Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump STRICKEN with LEGAL MELTDOWN as Year Starts

Starting point is 00:00:00 The United States Supreme Court will take up the case involving the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that Donald Trump is an insurrectionist and is thus disqualified under the 14th Amendment Section 3 for being on the Colorado ballot. Donald Trump is arguing to the United States Supreme Court that the Colorado Supreme Court ruling is wrong because he says that courts in general don't have power to rule on the issue of disqualification under the 14th Amendment Section 3. Trump argues he was not an officer when he occupied the office of the presidency. And Trump argues that he did not take an oath to support the United States Constitution. So what will the United States Supreme Court do?

Starting point is 00:00:54 What did the petitioners who prevailed before the Colorado Supreme Court argue in their brief? We'll talk about the briefing schedule that was set by the United States Supreme Court. Next up, $370 million. That is the final amount that New York Attorney General, Letitia James is requesting that Donald Trump and other defendants pay in disgorgement damages in the attorney general's closing brief filed in advance on closing arguments in the New York civil fraud case. The New York attorney general's office

Starting point is 00:01:37 is also requesting that the court issue a permanent injunction banning Donald Trump from ever being involved in the real estate business and the state of New York. Again, Donald Trump's closing brief that was also filed this past week argued that the fraud that he was accused of was simply mistakes and not intentional concealment or fraud. Trump also argues that valuations, even discrepancies that are in the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars happen all the time. Valuations are subjective. And the fact that he may have been unjustly enriched to the

Starting point is 00:02:19 tune of hundreds of millions of dollars or even more did not injure anyone. What will justice, Arthur and Goran do when he makes his final rule in which we expect to take place this month? Also, a lot of action in the Washington, DC criminal case against Donald Trump for his attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. Donald Trump filed in the trial court a bizarre and frivolish motion seeking to hold special counsel Jack Smith and the Jack Smith's office in contempt because Jack Smith has been voluntarily producing discovery while there is a stay in effect in the district court. And Special Counsel Jack Smith also filed a pre-trial motion on the public docket, even though Donald Trump is not

Starting point is 00:03:13 required to respond to that motion, even though Donald Trump's not required to open up the discovery that Special Counsel Jack Smith is voluntarily turning over. Donald Trump is saying this constitutes harassment, and now special counsel, Jack Smith is utilizing the federal criminal docket as a public relations machine for the Biden administration. That's actually an argument that lawyers for Trump made. Jack Smith's response was essentially stop whining. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's appeal on his really only defense in the Washington DC criminal case where he's asserting absolute

Starting point is 00:03:58 presidential immunity to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal is now fully briefed. Donald Trump filed his reply brief on January 2nd and instead of citing case law and case precedent, Donald Trump cites himself for the claim that he believes the 2020 election was rigged. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals notably has also directed the parties to be prepared to discuss the amicus briefs submitted by outside parties,

Starting point is 00:04:35 which the court accepted some. This includes a brief filed by a group called American Oversight. We talked about this on the last show, which says that there is no jurisdiction to even hear this appeal on absolute presidential immunity because it's an improper interlocutory appeal. And the district court's ruling was not a collateral order

Starting point is 00:05:02 as determined in a 1989 Supreme court case called Midland asphalt in a decision authored by the right wing conservative justice the now late Justice Scalia. I think it's very interesting that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals wants to hear argument on those outside briefs that were submitted not even submitted by the parties to the action. Also, will Donald Trump's lawyers throw, will Donald Trump throw his lawyers under the bus in the Southern District of Florida criminal case involving Donald Trump's willful retention of national defense information? Special counsel Jack Smith is demanding that Donald Trump reveal in that case

Starting point is 00:05:45 before Judge Cannon if Trump will be making an advice of counsel defense which would be a waiver of attorney client privilege and Donald Trump per usual is arguing that the normal rules that apply to other criminal defendants don't apply to him and a lot of other whining in Donald Trump's opposition. Let's get into it. We are recording live on January 6th. And Michael Popack, I think it's so important that we reflect on that date that will live in infamy. This legal AF is the intersection of law and politics.

Starting point is 00:06:23 And we've been covering so many legal actions that have taken place as a result of an attempt to violently overthrow a free and fair election. And you and I were talking about this before the show even started. I just wanted to see what New York Times was covering today and how they were covering the insurrection. So I pulled it open and do we have the cover right here? So if you look at the New York Times today, the front cover has nothing about the January 6th insurrection. Similarly, the front page of the New York Times on January 6th has nothing about President Biden's, I think, historic speech at Valley Forge.

Starting point is 00:07:08 The front cover of The New York Times has nothing about Donald Trump saying in a speech on the anniversary of the insurrection that the January 6th rioters and prisoners are actually hostages in Donald Trump saying in a speech that it was the FBI and Antifa who caused the insurrection, you would think that would be mentioned on the front page of the New York Times, but no, when you get into page 12, you finally see that they wrote a story about the insurrection. Oh, but they did take time on that front cover to talk about how Biden squeezed by both sides on immigration. So they take a shot at Biden, on immigration, where it looks like Biden's trying to forge compromises between different sides.

Starting point is 00:07:54 So there you have what the New York Times is covering, but that's why I think shows like this Michael Popocker to so important. Yeah, Joe Vallowfeld used to be the editor-in-chief of the New York Times died a couple days yesterday. He would never have allowed the front page to look like what it looks like today. He was the editor-in-chief of the New York Times during the late 90s and into 2000s. And I don't know what's going on over there, but this is not a properly curated front page for the paper of record in America. The prize itself on that to just completely ignore it.

Starting point is 00:08:30 And as you and I were talking, and I got my paper here, the first reference, the earliest reference in the New York Times, which is supposed to tell the world in its readership, what is the most important things the way we curate the legal AF podcast. January 6, which is the day when Americans attacked other Americans, led by and fomented by the then president of the United States, Donald Trump, to attack the seat of our democracy, ended up on page 12. And only then, in an analysis piece written by Charlie Savage and Alan Fure about three years after

Starting point is 00:09:06 Jan 6, Trump's claims of immunity will be tested. Again, no crap. You know, it's just, we can't lose sight while we talk about history happening in real time on this show. Whether you want to call us analysts of things, the intersection of law politics and justice or historians in real time about what is happening, we can't lose sight of what just happened or lose the threat of it on January 6th. I mean, my parents' generation, you let off with the day we live in infamy, which is Franklin Delano Roosevelt's comment about the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Starting point is 00:09:47 My parents talked about that. We talked about 9-11, you know, in the history of 9-11 for a long, long time, and so people got sort of fatigued and tired of it. We can't. We can't lose sight of history as prologue. What has happened before will happen again and worse. And that's one of the, that should be.

Starting point is 00:10:08 And I think it has become the closing argument that Joe Biden has begun to make to America with his first reelection speech from the day before yesterday in Pennsylvania. And the closing argument is democracy is on the line and you have a choice, a stark choice to make between Donald Trump and his criminality and his retribution if he ever gets his presidency restored. And democracy, that is the bedrock of our very existence. I like that closing argument. I thought it was a powerful speech, but I know you've done some clips on it and the brothers

Starting point is 00:10:44 have talked about it. I was blown away by how eloquent a person who gets attacked frequently for not being eloquent because he's got a lifetime stutter and he's got some issues as he's aged a little bit. What a powerful blow you off your feet speech by Joe Biden, just the right moment and setting up that stark contrast that leads us into the closing argument for November and the election. It was night and day when you compare President Biden's speech to whatever you want to even call that, that Donald Trump was doing in Iowa.

Starting point is 00:11:15 And here's what I think the New York Times has kind of gotten into this mode and I see it quite frequently. They now have bought in to the fact that condemning the insurrection is a political issue, which it is not, and they feel that by putting it prominently that they're taking sides in a political discussion, and that is not what is taking place at all. What is happening is the mega-republicans in promoting these deranged conspiracy theories that it was a fed suraction, that the FBI caused the insurrection.

Starting point is 00:11:53 I mean, that's what Donald Trump was talking about. And at the speech in Iowa, and at the same time that it was something that was peaceful and patriotic, that should be condemned by all Americans. And the thing is, when we talk about these cases, whether it's the 14th Amendment Section 3, the issue of absolute presidential immunity,

Starting point is 00:12:15 when we talk about the fraud that Donald Trump committed in New York, the population of lawyers, Michael Popak, that exists, there actually is unity there. It is this mega base and the media, a legacy media, I think that's creating these divisions, that's very problematic and it actually isn't reflective of the true lines of divisions that exist where there is a thriving pro-democracy community.

Starting point is 00:12:44 I mean, Popak, when we talk about the 14th Amendment Section 3, when we talk about the issue of absolute presidential immunity, when we talk about Donald Trump's claims on why he shouldn't have to do advice, provide the advice of counsel defense. If you were to ask someone in the Federalist Society like a judge, Ludwig, and you were to ask somebody who had previously would say the federalist society, all of those ideas are just completely out of whack,

Starting point is 00:13:12 you would find a huge amount of agreement. I agree with judge Ludwig on so much. I agree with Ty Cobb, the former White House counsel lawyer, you know, who's out there condemning Donald Trump's actions on a lot. By the way, even these issues of absolute presidential immunity, 14th Amendment Section 3, maybe not so much, but absolute presidential immunity. I mean, you get Bill Barr saying that he agrees, you know, with the fact that Donald Trump does not have an absolute presidential immunity. So I think overall that is just kind of fascinating

Starting point is 00:13:43 to talk about the commonalities that exist. But let's get right into it, Popok, and talk about what's going on here with the 14th Amendment section 3 cases, where the United States Supreme Court has granted Sershi Rari. What does that mean that it's granted Sershi Rari? What happens next? Here was the order that was handed down on Friday, January 5th. The petition for a writ of Sergio Rare is granted. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024. Petitioners brief on the merits and any amicus curi briefs in support or in support of neither party are to be filed on or before Thursday, 18th, 2024, respondents brief on the merits and any amicus curie briefs in support are to be filed

Starting point is 00:14:31 on or before Wednesday January 31st, 2024, the reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m. Monday, February 5th, 2024. So that was the order, Pope, can you break down what's going on here? 2020-24. So that was the order, Popeyes, can you break down what's going on here? Yeah, it's coming down. It's coming to a head here. As we said, year one after Jan 6, continuing our thematic here, our thread here, investigations and arrests, year two indictments, year three, that we're watching now at the beginning of trials and appeals, and now the Supreme Court of the United States, which has been on the sideline for many things related to Donald Trump and his criminality and his participation engagement and insurrection

Starting point is 00:15:11 or rebellion now jumping to the fore. For those who are wondering, I wonder what the Supreme Court would say about this? We're going to know really soon, there's at least three or four major issues. We'll talk about this one first that are all up at the Supreme Court being teed up at the Supreme Court that impact Donald Trump and democracy one way or the other. Supreme Court over the next 30 to 45 days is going to brief and hear oral argument about

Starting point is 00:15:37 whether two of the counts that Donald Trump has been charged with and DC election interference case for interference with a congressional interference with a congressional proceeding in this case, criminally interfering with it is a proper or should be dismissed. They're gonna decide whether Donald Trump should be on the ballot or not or whether the 14th Amendment section three says what it says or it doesn't as it relates

Starting point is 00:16:04 to a former president at the time. They're going to decide whether a Donald Trump has criminal immunity, immunity from criminal prosecution and indictment before his trial. And they're going to also weigh in on whether civil immunity applies to anything Donald Trump has said or done while in office or outside of office. So now it's all coming right up. They control their own docket, as we've talked about before, they can set their own briefing schedule. They signal how they can handle the case,

Starting point is 00:16:32 depending upon how fast or slow they set a briefing schedule. And whether they're gonna make a decision quickly or not, you just outlined, for instance, in the Colorado Supreme Court appeal, which is what this is all about, and ultimately mean. And any other state that's looking at this particular issue is whether the 14th Amendment Section 3, the, what we call the disqualification provision, which says that any person holding a federal office under the United States who took an oath to support the Constitution, that kind of federal

Starting point is 00:17:06 officer, which would include any reasonable interpretation, the presidency, if they engaged, not indicted and convicted of, but engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, they cannot take that office. That's the argument. And what's up for grabs with the Supreme Court. And therefore, up for grabs looking for the fifth vote like Brett Kavanaugh or Gorsuch as Robert scrambles around in the dark trying to find a vote to support some of these things. Knowing that Alito and Thomas are way off on the MAGA extreme right, never to be real

Starting point is 00:17:46 back in to vote anything that would be against Donald Trump. So he's got to find the votes from another group. The issue for the Supreme Court is fundamentally a number of things. One, does that provision that I just gave you the synopsis of apply to the president of the United States? Is he that type of federal officer at all? That's one, two, what does engage in insurrection or rebellion mean and who makes the decision about engaging in?

Starting point is 00:18:12 Is that required a criminal process and indictment and conviction, even though it doesn't say that? Who determines engaging is the Jan 6th report enough for a judge to rely upon his foundational evidence to determine that a person like Trump has engaged in something. Does the, does Congress have to decide that? Is it a political question that gets kicked over to Congress and comes out of the court system completely?

Starting point is 00:18:36 And therefore, Donald Trump is on the ballot in all of these states because Congress currently controlled by Maggle will never rule against him. Or is it for the courts to decide? Is it a state court? Is it a federal court? Is it secretary of state of the individual states? Or is it something else? There has to be, I think we can all have one moment of agreement.

Starting point is 00:18:55 There has to be something that implements the 14th Amendment Section 3. Our founding fathers and framers believe that the language was clear and didn't need an owner's manual. They wrote and we're supposed to assume for purposes of interpretation and construction of the Constitution that the founders placed every word in the order that they wanted and they wanted every word to be interpreted properly and with its plain meaning and they wrote engaged in insurrection and Rebellion not indicted and convicted of. So there's no need for a trial.

Starting point is 00:19:27 And then who would determine that? So now this, this August body of our Supreme Court is going to have to determine, how do you implement this? It can't be what Donald Trump says, which is you got to go back to Congress, because it doesn't say they know how to write with their quill pens when they want to on parchment and go back to Congress. Congress is the place if you want to get your disqualification taken off you. They can vote as a body to take the disqualification of the 14th Amendment off your shoulders and let you take that office.

Starting point is 00:20:02 But it doesn't say that's where it starts or ends. That's where you go if you want to get relief. So this panel, this nine justice United States Supreme Court is going to have now, what I've outlined and all the different things they have to decide also provide exit ramps for the court to say, yeah, yeah, we're not going to do that. They could decide this is a political question, not for the court system.

Starting point is 00:20:25 He stays on the ballots, go back to Congress. They're going to have to say what the 14th Amendment Section 3, though, and how you implement it. They could say that he's not, the president is somehow not a federal officer under the United States and therefore didn't take, it didn't take the right oath of office to support the Constitution. And therefore, it doesn't apply to him. That's an off ramp where they don't have to make that fundamental decision.

Starting point is 00:20:49 Or they can decide that Donald Trump did not, despite judges already in the record having established that he did engage in rebellion or insurrection against the Constitution. They could say, that's not the process for that. There needs to be a fill in the blank and then they're going to have to fill in the blank. So these are the things. And now they've decided on a relatively fast schedule that by February the eighth, all the briefs are gonna be in the can,

Starting point is 00:21:13 including any kind of friend of the court briefs on issues that you and I have outlined. And they're gonna hear oral argument, which you and I will be able to hear at some few hours later anyway on a recording and be able to report on. They're hours later anyway on a recording and be able to report on. They're not going to rule for the bench, though.

Starting point is 00:21:27 I want to manage expectations. The panel is going to listen. You're going to hear questions. We're going to determine where the votes are, maybe, from the way the questions are asked. How pivotal Kavanaugh may be related to his prior decision making in other cases, like the side dance versus Donald Trump case over subpoenas, in which he said, no, man, it's above the law, including the president. We'll see where he sits on all of that.

Starting point is 00:21:51 And then they're going to rule, but it's not going to be, I don't think, in February, and I don't think it's going to be in time for Donald Trump to be taken off the ballot in March for the primaries in those states. So he's on the ballot as a Republican nominee in those various states. The question is, are they going to rule quick enough to impact the November election ballot or not? So let's say they have the oral argument in February bed. When do you think they make the ruling? I think they'll make the ruling within a month or two after that, but I do think this Supreme Court is going to try to find, and I could be

Starting point is 00:22:25 wrong here, some technicality to avoid the constitutional question, whether they invoke the Purcell principle, which is a way that they've kind of constructed of delay these decisions until, you know, after elections take place, whether they come up with some due process analysis, I think that they do not address. I could be wrong. I don't think they address, I think the six to three, six right wing justices, I think they want a way out. I don't think they're gonna make

Starting point is 00:22:55 the right ruling here that they should rule. I think they know that if they are applying everything they've said before about states rights and strict textualism, Donald Trump's disqualified. and frankly, for that reason, and because there is no prior precedent on it, I think they're going to want to engage in some sort of constitutional avoidance here, which is different than what I think my analysis would be if the issue of absolute presidential

Starting point is 00:23:20 immunity ever came before them. To me, that's an easy one for them to reject that Donald Trump has no absolute presidential immunity at all. And in their own mind, they may think that there's a kind of a compromise here being reached. And Pope, I can't even have to go all the way back to the founders because the 14th Amendment Section 3 is a reconstruction era statute. I mean, constitutional amendment post the Civil War. So it's pretty easy to look through the legislative history, how that amendment even came about 1550s. And know what the intent here, that's why if you take a historical approach to it too, you would know that it would directly apply to situations like this. And just to kind of

Starting point is 00:24:03 frame the argument too, what Donald Trump's argument is really kind of four things. Courts stay away from this, you have no right at all. Fourteenth Amendment Section three cannot, is not a justishable issue. Courts shouldn't be involved. Donald Trump argues I'm not an officer, it was never an officer under,

Starting point is 00:24:22 you know, as that term is understood in the Constitution as the office of the presidency. Trump says he never took an oath to support the United States Constitution, that the oath he took is somehow different than an oath to actually support the United States Constitution. And those are kind of the, oh, and then Donald Trump argues that it was not an insurrection and that it was peaceful and patriotic, it was what he says that happens there. And then in the reply brief, the petitioners just basically say, look, Supreme Court, you should just, the Anderson petitioners say, look, Supreme Court, just focus on the issues

Starting point is 00:25:00 here that are at the federal level. This is not for you to redo an analysis of the findings, whether or not Donald Trump's an insurrectionist. Those findings are the findings of the Colorado Supreme Court and the trial court. You have no role in this whatsoever regarding that. You can ultimately interpret what is an insurrection. You can interpret what is an officer, whether Donald Trump took the oath, whether it's a distishable issue, whether it's self-enforcing, but stick to those issues, not the factual findings that are being made. To your point, Popok, indeed, Donald Trump will be on the primary ballot because the Supreme Court accepted a granted certiorari.

Starting point is 00:25:43 By the way, I think, for me, I'm okay with him being on the primary ballot if the Republican party's become a full-fledged insurrectionist party and they want to put him on the primary ballot. The real issue is going to be the general election ballot for me. Final point I'll make and then I'll throw it over you to close out this topic. You mentioned Brett Kavanaugh there as kind of a swing vote, right? In terms of, like, you know, Alito is going to side with Trump on any issue. You know that Clarence Thomas is going to side with Donald Trump on any issue. Democratic members of Congress said that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself, which he absolutely

Starting point is 00:26:19 should. But there's no sign that he's going to, you know, that he's no sign. He's going to do that. So you've got those votes right there. I don't know what Amy Coney Barrett's gonna do. I don't know what Roberts is gonna do. I don't know. I don't know what Gorsik is gonna do.

Starting point is 00:26:37 I believe the three Democrats, Democratic appointees will find in favor of that the 14th Amendment section 3 says what it says it does, it does it by a strict textual interpretation. But the Trump world is really going after Kavanaugh right now. I don't know if you've noticed that, but they had Alina Habagol on TV, do the Fox, name check him, call Kavanaugh out by name, saying, you know, we think Kavanaugh will do the right thing. You should remember who appointed him. You know, and Kavanaugh also, if you just go back, whether it was the suspicious way his

Starting point is 00:27:10 mortgage was paid off before Kavanaugh became a Supreme Court justice also. He was in a huge amount of debt outside of that, which he attributed to buying baseball tickets. I mean, he's a Trump appointee saying that that's why he was in a huge amount of debt, but they're clearly making a concerted effort to pressure Kavanaugh, because there was a previous appearance just the prior week where Alina Haba went on

Starting point is 00:27:35 and kind of revealed that Trump's very nervous about what the Supreme Court's gonna rule on this issue of the 14th Amendment Section 3. So now they're going after Kavanaugh. Yeah, and Kavanaugh is the focus, not only of the Trump side, but of Jack Smith in his immunity filings related to the DC Court of Appeals and the oral argument that's gonna happen next week

Starting point is 00:28:01 we'll be able to follow right here in legal AF that might as touch network. and it's going to happen next week, we'll be able to follow right here on legal AF, the Midas Touch Network. They say, they point out, I mean, call out in a positive way. Kavanaugh is concurrence in the Vance versus Trump decision from 2020 about the subpoena Trump's tax records that the Supreme Court's 7-2 ruled against Donald Trump. And they, they not only when mentioned a number of cases that you and I have talked about at length, you know, the Clinton versus Paula Jones case and the, uh, the Fitzgerald and Nixon case, but Vance, Vance, Vance, Kavanaugh, Vance, Kavanaugh, frequently mentioned by, uh, by Jack Smith as they try to find their fifth vote.

Starting point is 00:28:44 Everybody's looking for the elusive fifth vote. You got to be able to count to five at the United States Supreme Court level. And I think you're right. You've laid it out properly. You've got Sotomayor and Kagan and Kintangi Brown. Jackson over here, Roberts would go normally over there on things related against Donald Trump and let's say the extension of criminal immunity Maybe not the ballot. I think you're right. There might be a compromise there where they give and take they give Donald Trump

Starting point is 00:29:13 You can be on the ballot, but you're you're not going to be able to get your indictment dismissed that we'd probably be okay with that on balance and then trying to find from within Amy Coney Barrett, Gorsuch and and and Cavanaugh and Gorsuch and Cavanaugh often voting together and and joining each other's opinions. So that's sort of the sweet spot for that. And then you've got this really, I'll leave it on this. You have this really ridiculous argument, although I understand it by Donald Trump where he argues that the 14th Amendment, this is his last ditch effort, the 14th Amendment

Starting point is 00:29:43 article three is all about me holding office, not about me being on the ballot. I could be on the ballot, even though I might not be able to actually take the office and get the keys to the White House on swearing in. So people are like, well, what are you saying there? Well, he's saying two things. One, he hopes that he sweeps in if he wins,

Starting point is 00:30:01 God forbid, he sweeps in another Maga Congress, and they remove the disability from him under the 14th Amendment Section 3, just in time to get the keys to the White House. So, he's disqualified, but they take it off of him. But let me be on the ballot, because I have to win in order, I don't at least win in order, it's almost like the fake certificates for the electoral. We got to have the fake certificates in case we win any of these lawsuits. So you got to put me on the primary balance. I got to win in order to convince Maga Congress to take the disability away from me.

Starting point is 00:30:33 That's the first argument. And the second one is, even if I don't, then my vice president becomes the president. So we got to really focus, again, in this law, politics, justice corner, who he picks for his vice president. I don't think I think you're totally right. I think they find an exit ramp not to make this decision. They keep them on the ballot, but then they take it the way and they say there's no way we're setting a precedent for the rest of our constitutional public that a person can commit murder in the White House effectively and claim because they were the president that

Starting point is 00:31:03 they can't be indicted. No way they're making that law. I'd be more than shocked. But you know, one of the major doctrines that we see with the Supreme Court is this constitutional avoidance where they don't have to address a major constitutional issue. They will try to avoid it. There's a canon of Supreme Court constitutional construction called avoidance. But I think if you applied constitutional avoidance to Donald Trump's appeal, the frivolous appeal on the issue of absolute

Starting point is 00:31:36 presidential immunity, there's an exit ramp there that's beneficial to our democracy that the Supreme Court can take, which is this amicus brief that was filed by American oversight, which says that Donald Trump's appeal of the issue of absolute presidential immunity, which is taken right now as what's called an interlocutory and appeal and appeal midway through the case. Not once there's a conviction or a, or at the end of the case, at a final judgment, this Supreme Court can basically say, look, there was no jurisdiction for us to hear it. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals could say there's no jurisdiction for us to even hear this appeal under jurisdictional grounds and then kick it back to the district court for

Starting point is 00:32:20 trial. And this way, the Supreme Court won't further delay that matter. I can see that happening. I want to talk more about that. I also want to talk about the $370 million demand by New York Attorney General, the Tisha James, and the closing papers that were filed in the New York Civil Broadcast. And I think that's a pretty conservative conservative request too. Actually came in lower than I thought it was, but I have a, I've really thought through why it is that New York Attorney General, Latisha James is only requesting $370 million, but like that's still a huge amount of money and is a financial death sentence even for

Starting point is 00:33:00 someone like Donald Trump. We'll talk about that and more. Let's take a quick break. Taking care of your health isn't always easy, but it should at least be simple. That's why for the last three years, I've been drinking AG1 every day, no exceptions. It's just one scoop mixed in water once a day, every day,

Starting point is 00:33:17 and it makes me feel energized, focused and ready to take on the day. That's because each serving of AG1 delivers my daily dose of vitamins, minerals, pre- and probiotics, and more. It's a powerful healthy habit that's also powerfully simple. With AG1, I know I'm getting essential brain, gut, and immune health support with vitamins, probiotics, and nutrients from Whole Foods. I like to think of it as a nutritional insurance. I know I'm covering my nutritional bases right from the start of the day.

Starting point is 00:33:45 If there's one product I had to recommend to elevate your health, it's AG1. And that's why I've partnered with them for so long. So if you want to take ownership of your health, start with AG1. Try AG1 and get a free one year supply of Vitamin D3 plus K2 and 5 free AG1 travel packs with your first purchase exclusively at drinkag1.com slash legalaf. That's drinkag1.com slash legalaf. Check it out! Here I feel like money is just flying out of your account.

Starting point is 00:34:17 You have no idea where it's going. I know that feeling. It's all the subscriptions. Think about it. Between streaming services, fitness apps, delivery services, parenting apps, it's endless. I'm guilty of it. So I use Rocket Money to help me find out what subscriptions I've actually spending money on, and I add them cancel the ones I didn't want anymore.

Starting point is 00:34:38 Rocket Money is a personal finance app that finds and cancels your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills. I never have to get on the phone with customer service. They'll even try to get you a refund for the last couple of months of wasted money and negotiate to lower your bills for you by up to 20%. All you have to do is take a picture of your bill and rocket money takes care of the rest.

Starting point is 00:35:04 Rocket money has over 5 million users, and has helped save its members an average of $720 a year with over $500 million in cancel subscriptions. That's rocket money dot com slash legal AF rocket money dot com slash legal AF. Welcome back. We are live here on legal a f one thing to mention as well. If the sort was reported on Fox that like Trump scored some victory with the Supreme Court that they agreed to accept. Sir, Shirari, let's be very clear, that's not a victory yet. I mean, all of the parties Trump,

Starting point is 00:35:50 the petitioners who prevailed in the Colorado Supreme Court, the intervene in Colorado Republican, all of the parties basically stipulated that Sir Shirari should be granted. And again, it's just like claiming victory for a stipulation. Everybody, yeah, the Secretary of State of Maine, because Maine's also implicated in Colorado. And Colorado both built into their orders that the primary ballot banning would be would be stayed to allow them to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Yes,

Starting point is 00:36:23 the Supreme Court can choose not to take it. But if they chose not to take it, it would just put Donald Trump off the ballot ban would be upheld. We all anticipated the United States Supreme Court would have to take a look at this issue on the 14th amendment and then everybody's been asking for it. So it can't be a victory. Let's see what happens at oral argument. We'll know better then, that's better reporting. And what happens ultimately when they rule,

Starting point is 00:36:46 whether it's a month later, two months later, or right before they take their federalist society, MAGA right wing paid vacations in June. Look, I think the fact that the 14th Amendment Section 3 has become a prominent legal issue and not a fringe theory, as it was being talked about in 2022 and early 2023 is a victory in it of itself for the pro-democracy movement to Reflect upon this constitutional amendment to reflect upon what is an insurrection to reflect upon

Starting point is 00:37:21 when a Individual can be disqualified for engaging in insurrection. That is important to a healthy democracy for that discussion to be taking place right now and not being ignored kind of and treated as this kind of newfangled theory back in 2022 and early 2023. But not here. We've been talking about it for a very long time on legal AF. We've also been talking about for a very long time, the New York Attorney Generals. First, civil investigation into Donald Trump,

Starting point is 00:37:56 the Trump organization and his adult kids, Don Jr. Eric and Alan Weisselberg and others there. Fraud, it started off as an investigation. And then in September of 2022, there was an actual case brought under New York's Attorney General Enforcement Statute against the Trump Organization, against Trump's adult kids.

Starting point is 00:38:21 Ivanka was the only one to get the case dismissed against her on statute of limitations ground, the case remained against all of the other defendants. It proceeded to an 11 week trial, a total of 44 days. Donald Trump would show up for a few of those days, kind of rant and rave. Donald Trump showed up for cross-exam, but his lawyers never even did a direct exam of their own client. Donald Trump didn't have a choice. He had to show up for cross-exam because he was subpoenaed.

Starting point is 00:38:52 But when given the opportunity for direct examination to tell his side of the story, Donald Trump did not show up for that despite saying he was going to. And he's the purported leader of the Trump organizations. Same thing with Eric Trump, who was running the organization during the relevant time period. Eric did not show up for direct examination, and his lawyers never conducted a direct examination of Eric. So when your key witnesses don't testify

Starting point is 00:39:21 under direct examination, and a trial is about the weight of evidence I just want to make that very basic point from the outset Parties who want to prove that they are not liable in a civil fraud case where they are the controlling officer of a company and they believe they have the of a company and they believe they have the explanation to convince a trial or a fact or to the extent that Donald Trump feels that he's not getting a fair shot before Justice and Goron, which he's getting a fair shot. But to the extent Donald Trump says, that's the reason he doesn't want to testify.

Starting point is 00:39:57 You at least want to create a factual record for the appellate division and eventually New York's highest court. So you'd want to testify regardless, but Trump was too scared to testify. Eric was too scared to testify. And the weight overwhelming evidence shows that Donald Trump engaged and the Trump organization engaged in this persistent and systematic fraud. The New York Attorney General's office filed their closing briefs at the end of last week. Trump filed his closing brief at the end of last week, and the New York Attorney General's asking for $370 million here.

Starting point is 00:40:36 That kind of through Donald Trump. It says if Donald Trump learned about that number for the first time, like we all knew a number like that was coming, but the way he responded to it, just kind of constant posting about New York Attorney General, it is your James, it was like post, post, post, post. The day before he posted like 80 times about E. Jean Caroleau, he was found liable for sexually assaulting, raping because that trial scheduled for January.

Starting point is 00:41:05 So like that cycled into Donald Trump's mind. So he tormented his victim by posting 80 times on a social media platform. I'm not making that number up. It's like 50 to 80 times. And similarly, New York attorney, General Attisha, James Donald Trump, but post, post, post, post. I guess he thinks that that's how you're supposed to respond to things. I mean, it's just so humiliating to our country and our legal system.

Starting point is 00:41:28 But the $370 million number is actually less than I thought it was going to be. I thought it would be about $500 million to a billion. And there's really three buckets of damages that New York Attorney General, Alicia James focused on. And I think she didn't focus on other buckets that would have had that number add up to a Billion to two billion dollars because she wanted it to be appeal proof and She knew that there was some merit to the statute of limitations argument not a lot But regarding some of the claims there was a statute of limitations and she didn't want to be reversed

Starting point is 00:42:02 So I think she focused on the buckets statute of limitations and she didn't want to be reversed. So I think she focused on the buckets clearly within the statute of limitations. That's why it was under 500 million. She made a very conservative approach there. What would you make of the number? What would you make of her argument? What would you make of Trump's response, Popeye? She, I'll start with the last thing first. She used the scalpel to make it more bulletproof in many ways, including lowering the number. You and I were adding up what we thought was, this is all about discouragement, which is different than damage.

Starting point is 00:42:28 Discoagement is what you can do, especially if you're the New York Attorney General under this special statute, executive law, 63-12, to take away, rip away, claw back, somebody's ill-gotten gains. That's exactly what it sounds like, money that you were not entitled to have obtained in the operation of your business, profit that you shouldn't have gotten, the delta between what the amount of the interest rate that you should have been charged for the financial condition that you were in versus what you

Starting point is 00:42:56 were charged because you lied about your financial condition. You said you had more money, more assets, more liquidity than you actually had. And there is a delta there. There's a differential there between the 1.2.3 point, different mortgage rate that you would have gotten or entitled to, or the cash reserve that you would have had to put up or not put up, or the personal guarantee that you would have

Starting point is 00:43:17 or would not have had to put up if you had been honest and truthful about the state of your financial affairs. Donald Trump was always some sort of billionaire. He just wasn't a triple or quadruple billionaire, and that difference means he got loans, he shouldn't have gotten at the rates that he shouldn't have gotten them. He did deals that he shouldn't have gotten and profited on the sale of those deals. So, the first thing that she did was lower the number. You and I were like doing the back of

Starting point is 00:43:46 the envelope during the 11 week trial. And you and I, we said, we could probably find the clip, we said, this could be 500 to 750 million. Forget about the $250 million headline for when she filed the thing a year and a half ago, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the Latisha James. This could be three times that, you and I, and it could have been if she hadn't wanted to use a surgical, like a scalpel, to get it down to based on the evidence that was presented in 11 weeks, the 40 witnesses, including many with the last name Trump, and the thousands of exhibits and pages of documents. This is what she believed. She's got three or four pieces of evidence

Starting point is 00:44:26 and confessions and concessions by Donald Trump and those around him like the money men, McConey, the controller, the disgrace CFO who went to jail, Alan Weissselberg, and other people that worked in the finance department and then tangentially Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen, I know we talked a lot about the impact of his testimony, but he wasn't mentioned that much in these kind of closing requests to the judge to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. She also, though, dialed back the remedies besides money. And I did a hot take on this one, too, today.

Starting point is 00:45:03 She originally asked for, if you go back to the petition and the original summary judgment motion that the judge ruled upon, it seems like a lifetime ago, but it was in October. Just to remind everybody for those just joining this issue for the first time, judging Goron has already found fraud twice in this case. He did it on a standard of more likely than not that persistent fraud was being engaged in by Donald Trump. And he installed a monitor, a person who used to be a federal judge, Barbara Jones,

Starting point is 00:45:31 to look at every, to just watch, watch, fly over the business operations and assets of everything Donald Trump. And she's been there to this moment and remakes reports as an officer of the court to the judge. That's, that was at the inception of the case. inception of the case, because if your entity in New York, regardless of who owns it, is committing persistent fraud, you can't let it operate without having some sort

Starting point is 00:45:53 of supervision. So you either shut it down, which is what Attorney Generals do, or the CFTC or these other federal agencies when they run into fraudulent companies or you say you can operate, but it's going to be under the watchful eye of the judge in this case to the federal monitor. And then right before the trial, in October, the judge and Goron ruled on summary judgment, basically almost the entire case. He ruled that count one was proven without beyond on a finding of no material issues of

Starting point is 00:46:24 fact and dispute. It was undisputed and that as a matter of law, he found that Donald Trump had operated a persistently fraudulent company for a decade, for like 10 years, and was ready, was ready to throw the book in him. And even said to the lawyers on both sides, like the New York Attorney General,

Starting point is 00:46:41 why do we need a trial? I'm ready to rule and give the revenues. And they said, well, you gotta got to see all the evidence judge. Again, back to your point, Ben, having a properly developed record that would be unassailable on appeal, two levels of appeal up to the court of appeals, the highest court in New York. She originally asked in her complaint to have the entities dissolved, all the Trump organization entities dissolved,

Starting point is 00:47:06 have their assets liquidated, replace the trustee over the Donald Trump revocable trust that sits over all of his assets, ban and bar for either lifetime or for a period of time, all of the executives of the Trump organization like Donald Trump, Wala Weissselberg, Eric and Don Jr. and other things.

Starting point is 00:47:25 And the judge was like ready to dissolve the companies. We did an entire podcast and hot takes on, he's about to dissolve the Trump organization and put Barbara Jones, the federal, former federal judge in charge of everything. They all agreed to stay that while an appeal went on. However, now that she's made her final ask in the form of, and just to get a breakout session of legal AF law school here, next week is going to be oral argument, the closing argument in the case done orally, but the judge has been making rulings all along three weeks ago. told Chris Kies all that he needs to hear for Trump side, that your valuation arguments are full of, you know what, that a lie is a lie regardless of whether you pick creatively from various ways to value your property. And it's at best a misstatement and at worst a fraud. And tore apart all of the experts, quote unquote, so-called experts

Starting point is 00:48:25 of Donald Trump said they weren't worth the dollars they were paid. None of them were trustworthy. I'm not relying on any of them. I already found fraud in this case. And you act like I didn't. And that's your major problem. And you've been on the wrong foot ever since. So this is the judge that's now primed to listen to closing arguments. We know Chris Kice's closing arguments, and we know Willettitia James is now because the judge has requested, as all judges do, in cases like this, that the party submit competing findings of fact proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Because when a judge sits as the trial effect without a jury, he or she both determines the facts based on the evidence it dues to trial and without a jury, he or she both determines the facts based on the evidence

Starting point is 00:49:06 that do the trial and makes the law, makes the law conclusions, the judgment. And so they both submitted those. Of course, Chris Kais on behalf of Trump says, there's nothing to see here. There was never, there was never fraud. There is no fraud. The assets are fine. Nobody was misled. No, nothing was overvalued.

Starting point is 00:49:23 There was no cooking of the books. And there's overreaching by the New York Attorney General on tether to reality, on tether to any evidence, a basis, and the whole thing should go by by. He's tried that five times in the case. As the judge noted, when he ruled in the middle of December and denied his fifth attempt to have the case dismissed at the close of evidence. On the other hand, we saw a hundred pages of the New York Attorney General clearly laying, well, here in the closing argument, laying out the case of fraud and her picking four different pieces of real estate that Donald Trump profited illegally from because he cooked the books about a statement, a statement of financial condition, a statement, a financial statement that was relied upon by counter parties, insurance companies, banks, lenders, buyers, sellers, and you name it. And he and she hit him right where she lived on ones that based on the evidence she believes

Starting point is 00:50:17 that is unassailable, that he made hundreds of millions of dollars on the old post office down in Washington that was used for a Trump hotel, both in the buy, the loan, and in the sale. And that's part of the money that should be clawed back from Donald Trump and everybody related to him. Things related to Mar-a-Lago, related to Forty Wall Street, related to some other properties. You total it all up and clawing back the bonuses that were paid to Alan Weiselberg and McConey. And that all totals at almost $370 million. clawing back the bonuses that were paid to Alan Weiselberg and McConney.

Starting point is 00:50:45 That all totals at almost $370 million. But then when it came to the other remedies, she dialed that back a bit too. She still wants Donald Trump banned for life. Listen to this one. Banned for life from ever conducting a real estate business in New York, including taking out loans from any banks that are chartered in New York, which is all the major banks, and conducting any real estate transactions at all of any kind in New York forever lifetime ban, which means his being that sexy real estate mogul that he's talked so much about and brag so much about that myth is gone forever.

Starting point is 00:51:19 He took his father's real estate empire and flushed it down the toilet of fraud, according to, according to Letitia James. So that happens. The kids, Eric and Don Jr., she wants them banned for five years from doing anything. All of them she wants banned from ever operating any business related to anything in the state of New York, either lifetime or five years depending on who it is. Trump, of course, lifetime. She's gotten away from the trust issue, which is fine. And she hasn't asked for the dissolution of the companies, but she

Starting point is 00:51:48 wants almost a permanent financial monitor placed over these companies for like almost indefinitely. That's what permanent means. Well, Popoq, the company's already dissolved. The summary judgment order is the dissolution of the company. So that was stayed. That was stayed pending the appeal. Right, but there's already an order saying that the company, I get that it stayed, but there's a order. She's not asking that at her final ask. Well, she doesn't have to ask for it because it was already granted by the judge.

Starting point is 00:52:18 So the judge already granted dissolution that appeal is stayed. Would you say? You and I disagree on that. I think I think you agree with it. Give me your and I just appeal is stayed. Would you say you and I disagree on that? I think I think I agree with the New York will debate it. Yeah, well, let me finish the point. So the point is on remedy. She's asking for her final remedy. She and I don't believe that this ask is inclusive of what has been stayed pending the appeal. I think she is asking finally for this and not asking for the trust replacement, the trust the replacement or the dissolution.

Starting point is 00:52:47 Instead, she wants a permanent monitor for the continued operation of the company as long as the company does not engage in real estate transactions or real estate loans in the state of New York. They could do whatever they want other than that. They want to go Trump University, which already got to expand it or they want to sell stakes or whatever they want to do, but they can't do real estate in New York So I think she's backed away from that completely and I think when we see the final decision or judgment by the judge He's gonna kind of clear that up. He was on a little bit shaky ground with the dissolution of the company aspect of it And I think they they are all kind of backing away

Starting point is 00:53:25 from the precipice. You could be right, but that's my read of her new requests. Yeah, no, I respectfully disagree with what you're saying there. Right. Because the summary judgment order already granted the dissolution, there's an appeal process that's already taking place regarding that. That appeal process is what New York Attorney General,

Starting point is 00:53:47 Latisha James, has already stipulated to staying that appeal until the remainder of the issues in the trial are resolved. So there's already an appeal process on the dissolution which we don't agree on this. We're going to find out. I'm going to find out my, I'm going to put my New York bar license on this one. I'm willing to, but there's, but there's an order with the Supreme Court. I mean, with, there's an order with the appellate division staying that so that the rest of the issues, I agree that this is exclusive, not inclusive of the other decision, but

Starting point is 00:54:22 it doesn't need to be inclusive because the other thing is not part of this trial. It's already been decided. That's going to go to the Appellate Division anyway. And now what the Appellate Division was waiting for, why New York Attorney General Leticia James stipulate why she was agreeing to stay the enforcement of the judge and gore on dissolution order that predates the trial, is she agreed that eventually they're going to have to be unified. The dissolution order, which already exists and was already found, plus all of these other

Starting point is 00:54:52 causes of action that are now, that were now before the court. The dissolution is no longer before the court. That's why New York Attorney General Leticia James doesn't need to address it in her, in her closing brief. The only issues now, because dissolution has already been determined, are the injunction to ban Donald Trump for life, which she's requesting, to ban Eric and Don Jr. for five years. She's requesting the continued monitor and discouragement of $370 million on top of

Starting point is 00:55:23 what has already been decided. She's dropped that as well. She's not asking for trusty replacement. Which part about it? The trusty replacement. She's not asking for trusty replacement. She's asking for the continued monotorship by someone like a barber Jones

Starting point is 00:55:39 for at least a five year period after to ensure that the steps are taken to fulfill any final order because New York Attorney General, Latisha James argues, there's been consistent ongoing fraud even while this case has been taking place. That's why I take the position that the financial monitor for five years is the replacement for the dissolution because this solution would happen overnight. No, I disagree. I think that the financial monitor would both oversee a dissolution. You can't dissolve anything over.

Starting point is 00:56:13 I mean, in theory, it's still going to take time to have to sell the assets and do something with the assets, so that literally couldn't take place over. We're going to know what the oral argument and beyond. And the judgment. All right. We will go back, pause that. The one argument though I do wanna make that I think we can both certainly agree on here, though, is on the issue of valuation,

Starting point is 00:56:34 Donald Trump's argument about subjective valuations, and that was one of Donald Trump's main argument in his closing brief. Valuations are all subjective. So if Donald Trump and his people, you know, give evaluation of hundreds of millions of dollars, you can have come up with a different valuation. And that's just such a red herring argument. And Justice and Goren has addressed that time and time again, the Justice and Goren acknowledges, I

Starting point is 00:57:02 acknowledge, Popeye, you acknowledge that valuations can be subjective. You can't just make up ones that don't exist, but there are different methodologies. The issue here is not subjective valuations. It is the input into the valuation methodology. And when you characterize a property as a residential property to inflate the value when on paper,

Starting point is 00:57:24 it's a commercial property that has all of these, you know, incumbrances on it and you've devalued the property to pay less property taxes, but then you put a fraudulent input into a valuation methodology, that's the issue with this case. Mar-a-Lago is a commercial property.

Starting point is 00:57:42 Donald Trump is engaged in fraud saying that it's a residential property, and therefore valued at far more. Donald Trump says that his buildings are fully occupied at the highest possible lease rate per square footage when in fact they're rent controlled and not fully budgeted. You can go through all of the examples like that, and that becomes, Donald Trump says, the penthouse is 30,000 square feet. It's 10,000 square feet.

Starting point is 00:58:09 So it's those differences that form the fraud. And then when you put them into any valuation methodology, it is inherently going to be fraudulent. And I read you one thing. Can I read you one thing as it's exactly on point? We just got a ruling from the judge exactly saying that on the 18th of December. Here's what he said. This is the same judge that's hearing the oral argument in denying the fifth attempt

Starting point is 00:58:31 to dismiss this case, just on the 18th of December, that defendants also, the Trumps, tried out two of their standard lies, two of their standard connoirs about valuation. He says that valuations as elucidated ad nauseam in this trial can be based on different criteria, analyzed in different ways, but a lie is still a lie. And then he goes over valuing occupied residences as if vacant, valuing restricted land as if unrestricted, valuing an apartment as if it were triple its actual size, valuing property many times the amount of concealed appraisals, valuing planned buildings as if they were completed and ready to rent, valuing golf courses with brand premium while claiming not to and valuing restricted funds as cash are not subjected differences of opinion. They are a must statements at best and fraud at worst. That is the headwinds that Donald Trump is going to be

Starting point is 00:59:28 heading into with his lawyers for the closing argument three of exilator with the same person. They're going to lose. The good news is I can report with confidence, despite our prior conflict. He's going to lose later this month, and then I'll take an appeal to the first department of the of the appellate division in New York. He'll lose there again, and he'll take it to the court of appeals. And that will be the last step. There's no Supreme Court that's going to bail him out. There's

Starting point is 00:59:54 no way to jump over to the federal tracks and do something else. And so, you know, this amount, I think, will be confirmed. I thought it could be higher. And the judge, by the way, this is a, this is a recommended number. The judge is keeping track. That's one of the things this principal law clerk is really doing is keeping track of things like the Delta's evaluation. And the judge, I've had judges take my proposed findings, the fact, the conclusions of law and rewrite them and revise them.

Starting point is 01:00:19 So I think the floor is $370 million. This judge could go up higher if he feels the evidence supports it in his final rulings. We will see what Justice and Goran does and we will see in the debate that you just saw live here, what the ultimate remedy is going to be. I can be very confident what the ultimate remedy is gonna be and I think we'll both find complete agreement

Starting point is 01:00:44 with respect to what's going on in the Washington DC criminal case. Both this frivolous contempt motion that Donald Trump filed before Judge Tonya Chutkin complaining that special counsel Jack Smith is producing discovery voluntarily and filed a motion in limine while there is a stay in place, while Donald Trump appeals the fact that the district court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on absolute presidential immunity grounds. And then, Pope, I think we will also agree that not only will the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rule against Donald Trump on the issue of absolute presidential immunity. When this oral argument

Starting point is 01:01:27 takes place in just a few days on January 9th, it is going to be brutal. They are going to tear him to shreds because he's done some things that are just so offensive to file before a court of appeals, setting aside the absurdity of his argument that he has this king-like immunity, that he says, even if you accept all of the allegations and special counsel, Jack Smith's indictment as true, this is the type of stuff that presidents engage and they always interfere with elections.

Starting point is 01:02:01 They always try to overthrow free and fair elections. This is total outer perimeter Conduct of what the article two says the United States president is supposed to be that's there's gonna be so much pushback on Oral argument we're gonna have the audio recording of that because that will be on audio that oral argument and that's gonna be Something to behold when that goes down, But also in Donald Trump's reply brief that was just filed, he cites himself as precedent. He's like numerous observers have said that the election was rigged.

Starting point is 01:02:37 This is what Donald Trump's arguing. And then he cites his own social media posts and some random compendium of things that he said as the citation. Not the court cases that he's lost, federal court cases, Supreme court case, not the case law are precedent. He cites himself. And that's one of the things that when we do this show, Legal A. F and throughout the Midas Touch Network, this attack on our judiciary, this attack on our legal system, citing your own tweets,

Starting point is 01:03:09 citing your own social media posts, it is so absurd and so offensive. And just for everybody keeping track, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has an expedited briefing schedule, Trump's an opening briefs were due on December 23rd, then the responding, the answering brief by Jack Smith was due December 30th on January 2nd. Donald Trump filed his final reply brief. So that's that's fully briefed right now oral argument January 9th

Starting point is 01:03:43 there. And then you had these amicus briefs where third parties can submit briefs to try to persuade a court of appeals or district court or federal or Supreme Court, on usually in cases that involve kind of public importance, the courts aren't required to accept these briefs submitted by outside parties. Anybody can submit, if you can submit an Amicus brief. And in this case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the Amicus briefs of a group of some of the top lawyers from five Republican administrations

Starting point is 01:04:15 who all explain why Donald Trump doesn't have absolute presidential immunity and how the history, text and structure of the Constitution, would all be destroyed if there was this concept of absolute presidential immunity in criminal cases for former presidents, for crimes committed while they were in office. But then there's that jurisdictional amicus brief

Starting point is 01:04:34 filed by a group called American Oversight that says that the court of appeals here doesn't even have jurisdiction. There's a case from 1989 called Midland Asphalt, that's just the name of the company that was involved in the case. Justice Scalia, right wing now deceased, but right wing conservative judge,

Starting point is 01:04:55 strict textualist basically said, you can only take these interlocutory appeals, these appeals like in the middle of a case, as opposed to an appeal, once there's a final judgment or conviction, there has to be some strict textual support or a statute that says you can do it. That was passed by Congress or something in the Constitution that says that you can, you have this immunity or you have this right. And so in the Midland asphalt decision, you apply it here, American oversight said there's no strict

Starting point is 01:05:25 Textual anything about absolute presidential immunity. So therefore Donald Trump was not permitted to even appeal this in the first place send it back to the District Court for trial. Don't even hear it. DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, Jack Smith isn't taking that argument Because I think Jack Smith actually wants a ruling on the merits that Donald Trump doesn't have absolute presidential immunity. Jack Smith wants to go to the guts of this case and not have a technicality, but I think he realizes that that briefs been submitted anyway, so he doesn't even have to go there necessarily. But the DC Circuit Court of Appeals told the parties be prepared to address that brief submitted by the five former Republican administrations of top lawyers and the American oversight brief.

Starting point is 01:06:10 So it's a summary of what's going to, what'd you make? Just go and order, Popoq, that contempt filing by Donald Trump saying, stop filing things, you're filing too many things in the docket. How whiny is that in the Jack Smith response saying no? And then go through what do you think the DC circuit's going to do on January 9th? Well, on the Chutkin Docket thing, and I've, you and I have done hot takes on this, Chut Chutkin, and you read the order carefully. She stayed the case and any proceedings and things that she requires or the rules required to be done to take the burden off of the

Starting point is 01:06:42 litigant, Donald Trump, while the immunity issue was up on appeal. You and I can debate whether she needed to do that or not. The Department of Justice and Special Counsel's Office argued and did not prevail that there were certain other activities that could happen while the issue of office holder or presidential immunity, absolute or otherwise, could be determined by the Appellate Court and the judge issued an order. And the orders didn't close the docket. It didn't close the electronic filing system. It didn't order the clerk to put the case on ice or stay it administratively, which

Starting point is 01:07:16 he could have done. I've been involved with cases that have been stayed administratively while something else happened. And then you can't file things on the docket because the case is temporarily closed, if you will. The docket's open, open for business. And Jack Smith and his team can continue to file. The fact that Donald Trump selected to take the ball, take the practice ball home with him

Starting point is 01:07:38 while the game is still going on, that's up to him. You and I did a hot take, you and I did a hot take, right, so this is genius by Jack Smith He has an open field he can just file whatever he wants Donald Trump's taking the position He's not gonna respond to it because he'll be burdened otherwise and so so Jack Smith files all the motions He stacks him up related to evidence in the future to be presented at the trial in March as if we're going to trial in March Because we are and as I've said before if Donald Trump thinks he can sit around and not be preparing for this trial, hoping that he wins his appeal and then come to the judge's check and throw

Starting point is 01:08:14 mercy, ask for mercy on the court judge, I've been sitting around, I'm in preparing, I'm not ready to go to trial in March, I've been sitting around since November when I filed my appeal. That's not how that works. And so the teams have to be preparing for the inevitable the possibility of a trial. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. But if it does, they gotta be ready. And Jack Smith isn't gonna just do like a dump of like 13 things on the docket at the last minute. He's gonna file. He's gonna submit things over to Donald Trump like evidence He's not going to hold it to the last minute. Whether Donald Trump wants to look at it or not,

Starting point is 01:08:48 the trial team needs to be preparing. So it's not that burden on the presidency that Donald Trump keeps talking about. If anybody's burdening himself, it's Donald Trump. He filed, he sends letters to the prosecutor saying, I'm going to ignore everything that you file. He files the motion for contempt. All that the order says is that Donald Trump doesn't have to do the rules that require response

Starting point is 01:09:13 and briefing on a certain timetable are suspended and anything that is required of him is no longer required. He's not required to do a darn thing. These are filings by the, by the, by the, they are not proceedings. That's the, that's the conflation that Donald Trump has made that even his own lawyers don't agree with. Jim trustee, one of his former lawyers was on television recently and he said, well, I've never really seen that when, when you, when a party unilaterally files emotion or gives

Starting point is 01:09:41 the other side discovery that that's considered to be a proceeding because it's not, it's not a proceeding. And that's the words that Judge Chutkin used. I think she denies, doesn't even brief the issue, have the party's brief the issue of the contempt. I think she has the power to look at her own order and determine whether the filings by Jack Smith, you know, laterally on the docket and providing in the other side with evidence to keep the case on track for March is a violation of her order or not.

Starting point is 01:10:10 I've had plenty of judges not wait around for the other side in federal court to serve their paper at all. And just the issue, one of those minute orders we like to talk about with Judge Cannon in Florida that just says denied no order to show cause. I think that's what's gonna happen. Continuing the theme of embarrassing yourself in front of judges is this new filing that you

Starting point is 01:10:29 just talked about in front of the appellate court for the oral argument next week. I think it pisses off the judges. It insults their intelligence. Donald Trump posted two days before an anonymous unsigned purportedly from election officials, election experts, a 32-page document that he posted on a social media two days later. It ended up in the brief being cited not once, but two or three times as credible evidence. First of all, the record is closed. This appeal issue comes up from a trial court level where the record is closed. You are not allowed to nor are you permitted to submit new evidence that you've just conjured

Starting point is 01:11:10 up and literally created for yourself, self-created evidence, self-fabricated evidence, and then cite to it, Trump on Trump, as we like to joke. These experts are so illustrious, they're so well known and well considered that none of them wanted to put their name on the document. So A, it shouldn't be part of the record because the record is closed and this is late produced. Secondly, it's not expert evidence at all. It's just self-create, self-abricated junk. And he uses that and his lawyers who are now going to stand up in front of this panel. That's going to be led by Judge Pan, I believe, if I had a guess the judges. It's either Judge Pan or Judge Child's,

Starting point is 01:11:50 I think you're going to be, we'll see on the day of who's going to be presiding over this three judge merits panel. It's going to hear this issue. But this is just going to piss them off, as you said. And I think at the oral argument, they are going to excoriate, they're going to roast the lawyer for Donald Trump that gets up and tries to argue about that the presidential immunity should apply to have his indictment dismissed. And then you've got the watchful eye of the U.S. Supreme Court, which hasn't yet taken the appeal, but as we've talked about these rits of Surshari, which are the requests that

Starting point is 01:12:23 you make by a party who loses below, we're going to see a pretty, I think we're within 72 hours of the oral argument on the ninth. I'm thinking 12, 13th, 14th high velocity, we're going to get an order against Donald Trump saying that there is no presidential immunity, absolutely or otherwise, especially on the facts of ledge, the indictment to have the indictment dismissed. And all these other crazy crack pack arguments that I wasn't convicted by the Senate. And therefore, that's the precondition. That's against the weight of every Supreme Court president about what is the purpose of

Starting point is 01:13:02 the impeachment process and how that doesn't implicate or stop criminal processes after somebody leaves office. Even something that was admitted to and it was pointed out by Jack Smith, in Donald Trump's own briefing in the Vance versus Trump case that you and I talked about earlier in the podcast, he actually took the position

Starting point is 01:13:23 that indictments and other criminal investigations of a president once he leaves office is appropriate and can go on. And of course, Jack Smith shoved that right back up Donald Trump's backside, put it in his brief and said, see, you want to quote yourself, how about your own briefs from 2020 in the Vance decision where you took the opposite position. And so you've got all that going on. So all of those arguments, I think, are really just ridiculous,

Starting point is 01:13:48 and they will make short work of them at this three-judge panel level. And then we're going to have to sit back, and see what happens when Donald Trump takes the invariable request through John Roberts, who sits over the DC courts as the first line of defense, as to whether these judges are going to take the issue.

Starting point is 01:14:04 Supreme Court's going to do one or the East Judges are going to take the issue. Supreme courts going to do one of two things. They're going to say, rid of surgery already denied, meaning we're fine with what the DC Court of Appeals did. That's the precedent that's going to stay on the books. Or there's going to be at least four votes to take it up to the United States Supreme Court and let them make a ruling. If they make it quick on a fast-docket,

Starting point is 01:14:25 the kind of like the one that they just did on the ballot issue, which is at least a month from beginning to end with oral argument, then the trial is still preserved for March, late March, maybe April. If they take it on a slower track, while the case is stayed, that's the death knell for the case to be tried before the DC election interference case, to be tried before the DC election interference case to be tried before the November election.

Starting point is 01:14:48 So as you said, there's a lot of off-ramps and ways for the Supreme Court to make a decision. This one is at the heart of, I know they have a court of limited jurisdiction. They don't like to make constitutional decisions unless they have to. That's constitutional avoidance. I don't know how they avoid making a decision here. I think they play with the timetable to signal where they're at in terms of votes, but they're ultimately going to have to make a decision about whether this constitutional republic allows a president sitting in office to be immune from all criminal prosecution no matter what he does. That can't be the law of the land, even among the right-wing MAGA on the Supreme Court. Well, let's say the Supreme Court decides to accept Sir Shiroiri and has, on the issue

Starting point is 01:15:32 of absolute presidential immunity. I think you and I both agree the following is going to happen at least. Donald Trump is going to lose before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. They're going to laugh them out and I think within 10 days to 15 days after oral argument, maybe even sooner. So right around January 20, before February 1, we will get an order from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the district court rejecting Donald Trump's absolute presidential immunity claim. I think Donald Trump will try to figure out what he can do to delay things, right?

Starting point is 01:16:12 Jack Smith, I think, literally, the day of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against Donald Trump on the issue of absolute presidential immunity. Jack Smith has his petition for Sir Shierori ready to go to the Supreme Court and ready to have the Supreme Court hear it. What that will then force is Donald Trump to then go to the United States Supreme Court and ask them, Donald Trump will ask Judge, who presides over the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and that kind of shadow docket there, to stay the mandate. Trump will also ask the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to stay their mandate from issuing, meaning telling the district court, Judge Chuck, and go on with your trial. Trump's going to try to seek a delay there. I think that John Roberts will temporarily grant a

Starting point is 01:17:10 stay of the mandate as they've done in these cases. Pope pocket will be Donald Trump will like declare victory that like that like John Roberts gave us, you know, a technical stay for a short period of time like he's done before. That's not what's going to be indicative of anything. But the question is, is then, if the Supreme Court hears a, you know, they'll have an expedited briefing from Trump, probably within five days. Trump submit your response to the petition for Sociari by Jack Smith. Then if the Supreme Court hears it, though, that brings us to like the first week of February, say the second week of February. Now let's say

Starting point is 01:17:51 they use the exact same calendar that they used for the 14th Amendment Section 3 disqualification cases, right, where they've set one month. They basically have, yeah, oral argument for one month. So then at the fastest, that would then push oral argument before the Supreme Court on the issue of absolute presidential immunity to be, say, March 8th or March 15th. They could go faster, but they could go faster, but say they use the same in their view that this is expanding. That puts it somewhere around March 15th.

Starting point is 01:18:30 Now, in this interim period, you now have lost from December 13th to March 15th, while the district court proceeding is stay, you've lost three months, right? You've lost December, you've lost January, and you've lost February of proceedings while these dates are stayed. So for me, the earliest at this point, the earliest this point that the Washington, D.C. trial could be is a June, a May to June. Even if you expedited this, you know, as fast as again, I think you're looking, a May to June. Even if you expedited this as fast as again, I think you're looking at a May to June trial date.

Starting point is 01:19:11 And then the question becomes with Judge Eileen Cannon, what is she going to do at this March 1st status conference because she said a trial date for May 20th, but I think you and I both know that Judge Cannon's not ready for date for May 20th, but I think you and I both know that Judge Cannon's not ready for trial on May 20th. I think Judge Cannon's games that she's been playing. If she really wanted to help Trump, she would have kept the May 20th trial date.

Starting point is 01:19:38 She would have had Trump go through the trial, Judge Cannon. She would have picked bad jurors. She would have done all of these things. You know, she would have allowed bad jurors to go in, she would have just, you know, she'd play games a little bit differently, but she'd push Trump's trial to block out the rest of the year to focus on the document case, but she screwed up her docket so much right now, Popeye, that she's going to make, here's what's going to happen there. And here's why I still think the DC case goes

Starting point is 01:20:06 first or second. I'm gonna be the devil's advocate when you're done. Good. I think then what'll happen is, at some point, she's gonna make a bad ruling, and then, I mean, that Jack Smith can actually appeal. Jack Smith will appeal to the 11th Circuit, and then stay her proceedings. So her

Starting point is 01:20:28 May trial date is not going to go because there's going to be an interlocutory appeal that Jack Smith has. She'll be stayed. And then I think you have the DC case sneaks in around May, you know, around June would be my guess mid June. So the devil's advocate is you may be completely right. The alternative is the United States Supreme Court and Justice Roberts has five votes on a policy decision internally that they need to have that trial happen. Thumb-up or Thumb Down Exonerator can

Starting point is 01:21:00 Vic Donald Trump before the election. If you're right that they don't care whether that happens or not, that's sort of political issue that they don't want to dirty themselves with and they're the Supreme Court and they don't care, then they'll put it on the track that you just described and it'll reach those conflicts that you just outlined. If they care about that, the way the federal district courts have cared about it, the way the federal pellet courts have cared about it and said so in rulings that we've seen out of the DC Court of Appeals that Supreme Court generally respects because it's a feeder program.

Starting point is 01:21:32 A lot of those judges end up being elevated to the United States Supreme Court. If John Roberts cares about his place in history, the way that he was not on the, he was not on the Supreme Court in 2000 for Bush versus Gore, where in 72 hours they picked the president, literally 72 hours briefing oral argument decision. This is his moment in time. Dobbs decision gone, constitutional right for woman to choose, Roe versus Wade on his watch, ripped out of the constitution. He now gets to stand and deliver.

Starting point is 01:22:02 And if he can make, if he can get the votes to put this on a faster track than what you outlined, it will signal to me that they care the way the other judge, federal judges do, that the, that Donald Trump get his day in court, but that day of court happened well in advance of the, of the election so that people know when they vote, whether they're voting for an exonerated, indicted former president or a convicted former president. One way or the other thumbs up or thumbs down. If that matters to them, then you'll see a much faster process than the one you just outlined

Starting point is 01:22:34 because when they want to do something, they can do it in 72 hours, 72 days, 72 weeks or 72 months, they control their own docket and by controlling it, the way we talked about the New York Times and how they are making a policy decision based on placement of articles on the front page and burying articles on the back pages. Same thing here with the Supreme Court in their briefing schedule and how they manipulate that. So you and I will know right away and we'll be able to talk about it here, right away based on the briefing schedule.

Starting point is 01:23:02 If it's as attenuated as you've laid out this one month, and then we'll get around, that we're decision and then you're right. Then the chances of this trial, going to trial, maybe there's still time left in the summer, is not looking good. But if they do things faster, and they say, and we've seen it happen when they want to,

Starting point is 01:23:21 no, we want a brief in a week, another brief in reply, and the thing, and the whole thing, and oral argument oral argument, then we're cooking. Maybe we're cooking with a ruling. Because the quicker they get to the decision making, you and I both agree that they're going to rule ultimately against Donald Trump on the application of absolute immunity to his indictment. The quicker they get to that decision and not F with the trial, the better is for America. And by the way, I think we are kind of saying the same thing. I just think this Supreme Court will

Starting point is 01:23:50 view if they set a one month briefing schedule from the time they get they get Sershi Rari. I think they'll think that's fast. And I don't think that the Supreme Court justice is especially the fact that it's controlled by a right, the six right wing justice. I don't think that the Supreme Court justices, especially the fact that it's controlled by a right, the six right wing justice, I don't think that they care that this trial in DC goes before the judge can in trial in May or that they are giving any thought about, well, them and having a district attorney case

Starting point is 01:24:20 is scheduled for March 25th. And then what's fault in county going to do? I just don't think I think that John Roberts and the Supreme Court is going to move this. I think that they're going to say, okay, we could probably get this on track for a trial around, you know, May or, you know, May or June, if we issue a quick ruling in March, my only point is that at some point Judge Tanya Chutkin is going to have to deal with the fact that already, Popok, there's been a month delay.

Starting point is 01:24:53 You and I would both agree, there's been a month delay, December 13th to when by January 9th, they'll basically be one month, right? Slightly under. So then that already moves March 4th to April 4th Judge Chutkin is not in my view judge Chutkin's not gonna be like I don't care that I stayed it I'm gonna ignore this day and then to keep all of my deadlines the same I think she'll expedited a little you know a little bit more to me, that just pushes March 4th to April

Starting point is 01:25:26 4th. And then you do that for two months, and that pushes it, again, to May 4th. So that's why I think you end up having that trial, probably sometime in May or June if we're just being realistic. But then you have them in Hatten District Attorney case, scheduled for trial March 25th, which is a felony case against Donald Trump, and that's gonna creep up soon.

Starting point is 01:25:51 And people are gonna be talking about that case for the falsification of business record. So I think there will be at least two criminal Trump trials in 2024. And I think, and I still feel Donald Trump will be convicted of a felony in 2024. And I think, and I still feel Donald Trump will be convicted of a felony in 2024. I'm very confident of those factors. However, I just think the timing there, if we're mapping it out, fits more in line with, but I hear you, Pope, Pope, Pope, finally, I just want to discuss very

Starting point is 01:26:20 briefly this issue of, because we're talking about Judge Cannon, so we might as well address the issue anyway. Here's one of the types of things that I think Judge Cannon will eventually, when she has to make an order, which she's avoided doing. She's just issued these paperless minute orders, but she hasn't issued any order that Jack Smith can actually bring an interlocutory appeal on.

Starting point is 01:26:49 This specific motion is not necessarily one that I think is like, despositive, but it incorporates a lot of kind of despositive issues that are right around the horizon there. Jack Smith is saying, look, Donald Trump has claimed before that the reason that he, one of his things that he said publicly is that he's been relying on his lawyers for this willful retention of national defense information. That's why Trump has these documents at Mar-a-Lago. Well, if you're going to make that argument in court, like you've been trying to make that in part of the kind of PR campaign at your rallies and events and through the media, the case law says you have to disclose that. And the overwhelming case law in the Southern District of Florida, the overwhelming authority and weight of cases is you have to disclose that 60-day, at least sufficiently before the

Starting point is 01:27:35 trial, because if you as the defendant are going to blame your lawyer, that's called an advice of counsel defense, that then triggers a burden on you, an affirmative burden that you didn't have as a criminal defendant, a burden of production to now turn over records and documents to prove that you were somehow misled by your lawyer to commit a crime and you relied on the bad advice of your lawyer that vitiates your intent to commit the crime because of what the lawyer told you to do. So it's a waiver of attorney client privilege. So courts across the country have held, you got to disclose that before trial, because

Starting point is 01:28:11 if you disclosed it in a trial, it creates chaos on the docket. If now all of a sudden mid trial, you say, I'm going with advice of counsel, how do you produce those records in the middle of a trial to the government and satisfy your burden of production without completely disrupting the trial and creating chaos? So Jackson Smith filed the motion the same way he did in the DC case and Judge Chutkin granted Jackson Smith's motion, gave Trump a little more time to disclose advice of counsel to all of those dates or no stayed in the Washington DC district court. But Jack Smith requesting the same thing before Judge Eileen Cannon, Trump filed an opposition

Starting point is 01:28:51 saying, no, the rules don't apply to me. You know, and just the usual Donald Trump ranting and raving and whining and citing bad case law that is irrelevant. And Jack Smith responded and said, no, no, no, you need to disclose this. I think Judge Cannon will probably rule against Jack Smith there because she always makes the wrong decision. But that combined with Donald Trump will be bringing their motions to dismiss the same way he filed motions to dismiss before Judge Chuck in which we're denied.

Starting point is 01:29:22 I think Judge Cannon will grant some of Donald Trump's motions to dismiss on some absurd grounds. That doesn't mean Donald Trump is off the hook. That means Jack Smith can take an appeal to the 11th Circuit and the 11th Circuit will reverse Judge Cannon. But I tend to think Popok that Judge Cannon will grant, I mean, I think she's going to make some horrific decisions in the coming few months, which will be a bad headline, but ultimately for the purposes of Jack Smith, we all know Judge Cannon, I think it's going to do that, even though it's not being talked about.

Starting point is 01:29:56 Jack Smith will have appeals to the 11th Circuit soon, and I think that will stay the same way the DC case is staying. This is going to stay Judge Cannon's case. So to me, that May 20th, 2024 trial date in the Southern District of Florida isn't going to happen. And given where we are in the DC case, I think the DC criminal case before Judge Chutkin will eventually kind of swoop in right around that time slot. That's my analysis there. Popok, what do you think about that? I agree with you.

Starting point is 01:30:27 I think that the Aileen Katten case was never going to go forward in May. It was just like when you double book a restaurant thinking you're not going to use the other one, you shouldn't do that, by the way. But I think that's what she was doing. She was like boxing out as best she could to help Donald Trump in any way she could in her schedule. I think you're right. There's going to be, I think the Stormy Daniels case

Starting point is 01:30:46 that goes to trial in New York, especially if there's all these openings that arise because of appeals by Donald Trump and others. I think that the Georgia case against Donald Trump, which we haven't talked much about, but it's still there has not yet been scheduled. I don't think she can cram it in. She certainly can't cram the completion of it.

Starting point is 01:31:05 And she's already said she thinks it's an eight to nine month, almost a year long trial against Donald Trump. That's a long, it takes in Georgia state process. So even if she started it, it wouldn't finish before the election. If Donald Trump loses, as we all believe he will, then we don't even have to worry about staying or immunity or that type of thing or case continues.

Starting point is 01:31:27 If he wins, he could try to stop the case and its tracks while at least he was president, not having it dismissed, but having it stopped in his tracks. Supremacy issues haven't even been litigated in Georgia, even though Jack Smith dropped a footnote saying, hmm, supremacy related to a state prosecution is for another day. So we'll have to see if that ever gets resolved at that level. So I think you're right. It's no more than two. I'm just hoping to God.

Starting point is 01:31:49 It's the Chuck in case and that you are, you and I are not right about the Supreme Court in the briefing process and that they try to get this, they think it's important from a policy making a reason in our political, in our politics to have Donald Trump tried, not convicted, I'm not, I wanna make it clear. I don't know if he's gonna get convicted in a court of law, I have my working theories about that in front of a DC jury with the evidence,

Starting point is 01:32:17 just the evidence I know about. I think it would be hard press not to be convicted, but just get the trial, that's why the public has a stakeholder in our due process rights and our rights to a fair trial because the public needs to see public trials of people and to have their names either cleared or convicted one way or the other. We'll see if that matters to the United States Supreme Court or they don't really care about that because they operate on their own timetable and their own own ivory tower and they really don't give a crap about our democracy.

Starting point is 01:32:47 And we'll have to see again, we'll revisit this issue about what John Roberts is able to pull off. He hasn't been able to pull off things that have mattered to us from a civil rights standpoint or a woman's rights to choose at all. Let's see what he can do on the political front when as Joe Biden or President said, there is a dagger placed at the throat of democracy. Let's see if John Roberts has the votes to disarm the person holding the dagger in the form of Donald Trump and do the right thing. You know, brings me to the final reflection

Starting point is 01:33:19 here of President Biden's speech, where he was just going through a bunch of things that Donald Trump has done and said. Like, when Donald Trump plays the anthem of the J6th Prisoners called the J6 Choir, when Donald Trump mocked that one of his own supporters, almost killed Nancy Pelosi's husband, and then laughed about it and mocked Nancy Pelosi and said she should have built a wall. When Donald Trump talks about being dictator for a day, when Donald Trump talks about terminating the Constitution and so forth and so on, President Biden said, did you ever believe that someone who occupied the White House would say those things?

Starting point is 01:34:01 Could you ever believe that someone in the Republican Party who was the leader would ever say those things. Could you ever believe that someone in the Republican party who was the leader would ever say those things? Could you ever believe that? And again, the reason that we're in this constitutional crisis right now is, could you ever believe that anyone seeking the highest office of the land would argue that criminal conduct that they engaged and while previously holding the office that they are absolutely immune. Could you ever believe that they would argue that former president would say they never took an oath to support the United States Constitution in the legal paperwork we could all say we could all read or saying that they're not an officer of the United States. The office of presidency is not

Starting point is 01:34:52 an office that the rules don't like did you ever imagine Donald Trump someone who has that exalted office citing themselves as evidence in a court case, their social media posts. And as we head into 2024, as we're in 2024, it's those kinds of questions that deserve firm answers. And to your point, firm adjudication, firm answers, and are we a nation of laws? Are we a nation of law and order? And I believe that we are. And I think that it's so imperative that we all keep getting out the facts, getting out the data.

Starting point is 01:35:35 Share Legal AF, show this podcast, show this YouTube channel that might as touch with friends and family and coworkers, let people know what the facts are and what the data is. I think when people are presented with the data and empowered with truth and facts, they will make the right decision, right, Pope, that's our legal system. When you go in front of a jury, this idea of admissible evidence is so that the jury isn't misled by propaganda and

Starting point is 01:36:05 false statements and irrelevant things, but you don't have that when it comes to political campaigns. That doesn't exist where it's admissible evidence. It is, there is a active campaign taking place right now of disinformation out there in both sides of them to prevent the American people from being armed with the true data. And that's all I want to get out there is the true data, the accurate data, the facts. Michael Popock, myself, Karen Friedman, Agniflo, everybody here at the Midas Touch Network is committed to that. And that is the oath that we take to you are legal AFers and we're so

Starting point is 01:36:42 honored to be a part of this community with you. Make sure you're subscribed on audio to legal AF, not just the YouTube audio listeners. Go to the MidasTouch YouTube channel and subscribe. Go to store.mitusTouch.com. We've got great legal AF gear and other Pro Democracy gear at store.mitusTouch.com. Check that out right now. We are so grateful for you and all of your support. Thank you to our pro-democracy sponsors.

Starting point is 01:37:10 And, Poe Poc and I, in the next coming weeks, we may have some big announcements as well as we try to expand Legal AF and some of the infrastructure here that we will talk about on future episodes. So for now, I'll leave you with that piece, but we're gonna continue to grow here at Legal AF. Thank you everybody for watching.

Starting point is 01:37:31 Popo, always the best time of my week hanging out with you, one of the best times of my week hanging out with you, I like doing other things. But you're right up there. You're tired. You're tired. You're definitely tired for number one. You're gonna trouble at home.

Starting point is 01:37:44 You're tired. You're tired for number one. Get in trouble at home. Yeah. You tired, you tired, you tired for number one. I do record this in my living room. Shout out to the might, it says, shout out to the might as mighty.

Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump STRICKEN with LEGAL MELTDOWN as Year Starts

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.