do anything to speak publicly about this case, and potentially that could potentially sour the case, sour the jury pool, etc. But now he put his entire defense into this document so that he can try this case in the court of public opinion, which is what he's wanted to do all along. But this way he can not be accused of somehow tanting the jury pool or messing with the criminal justice process because he'll just say, oh, no, no, it's a legitimate civil action that I'm bringing against Michael Cohen. So look at the timing of it. Look at what he says in there and what he doesn't say in there. And I think it's very clear exactly what this, what this, what this, you got it, you got

it right. He's going to claim he's got the litigation privilege to protect him for the statements that were made in there. So you can't blame me, judge. This was just a dump, a data dump of all the grievances that that Donald Trump has had against Michael Cohen. His Department of Justice and Bill Barr prosecuted Michael Cohen. Never forget it. It was, it was the Department of Justice answers to the president, the president at the time of the prosecution of Michael Cohen was Bill Barr. Bill Barr called up as a courtesy to your old boss, Sy Vance, it got Sy Vance to back off

of a Donald Trump investigation related to Michael Cohen because he said the feds will take it from here and of course he did nothing of the kind. So this is the Donald Trump that we're talking about. We've heard these old BS stories before that make no logical sense and nobody with a thinking brain cell would ever believe. For instance, Michael Cohen took out a loan. This is Donald Trump's allegation.

Took out a loan on his house himself to pay off his bosses. It's not a mistress. She said she had three minutes of sex with him. To pay off the boss's porn star thing because he didn't want Michael Cohen didn't want Melania or Michael Cohen's wife to find. I can even get this theory out, but it finds its way into the lawsuit with a straight face. And of course,

he can't up and stuff. He did the exact same thing when he wrote or ghost wrote the the 100 the 200 page thing against Hillary Clinton. It's just a list of grievances. It's like Festivus, but a criminal Festivus, where he just a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal , a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal , a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal,

a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a criminal, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a in Florida because he's a podcaster and he writes books and he's mean to me Donald Trump in his podcast and he's on this this might as touch. Yay. We got a shout out. The podcast is produced in paragraph 107 by might as touch and it an independent political action committee or super PAC

fueled by anti Trump donors, which according to Rolling Stone is focused on grandiose self promotion that really doesn't matter. By the way, I handled sending the cease and desist letter to Rolling Stone about their made up reporting about Midas Touch before I even started doing hot takes. But the fact that he went out of his way to call out the brothers and the Midas Touch network, because Michael is on it. It just shows you how life and art are imitating each other. You can't even make this stuff up.

But look, this is a case that's going to have as bad as much success in the Southern District of Florida Federal Court. I'll make one reservation. I want to see the judge assigned. As the other cases, middle Brooks is very well respected in that jurisdiction. It's going to be very hard for a new judge who is going to say, oh, yeah, most of these claims might even be barred

by the statute of limitations. Plus, I don't know how Michael Cohen gets sued in Florida and not in New York, where he lives and applies his trade. I think it gets dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over him. And on the merits, I think one or more of these counts get dismissed for stature limitations, let alone failure to state a claim. And one last thing on it, I went to the back, because I'm a geek, to see how the story ends, lawyers go to the back to see what law firm filed it.

So I went to the signature block, and I see a law firm, frankly, yes, I've heard of them, but they operate in franchise litigation, you know, like when McDonald's fights with its franchisees, they're not well known in constitutional defamation, Michael Cohen versus Donald Trump issues. I think this entire thing was ghostwritten by a lot of other lawyers that don't want their name on the pleading and they found this this poor law firm who better watch it because every

law firm or lawyer who's been involved with Donald Trump either gets fined, despoured, suspended or dragged before a grand jury. So I don't know why anybody. I know they're like, hey, we're a little firm. Six people. This is like Alina Habba. This would be good for publicity. You know, any publicity is good publicity. Yeah, watch it. I'd watch it if I were you in taking on a case in which you rely for the merit of your filing in good faith on your client, Donald Trump. We're going to watch this case. It's going to be a slow burner, but we'll keep an eye on it because we keep on everything. We keep an eye on everything related to Michael Cohen. And we'll keep watching for shout outs to the Midas Touch Network.

Otherwise we've reached the end, Karen. I get asked me my final question. I have one this. My final. This is a good pitch and catch. So as always, Karen Friedman at Knifleau, you get the final word. All right. Well, in the comments, since we are live live, I've been able to read a lot of the comments. And people have been wonderful asking

how Buggie's doing my dog who had surgery and who on the weekends loves to be a part of the podcast. So I just wanted to tell everyone that Buggie is doing great. Thank you so much for asking. and who on the weekends loves to be a part of the podcast. I just wanted to tell everyone that Boogie is doing great. Thank you so much for asking. He had ACL surgery, so he's on crate rest, and he's doing great, so thanks everyone for asking. The Boogie and Salty show, it's currently,

we're working on it, our producer and Boogie, or we're thinking about doing a podcast with them. But we appreciate everybody being here with us. We had a lot to cover that was really important. I wouldn't have cut or edited anything out of it. It's really important that we do this on Wednesdays. We do it again on Saturdays with Ben, my Salis. Sometimes Karen joins us depending upon the topic.

We do hot takes, Karen, me and Ben, it sounds like it looks like every hour, hourly, if not daily on issues like this that we then curate for our shows, you can, you can, how do you help, right? Because everything's really free on this network. How do you help? We get the sponsors. We know how to do that part, but you can help us by keeping our quote unquote ratings where they need to be that people think we're interesting and that you think we're interesting.

So if you're watching us on YouTube on the Midas Touch Network, go over and subscribe and follow. It's free on any place where you get your audio. This will drop in a few hours as an audio version and you should go follow it and try, listen to it. We cover a lot of ground. You probably can't take it all in just once. And if you're a listener, come watch us occasionally. We have fun. We got 13, 14, 15,000 people in live chat with us. We answer back when we can. And so go do that. You can do both and that really helps it. And you can watch our hot takes. As I said, you can follow us on social media. And then we've got a store because we sell stuff we're going to be up. Karen's taking over she's going to help help update and upgrade our offerings for the legal AF merchandise which you can find in the Midestouch store and you can go

there and get that kind of stuff we're going to be offering other things as the spring and summer or right 82 degrees in New York today spring and summer sprung. We're so glad you're here with us, but we've reached the end of the Legal AF podcast. Shout out to the Midas Mighty and Legal AFers.