Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump’s CRUSHING LOSSES in Court KEEP PILING UP

Episode Date: September 5, 2024

Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo, joined by special guest anchor Dina Doll, are back for the midweek edition of the top-rated Legal AF podcast. On tap? 1. Trump is squirming to desperately avoid his criminal sentencing in New York, including getting the federal trial and appellate courts involved, and asking the state court judge for another stay. But will any of it work? 2. An overview of this week’s big conference with Judge Chutkan to get the new Trump criminal indictment (#5) back on track, as Trump —likely worried about the upcoming debate with VP Harris, takes the cowards way out and “waives” his appearance at the mandatory arraignment; (3) the Biden Harris Administration continues its fight at the Supreme Court to restore women to first class status in this country; and (4) so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Join the Legal AF Patreon: https://Patreon.com/LegalAF Thanks to our sponsors: Moink: Sign up at https://MoinkBox.com/LEGALAF right now and listeners of this show get FREE hot rolls in your first box. MD Hearing: To get our $297 when you buy a PAIR offer, including a free charger, head to https://ShopMDHearing.com and use code LEGALAF. Miracle Made: Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGALAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. Smalls: Head to https://Smalls.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF at checkout for 50% off your first order PLUS free shipping! Zbitoics: Head to https://zbiotics.com/LegalAF to get 15% off your first order when you use LEGALAF at checkout. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

the game. to wager Ontario only gambling problem call connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600. BedMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. This episode is brought to you by CIBC. From closing that first sale to opening a second store as a business owner, you've hustled to accomplish a lot, but the rewards don't stop there. When you earn two times more points on things that matter to you and your business, easily track those business expenses and experience flexible Aventura rewards, you'll realize how much more rewarding your hustle can be. Get up to $1,800 in value when you apply for the CIBC Aventura Visa for Business at cibc.com slash Aventura Business. Terms and conditions apply.

This episode is brought to you by Mazda things to show off, fancy cars, you know, a giant home. Those things are just not part of who I am. But I've been coached and I've learned through my advisor that it's not one size fits all. Everyone has their own preferences. Everything that I do with Edward Jones is tailored to who I am. Edward Jones. We do money differently. Visit edwardjones.ca slash different.

Paramount Plus. We come to you from the mountain of entertainment to tell you what's streaming on Paramount Plus. Blockbusters, like A Quiet Place, day one. Originals, including Yellowstone. Let the world know we're here. Light it up. And hits like Dexter.

You're decent and good. I'm not. Paramount Plus, your eyeballs equals entertainment. Stream Paramount Plus from 6.99 a month. Welcome to the mid-week edition of Legal AF. We are doing this live, live, live. I am thrilled to be here with Dina Dahl, who is subbing in for Michael Popok, who is normally here on Wednesdays, but he is traveling. He might join us if he can get his computer and

microphone in time before we have ended Legal AF. We hope he'll make a surprise appearance. If not, it's just tonight is Legal AF with the ladies. So great to see you, Dina. Thank you so much as always for being so wonderful to sub in when one of us can't make it. It's just fantastic And I know all the legal a offers and everybody love love having you here. We have so much to talk about Tonight there's just so many different things It's hard to it's hard to decide what to what to pick and what to talk about But what we're gonna talk about is, first of all, tomorrow's a huge day because the parties are going to be back in front of Judge Chutkin to discuss

what, if anything, is going to happen with the case, the immunity case that has impacted the Washington, DC, United States versus Trump case, right? And the case in front of Judge Tanya Chutkin, the Washington, D.C., United States versus Trump case, right? And the case in front of Judge Tanya Chutkin, the Jan 6 case. So that's tomorrow, and they have a big hearing tomorrow. And we're going to talk everything about that and what to expect and what do we think is going to happen. We'll give an overview of this conference

and see what's going to happen to Trump in this new criminal indictment that Jack Smith has filed in line with the immunity decision. So I look forward to talking about that with you. Also, we're gonna talk about what's going on in my old stomping grounds here with the Manhattan DA has a lot going on and whether or not Trump is gonna be sentenced. We know he's desperately trying to avoid being sentenced in New York and he's trying to get

the federal courts involved and the appellate courts involved. And he's asking the state court judge for another state. So will any of this work? Find out. We'll talk all about it because like I said, it's my old stomping ground. That's where I work for 30 years and so we'll talk about that and then the third topic that you and I are going to talk about tonight has to do with the Biden and Harris administration's continued fight with trying to protect women's rights and this time withholding federal funding from states who don't offer

counseling or don't offer options for abortion and what the Supreme Court did about that. So in their summer break, what did they do in one of these emergency applications? So we're going to talk about that. And Dina, again, I'm just so thrilled that you are here tonight and that we're going to talk about that. And Dina, again, I'm just so thrilled that you are here tonight and that we're going to talk about these important topics. You know, it's interesting what I do in preparing for Legal AF every week is I do a deep dive and read the filings myself and I I read the decisions myself, and I read newspaper articles describing them to try to get a handle on them.

And tonight, in addition to doing that, I just, for some reason, just decided to put Trump into a Google search and just press News and see what came up. And the list was just absolutely fascinating. So I thought I would just read a couple of headlines because this is what comes up in chronological order when you put Trump in and click on the news tab. Number one, Trump media shares are down 74% from their March peak. So that should tell you about his business business acumen right with the truth social then

the next one New Hampshire is the latest sign of Donald Trump's shrinking map. Okay Fascinating right fascinating that he's starting to lose New Hampshire Then there's one of about that photo that's going around of the Nebraska Waltzes for Trump. It says that photo of people wearing Nebraska Waltz for Trump shirts, they are distant cousins. Right? I mean, it's just crazy. Those are just the top three one.

And then further down, Trump admits he lost the 2020 presidential election, which he definitely did too. Then the one that I thought was most despicable was came out on CNN a few hours ago. Trump's nephew shares what he says, Trump told him when he asked for help with his son, Trump said, let him die. I mean, that I just can't even believe he would be so cold and so terrible. I don't know, for some

reason, every time I hear other things like that, everyone's like, Well, of course, he's despicable. He's terrible. But for whatever reason, every time I see something like that, I still get shocked by it. I just can't believe it. So I just wanted to share that. And then, of course, I wanted to also mention two more things that were in the news today.

Liz Cheney, who spoke at Duke today, said she is supporting Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. And of course the tragic tragic news of yet another school shooting and the people who are suffering and grieving right this very minute while we are recording it's it's you know or broadcasting I should say live so you know I can't help but have this really sad feeling come over me while we're recording for the families. And of course, there's frustration

because we could do something about it, right? And we don't. We just don't. And I'll never quite understand why Republicans love their guns more than they love anything else and why they don't have any kind of sensible gun and mental health funding. Just focus on mental health issues and ban things like assault rifles, right, and bump stocks, and, you know, these things that are military grade, you know, that how a 14-year-old got a hold of a gun

and was able to go into a school and shoot, I just can't even, I can't even believe it. But anyway, here we are, and we're here to talk about these issues that are at the intersection of law and politics. And it's great to see you and it's great to be here with you. How are you doing, Dina? I mean, it's great to be here with you too. So fun that I get to sub for Popalk because usually it's the other way around and we don't get to do it together.

So I'm super excited about that. And yeah, a few of the things that you mentioned, especially the guns at the end. I mean, when Ronald Reagan was shot, everyone came together and banned the assault weapons. And the fact that Trump was almost killed by an assault weapon and that hasn't happened shows how bad this country is around guns right now.

After Sandy Hook, you think something would have happened. And then after the Trump thing, you think maybe the Republicans would have had a change of heart and it's crickets. The vast, vast majority of Americans want to change gun laws. It's yet another reason why we have to vote Democrat in November because we have to elect people

who are willing to change the laws around it. People are really tired of their children being shot at, being shot at themselves at parades and grocery stores and movie theaters. And yes, you know, at a political rally. I mean, at the end of the day, he was shot, almost shot by a school shooter. You know, it was a fit that profile. We're seeing it again and again, only in America do we allow this to happen. So it's very disturbing. And his comment about his nephew, the disability or the mental illness, and just let him die. I know, I'm the same as you. I get shocked all over again. And I think, why am I so shocked? He's shown us so many times in so many ways what a bad person he is. He really fundamentally does not care about people, but it's still

shocking and we can't normalize it. And his supporters shouldn't excuse it away. When somebody tells you what they are, believe it. That's what he believes. The fact that this person is so close to being a president again is just extraordinary. And it shows how dysfunctional the Republican Party is. And kudos to Liz Cheney for trying to make a difference and change the Republican Party. We function better as a democracy if we have two functioning parties. And right now, the Republican Party

is completely dysfunctional, that they're willing to stick with somebody like Trump at this point. So great to be on. I know there's so many Trump legal news It was kind of quiet for a little while and it's it's raring its head. So I'm excited to dig into all of them tonight Well, thank you so much for reminding me to show everybody my earrings. I don't know if you can see them But they say vote. These are really cute little earrings that I'm wearing tonight that are for sale. I just love them. They're so cute. They're for sale at a store in New York called Fish's Eddie. And it's a really good friend of mine who owns it. It's an amazing, amazing store.

It's owned by Julie Gaines and started and founded by her. And today is her birthday. So I want to wish Julie a happy birthday. And thank you so much for giving me these beautiful earrings. And I'm just thrilled to be wearing these on Legal AF, because they say vote, because that's what we have to do. And I'm going to wear them as much as I can between now and November, because truly just it's important to get out there and to vote and to express ourselves and express our voices. And because we're women, we can sort of talk about things that women talk about.

And so I'll talk about my children because I don't usually talk about them on Legal AF. I'll talk about them on Miss Trial, but you know, we're not being, you know, when you're with the guys then we talk about guy things, right? Well, anyway, so one of my children, one of my daughters actually has a disability. And so when I hear things like what, what

Fred, you know, what, what, what Trump said about his own nephew, it just, it, it upsets me in a way that I can't even express. And I just hope that, you know, there's so many people out there like me who have children or loved ones who have disabilities, you know, my daughter is on the autism spectrum, and she's amazing. She does need extra help. You know, for all the people out there who are voting, who have family members or others who have any sort of disability or anything, I just hope you go out and vote and send a message to our elected officials, in particular send a message to Donald Trump

of what we think about his selfish, callous, and really disgusting way he treats anybody way he treats anybody who, anybody who isn't, who isn't, frankly, white and wealthy and thinks like he does. So anyway, I just want to bring that up because that's, that's why I think that headline really, really hit, hit home for me in a way that I just, you know, really pissed me off, made me angry. So I had to mention it anyway. So get out and vote. And anyway, so I'm seeing a lot of comments on here, a lot of people in the same boat I am. And it's you know, we're a tribe, we're a club, we're a group. And we all know, you know, we all we all know, we all we saw Gus Waltz, you know,

love it, showing public love and crying for his dad. The first thing I did was Google, because I knew, right? I knew exactly. I'm like, I recognize that kid, because reminds me of someone I know and love very, very dearly. So, most amazing people.

So anyway, let's get back to our show and talk about the topics that brought us here. I want to start with just tomorrow is a big big day because there is this hearing in front of Judge Chutkin which is you know really the first time we're gonna be there after the Supreme Court immunity decision that came down in July. And, you know, it's everyone's sort of wondering what's going to happen and how is this how is she going to handle this? And for a long time, some of us were wondering, well, is she going to do

a mini trial and apply the the the new law? Because it's new law that they created. It's made up created law that the Supreme Court created since the indictment came down, the sweeping indictment came down against Donald Trump that charged him with four counts and he was the only defendant that were six unindicted co-conspirators and it really laid out in detail his giant conspiracy to defraud the United States and steal an election and all the things that were in this 40 something page indictment. And then we got a notification that Jack Smith needed a little bit more time.

And we all thought, you know, because Trump asked for more time and then Jack Smith said, okay, we don't object to that. We all thought, what, why isn't he in a rush? Why is he allowing for more time? And it's because he was busy superseding the indictment. And so this superseding indictment came out, it was nine pages shorter, still the same four charges, still only Donald Trump as the defendant.

And it did pare things down slightly, but it really basically did the work for Judge Shetkin and applied the new law to the facts and removed anything from the old indictment where Trump could be immune from prosecutions. So really streamlined it and I thought it was a very, very smart way to handle the immunity issue and just take it all out ahead of time and say, this is the pared down indictment. This is the stuff that's unofficial. This is the stuff that's appropriate.

And so that's where we are. But what Judge Chutkin said was, I want the two of you, the two parties, Trump and Smith, the special counsel and the defendant, to file a joint status report, essentially saying, how should I proceed? What do you guys think I should do in applying this new law, this new law that essentially says anything that's core presidential, right? Like in the constitution or anything that's a core presidential duty,

you're 100% immune, right? Absolute immunity. Anything that's in the outer perimeter of your duties, so not core, but it's presidential, you're acting as a president, that's presumptively immune, okay, but the government can rebut that presumption. And then of course, anything that is private or not presidential is unofficial

and you can be criminally prosecuted for it. So she said, how should I handle that? And I want a joint status report. And all the areas that you can agree, let me know. And the areas where you diverge and you don't agree, please let me know. And so on Friday night, Smith and Trump filed their joint status report and they detailed these proposals and they certainly were not similar. They were very dissimilar on how the prosecution of Donald Trump should proceed. Essentially, you've got on the one hand, Donald Trump saying, Oh, let's just push this out to forever.

And this really long drawn out schedule of how things should go. And then you've got Jack Smith saying a lot more reasonable about how these, how this should proceed. And so, um, Trump really wants to, before immunity is even discussed, Trump wants to file all the other pretrial motions in this new superseding indictment. Now a few things do have to happen because Jack Smith superseded the indictment. Number one is he has to be what's called arraigned on the new indictment. Now, Jack Smith said, look, Trump doesn't have to appear.

He can, we won't object to him waiving his appearance on the new arraignment. And Trump said he was not going to appear. He's going to allow his attorneys to enter a plea of not guilty for him. Because that's what happens at an arraignment, the defendant in all arraignments on an accusatory instrument, the first thing that has to happen is you have to be, quote unquote,

arraigned on the accusatory instrument. And and a defendant has to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. And so he said, and normally defendants have to appear before the court. But but in this particular instance, the charges stayed the same. It's just that the language and the indictment and the evidence is what has been pared down slightly. And so he said he's not going to attend. Who knows? He may or may not attend. I think it just depends on what he feels like that morning or he has some media stunt planned if he shows up. But he doesn't have to. He says he's not going to and that his lawyers will enter a

plea of not guilty. And the next thing that will happen, really, this is not an evidentiary hearing, Dina. This is kind of more like a scheduling hearing or a how should we proceed? Let's all come together and say, okay, what's gonna happen next? So there's gonna be lawyers discussing that, you know, and discussing, so I don't know that there's a lot of substance happening. I don't think there's gonna, certainly witnesses aren't gonna be called

or anything like that. I think it's gonna be a sort of a status hearing where they're gonna talk about how they each think things should happen. And Trump wants to do all his motion. He wants to do other motion practice before they talk about immunity. He wants to, for example, file a motion to dismiss in light of the Supreme Court case, Fisher versus United States, that essentially says that for obstruction of an official proceeding, which is one of the charges against

Trump and it's one of the charges against many of the Jan 6 defendants, it's 18 United States Code section 1512C2 that the Supreme Court held that in order to obstruct an official proceeding, you have to do it through obstructing documents or items. It has to be physical, right? It can't just be stopping the proceeding. It has to involve some kind of documents or destruction

of documents, et cetera. And certainly, Jack Smith was conscious of that decision when he preceded the indictment because he added language in there that talked about how Trump's obstruction was with the actual electoral certificates, etc. So Trump wants to address that issue first, and he wants to do all the other motions to dismiss and then get to the immunity decision. But of course, Jack Smith points out that no, immunity is a threshold question, and

existing law says it's a threshold question, that has to happen first. So that's what they're going to talk about tomorrow. We can dive deeper into it, but I want to throw it over to you and get your sense on what do you think is going to happen tomorrow, Dena? Well, it's funny. If Judge Chuckin thought she was going to get any agreement in that joint status conference. She was not, she did not. There were polar opposites, essentially, like you laid out. You know, Jack Smith saying, let's get to the immunity and, you know, Trump wanting to do that at the very end. I mean, it makes so much, I mean, I think that's the law, as you said,

and it also makes sense. The thing with immunity is both in civil or criminal, the idea is that you shouldn't be subject to the court's jurisdiction, let's say, on this issue. It's such a threshold issue because if you aren't supposed to be liable for it, either criminally or civilly, you shouldn't have to spend all the legal fees. You shouldn't have to use up court resources. So the idea that Trump's lawyers want him

to do so many different motions, it would take months to some discovery before that and then get to the immunity. You've kind of defeated the whole point of immunity at that point when the idea is like, I shouldn't even have to expend my time and resources and judge, you shouldn't either. So I think that Judge Shuckin will do the immunity first, how Jack Smith wanted that to play out. He wants to have the government file a brief where they talk about why his superseding indictment is still within the Supreme Court immunity decision. A particular thing, and we know he's going to have to show, is to overcome the presumption of immunity around Trump's communications with Pence,

because Chief Justice Roberts said that that would have a presumption of immunity because was the communication with Pence in his capacity as VP or as his Senate position of this electoral certification. So that's a presumption of immunity. So he's going to have to, in his brief, explain why that should overcome the presumption of immunity and why essentially the other ones were all private and not official.

So, Jack Smith wants to file that brief and then have Trump reply and then, you know, then finish briefing and then Judge Chuck can have any proceedings. Like, we've been talking about a lot. Will there be a mini hearing? Lots of people wanted it before the November election. I don't, even if she does have the immunity first and does request a hearing on top of the papers, I don't think we're gonna see that before the November election. I think that those papers will,

the filing of the motions will take too long with that. But I do think that's the route she's going to go because that is how we handle immunity questions, both in civil and criminal proceedings. I agree with you. And Jack Smith proposed that Judge Chutkin do a kind of threshold context-specific analysis told context specific analysis of whether the superseder contains immunized conduct. He said, look, we can just brief it on the papers. And they Smith's Jack Smith said something

that he is ready to file a brief whenever the court says it's okay, which means he hasn't written that that brief is written there chomping at the bit. He's just waiting for the judge to say, okay, yeah, you can file the brief. And I know, and he also says he'll include in there the additional evidence that because, you know, indictments, very bare bones, right? That's just even though this is a speaking indictment that has a lot in there, it doesn't have all the evidence. it doesn't have all the witnesses, it doesn't have, there's so much more that's going to come out at trial. This is just, this is just an indication of what the facts are that he's charged with, but not necessarily the evidence that will prove those facts. And what Jack wants to do is, what Smith wants to do is he wants to include in his motion practice some more detail

of those facts. And of course, Trump does not want that coming out because that will be devastating when he hears the amount, the mountain of evidence and witnesses that Smith and the special counsel has amassed against him. And so, but that's what Smith is proposing is like, look, let's brief it. We will include the additional evidence that we introduce at trial, and then Trump can file his opposition papers, we'll file our reply papers, and then the courts can rule. And if there's any particular area where the court doesn't think it's clear on the papers, then you can have that mini hearing and go forward with that or that mini trial, if you will,

which is an evidentiary hearing that where they'll call witnesses. And frankly, it'll serve as a preview for a lot of people to see exactly what the evidence is and what the facts of the case are. And so I think it's just kind of interesting, but then you've got Trump who in the same filing rejects that proposal and says,

Jack Smith has no right to preemptively challenge any submissions that Trump is going to make. In other words, he doesn't want Smith to go first, yet he does wanna know what he's going to say. So what he says to, says in there, I don't want you to go first and file your motion, but I do want you, what you can do is write a letter where you spell everything out. Cause you know, we don't need briefing. We just want a letter. Cause you know, and I, I looked at that and I'm like, what is that? He just wants a preview, you know, of what's gonna happen without motion practice.

And then after all of that, he wants quote, a non-evidentiary hearing. So he doesn't want the evidence out there. He doesn't want testimony and witnesses, et cetera. He also said the immunity issues, as we said, shouldn't go first and instead use the pre-election period to litigate on other grounds and brief immunity after the election. I mean, you know, the one and one of the issues he wants to brief, which is ridiculous, is, and that he wants to file on,

is that the illegitimacy of the special counsel, a la Judge Cannon, right? Because don't forget, Judge Aline Cannon down at the Mar-a-Lago case in Florida took the Clarence Thomas concurring opinion in this case that we're discussing, right? US v. Trump, the immunity decision, and just sort of said, even, you know, where he wrote this letter, you know, this concurring opinion that was essentially permission to Judge Cannon to, and a roadmap to how to find

that the special counsel was illegitimately appointed and funded and that that's not appropriate. I mean, that issue wasn't even brief before the Supreme Court and he took it upon himself. It was like a wink, wink, nod, nod, secret message, you know, to Judge Cannon, who, you know, I think Popov called it a love letter from Clarence Thomas to, and it was,

and she just knew exactly what he had done, took that, lifted it, basically wrote in her own, used it to write her own decision that she drops the day of, day one of the Republican National Convention. If that's not a just ridiculous, message to Donald Trump. I mean, it's just, it's just, it's almost like a mockery, you know, to, to the American people and you're supposed to have separation, you know, here between, between, um, politics and the justice system and it's, and, and judges are supposed to be above it all. And, and, oh God, this was just bald-faced political uh acting in my opinion

anyway but what what does trump want to do he wants to use that and re-litigate that and argue that in this case even though that will go nowhere in uh in front of judge shutkin and the DC Circuit, by the way, has already ruled in a case in 2019 in re grand jury investigation is what it's called that that actually the special counsel is not is totally appropriate and appropriately funded. But so that's but that's what they want to do. And so, you know, that's what they're going to talk about tomorrow is essentially she's going to tell us how she intends to approach this task of figuring out which parts of the indictment get thrown out which parts survive. What's going to trial? What's not you know, this is just a procedural hearing, she might hand down some rulings tomorrow as well that she's been holding on to, who knows.

But that could happen tomorrow. And we'll see what she says. Personally, I think she should proceed to the immediate briefing on how to handle this and what applies where, and just really focus on the superseding indictment in that regard. And let Jack Smith do an offer of proof as to what the additional categories of evidence are

that they're going to introduce a trial. Let Trump file his opposition to that and any other motions he wants to file. There's no reason they don't have to do that. And then go on from there. But I think Judge Shetkin is going to do the threshold immunity question before she rules on the other things.

That's what I think. But I agree with you that the most contested part is gonna be the Mike Pence part because, and Smith, when he redid the indictment, he was very careful to talk about Mike Pence as candidate Pence, not vice president Pence. You know what I mean? So that was more private conduct

and not within presidential conduct. So that's what I think is gonna happen. Do you have any other kind of other things you wanna talk about what you anticipate happening tomorrow? No, I mean, I do think Judge Shacken kind of earlier, that was how she had ruled, was that the immunity decision issues need to be resolved first.

I mean, there's a reason why this was put on pause to decide the immunity decision at the Supreme Court. And to your point about Judge Kannon, just briefly, is, you know, I mean, the fact is Trump just appointed her. I can't think of another example where a judge had just been, like, had as a criminal defendant the person who appointed them to the position of judge, I think what, two years before, the fact that she wasn't removed, or didn't step aside voluntarily. I think most judges would have done it and her colleagues wanted

her to do it. And I don't have a lot of faith in the Supreme Court what they're going to do. I don't know if Justice Thomas was speaking on his own or the other judges just weren't ready to decide that issue because like you said that they weren't briefed. The Supreme Court has been super disappointing lately, but yes, that's definitely going to be an interesting thing. It's going between the Mar-a-Lago and this one, the Supreme Court, will find out finally what they think about the special counsel if they decide to take the case or not, the appeal. Yeah, I think I agree with you. One other thing I just, I like to sometimes talk about things that are related, not necessarily exactly on topic, just so we can arm people with information,

because I find it helpful. But one of the things Trump talks about, and you might hear tomorrow, when he talks about whatever Judge Shetkin does, is he talks about how he'll say that they're violating the Department of Justice 60-day rule, You're not supposed to do anything 60 days from an election, and he's influencing an election. I just want to talk about what that rule is and what it isn't. So first of all, it's an unwritten rule. It's just a policy within the Department of Justice, but it's a good one. It's a good policy.

And what it is is basically, if you have a pending investigation and investigations are typically secret, right? Or not happening, you know, even if they're not secret, they, an investigation is just that, it's an investigation, it's not being charged with something. There's a, I think an excellent longstanding Department of Justice policy that says,

don't do anything that would influence an election within 60 days of the election if you have a pending investigation. For example, don't charge someone within that time because then it goes from just an investigation to actual charges, right? So even though things like election corruption is an important political corruption, et cetera, those are things that the Department of Justice should be investigating. Don't take action within those 60 days of an election because it could influence an election because why?

Because you're not supposed to do that and there's supposed to be politics and justice aren't supposed to be mixed together, right? Something, a theme that you'll hear me talk about a lot. This does not fall within that rule. This is not a, okay, it's just a policy so they can violate it or it's just a suggestion. This is not within that policy

because there's already a pending charge. It's already there. It's already out. He's already been charged and it's the same for charges. So they're not doing anything other than continuing with something that's been continuing for a long time. This does not fall within that policy. Him characterizing it as such is yet another example

of Donald Trump mischaracterizing facts. And so I just wanted to put that out there because I think we're going to hear him say that because we've heard him say that already. So Salty is giving us the call for an ad break message, you know, secret code message. So we're going to have to call for an ad break. But before we do that, what Popak always does, and so I'm gonna do right now, because this is what he does, and he would like me to carry on his tradition, is he talks about, first of all, and I, and of course, this is very important, is how it is that we can support, you can support the Midas Touch Network, Legal AF, and all the work that we're doing. And because we appreciate the support

and because it's what gets us and keeps us, keeps the lights on as they say. First of all, we're gonna go to an ad break with pro-democracy sponsors. So these are sponsors that we chose, but have also chosen us. They know what our message is. They know what our message is. They know what our mission is.

And these are companies and people who are choosing to support this cause. And so it's important that if you like what we're talking about, because we test out these things ourselves, we use these things ourselves, and we don't advertise for anything that we don't also support. If you want to do that, we have these special discount codes. Please use them. And it really does help keep the lights on for Legal AF in particular. Also, you can watch our show and hit the thumbs up button and subscribe to Midas Touch, right? We've recently hit three million subscribers

and that is fantastic. And we need the support and we love the support. So keep going. We also have a Midas Touch shop or store where we sell Legal AF shirts. And, you know, a good friend of mine, Todd Radom, he designs all the logos, by the way, for all the sports teams like Major League Baseball and football and all of that. He's really incredible. You should you should Google him. Todd Radom, R-A-D-O-M. Anyway, he designed our Legal AF logos for us

just because he supports our pro democ, he did it for free because he supports pro democracy as well. So also watch our Mistrial, the new podcast that I co-host with Donya Perry and Kathleen Rice, we're on every Thursday. And of course, there's Legal AF every Saturday, every Wednesday, and the new Legal AF Law School Patreon that Ben and Popak do together, the official Patreon. Yeah, there it is right there. and Popok do together, the official Patreon.

Yeah, there it is right there. And there's just so much you can do to support to support what we do and we really appreciate it. So now that I've, hopefully I did a good enough job that Popok will appreciate and approve of, and we're gonna call and go to our first ad break. Please stay with us and come back afterward. Let's face it, after a night with drinks,

I don't bounce back the next day like I used to. I have to make a choice. I can either have a great night or a great next day. That is until I found Zbiotics Pre-Alcohol Probiotic Drink. Zbiotics Pre-Alcohol Probiotic Drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking.

Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for your rough next day. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make Z-Biotics your first drink of the night, drink responsibly,

and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Now look, I won't lie. I was a bit on the fence about pre-alcohol initially, but then while hanging out with my fantasy football draft crew over at our favorite Jersey Shore Sports Bar, I gave it a shot. And believe me, it's the real deal. I spent the entire next day doing all my favorite things with my family,

including a long hike on our favorite trail. I kept hearing about pre-alcohol, and I wondered what it was actually like. But now that I've tried it, I believe the hype. And with their GMO technology, they will release different products that help address toxic byproducts of modern living in the gut. Go to zbiotics.com slash LegalAF to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use LegalAF at checkout. Zbiotics is backed with 100% money back guarantee.

So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to zbiotics.com slash Legal AF and use the code LegalAF at checkout for 15% off. When my mother-in-law arrived from overseas for the birth of our new baby daughter this month, I gave her MD Hearing to try. She was hearing us, including the little baby cooings of our daughter, so much better. This podcast is sponsored by MD Hearing.

MD Hearing is an FDA-registered rechargeable hearing aid that cost a fraction of what typical hearing aids cost. MD Hearing's Neo model cost over 90% less than clinic hearing aids. The Neo fits inside your ear, so no one will even know it's there. Plus, MD Hearing just launched the Neo XS, MD Hearing's smallest hearing aid ever. MD Hearing recently cut their price in half.

That means you can get high quality, rechargeable digital hearing aids for only $297 a pair. MD Hearing was founded by an ENT surgeon who saw how many of his patients needed hearing aids, but couldn't afford them. He made it his mission to develop a quality hearing aid that anyone could afford. I've been raving to everyone about quality hearing aid that anyone could afford.

I've been raving to everyone about MD Hearing Aids for a while now. MD Hearing is just as good as premium quality hearing aids. $297 for a pair of hearing aids, this good is crazy. I can't believe my family was overpaying so much for hearing aids. Edward S calls MD Hearing the best hearing aid I've used at any price.

MD Hearing has sold over 1.5 million hearing aids and they offer a 45 day risk-free trial with a 100% money back guarantee. So you can buy with confidence. Get the hearing aid you or your family deserve with MD Hearing. Go to shopmdhearing.com and use promo code LegalAF to get their new $297 when you buy a pair offer. Plus they are adding a

free extra charging case, a $100 value just for listeners of this show. That's ShopMDHearing.com and use our promo code LegalAF and get their new $297 when you buy a pair offer. Hello, we're back. We're back. We're back. So to just before we go back into our next topic, I just want to continue talking a little bit about tomorrow's hearing. So today we're talking about just what we think is going to happen, but tomorrow is the hearing. So definitely everybody should pop in and go and follow Dina Dahl on Midas Touch and all she has her own her own channel and she is constantly doing hot takes and and she's I think it's Ask Dina Doll right on all social media channels. So I have a playlist not a channel but a playlist.

Oh sorry sorry. Channel would be awesome. Yeah we got to talk to Ben about that. Yeah okay sorry. Playlist and then I always do post my videos and updates on the Ask Dita doll. Okay, great. Well, thank you.

Yeah, so one of these days I'll learn what the difference between those things are. And definitely stay tuned and come in and listen to and watch Miss Trial tomorrow because we have the benefit of recording after the hearing tomorrow so we can update everybody on what actually did happen, what happened in court, and as opposed to what Trump will do, which

is misinformation and lies, which is what he does after every court appearance, I have learned. It was shocking to me during the Trump, you know, the Manhattan D.A. trial, the criminal case, because he would literally, you know, unfortunately, it was not broadcast, right? And same as tomorrow, that's not going to be broadcast. Only the, in Georgia, do we get to watch the hearings as they happen. And then the Supreme Court, you get to listen or the appellate courts, cause they broadcast the audio. But in the trials, we don't have audio or video.

Anyway, so Trump would walk out of court and he would literally say things. And then I would read the transcripts myself when they came out later that day. And he would just lie, flat out lie. And that's the thing that drives me crazy because, and I've said this a million times, like have a debate, have an argument over policy. Taxes are too high.

Taxes are too low. Fracking, yes or no, whatever it is, debate the issues, but don't lie. Don't just flat out lie. And that's what Trump does. And that's what drives me crazy. And so that's what I'm trying to do and continue to try to do with you, with Popak, with Ben, and all of us on the MidasTouch network is just get the truth out and let people make their own decisions and go out and vote. Right? Like my earrings from Fish's Eddie say, go vote. Anyway, so I want to pivot now to our next topic

Anyway, so I want to pivot now to our next topic and talk about the Manhattan DA's office and what's going on there. So if everybody remembers, just to put everybody back in time, what happened? There was a trial and a 34 count, 100% all across the board conviction of Donald Trump, 34 felonies of falsifying business records in the first degree. He was supposed to be sentenced in July. And of course, what happens before the sentencing, the Trump versus United States immunity decision comes down. And so now the courts and everybody have to figure out how does

that apply to the Manhattan D. A. Case if at all. So the sentencing was put over until September. And what is Donald Trump? What has he been doing all along now trying to delay? Because that's what he always does, right? That's his playbook is to try and delay delay delay he doesn't want to be sentenced because He will I'm sure during any sentencing proceeding a lot of It's a very powerful experience You know the sentencing it's a very intense powerful Hearing if you will or or it's not pro forma. You show up and it's very impassioned

and the prosecution says what they think you should get. And then the defense talks about what he thinks should happen. And then the judge gives a pretty long statement of what he is sentencing a defendant to and why and what the reasons are. And in this particular case, given Trump's conduct, the fact that this was to try to influence the jury had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that this was to try and influence the election. This isn't just a porn star hush money case. This is something he tried to do this as a political candidate to throw an election. The jury had to find that unanimously beyond reasonable doubt and they did. The fact that he was held in contempt 10 times during the trial.

For people who don't practice in New York, I don't know if contempt is something that happens in other courts a lot. It does not happen. That does not happen. I've never had a case and I practiced there for 30 years. I never had a case where somebody was held in contempt, let alone 10 times, because you know what would have happened if someone violated a gag order, they'd be put in jail.

Absolutely, absolutely. Absolutely. There were so many times that exceptions were made for him, like this, the contempt. Cameras in the courtroom should have been the exception. I'm going to say it again, because there is no law that says the federal trial against him, if it goes to trial, cannot have cameras in it.

That should be the exception, not give him so much leeway, but fine. You were the former president the first time you're gonna be on a federal criminal trial. Look, people see it is public. Our court system is supposed to be public. There's no actual reason why that can't happen, but that should be the exception.

He got way too many leeways that no other criminal defendant would have normally been able to have. He would absolutely have been in jail if he had talked about and harassed the judge and the judge's daughter like that as a typical criminal defendant. Right? Yeah, absolutely. Crazy. So, you know, and so the judge is going to talk about that.

The judge is going to talk about, you know, the guy's been threatening the judge, threatening the judge is going to talk about, you know, the guy's been threatening the judge, threatening the judge's daughter. He posted a picture of a baseball bat being held at Alvin Bragg's head, you know, the DA. I mean, the guy, you know, the things he has done over and over again, the fact that he's lied, I mean, you know, there is no, and the judge didn't talk about all of that. Judge Marshawn is going to talk about all of that. And he's going to talk about how, I'm sure, you know, and this is not because I have any inside information, it's just because I've attended literally hundreds, if not thousands of criminal sentencing in that courtroom.

And I've been before Judge Mershon many, many, many times. I know how things work and he's going to spell out how this is a charge that is very common in New York state. And I am sure there's going to be some kind of analysis of what every other defendant has ever received who's been found guilty of this charge. And I think that they're going to find that jail or prison is not mandatory for this charge. It's

discretionary. But about between 10 and 30 percent of defendants who have been convicted of this charge have received jail time. And that comes from an analysis done by Just Security. They did a great job at looking at the entire state of New York and all the charges, all the times that all the cases where people have been found guilty or convicted of falsifying business records in the first degree, and that's what they found. And so it is discretionary. And in those 20% of cases, if that's what you want to average between 10 and 30%, which I'm going to say, in those 20% of cases, I think the judge

is going to see that this is by far the most serious of those falsifying business records cases. And so for him not to sentence Donald Trump to prison, I think it would be treating him differently than everybody else. And so I do think that the judge is going to be hard pressed not to do that. And he'll have to, I think, press pause or stay the sentencing pending appeal just because

of the election. And there are some issues that are not frivolous in this case. Even before the immunity decision came down, there were some issues that were not frivolous. So I do think that he might, he's not gonna put him in jail before the election. I don't think that's gonna happen. And so I think whether or not the sentencing goes forward, we'll see. So let me just summarize what has happened

and then we can talk about it. So on September 3rd, in addition to this, what Trump has done is he filed a notice. Well, first of all, he tried to remove the case again to federal court. OK, so that's what he did. If this sounds like deja vu, it's because he did that already in front of Judge Hellerstein

a year ago, where he tried to quote, unquote, remove it to federal court, which is a technical legal term, this removal, which means the state court doesn't have jurisdiction over me. It goes to federal court and this case is prosecuted in federal court. And the reason Trump wants that is because in order to get to federal court with removal, he has to show that this was there, there are certain things he has to show. And, was there are certain things he has to show. And one of them is that he was acting within the color of his job

or in the purview of his job, in the outer perimeter of his job, in his core presidential responsibilities of his job. Sound familiar? So if he can meet that standard, what will happen next? He'll be immune. But even before immunity was a thing, he tried to remove it.

And even then, Judge Hellerstein found and held that this was purely private. This was a private act by a private citizen paying his private lawyer hush money. That's what this was. And so that was what Judge Hellerstein found. So on September, and so he wants to do it again. He wants to go to, he wants to go there again. So he filed yet another notice, you know, he filed another kind

of attempt to go to go to federal court and Judge Hellerstein knocked him down and said, you didn't do it right procedurally. You're supposed to ask for permission or seek leave, if you will. And he didn't do that. And so he then on the third, he filed his notice of appeal to the Second Circuit for this removal decision because he doesn't like what Judge Hellerstein ruled. And he's going to appeal it. And he's going to because what Judge Hellerstein ruled and he's going to appeal

it and he's going to because because Judge Hellerstein once he did get it right procedurally ruled no I already ruled on this I'm not this is not you are not immune here and this was a private thing so on the fourth which was today the Manhattan DA's office wrote a letter saying that don't stay the proceeding. Don't stop the proceeding just because Donald Trump is trying to remove this again. Keep going, right? Let's keep going. There's no reason to stop the proceedings and go forward. But I'm not sure. I don't know what's going to happen on the 18th, if sentencing is going

to go forward or not, because the 16th, two days beforehand, is when Judge Marchand said he would decide how immunity applies to this case. And so because, although I don't think he's going to rule because the conduct here wasn't immune, right, this was purely private, there was some evidence that came in that may or may not have been something that in light of the immunity decision in US versus Trump might not have come in. And I think if the judge rules that is the case, he's going to have to do a harmless error analysis and decide whether or not it was a harmless error to introduce any of

this evidence if he decides that it was evidence that he'd be immune from. The one piece of evidence that I've always said was a little dicey is Hope Hope Hicks because, you know, she was at the, there was some really powerful evidence where Hope Hicks, who is the White House communications person, was talking to Donald Trump and it was when the Stormy Daniels matter came out and he basically said to her, I'm really glad this didn't, you know, this didn't come out before the election. And that was really powerful evidence. And she broke down in tears when she said it. I was in court when she said it, and it felt very powerful, like she knew she had kind of sunk her boss, who she clearly was very fond of still. And the reason that was so important was because

in order to make it a felony, they had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that this was about the election, that it wasn't about keeping this from his wife, keeping this from his family. This was about keeping it from the American people. And that was the piece of evidence that really, I think, really hammered that home.

And so much so that the prosecutor, Josh Steinglass, in his summation, when he was talking about how you don't have to believe every word out of Michael Cohen's mouth, there's so much corroboration. This was one of the things that he pointed to that was so powerful. You know, I think the judge is gonna grapple with that

and whether or not that was harmless and whether or not that should so powerful, you know, I think the judge is going to grapple with that and whether or not that was harmless and whether or not that should have been it. You know, I think he'll ultimately rule that Hope Hicks worked for both the campaign and for him and that this was in the context of the campaign and so that it still could have come in. But I just don't know, right? This is to me the thing that he's going to wrestle with the most. Um, and you know, the Manhattan DA's office, I think also recognizing that these are tough decisions basically took no position on whether or not the sentencing should be postponed on the 18th saying, look, there's only

two days in between your decision and the sentencing and immunity, you know, is appealable. And so I just, I honestly, this is so unprecedented, I'm not 100% sure I can even predict exactly what's going to happen. I think that he might postpone the sentencing, but in the meantime, what's happening is it's going up and down in the, But in the meantime, what's happening is it's going up and down in the federal courts trying to determine if it should be removed. And he is appealing to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal to basically he's looking for emergency, I think he's gonna look for emergency relief, saying that the district court abused their discretion,

you know, and made an error of law on removal. I mean, I think that's the only way he can, you know, I think that's his play. I mean, I don't know, what do you make of all this, what's happening in this removal piece of it? I mean, I don't think he's going to be successful in the removal. As you said, he's tried that before.

I mean, about that sentencing hearing, you were kind of touching on whether the likelihood, let's say, of him getting any jail time. Another thing to consider, which is very important for any typical criminal defendant, is how remorseful they are in the sentencing hearing. We're not going to see any remorseful they are in the sentencing hearing. We're not going to see any remorse from Trump. And that's a factor. That in itself is a factor for how extreme of a

sentencing it is. So he should have on the upper end of an extreme sentence when you have a criminal defendant who's still unable to acknowledge what they did was wrong, our justice system wants to punish them more to deter them from doing it again. So we'll see how that works out. In terms of the... Another thing I wanted to point out, you were touching on this before we went to the ad break about Trump saying like, all of this, the sentencing being so close, the check-in being so close, the checking being so close in January 6 to the election.

This is all election interference. All of this is so close to the election because Donald Trump delayed, delayed, delayed these cases. You can't delay the cases so much that it's so close to your election and then use that as leverage for saying you shouldn't be able to be subject to the typical court proceedings. You can't have your cake and eat it both ways. So I really hope both Justice Marchand and Judge Chuckin don't take that into account. I think they're both very, very, very competent

and I don't think they will. But the fact is that in both of these cases, he was charged well before he became the official nominee. The Republican Party could have just not nominated him if they didn't want the liability of having somebody enthralled in these kind of proceedings so close to the election, but they chose not to do that. And then Trump himself asked for delays and delays, right?

That he could have been sentenced back in July and he delayed it. So they should not take his now saying, oh, this is so close to November, we need to delay it anymore. That is all his doing and they shouldn't listen to it all. And the really interesting thing about the evidentiary thing, I mean, I think at the outset, I'm going to say the reason why we can go back and forth and back and forth of whether or not there's going to, you know, he would not be willing to sentence him because of this question of whether or not the Hope Hicks testimony was admissible

or not is because of how vague the Supreme Court opinion is. So let's just kind of say that from the outset, because usually Supreme Court opinions are meant to give the lower courts a fairly concrete roadblock. They are not trying to make things confusing. The whole idea is to have our court system run well. But this, because they stretched and pulled and tried to make this law fit Trump,

they did it in such a vague way that Justice Marchand doesn't have any guidance really as to what to do with this home hit testimony. I mean, how I see it is I think whether or not her How I see it is I think whether or not her testimony was admissible is the same question of other evidence that's admissible. I mean, Harvey Weinstein's conviction because of his prior bad acts, too many prior bad acts came in and his conviction was overturned. I see that whether or not the Huppix testimony is immune or maybe at the most has to like overcome a presumption of immunity. To me, that seems more of like an evidentiary question

of was it an admissible in trial and not something to delay his sentencing on the 18th. So we'll see, as you said, like we don't know because this is all brand new and because the Supreme Court was so vague about it. But the reason why it's so close to the election is because of Trump and he should be treated like anybody else.

I'm worried that he won't be because the idea of sentencing a former president to jail is unprecedented. But if anybody deserves it, a criminal defendant who sat there, as you said, had so many contents and is going to sit there and not take any remorse around it would get on the upper end of whatever kind of sentencing is typical for that charge or the charges. You bring up such a good point because you're right. A criminal defense, one of the things that judges take into consideration, and it's in the law of what is appropriate for judges to take into consideration at sentencing is, is the defendant

taking responsibility for his actions and showing remorse? And he is going to not admit it. He's going to deny it to the end, not take responsibilities for his actions. And he sure as hell is not going to show any remorse whatsoever. And and so that is is exactly what's going to happen. And that's totally appropriate for for the judge to take into consideration. So I just want to I want to go back to this removal. OK, because that's what's going on in parallel in this case to the whether or not he gets sentenced. Right.

In parallel to this fighting over sentence or not sentence. What's happening is Trump is desperately trying because he's not getting his sentence moved and he doesn't like that, right? The Judge Marshawn is not moving it, at least not yet. And so he's trying to literally divest Judge Marshawn of his jurisdiction. So meaning, Judge Marshawn, you don't have jurisdiction. I want to remove this to federal court. That's what he keeps trying to do. And so he's now gone to Judge

Hellerstein, who is the district court here in New York in the Southern District of New York, who has he denied it a year ago, and he denied it again here now. And what he said, what Judge Hellerstein said, I just want to read from it, because I thought it was pretty powerful. He said Trump's grounds for removal are Essentially the the issue of recusal right that that judge Marshawn was biased. It was a conflict of interest You know his daughter all the stuff he says about that that he's biased number one number two That he failed to conduct the proper pretrial review of presidential immunity

proper pretrial review of presidential immunity in light of this whole Supreme Court intervening decision. That's the reason it should be removed and three, because the Supreme Court essentially has now granted him immunity. What Hellerstein said was, look, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear Mr. Trump's arguments concerning the propriety of the New York trial. That is for the appellate courts, meaning when he appeals, he can talk about, you know, whether or not there was bias or whether Judge Mershon should have recused himself. That's for his appeal.

That's not for the district court. Right. He said the only thing to consider is his second argument and whether the Supreme Court immunity decision requires removal. And he also said that Trump is implicitly seeking that I enjoin the state sentencing, but I'm not going to do that based on something called the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. This is outside the federal court's jurisdiction. And he wrote, quote, this is a quote, in Trump, the Supreme Court held that a former president is entitled to absolute immunity for criminal prosecution for actions taken in the exercise

of core constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for outer perimeter duties, and unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Private, so this is the part I love, private schemes with private actors, unconnected to any statutory or constitutional authority or function of the executive are considered unofficial. I held in my order and opinion of July 19th, 2023, that hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to president's official acts and does not reflect in any way the color of the president's official duties. This holding followed an evidentiary hearing. Nothing in the Supreme Court opinion affects this ruling. Hush money payments are private unofficial acts outside the bounds of executive authority. Therefore, removal is not permitted. Good cause is not shown and leave to remove is not granted. I mean, if

that's not powerful, right, that that is just, you know, I said it before, I'm saying it again, and there's nothing the Supreme Court said that has changed my mind. Of course, he's gonna try to appeal that and who's the ultimate audience that he's going to appeal to? The Supreme Court. And God only knows what they will do. So, even though September 18th is only two weeks away, it's also a lifetime away

and a lot could happen between now and then. I have to call for our second and last ad break. Although I've seen in the comments, a lot of people saying, where's Popok? Where's Popok? And Popok sends his absolute sincerest apologies. He wanted to be here tonight. He's traveling and his travel plans got delayed. And he's

really, really, really sorry, but you will see him Saturday, you'll see him on hot takes. And he's with us in spirit. Of course, he's always with us. And data has been amazing at stepping in at the last minute. So we're thrilled. So I'm going to go to our second and last ad break, stay with us and we'll go to our third and last topic as soon as we get back. Did you know that four companies control over 80% of the US meat industry?

I had no idea. These companies are using mobster-like tactics to crush American family farms. And with the additives they're putting into our food, Americans are stuck with sketchy meat. And would it surprise you to know that 99% of the chicken, 95% of the pork, and 78% of cattle are raised in feedlot

or confinement buildings? I was shocked. So what can we do about it? Let me tell you about a company that's coming up swinging on behalf of American Family Farms and your family's food security, Moink. Their farmers are given an honest day's pay for an honest day's work.

And they deliver meat straight to your doorstep at prices you can actually afford. Keep American Family Farms farming by joining the Moink movement today at moinkbox.com slash legal AF. Sign up today and get free hot rolls in your first order spelled M-O-I-N-K box dot com slash legal AF.

Oink oink get moinked moinkbox.com slash legal AF. Cat food has been the same forever. Time for cat food to move into the 21st century. That's why you've got to try Smalls. It's time to make kibble a thing of the past. Smalls cat food is protein packed recipes made with preservative free ingredients you'd find in your fridge. And it's delivered right to your door. That's why veterinarians.org rates smalls 10 out of 10 for ingredient quality. My cat Chanel, yes Chanel, her favorite flavor is smooth fish. And my cat prefers smalls way more than her previous cat food. I did a taste test. I put two bowls side by side and Chanel immediately went to smalls.

Smalls was started back in 2017 by a couple of guys home cooking cat food in small batches for their friends. And a few short years later, they've served millions of meals to cats across the US. I feel better knowing I'm feeding my cat Chanel real food, not burnt kibble. I can finally open a packet of cat food

and not get nauseous. I actually recognize the ingredients in a packet of cat food and not get nauseous. I actually recognize the ingredients in a packet of Smalls food. After making the switch to Smalls, 88% of cat owners reported overall health improvements. That's a big deal. The team at Smalls is so confident your cat will love their product

that you can try it risk-free. That means they will refund you if your cat won't eat their food. Now is the time to make the switch to Smalls. Head to Smalls.com slash LegalAF and use promo code LegalAF at checkout for 50% off your first order plus free shipping. That's the best offer you'll find,

but you have to use my code, LegalAF for 50% off your first order. One last time, that's promo code LegalAF for 50% off your first order plus free shipping. Traditional bedsheets, they can harbor more bacteria than a toilet seat. It can lead to acne, allergies and stuffy noses, and it's just gross.

Miracle Maid offers a whole line of self-cleaning, antibacterial bedding, such as sheets, pillowcases, and comforters that prevent up to 99.7% of bacteria growth and require up to three times less laundry. Using silver-infused fabrics inspired by NASA, Miracle Maid sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long, no matter the weather.

So you get better sleep every night. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands and feel as nice, if not nicer, than sheets used by some five-star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores, causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with Miracle. These sheets are infused with silver that prevent up to 99.7%

of bacterial growth, leaving them to stay cleaner and fresh three times longer than other sheets. No more gross odors. Go to trymiracle.com slash legalAF to try Miracle Made Sheets today. And whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, if you order today, you can save over 40%. And if you use our promo, LegalAF at checkout, you'll get three free towels and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product,

it's back with a 30 day money back guarantee. So if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made. Go to trymiracle.com slash LegalAF and use the code LegalAF to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's trymiracle.com slash legal AF

to treat yourself. Thank you MiracleMate for sponsoring this episode. You know, I love Michael Popak so much. He's the greatest co-host to have and friend, but I love him more because he has a cat named Chanel. It's just like hilarious to me. I'm like, of course you do. It's just hilarious to me. I'm like, of course you do.

It cracks me up. But Smalls, my cat is obsessed with Smalls. It's bizarre. They go crazy for them. But what I love about Smalls too is those cats in that commercial are all legal AF and Midas cats. The black cat is my cat, Cooper. I'm like, oh, Cooper.

It makes me so happy to see him. So it's super fun. Anyway, so but these are really all of the products. I literally like I listen to these commercials and I'm like, you know, my cats love Smalls and the miracle sheets are so soft and you know, they really are great products. So, you know, I love them and it's really fun to try them out and then talk about them. So and like I said, I love them even more because they are pro democracy sponsors. But let's move to our third and final topic. And that is abortion and this never ending fight of women and their right to choose and Supreme Court and what is going on.

And the Supreme Court on Tuesday, surprisingly, actually I say surprisingly, that's my own editorializing, they turned down a request from Oklahoma. The state of Oklahoma appealed to the Supreme Court and they basically wanted to restore millions and millions of dollars of federal funding and federal family planning grants that they were receiving that the Biden administration stopped and said, we're going to withhold this because Oklahoma said that they would no longer provide counseling services, abortion counseling services or access to abortion counseling services. They just want counseling. That's what they refuse to provide to women who go there. Oklahoma wanted

emergency relief. They went to this, they call it a shadow docket, which means it's just off calendar. It's not during their normal session. They hear emergency petitions. They And they sought emergency relief after a three-judge panel in the circuit was divided, and they temporarily paused the funding as a lower court dispute played out whether state officials could refuse to refer pregnant women to counseling services that presented abortion as an option. This is not like, okay, refer to counseling services that only talk about abortion. This is, you have lots of options, right? When you're pregnant and you get referred to counseling, and one of them is abortion. Oklahoma was not going to refer to that anymore.

And so the Biden administration said, fine, then you're not entitled to federal funding that is specifically designed to also provide access to abortion. So this was an unsigned order, meaning nobody from the Supreme Court put their name to it and signed it. It was, but a majority of the Supreme Court decided not to hear it and not to grant emergency relief.

But of course, predictably, Justice Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented, saying they would reinstate the grants. Now the dispute was whether states should receive federal grants. These are federal grants focused on family planning, okay? It's a program from the 70s, and the eligibility for this

program requires applicants to offer counseling and referrals of all manner, of all manner and issues including abortion. But Oklahoma of course has some of the strictest abortion laws and the fed said basically, okay, we understand you have strict abortion laws, all we're asking, you don't have to provide the counseling services. Here's a national call in line. That's all you have to provide to get this funding is, you know, refer these women to a national call in line. Okay. I mean, talk about giving in, in a sense, right, giving them options and not shoving it down their throat. But Oklahoma refused and said, Nope, we're not even going to refer to a national telephone line that talk that gives abortion as an option. And,

um, and, you know, the appellate panel said, look, giving a phone number is not the same as referring someone to an abortion. And so but the emergency appeal, they focused on the federal government's power to set terms and requirements on federal funding and federal grants. And the Supreme Court refused to reinstate the funding, which I thought was pretty incredible, uh, that they did that.

But what I didn't love is two things. Number one, this, by, by essentially saying by, by the Supreme Court, essentially saying that the emergency appeal is, is about federal government's power to set terms and requirements for federal grants, kind of leaves open the possibility that Trump wins, you know, he gets to also set that too, as opposed to this is what the 1970 law says, you know, which I didn't love that, because if instead if they interpreted the law and said, look, this is what the 1970 grant program says, so therefore, it's okay. It was more focused on federal,

this is what the president can do, right? And so I just didn't love that. And the other thing is, what really upset me in all of this too is who gets caught in the middle of it all? Women, of course. That just the whole thing drives me crazy. But that's what was going on there.

What was your take on this whole thing, Dina? I think there's like two main takes. One is when you're trying to control information, you're trying to control how people think. And that's like banning books, basically. They're so afraid of giving women information about family planning that include abortion. You think if you give the information to somebody,

then you're essentially, this is like that level of control that the Republicans are trying to do over lots of people in this country, but specifically women in this case. And the law was really clear that to get this money, you had to be able to provide these kind of counseling. This reminds me a lot of the Idaho case that also went up to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court kind of kicked the can

in that one too. They didn't, we'll probably see that again. Where in Idaho, they have such an extreme abortion ban where a woman who may be losing an organ has to get air vac'd out of the state of Idaho because doctors are too afraid to perform an abortion because they think that they might be criminally prosecuted in Idaho. So Idaho wants this really extreme law and at the same time they want to have federal money. They want the Medicare money, but Medicare requires

that if somebody comes to you in an emergency, you have to treat them at that hospital. You can't force them to go to another hospital. And that is one of the requirements of receiving Medicare. Well, Idaho, once their cake and eat it too, kind of like Trump in the other segment, they want to be able to have such, want to Aravak out women, because they want to be so strict, but yet they want the federal money. And that's what this Oklahoma one wants to. They don't want to give women information, but they want the money. And this is the this is beyond the Republican, you know, them trying to say that, you know, trying to control, well, they're already trying to control what women's decisions make over their own bodies. But this is like

a step even beyond that. They're not saying the government is telling, you know, Oklahoma that they have to provide counseling services, right? They're saying, sure, fine, if you don't want to provide counseling services, but you're not going to get our money. But both Oklahoma here and Idaho, they want to have these such restrictive things, controlling information in Oklahoma. Information just to allow people to make informed choices. And then Idaho, the kind of care to save an organ or from extreme, not quite death, because that is allowed, but close to it, but they want the money.

You can't have it both ways. And I think that that, you can't. You're either gonna be this extreme party and that's what's going to happen, but then you don't get the federal money in front of it. But both of these cases that reminded me of wanting to take really, really extreme positions, but then not standing on it. Like my teenage daughter would say, you stand on your business. They're not standing on

their business. They're not saying, you know, we're willing to forsake federal money because we care so much about the values that we're spouting. No, they're not saying that. They want all of us to be subjected to their values. And at the same time, they want our federal taxpayers' money. And you don't get it both ways. You're so right. I mean, all you have to do is read Project 2025 and what they think of women and abortion and what they're going to do to women and trying to control us, our bodies, our information. I mean, it's just unbelievable if you

want to see what's going to happen if Donald Trump is reelected and if the House or the Senate goes Republican. I mean, it's just absolutely terrifying what could happen. And they're not even hiding it anymore. They're blatantly talking about it and what they wanna do and how they want it to be. I think women in particular have to really take a stand in November and otherwise it's just gonna be terrifying. You know, as mothers of daughters, which we both are.

So it's terrifying for our children and for us. So, yeah, it's awful. You know, we've reached the end of another midweek edition of Legal Air of Dina, I'm just beyond thrilled to do this with you. And I am going to turn on the TV afterward and cry because of all the stories of the people who are just are heartbroken tonight because of the four people who lost their lives in this tragic, tragic shooting that could have been prevented. I mean, you know, when you hear that the shooter was 14 years old, I mean, that is a baby. You know, that is somebody who is a total, I know nothing about him.

I don't know. I haven't read a lot about it yet. But all I know is somebody who's 14 years old, what we know about brain development, and that his brain isn't even close to being fully formed yet, that he is a baby, that he would have whatever it is he was going through, wherever I'm sure there's going to be lots of missed opportunities to intervene, whatever help he needed, how he had access to a gun. I mean, it's just so unbelievable to me that, you know, growing up, we didn't have active shooter

drills that all the kids who go to school now are subjected to. And that once again, we have yet another mass shooting in a school that kids are terrified to go to school because this could happen. You know, I just it's going to be the same story over and over and over again. And, you know, I'm going to watch the news. I'm going to be sad. And I just want to really think about those families and and what everybody must be going through and please everybody get out and vote in November. It's just the most important election of our lives. So on that note I want to thank everyone for joining us tonight. And Dina, thank you so much for standing in for PO-POK and for being on Legal AF yet again. You keep saving us.

I'm happy to do it. I love talking to you guys. And there are so many really important conversations to have right now. So I'm so honored to be able to do it with you guys. Yeah, it's great to see you. Good to see you too. Good night, everyone.