Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump’s SENTENCING Fear GETS REAL + SCOTUS Leak?!?

Episode Date: June 27, 2024

Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back for the midweek edition of the top-rated Legal AF podcast. On this episode, the anchors discuss and debate: (1) Judge Merchan’s decision concerning Trump’s gag order in the NY Criminal case against Trump in advance of the upcoming debate, and whether he is likely to impose jail time on Trump on 7/11; (2) updates in new SCOTUS decisions that dropped today, including yet another “abortion” leak almost on the anniversary of the Dobbs decision reversing Roe v. Wade; (3) updates on the second round of hearings Judge Cannon is handling about the Mar a Lago prosecution, including whether she wil dismiss the indictment because the Special Counsel was “improperly appointed” and whether she will suppress the results of the search warrant from being used at all, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Join the Legal AF Patreon: https://Patreon.com/LegalAF Thanks to our sponsors: Smileactives: Visit https://smileactives.com/legalaf to get this exclusive offer! Beam: Get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to https://shopbeam.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF at checkout! OneSkin: Get started today at https://OneSkin.co and receive 15% Off using code: LEGALAF Smalls: Head to https://Smalls.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF at checkout for 50% off your first order PLUS free shipping! 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

That's the sound of unaged whiskey, transforming into Jack Daniels Tennessee Whiskey in Lynchburg, Tennessee. Around 1860, nearest green taught Jack Daniel how to filter whiskey through charcoal for a smoother taste, one drop at a time. This is one of many sounds in Tennessee with a story to tell. To hear them in person, plan your trip at tnvacation.com. Tennessee sounds perfect. This episode is brought to you by FX's The Bear

on Disney Plus. In season three, Carmy and his crew are aiming for the ultimate restaurant accolade, a Michelin star. With Golden Globe and Emmy wins, the show starring Jeremy Allen White, Iowa Debris, and Mattie Matheson is ready to heat up screens once again. All new episodes of FX's The Bear

are now streaming only on Disney+. Seth and Riley's Garage Hard Lemonade, a delicious classic with a vibrant taste of fresh lemons. The perfect balance of sweet and sour with a crisp, sesty edge. Welcome to The Garage, the place of refreshing hard lemonade. Available at the LCBO. Must be legal drinking age. Please enjoy responsibly.

Everyone's got a thirst. A drive to be the next big thing. To put the world on notice. If you answer when your thirst calls, Sprite's for you. Sprite's for the makers and creators, the visionaries putting in the work to build their dreams. Whether you're shooting a cinematic masterpiece on your phone, filling notebooks with sketches,

or up all night turning your bedroom into the booth, thirst is everything. Obey your thirst. Right. Meet our summer collection of grillable faves that come on sticks in spirals with bite-size bursts of flavor and more. From pork belly bites full of barbecue flavor to skewer sensations that will keep the grill going for dessert, make this your best summer yet with PC. Has it only been a week?

This is the midweek edition of Legal AF. We do it one place on the Midas Touch Network exclusively. And we got to talk about at least three major topics today that'll take up the bulk of our time, along with anything else that my esteemed colleague and I, Karen Freeman at Kniflo, can come up with. One, we're going to talk about Judge Mershon, who is, you know, who's going to have to make a solomonic decision soon about whether and how to sentence Donald

Trump for 34 count felony conviction related to business record fraud in the state of New York. count felony conviction related to business record fraud in the state of New York. And in the interim, as we expected, he made a major decision about the gag order, the double gag order, in advance of the debate. And we have his five page ruling, which I thought, again, was solomonic and mature in how he handled it. Exactly the opposite of what MAGA and the world of MAGA tells their listeners and followers is the judge's temperament. And we're gonna break it all down

and then we're gonna find out as Karen and I debate this, whether she's on the Norm Eisen School of Sentencing or she's on My World or something in between. And that's what always makes for a great podcast. So we'll do all things Judge Mershon. Then we got Judge Cannon. Judge Cannon went from, she's like a crocodile in the Everglades as you're riding by or an alligator.

And they're really sleepy until they reach up and bite your leg off. And she went from sleepy to really aggressive in both scheduling hearings. She just had round two of like another half day hearing in Fort Pierce. And she is, yes, she's giving as good as she can get. And she's taken on Emil Beauvais fresh off his 34 count

conviction of his client in New York, arguing for the Trump side and taking on a couple of different prosecutors. But it's become like canon versus the prosecutors, which is never a good place. And I want to hear Karen's opinion, of course, but I've been in a situation where I've thought, and I won't name names, I've thought the judge was a little off-guilter and not making good decisions and maybe not even that bright, but you can't let the judge know it. And we're going to talk about the demeanor of some of the prosecutors who have gotten sideways with Judge Cannon and whether that's a good thing, good thing a bad thing or a neutral agnostic thing as she decides whether she's gonna suppress all of the

evidence that was obtained during the search warrant execution because maybe the search warrant was faulty the execution was faulty the chain of custody was faulty I mean you name it Donald Trump's throwing everything at the wall see if anything will stick is she buying any of that argument? Is she buying any of the argument that was done the other day about whether the independent, well he's not independent, the special counsel is too independent from the Department of Justice, that's a new one, and therefore, and his funding is not properly supervised by Congress, and therefore they, you know, the judge should just pull the plug on the special counsel and find that he was improperly delegated to his authority and his

funding. We'll talk about all of that and then it's drop day for the United States Supreme Court. They're spoon feeding us their decisions as they hold back the two that we're waiting on, which is the immunity, whether Donald Trump has it or not for any aspect of the Jan 6th insurrection or his attempt to cling to power and whether he's going to be charged with four counts or two counts or along with 300 other Jan 6th defendants. We've got some idea from some decisions rendered by somebody like Gorsuch about what might be coming. But more importantly, instead of getting those decisions, we got one that's another screw up

acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in accidentally posting a ruling, this one turned out to be decent, about abortion and EMTALA, the Emergency Medical and Labor Procedures Act thing, about whether it overrides in Idaho what looks to be an absolute ban on abortion or not. We've got an accidental posting of the decision almost to the day of the Dobbs decision, which had itself had been leaked several months earlier, which took

away a woman's right to choose. What is it with this court and abortion and its IT department? We're just going to have to talk about what the ruling is there, which seems to be actually a decent ruling for once and a weird combination of Supreme Court justices joining together. And some other decisions that have come out in favor of the Biden administration, including the one in which lower courts had said, oh, the Biden administration was pressuring social media companies to deplatform people and to deplatform unfavorable viewpoint First Amendment expression. And the Supreme Court, including a grouping here again of of liberals joining with right wing MAGA to give a win to the Biden administration and we'll talk about that as well and my and I want to hear Karen's view and we're seeing some of the Supreme Court

justices sort of right on time starting to spread their wings. And I'm looking at you, Amy Coney Barrett, because all of a sudden she went from, well, she doesn't participate much in oral arguments and she's rarely in a dissent. All of a sudden she is this term and the last gasp of the term is coming into her own good, bad, or indifferent. We'll talk about what that means. It's about right. It usually takes a Supreme Court justice a number of years, unless you're Kintanji Brown Jackson, where she like day one was active, right in dissents and concurrences. But most of them wait two or three years. And we're going to talk about what we may be seeing with Amy Coney Barrett and what we may be seeing with Gorsuch and what it means for the future of decision making

on the United States Supreme Court. But that's what we're doing midweek. And then later at the end of the week, Ben and I will pick up with the rest of the dribs and drabs release of the United States Supreme Court decisions. And we may have a filing, which I think is due in the sentencing issue related to Judge Mershanbo. We'll pick up all that on Saturday. But Karen, wow, just three topics, picking up, you know, just this is why

we this is why we do the midweek. You know, Ben and I used to do like 12 or 14 topics. It was like it's too much. We need help. And we need another great person on this network. Oh, look, there she is. Karen Freepanick-Nipolo. Yeah, well talk about, talk about bearing the lead. Okay. Yes, these are all great things that are happening. But even much bigger than all of that is you are 48 hours into being big poppy. You're the, you're daddy.

There's Francesca. We had a baby on Monday. We brought a little girl into this world, which we are, I can't even tell you. I'm going to cry during this podcast. There's our release today. That was today. Wow. From, shout out to Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital up in the Heights, up in Fort Washington. What an amazing group of people

and dedicated healthcare providers and nurses, doctors and staff. I mean, it was just, I mean, it was our first experience, but an amazing experience. Thanks for letting me show Francesca, Madeline Popock. I know somebody wrote in one of the social media posts, why didn't you call her like something like AF, like Anna Francesca? I'm like, nah, we're not going that far.

I love the network. It's just, she's so beautiful and you have such a beautiful family. And the fact that you're here today after just this just happening less than 48 hours ago or about 48 hours ago is just a testament to you and your beautiful you and your beautiful wife and your beautiful daughter and just welcome Francesca to the family and from now on

you're going to be big poppy to me. Yeah and your aunt KFA you've been tremendously loving and supportive and appreciative and it's been a big help with my, from the beginning, we won't go into those details about it all. They're all paying dividends now. I had one funny intersection, not of law and politics, but of labor, the labor, the birth of the daughter and the show. So we're with this great Cathy, shout out to Cathy. We had a great doctor, Dr. Fiorelli, love her, and our

birthing nurse was a woman who was a traveling nurse from Chicago area who had retired and then became a traveling nurse, effectively to travel, but she had been a professor of nursing and all that. So this was like the crème de la crème of a nurse. And she, like just moments before, we're about to go into the push phase. She said, oh, your wife told me about your show. I'm sure my husband who, you know, listens to all these YouTube things, what's the name of your show?

And like during a break in the action, she actually phoned her husband. And he's like, which one is it Ben or Michael? She said it's Michael. Oh my God. It was just a weird moment. Then it was like, okay, let's start pushing. But we're here now. All right. So listen, let's jump right in. I really appreciate it. I appreciate everybody in the legal AF world and the Midas touch world, um, who have been so overwhelmingly loving and supportive of it. We're not going to make the whole podcast about this, but I do appreciate it. But how can I miss a show?

I joked with Ben on Saturday that like my daughter already has exquisite timing arriving after Saturday and before Wednesday. And then I can't like not show up. So here we are. And I do have a supportive wife. All right, let's talk about Judge Mershon, your old stomping grounds, the Manhattan DA. And then it basically came down.

Let's do the gag order first. It basically came down to those three components of the gag order. One was about jurors. Don't go after jurors. It seems ridiculous that we have to have a gag order that says that. Don't go after jurors, don't go after jurors, this seems ridiculous that we have to have a gag order that says that, don't go after jurors, don't go after certain elements of the criminal justice system, the judge's staff but not the judge and

family, the DA's, the lawyers working for the DA's office on the case but not the actual Manhattan DA, this was very very surgically made and created by the judge. That's two. What's the third one, Karen? Two is judge, jury. We did jurors. We did the judge, the staff, and the family members. And witnesses. All right. Thank you. That was the major one that was missing. Sorry. That's where the brain, I do already have baby brain and witnesses in the case. You know, the case is over, but Donald Trump is now a convicted felon and there's appeals and they're still sentencing. And so there's still some need for a gag order. Your old office pushed

for, yeah, we're all right with not going out. I think they were okay with the witnesses, right? Is that right? Yeah, they were fine with the witnesses. I mean, look, the law- Take it from there. Go over what they were okay with and then what the judge ultimately did. And I can read a little bit from the order too, okay?

Yeah, so look, they had to follow the law and the law clearly shows that it's about protecting the integrity of the proceeding. And the proceeding is over with respect to the witnesses and the jurors. And the judge was clearly pained by this. He did not want to have to lift it with respect to the jurors, but he felt he had no choice given the fact that the trial and the part about protecting the integrity of the proceedings are over. But he did say that there's still a sentencing. And so that part when it comes to staff and family members and prosecutors who are not the Manhattan DA

and who's not Judge Marshawn, that's fair game. And so that can still remain as a gag order. So he had to lift it as to the jurors and the and the witnesses. So so Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, and, and, and, you know, he was you could tell he was reticent about the jurors and having to lift it with respect to them because of the law, he said it would be this court's strong preference to extend those protections, but he felt the law required him to drop the restrictions.

So you could tell he was conflicted about the juror part of it. But the witnesses, he's always said that because Michael Cohen is so vocal about speaking about Donald Trump, that that could be an area where he would lift the gag order and now that he's no longer a witness. And Stormy Daniels, her response to this was quite dignified, I have to say, and really lovely, where she just basically said, I respect the judge, I respect the process, and it is what it is.

She wasn't, for example, coming out and calling him names the way he calls her names, like horse face. So that's where we are. And the gag order will remain as to the prosecutors and their families and the court staff until the sentencing July 11th. This one's going to have an impact on that one. This one's going to have an impact, not just on the debate, now that Donald Trump is freed up within those limits. It's going to have an impact on that one. This one's going to have an impact not just on the debate, now that Donald Trump is freed up within those limits. It's going to have an impact on what, and we'll talk about it next, but I'll just tease it in Mar-a-Lago because the government, the Department of Justice is arguing that Donald Trump's arguments that the FBI was trying to assassinate Donald Trump because they properly brought their guns with them

to Mar-a-Lago while Donald Trump was in New Jersey, that that actually put a target on the back of the FBI and knowing his followers and cult followers and the violent rhetoric that usually triggers something to happen that puts people in harm's way. But the judge, we're going to talk about it next in the gag order, is not only going to, as asked for some briefing about the gag orders in other places, this ruling is going to put some wind at the sail of the Trump people to try to convince the judge that they should lift the gag order or not impose a gag order or further gag order

in Mar-a-Lago. There's other problems with Mar-a-Lago, but this gag order, but it was the right thing to do. I mean, the judge, my favorite part of the decision and order, the D and O, the judge Murchon just did in New York is in his recitation of how we got here, including that he has won all the major issues at the appellate division, which is his bosses at the appellate court, even though Donald Trump and his minions like to run around saying, oh, he keeps losing at the appellate division. The judge keeps getting reversed. He never gets reversed. And that has not happened here at all.

And the judge reminded that of the recitation. But then when he gets to the date order of things, my favorite part is when, and he has to write this, it just, but it just I'm sure drives Donald Trump's people up the wall and batty. He says on page three, on May 30th, 2024, defendant, that's it, defendant, was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree in violation of penal law, 175.10 after a trial by jury. Thereafter the jury was discharged and the case was adjourned to July 11th, 7-11. Very unlucky date for Donald Trump for sentencing.

He has to say it, but anytime you can put Donald Trump in his place to remind him that he's just the convict or will be soon in a judge convict is great for me. And the judge did exactly what you would expect a proper sober as you said applying the law type of judge to do which totally up you know over which totally turns on its head all of the counter arguments by the minions that he's oh he you know if I listen if I hear Elise Stefanik say this one more

time his daughter he's with daughter works for Democrats. And okay, he got sanctioned for, you know, this was the house resolution. He got sanctioned Judge Mershon because he gave $15 to Joe Biden. He got a warning letter along with a million other judges that they don't, you know, the judicial ethics board doesn't like any donations at all. So don't do it again.

But it was like $15, you know, and all this other stuff, there's nothing in in Judge Mershon's record on the bench for over 15 years, his prior history as a prosecutor, how he handled other cases before he got assigned this case, how he handled another case involving Donald Trump, the rulings that he made as they were affirmed by the appellate court that says that he is anything other than a judge with a proper temperament making appropriate decisions that will not be reversed on appeal and will not end up at the United States Supreme Court. I mean, I will talk about that when we get to the Supreme Court today, but there's a lot of fear mongering because it's distracting, because

it sucks the air out of the room of what should be talked about by MAGA right on cue when Donald Trump pushes a button, that the Supreme Court should intervene after the convention. And with Congress is asking, MAGA Congress is asking, it's not happening. The Supreme Court is on summer vacation, and they're not getting back together again to talk about a garden variety criminal case about a guy who wasn't even present at the time he was convicted. Oh, all right. Let's talk about sentencing. Karen, you lead on sentencing. Norm Eisen, who's a close friend of yours, you've had him on your, I almost said your award-winning, it will be, your hard-hitting, rating-, rating grabbing, amazing new

show called Miss Trial. Thank you salty right on click right on click. Thank you. Miss Trial with you and Donnie Perry, Kathleen Rice. Have you had you I don't have him on there. But I know you did an interview of Norm Eisson. And I know you respect him greatly as do I. He's got a whole thing out on just security about analyzing all the cases that he thinks fall into the bucket of a classy felony

similar to business record fraud and what happened in terms of sentencing and jail time and sort of argues that the judge should impose jail time. I don't know if that's one year, six months, four months, five days, but some sort of jail time. Where do you fall along the spectrum as we move into it? We're gonna see briefings soon, and we're gonna know what the probation department

is recommending, but where does KFA fall on this continuum? You know, it's funny, I'm usually very decisive, and I'm very clear, and I don't change my mind very often when it comes to things like this, but I have an evolution when it comes to the Donald Trump sentencing. I went for a period of time where I thought, you know, what Donald Trump should get is a some kind of, it's called the conditional discharge and which means you get certain conditions.

It's, and the conditions I would impose on him in my head, what I thought would be some sort of community service, like picking up trash on the subway, because a fine doesn't mean anything to him. Probation would do nothing for him. And so that's what I'd want to see him do. I'd want to see him do something that's really not fun for him, like maybe 100 hours or 500 hours or something like that of community service. So that's what I originally thought because probation makes no sense supervising him where he shows

up at a kiosk and all the probation things made no sense. And I didn't think logistically jail how would that work? And so as a result, I kind of, I defaulted to this community service. But then when Norm Eisen, who did a study of every single case of class E felony falsifying business records, he surveyed the state because this is not unlike what Donald Trump likes to say that this never been done before, never been charged before, first time,

you know, he makes, no one's ever seen anything like it. You know, he makes these ridiculous pronouncements. And that's actually not true. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a very common charge that is prosecuted regularly. And it's a classy felony, which means there's a wide range of sentencing options for a judge. On the low end, it could be nothing. It could be probation.

It could be a conditional discharge, as I said. And on the high end, it could be an indeterminate sentence of one and a third to four years, which means he can serve up to four years per charge and they could run consecutive. They would all eventually merge to 20 years total is the total he could do. But he did a survey of all of the cases in New York State because there are a lot where this is the charge and looked at similarly situated defendants. when you look at people who have been sentenced to prison, which is somewhere between, I'd say, 10 and 30% of the people, of the individuals who are charged with this exact crime. So the vast majority do not get jail, right?

Or do not get prison. They get something less of that. But there's around 25% who do. And the question is, who are those people and why do they get jail time? And when you look at those cases and you see who actually has received jail as a sentence, there is no doubt in my mind that Donald Trump deserves prison. Okay? He deserves it and he deserves it in spades. Again, if you're going to treat him like everybody else, if you're going to treat him like somebody

who committed the crimes that he committed, that was convicted of 34 counts of trying to steal an election, right? That's what the jury had to find beyond a reasonable doubt. That was one of the elements of the crime. The means and methods of how they did it is what they could differ on, right? It could be through the three different charges.

It could be through state election crimes. It could be through federal election crimes. It could be through falsifying business records. It could be through tax methods. Like the means and methods is what he said is what the law allows you to have a general criminal intent. But here you had to have it for an unlawful, it had to be unlawful purpose. And here they had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that it was election interference. And so, so because that is what they did, and because that

was a requirement here, and that's what the jury found, what, how did it get any more serious than that? Because guess what? He stole it. He won by what? Eighty thousand votes in three in three swing states. What if this was the thing that got him to win that that that election in 2016? If that's the case, it doesn't get more serious than that. He deserved. He's the guy who does deserve the prison time. And that's why I said, why are we all bending over backwards to try to come up with some other sentence for him? He should get prison without a doubt. It is as serious as it gets. He's kept convicted a full slate

34 counts, okay And on top of that he was held in contempt ten times for violating this judge's orders ten times contempt 10 times for violating this judge's orders 10 times. I've never in 30 years of prosecuting had a defendant held in contempt. It's not a common thing. This is not something that judges do every day. In fact, I was talking to a retired judge friend of mine today who told me in all his years on the bench, and he was on the bench for decades, he has never held someone in contempt.

It is not a common thing. This is a defendant who just blatantly violates the law. The rules don't apply to him. He's convicted by a jury that he chose. He was adjudicated a rapist by Judge Kaplan and a jury in that court. He was adjudicated a fraud, committed business fraud in state court in Judge Angoran's courtroom. This is a man who has a record like no other.

And as far as I'm concerned, if I was a judge and he stood before me, I would sentence him to the maximum. However, it's called stay the sentence. I would press pause on the sentence, pending appeal. And I would say, because look, it's a reality that there's an election, and it is what it is. And there's something called federalism, and there's a federal election, and article to dictate the presidency. And I'm not sure state court, I'm not sure a state judge can sentence,

can put him in jail if he wins the election and becomes president. And so I do think I would stay, there are some appellate issues, I don't think he'll win, but there are. So I would stay the sentence pending appeal. If he wins, it is what it is. If he loses, guess what?

Bring your toothbrush, You're going in. I agree with you. It's sort of similar to what I've said before. I think he's going to impose some sort of incarceration, maybe have these other components to it. He's going to suspend it or hold it in advance until the appeal is over, which will get him over the November election. So he's not going to be able to be legitimately accused of election interference. I think, I don't know, I've always thought it was somewhere between six months and a year and how they do it, you know, whether it's home confinement, an army base, you know, something that's you know constructed uniquely for him because the Secret Service has to be by

his side. But I don't think he's going to give him like a pass. Well, I would normally, you know, anybody that got convicted of 34 felony counts with the record this guy had and 10 violations of my gag order, you know, I would just let him walk out the front door. I mean, that's not what norm license research says he wouldn't do that. And I don't think it falls into that continuum of the ones that Norm had that listed like one day in jail, five days in jail. I think it's further down.

The female executive that stole $50,000 from her employer and then falsified an invoice as a result got like five months or a year. I mean, if that's the standard or the exemplar, I think he should get a year or more, even as a first time offender. But do all the other things that you just said. If he doesn't have to report or it's abated until the appeal process, which we could take over a year in New York, it's not going to be expedited. And if everything goes the way we think it's going to go, he's going to be a two-time loser for the office. He's not going to win in November, and he's going to shrink back down to size as a guy who lost twice after serving one term as president, having been twice impeached, 51 times convicted, and a judge to be a sex offender.

And he'll hopefully crawl back under the rock that he crawled out under and go be a Florida man. Not our Florida man, not the Florida lawyer guy. I think that's just what's gonna happen. It's gonna be the incredible shrinking Donald Trump because he's gonna lose and that's gonna be it. I mean, the MA shrinking Donald Trump because he's going to lose and that's going to be it. I mean the MAGA movement will live on unfortunately as will all of his handiwork, all the devils play you know play things you know related to his supreme court and all of that but

that I agree with you on that. So why don't we, we're gonna talk about Mar-a-Lago and what some of the rulings, it's like a cascade effect, with some of the rulings that are being made by Judge Mershon, how they're getting picked up down at Mar-a-Lago with Judge Cannon, who's holding her own bizarre hearings, with again, just to remind everybody,

or for those that are new to this, she has not set a trial. She's just cogitating and analyzing her navel and all sorts of things, but she's not getting a case on the docket for trial, which is what really matters in terms of our public justice system. And we'll talk about how the Supreme Court is spoon feeding us the remainder of the last 12 decisions until they give us, apparently apparently on the very last day of whether in July, before they go off on summer vacation, they're going to tell us what we really want to hear is whether Donald Trump's DC election interference case in front of Judge Chuckin has a snowball's chance in hell at getting back up before the election or not. I mean, yes, they have to issue

these other decisions, but like, you know, and God forbid when we get a IT mistake apparently and they post it early, a decision about abortion and reproductive rights, why can't they do that for the immunity decision? Although I'm almost not want to see the immunity decision. We'll talk about all of that and so much more with Karen Freemick, Nick Nifilo and me, Michael Popak in the Midweek Edition of Legal AF. We've got a great group of curated sponsors that Jordi and the Midas Brothers helped put together for our network and for our show in particular. And now we've got to take a break so they can support our pro-democracy movement.

Many people are surprised to find out that I'm 57, almost 58, and that I'm a grandmother. That's why I love this product One Skin. This is something I use on my face every single day and it makes me look younger. I think that's why people think that I'm younger than I actually am. Super easy to use. You just use it with any of your other skincare products in your skincare routine and if you're like me, especially this time of year, you always wear sunscreen on your face. And this product, One Skin, has a sunscreen that I use every single day to help protect my skin,

but it also helps nourish my skin and repair my skin with this OS-1 that they they have this specially designed ingredient. So I love it. It also you use it on your on your neck area and it gives you lots of protection. Three different types in fact from their non nano zinc oxide, their potent antioxidants and their OS one peptide which is the ultimate defense against UV exposure, collagen loss and cellular aging. So I love, I absolutely love, I love one skin. And what really makes the OS1 incredible is it's not just a sunscreen, but it really is scientifically proved to switch off the aging cells that cause

lines, wrinkles and thinning skin. They also have a full body product with sunscreen that you can use. And so it can help also the rest of your body, not just your face. So I've been using this regimen for a while now, including the facial sunscreen. And I'm really hooked. Don't just take my word for it. It has over 8,000 five-star reviews, was recently recognized by Fast Company as one of the most innovative brands of 2022 and my mother noticed.

And if my mother notices, it must be true. She's actually said to me, what are you doing to your skin? It looks so good. So for a limited time, you'll get an exclusive 15% off your first one skin purchase using the code legal AF when you check out at one skin.co co try one skin today to get this trifecta of protection for nourished glowing skin. That's one skin.co and put legal AF in as a promo code when you check out. It's the world's first skin longevity

company. So by focusing on the cellular aspects of aging one skin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer. Get started today with 15% off using code legal AF at one skin.co that's 15% off one OneSkin.co with code LegalAF. After your purchase, they ask you where you heard about this. Please support this show and tell them we sent you. Proper sleep can increase focus, boost energy and improve your mood. Introducing Beam's Dream Powder,

a science-backed healthy hot cocoa for sleep. If you know me, you know that dream has been a game changer for my sleep and boy do I need sleep these days. I drink Beams dream powder each night in order to get my optimal sleep. And I gotta say, I wouldn't be recommending this if it didn't actually help me. And today my listeners get a special discount

on Beams dream powder. They're science-backed healthy hot cocoa for sleep with no added sugar. Better sleep has never tasted better. Now available in delicious flavors like chocolate peanut butter, cinnamon cocoa, and sea salt caramel. With only 15 calories and zero grams of sugar. Other sleep aids can cause next day grogginess,

but Dream contains a powerful all-natural blend of reishi, magnesium, altheanine, melatonin, and nano CBD. To help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refreshed. The numbers don't lie. In a clinical study, 93% of participants reported dream helped them get better sleep. Beam dream is easy to add to your nighttime routine. Just mix dream into hot water or milk froth

and enjoy before bed. Find out why Forbes and the New York Times are all talking about Beam and why it's trusted by the world's top athletes and business professionals. If you want to try Beam's bestselling Dream powder, get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com slash Legal AF

and use code Legal AF at checkout. That's shop B E A M dot com slash Legal AF You better get out that Beam. You better get out your Beam dream and get some sleep with the... All the sponsors products helped me one way or another. Yeah, exactly. But now more than ever is all I'm saying. All the sponsors' products helped me one way or another. But now more than ever is all I'm saying. Whereas Salty said in our chat, Popak's glasses always match our sponsors' colors. I try.

And for all the people in the chat who are demanding more Karen, I got great news for you. Besides the midweek edition of Legal AF, she has a new show. You should go watch it. I don't know when it is exactly. When is the show going down on a weekly basis? Usually either Thursday or Friday. It's hard to pin us all down. So this week we have a really special guest and they were only available on Friday.

You don't want to tease the guest? It's going to be side by side. So this week we have a really special guest and they were only available on Friday. So you don't want to tease the guest. It's going to be Cy Vance. That's a great, that's your old boss. Yeah, my old boss, the former Manhattan DA. So Cy Vance and we had to do it on Friday. So we'll be dropping that Friday. On Cy Vance day, mistrial for those that love Karen for

those that love Karen and me it's the midweek edition of legal AF you're here right now let's talk about Judge Cannon oh in Mar-a-Lago how did she ever get this case Ben and I reported or we talked about on Saturday you know the the new reporting that's out there the judge Alton Naga as I anticipated as the chief judge made a couple of phone calls over to Cannon early on and said, you know, it's not a good look. You got reversed twice by the 11th Circuit even before the indictment came out. Maybe you don't want to handle this case. And another judge, which I was a betting man, I think is Judge Middlebrooks and the senior judge in West Palm Beach, who also said,

Brooks and the senior judge in West Palm Beach, who also said, maybe you want to give it to a more seasoned judge and nope, no, I'm, I'm, I'm going to do it. I'm, I'm going to handle it. Somebody, somebody tried to criticize me and say, Pope walk. You can't get your math right. She's been a judge longer than two years. I didn't say she was a judge for two years. I said she had been a judge for a short amount of time at the time that the, in COVID happened and she had very little trial experience, not that she was only,

that she's only been a judge for two years. I know who appointed her, it was Donald Trump. And that was back in 2020. However, we're here now. She's holding, is holding day two of her hearings on suppression. I'll just map it out and then I'll turn it over to our resident former prosecutor.

You got a search warrant, which by the way, the last time we heard from poor magistrate Judge Reinhart in Fort Lauderdale was when he issued the search warrant. Normally, so people understand, in federal court in criminal practice, the magistrate does a lot of heavy lifting related to discovery motion practice things related to the search warrant and the like but I don't know if like because His ruling ultimately got upheld by the 11th circuit and hers didn't she put him in an icebox And hasn't let him out since and makes all and just has just decided it's just so important she's she is the article 3 judge is

gonna make all the decisions in the case which is really weird by the way and and and it gets her going in the wrong direction you know and then she has no help from them where seasoned magistrate that could help her out in these things so many times when you and I are talking about Judge Cannon, we should really be talking about Magistrate Judge Reinhardt, but we're not. And that's part of the problem. And it's frustrating now to the prosecutor. So let me just give the prosecutors frustration, get your view on that, and what's going on with the search warrant suppression hearing. So you've got all these hearings going on about the evidence that was obtained by

the Department of Justice and the special counsel, including the 34 documents, that seems to be a number that Donald Trump has problems with, the 34, 38 total documents that are the top secret classified documents that are at the heart of the indictment. And the search warrant, which was prepared by the Department of Justice, ultimately signed off by magistrate Judge Reinhart, specified where at Mar-a-Lago, they had reasonable believe, probable cause to believe, there were documents related to a crime located.

And Emil Bové, who did an okay job okay job although they lost terribly at Manhattan DA's against the Manhattan DA He's been arguing for Trump about oh my god they went into the the personal bedroom of baron and they went into of all these other areas and it was you know, the the subpoena the story search where it was too broad and you couldn't follow it the judge is like I don't know what you're talking about. Even Judge Gannon was like, I think this was about as reasonably articulated as the locations as possible and it seems like they colored within the lines when they executed on the search warrant and the fact that you're complaining about they looked in a

bedroom, they didn't find anything there, so there's nothing to suppress. In other words, they didn't go outside the lines of the search warrant and then find things they're trying to use here. Even Judge Cannon knew that is probably what's required for suppression. Oh, we found it under Barron's mattress. Okay, well, then we'll have an argument and discussion about whether they should have been in Barron's room or not. But when you tell me they were in other rooms, they didn't find anything, that seems like you're barking up the wrong tree, even for Judge Cannon.

And we all know, here on Legal AF and otherwise, that they found things in weird places you wouldn't think, because they were tipped off that they were there, like in the ballroom, and in the bathroom, and in the bathroom and in dining rooms Spilling out onto the floor Well, look, I love salty found pictures right there. I mean, yeah, it's and as and as the judge even said to Bova She said it's not like it's a regular like 3,000 square foot single-family house. This is like a

50,000 square foot single family house. This is like a 50,000 square foot resort. And he's hiding documents everywhere and that was the probable cause. So she doesn't issue any rulings yet. She's notorious for not issuing. That's why we never have anything. You notice when we do segments, we talk about real judges that know what they're doing.

We throw up orders. We never have that really with Judge Kanek because we got no order to throw up. So we get where she's leaning. And then there's this back and forth that seems to have taken a turn with the prosecutors who seem really frustrated with her. She got into it again, Karen, with Jim Harbach, who's one of the lead, Dave Harbach, who's one of the lead prosecutors. She's gotten into it before with others. She called him snippy. She counseled, she warned him that he wasn't being,

he wasn't exercising proper decorum. He wasn't treating her properly in the courtroom. He was cutting off her questions and she wouldn't tolerate it. And she basically said at one point, and if you can't handle this hearing, there's other people on your team that I'm sure can. And he kind of woke up on that.

But talk about it if you've ever gotten slightly sideways with a judge, but talk about where you think she's going with suppression and then this sort of bad blood that appears to have developed between the prosecutors and Judge Ken and whether it matters at all, whether the appellate court is waiting for something to reverse around. Where do you come out on all this? Well, let's just start with, there's people who often ask me, what is your podcast about? And how do you prepare for it? And all of that. And what I always tell everybody is, I go and I read the motions myself, the decisions myself, the transcripts if they're there, myself,

and I try to interpret them for people because the law can sometimes be complicated, it can sometimes be convoluted, and there's a lot of misinformation out there, especially that comes from Donald himself and many of his followers who parrot what he says and lie for him, frankly. And that's what frustrates me. It's not about, you know, I'm perfectly fine with people having intellectual discussions

about things that, you know, I think taxes should be higher. I think they should be lower, whatever, you know, all those things that people can disagree on and have have intellectual discussions about. And, but, but here, people lie, and things are not true. And the reason I bring that up is because in all the cases that we, that we cover in all of the proceedings that we look at, there's nothing about Judge Cannon and the Mar-a-Lago documents case that resembles the practice of law as I know it or understand it. So it's hard for me to interpret because it doesn't... What Judge Cannon does is kind of lawless frankly. It has no basis in In the law, which is why she's been reversed multiple times by the 11th Circuit in this case Nor does it resemble anything that's familiar and there's only one conclusion in my opinion is that

She is auditioning for some other role in the Trump administration. And what she is doing is she is making, I think she's smart. I don't think she's stupid and I don't think she's inexperienced. I think she's extremely smart. And I think she is not ruling on things and just holding them in abeyance and pushing them out because if you don't rule, you can't be appealed. So there's nothing Jack Smith can appeal and go and try to get her reversed or even get her removed off the case.

And all they're doing is delay, delay, delay, postpone, hope that he wins the election, and then you'll see whatever the reward is that she is going to get because she is clearly auditioning for some other role. And I don't say that lightly. I don't say that about judges lightly, but there is nothing about what she is doing that resembles the practice of law, as I know it. And I say that in the context of what you just asked

and the questions you're asking, because she just held three days of hearings on things that are head-scratching, that there should have never been a hearing about that have no basis in remotely in the law. It was almost like an intellectual exercise. And to answer your question, have I ever become intemperate in court and lost my cool in court? It is very rare. Usually when you do it, it's deliberate

because it's a tactic. You don't wanna lose control. But with Judge Cannon, I can totally understand given how she has behaved and ruled and conducted herself in this case, why the prosecutors here would lose their mind. Because unbelievable, I mean, just unbelievable. For example, we had hearings on whether or not the special counsel is appropriate. The fact that the appointment of a special counsel, the special counsel law, the fact that this is a law that exists, passed by

Congress. We've had many special counsels in many instances. It has been litigated 12 ways to Sunday. It has been upheld over and over and over again. Donald Trump appointed special counsel. Joe Biden has appointed special counsels. This is not, that is not within the law. This is not something that you certainly would hold hearings on and that you would invite Amici, right, the amicus briefs, these people, these friends of the court who have nothing to do with the case, but you, they wanted to submit their amicus briefs, right? And these are the, I'm not a party, but I want to give you my opinion briefs. She said, okay, they asked to be able to speak in court,

to talk and participate in oral arguments in court. I didn't even know that was a thing at the trial level. I know you can do that sometimes, rarely, but occasionally at the Supreme Court or the appellate court level, but that she would allow it here on an issue that's not, and this is like, is this OK, the concept of special councils in the world?

So it makes no sense that she would hold that hearing for any other reason other than to delay this case, right? Because it's clear when she, so when you look at the transcripts or the reporting from the transcripts, you know, she's skeptical, she's not gonna rule in favor of the defense here, but she's giving them win after win after win

by holding these hearings and delaying. Yeah, she's wasting everybody's time. She is not ruling on, there's so many motions that she is not ruling on. For example, the SIPA, right? The Classified Information Procedures Act. There are multiple motions out there that need to be ruled and hearings that should happen

and evidence that should be taken at hearings, right? So that she can make rulings so they can set a trial date. It makes no sense whatsoever. Three days worth of hearings. So another one she had was had to do with these, Evan Corcoran, if you remember, was one of the lawyers who represented Trump, and prosecutors are using some of his audio recordings and notes when he represented Trump, because they said it pierced the attorney-client privilege with the crime fraud exception.

She held hearings on that. Those were closed door hearings, so we can't really comment on what happened there. But that's something, again, already been ruled on. But let's have hearings. Why not? Waste more time. She held hearings on Trump's motion to dismiss the entire case on the special counsel thing that we were talking about. Again, she's never going to rule that. But what does she do? She's bought the Trump administration months of briefing and hearings, and now she didn't rule yet.

So she's going to consider and cogitate and eventually rule. And I'm sure she'll rule that there's nothing that inappropriate about Jack Smith being special counsel and the case won't be dismissed, but it doesn't matter because the case is never going to trial before the election or ever because if she has her druthers, Donald Trump will win the election and she'll be appointed to some great position that she's auditioning for. And another thing that she held hearings on was whether or not there should be a change in the release conditions.

This was a special counsel, Jack Smith, asked for a change in the release conditions saying that Trump, it's almost like a gag order. People are talking about it like a gag order, but it's really just tell him to stop lying about the search warrant affidavit and saying that law enforcement could have assassinated him, that FBI could have, they were going to assassinate him. It's ridiculous. It's BS. Oh, well, you know, let me set a hearing a month from when you filed this emergency application,

Jack Smith, and let me not rule on it. And you know, and we'll sit here and I'll hold hearings on it and waste everybody's time. And she did that again. And then the other one that she did that is just shocking is this whole thing about the search warrant. The defense is asking for what's known as a Frank's hearing. I had to look it up because I've heard of it before, but I'm like, a Frank's hearing. I've never... What's a Frank's's hearing because it's so rare. It basically means that the you have to prove the defense has to argue and submit evidence that the FBI intentionally misled the judge. The magistrate judge here, it would be Reinhart

when seeking the warrant to search Mar-a-Lago. It's like a bad faith, intentionally bad faith, like they did something wrong, almost committed a crime and lied under oath. They have no evidence of that whatsoever. But let's ask for a frank's hearing. There's no sanctions that she's giving to the defense for making these ridiculous frivolous motions that are wasting everyone's time, that is casting aspersions on law enforcement that didn't do anything wrong. But she allows all these arguments,

she allows these ridiculous hearings, and then she doesn't rule on them. And then the other thing that apparently went on in her courtroom in the last few days was this argument that the search warrant was overbroad, that they should have been more narrowly tailored. Why did they go into Melania Trump's living quarters or Barron Trump's room? And she wanted to apparently muse about what was the necessity of these things.

It's just the whole thing is just head scratching, frankly. It's just the whole thing is just head scratching, frankly. It's just absolutely head scratching. So I'm not surprised that at the end of these contentious hearings that one of the prosecutors was frustrated and either intentionally or not kind of lost their cool because there's nothing about this that resembles anything I've ever seen before.

Yeah, the two things that concern me the most of all this is the possible suppression of Evan Corcoran's notes and audio recordings. That decision I thought had already been decided once and for all by the chief judge at the time of the DC Circuit Court, Beryl Howell. There was no appeal taken of her decision to turn over that to the United States Supreme Court. We always thought that was sort of a waiver argument that

could be raised against Donald Trump, but they've decided they've got a willing participant in Eileen Cannon. And Donald Trump's like, let's just keep throwing as much at her as we can. We're getting great rulings or we're getting some rulings that help us. And what I see from the prosecutors is they think she's, what was the word I was gonna, I always use the M word. They think she's a moron and it is slipping out during their, they're getting very frustrated.

I think they're getting frustrated also because they're trying to find ways to go to a higher authority. They're trying to find ways to go to a higher authority. They're trying to find ways to get back to the 11th Circuit where they think they will have a very willing audience to reverse her. But even though she's an evil genius, she's finding ways, as somebody said recently in our chat here, say what you want about her, Pope Huck, but she's found a way not to issue an order and she got reversed twice. And there is a lot of truth to that pithy

observation about Judge Cannon. So, Evan Corcoran, they can win the case without it, but it helps the prosecutors make the willful, corrupt, intent, mens rea connection to the jury so much easier connection to the jury so much easier, other than relying on grainy videos of, you know, the two other co-conspirators lurking in the dark, moving boxes and then getting, you know, circumstantial evidence is just as good as regular direct evidence. That's nothing wrong with that. All evidence is weighted by the jury, but just because it's a certain quality, a video is not greater than testimonial. Testimonial is not greater than something that's a document, but the jury weighs all of these things as they weigh the evidence. That's why they're the fact-finders. So I don't want to lose Evan Corcoran, his 50 pages of notes,

and his audio recordings about Donald Trump giving him instructions to not turn over the documents to the government and make them disappear. That would be a good one. And the other one that really concerns me is that there's still mileage and oxygen left in this argument about the special counsel being properly appointed, delegated authority, and given a budget to operate. I want to be clear, this version of the special independent prosecutor counsel thing, we've had a version of it. Some have been actually created by and appointed by Congress. This is not that. The one by and appointed by Congress. This is not that. The one that was appointed by Congress was the Independent Council,

which we had in the 1980s. And then finally, after Ken Starr made a mess of it and some other things, both Democrats and Republicans said, let's get rid of the Independent Council. Before that, we had a special prosecutor. And that came out of Robert Bork, who was the acting attorney general at the time during the Nixon administration, promising Congress that he would appoint somebody independent because of all the corruption in our last criminal presidency that was Nixon. Of course, that looks like child's play compared to what Donald Trump did.

Oh, I long for the days of Richard Nixon being the president of the United States again, but you know, he promised Bork promised Congress that he would appoint a special prosecutor. That was the name. There was no, nothing on the books of the DOJ, nothing in the code of federal regulation and the Congress was like, okay. And he appointed Leon Jaworski, and Leon Jaworski ended up prosecuting

and convicting a number of people in and around Richard Nixon, including the then Attorney General. And he had a budget, and the budget came from the Department of Justice, and nobody said anything about it. And the Supreme Court, at the time in 1974, said to recognize the validity of a special prosecutor

being appointed by the Department of Justice and enforced his subpoenas and his subpoena power to turn over the now infamous Nixon tapes. That was special prosecutor, which is sort of a version of what we have now, but even more informal. And that was fine with the Supreme Court. Then you had the independent counsel through Congress,

then that got removed and you had the creation of the special counsel, not prosecutor, created as it's a creature of the Department of Justice and then ultimately the Code of Federal Regulation, which is adopted by Congress, so we do have the congressional input there, which outlines when a special counsel will be appointed, should be appointed by the attorney general and who it answers to and how it answers to it. And the oversight, and then the attorney general at the time

has oversight over him by the leading ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee about whether he's gonna accept or reject the recommendations of the special prosecutor, sorry, special counsel. And there's funding that comes from that. All of that is like settled law, as far as I'm concerned. Received wisdom, call it what you will. But as you pointed out, Karen, to Alien Canon, it's all like, this is fascinating. How much money, this was the last area, how much money is being spent, Mr. Prosecutor, on this, what does that have to do with anything?

And by the way, 30 or 40% of that is for security protection to protect the people that are on the FBI. And so prosecutors are now being asked how much budget is being spent on it. How much oversight is Merrick Garland really giving to, I mean, this is like anything that pops in her head that she finds interesting. And the prosecutors have basically drawn a line and a sand with her at the last hearing and said, if you're going there, we want more briefing on it,

because no other judge, including the Supreme Court, has ever found that we're invalid. And if you're going there and you're close to going there, just tell us now so we can take, oh ever found that we're invalid. And if you're going there and you're close to going there, just tell us now so we can take, oh, no, no, no. And then, you know, she always finds that way to back up, back up and back off so she doesn't make a ruling as again, as I said at the top of the segment, no trial date has been set. It's not like, it would be one thing if she'd set the F in trial date, sorry, the legal A F in trial date. And then we worked backwards to fill in and backfill with these motion practice.

I'd feel slightly better knowing, all right, well, there's a August 1st trial date. We got to cram it. But when it's this terrible thing where there's no trial date set at all and she just has this unlimited 10-mile long runway and nothing to police her or discipline her at all or add discipline to the case. That's why there's other judges in the Southern District of Florida, as I thought, who are pulling their hair out and they're turning gray and they should use one skin or whatever the product you talked about tonight because she is aging the rest of the Southern District of Florida because they're like, God, this is not covering our very proud, once proud department or division of the Southern District with any glory. It's making us look like a bunch of yahoos in a backwater town.

And that's her history. And like you said, Karen, and I've said before too, it's either she's got to get elevated by Trump. If he wins, God help us. So like the DC appellate court, wow, because she's an appellate lawyer by training allegedly. Or if not, she's going to leave the federal bench because she's killed her career one way or the other. But she'll get a lucrative job working for some MAGA firm, law firm, or she'll represent MAGA. She'll make millions of dollars. She's not doing that now up in Fort Pierce, Florida. So her trajectory for her career, because she kept that case has changed whether we like it or not, right? Yeah. Let me tell you something. I don't know that people recognize what an incredible encyclopedic

knowledge of just information you have, Popak. I mean, first of all, we prepare a lot for legal AF. We read briefs, we read decisions, we, you know, we prepare a lot for legal AF. We read briefs, we read decisions, we read newspaper articles, you know, we do everything we can to learn as much as we can. You just had a baby. Today is the day your baby came home from the hospital. I am sure you did not do as much preparation as you normally do, but you just gave the history of the special council down to the

year and what they were called. Okay. It was a special prosecutor, an independent council. You talked about Nixon and all these other, I can't even remember half the things you just said. You have an ins... This is why I love doing legal AF with you. Because you are just we are so lucky everybody is so lucky that you do this, especially days like today, where I can't believe you had time to match my glass color in a moment. It's really true. It's it's I know a lot of people I know a lot of smart people, you have a gift and you are just you you are so it is such an honor to do this with you every week and that you give so much time to everybody is just it's it's fascinating. It is interesting. And I learned so much being

being with you. So I'm just I don't take compliments that that well, but I you know,, but you know I love you with the bottom of my heart, and I really do appreciate that. And you know how I feel about you. If people don't know, I had a choice to do this show with many, many, many, many people, but after one deep conversation with Karen leaning up against the side of a building. Well, I'm also bossy.

No, that wasn't bossy. You bossy into it. I wanted to do it with you. Yeah, I will. I'm just saying though. Yeah, I appreciate it. Look, I know what I have. I know what I bring to the table, but what you have is just, believe me, it is incredible. That just blows me away. You do that a lot about a lot of different things, not just about a few things. We got to lean into our competitive advantages. And that's what I got. And I really, I really do really appreciate you. Yeah. And saying that. So we're gonna, we're gonna see how much more Popox got to offer today. We're gonna talk about

what dropped with the United States Supreme Court and what shouldn't have dropped but apparently did to the point where the actual Supreme Court had to acknowledge that the IT department had inadvertently posted a full-blown decision, this one kind of in favor, thank God, of reproductive rights and a woman's right to choose in a way at least. Um, but should not have been posted today and did, and then Bloomberg law, Bloomberg news picked that up and that you and I get to talk about it. And it's almost, it's like eerie. It's almost to the day of the, when the Dobbs decision dropped and you and I have a, have a, our own unique connection to the Dobbs decision because the day that

you and I interviewed, it seems like a lifetime ago, but it was two years ago, you and I had Robby Kaplan, who was, we were going to have her on to talk about all things Trump, including E. Jean Carroll. She represented E. Jean Carroll, but she has a number of cases against Donald Trump and is really a phenomenal lawyer and appellate advocate, Supreme Court advocate. She had done the Defense of Marriage Act at the Supreme Court. But the day that we had her on, we kind of threw away our script

because the Dops decision in draft leaked and we got our hands on it. We were all crestfallen and heartbroken about it, but we read it cover to cover and we got Robbie to talk about it with us. And that was in March. And then in June, as we said, the actual decision came out. And now we got this new one about Idaho, of all things, and

EMTALA along with some other decisions. We're going to talk about all of that, the ones that have dropped that we can talk about, including a rare win, or maybe two wins for the Biden administration back to back, a weird decision about bribery, some tea leaf reading about maybe the Jan six defendants and Donald Trump and the obstruction of Congress. And then what we can expect, it ain't coming today, it didn't come today, this week or next week, as we await the final last gasp of decisions to come and opinions to come out of the United States Supreme Court. But first, get ready, Salty. Sometimes you forget about our ads and I have to remind you. But first, another ad break.

Don't tell anyone, but I'm actually a cat person. And I don't like cat food. It's disgusting. Either it smells bad or those little hard, terrible things with hard food that cats don't like cat food, it's disgusting. Either it smells bad or those little hard, terrible things with hard food that cats don't like. My cats don't love that food. And I don't like it either. I don't like giving it to them. But our next partner has truly made a positive impact on my little kitty cat, who I love,

who you've seen jump into some of our podcasts or into my hot takes or even my ad reads. And I'm talking about my kitty, Cooper, who's just a sweetheart. And so I am so, so happy that Smalls is absolutely one of our great new sponsors. It's a cat food that is protein packed and these recipes are preservative free.

These ingredients that you would find in your own fridge and it's delivered right to your door and that's why veterinarians, veterinarians.org, they rate Smalls 10 out of 10 for ingredient quality. And when I gave Cooper Smalls, he loved it. He ate it all up. Unlike those little hard crunchy nugget disgusting things or that smelly food. He absolutely loved it. He prefers

it more than he preferred his old food and I even put side-by-side his old food and Smalls because I wanted to see, you know, is it true I'm gonna be doing this ad read and guess what Cooper chose the Smalls. Yay. So I love Smalls. It's definitely made it more pleasant for me to feed Cooper. And it also makes it so that the house doesn't stink like cat food. And I don't know.

I just feel better knowing that I'm giving Cooper a really good quality with good ingredients cat food. So I love it, it's great. And I think he will love it too. I think you'll love this protein packed meal for your loved one too, if you love your cat as much as I love mine. So after making the switch to Smalls,

90% of cat owners reported overall health improvements in their cats. And I think that's a really big deal. This team at Smalls is so confident your cat will love their product. You can try it risk free. That means they will refund you if your cat won't eat their food.

Pretty great, right? So now's the time to switch to Smalls. Head to Smalls, S-M-A-L-L-S dot com slash LegalAF and use promo code LegalAF at checkout for 50% off, 50% off your first order plus free shipping. That's the best offer

you'll find out there, but you have to use code LegalAF for 50% off your first order. So that's promo code LegalAF at Smalls.com. That's plural, S-M-A-L-L-S.com for 50% off when you insert code LegalAF plus free shipping. Have you ever wished you had whiter and brighter smile? Well, before you've been visited a dentist,

you should know that their whitening treatments can be very expensive and it's not just the price. You also have to book an appointment, schedule the time away from work or family to sit in a dentist office chair while undergoing a procedure. It's hassle. And fortunately, now you can try smile actives at home or anywhere anytime smile actives offers safe and affordable alternatives to those expensive whitening procedures. I have had bad experiences with whitening agents. It's made my teeth feel sensitive. I haven't liked the way it made me feel. I didn't like the taste, but Smile Actives makes a teeth whitening gel

that you can simply add to your toothpaste every time you brush your teeth. So there's no change in your routine, no extra time, no more messy strips, trays or lights, and it doesn't taste terrible. Simply add Smile Actives Pro Whitening Gel to your regular toothpaste. It's been formulated with poly clean technology to boost stain removal and deliver active whitening ingredients into teeth,

grooves and crannies and get better whitening. 97% of smile actives users in a clinical trial reported up to six shades whiter on average all within 30 days. Smile actives is for everyone who's ready to invest in the next level of self-care. Tap into the personal power that comes from having a bright smile. I care a lot about my smile. I take care of my teeth and I use smile actives. Visit smile actives.com legal AF today to receive a special buy one get one free offer with auto delivery plus free shipping and handling. That's smile actives. Plural.com slash legal AF. Terms and conditions apply, see site for details.

My favorite part of the Smalls commercial was that, I don't know if you did it intentionally or it was subliminal, but you actually started whispering about you being a cat person as if Boogie could hear you. You know, so the thing is, well, first of all, I'm an animal person, okay? I love animals. I have dogs, I have cats, I have chickens, that we have horses. I mean, I, you know, we have goats. We actually have, I have all of those animals.

I love animals. I'm always been an animal person, but deep down I'm a cat person. I just am. And I love the dogs, whatever. But I, you know, I partly, I partly whisper it because, you know, women in particular get judged for being cat people. Oh, is that why you did that? Oh, that always, I partly I partly whisper it because you know, women in particular get judged for being cat people. Oh, is that why you did that? Oh, that always Oh, I see where you're going. It's only as I'm getting older, the cat lady. All right. Exactly. So it's only that I'm

getting older that I'm more confident to admit that I am a cat person, but I do love cats. And let me tell you something. This cat food, and I'm not saying it, it's crack. You might as well call it kitty crack. My cat goes in for it. It is absolutely the cat. My cat loves it. It's incredible. It's actually incredible. I am sold. So we had a similar thing in the marriage. We had the union of a dog and a cat when we got together. Natasha had Chanel, which I never in 50 years plus had a good experience with a cat. Starting with my grandmother who had,

this is totally incorrect, my grandmother who smoked two packs of Paul Moll a day had a cat named Smokey that was black. And the first time I put my hand out as a three-year-old I got slashed. I think every other cat I ever had experience with I got somehow got ripped or no but wait a minute not Chanel. So Chanel and I it's my best cat experience ever and then I had a dog at the time we passed and now we've got of course we have Lily and we made it work

but that was our first attempt at joining a family together. It was literally cat and dog. And I get you and I like it. And I love this and I love our sponsors. I use Nom Nom for Lily. And she like, that Nom Nom face thing, she loves. When I get that little bag out that with her, it looks like real food.

We left it out one day and I was like, honey, what did you make? She's like with her, it looks like real food. We left it out one day and I was like, honey, what did you make? She's like, no, that's the dog food. I would never, to be honest, I wouldn't promote these products if I didn't believe in them. No, no, no. We use them all.

Before we actually do these commercials, they send it to us, we try them out, and they're actually fairly amazing. But the cat food in particular was, I didn't expect it to be that like incredibly, the cat absolutely loves the cat. But I've never had a bad experience with a cat. I've never had a cat that's aloof.

I've never had a cat scratch me. I've never had any of that. My cats are all, I've had cats my whole life and they've all just been pretty amazing. Hey Smalls, no extra charge for the extended ad read today. Let's move on to SCOTUS. SCOTUS. We got dropped another drop. Something else dropped every day you and I shutter to look at our text message chain to see what our producers have sent us that's dropped. We got a couple

of decisions today to official one unofficial. Let's start with the unofficial because that one's more interesting. Idaho, in a case called Moyle versus the United States and Idaho versus the United States, Idaho has almost a virtual ban on abortion in Idaho. And we've been teasing, I hate that word, we've been talking about and anticipating this decision for a long, long time here on Legal AF. Ben and I have been talking about it, you and I, I've been talking about and anticipating this decision for a long, long time here on Legal AF. Ben and I have been talking about it, you and I have been talking about it in hot takes. What are they going to do when the Biden administration smartly used an existing law in the books under Medicare called MTALA, the Emergency Abortions Law, to try to override and require that when medical necessity and the life of the mother is in jeopardy

unless there's an abortion that an abortion is given in federally funded hospitals, regardless of whatever the MAGA was able to pass or what law from the 1880s or 70s was triggered by the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. You know, we're talking about the life of a mother in labor and an abortion being a medically necessary thing. So the Supreme Court got it and we've been waiting to see it. Now, assuming that this holds, we've got a decision that's six to three and a very interesting grouping of six to three with lots of concurrences and basically a per, not basically, it looks like it's gonna be a per curiam decision of the entire court

with no author, but then a whole bunch of per curiams, you can see the lineup. So it's gonna be Kagan and Sotomayor and Katanji Brown Jackson, of course, in favor of Imtala, requiring even in a state like Idaho with a virtual ban on abortion, that a doctor give an abortion when it is medically necessary to do that that consistent with the law, the federal law. Thank Joe Biden for this. This is his way, having been dealt a terrible hand by the United States Supreme Court, trying to figure out a way to support women, try to make them less of a second class citizen in this country when it comes to reproductive health at the hands of MAG and the Republicans, and they already are, doing it through executive orders. And then he just unleashed his administrative law team at every department to literally to comb the books

of their current existing federal regulations to find ways to support women and the right to an abortion under existing federal law. And one of them, a major one, was EMTALA. So you've got Kagan, Sotomayor, Katanji Brown Jackson, but Amy Coney Barrett, she the mother of eight children, apparently has joined this as well to allow abortion in times of medical necessity, along with Kavanaugh and Roberts. So that's the lineup. And then a weird new little grouping that has arisen in a number of cases now of Thomas Alito and Gorsuch against it. And Alito saying it's never been a medically necessary thing for an abortion to save a woman. I mean, not only is he a white guy that apparently doesn't have any children making decisions

about women, which is always consternating, but where does he get his science from? And I thought we weren't supposed to go to science with judges making science. I thought that was their whole problem with Roe versus Wade, judges making scientific decisions and medical decisions. There's a federal law on the books. It either does or does not apply when a woman's in need. But of course, you can always count on Alito and Thomas, but now Gorsuch. He's done it a couple of times now, sides with them. He's done it a couple of times now, sides with them. So that's EMTALA. Why don't you tell me where you think from the leak forward, what do you think it means from a reproductive rights standpoint and if this decision holds?

And then why don't you take the decision that just came out about, you want to take the decision on social media? Another win for the Biden administration? We'll divide it up that way. Whatever you want. Let's do it that way. The abortion leak, you know, every, the, my friends who are Supreme Court appellate

lawyers and kind of nerds, if you will, they say this was just a glitch, it was an accident, it was a technical glitch, it was not a leak. I don't know, not to be a conspiracy theorist, but I don't believe in coincidences. The only two times that's ever happened were the two abortion decisions ever. I mean, it just seems a little too convenient, but whatever, maybe it is just sort of a glitch or an accident. What upset me about this decision is it's a victory, sort of. It's a good headline, but it's not a victory. It's kicking the can down the road.

They issued a dig, is what they call it, which means it was dismissed as improvidently granted, meaning that's what it stands for, right? They call them a dig, and that's what the Supreme Court nerds call it. They don't issue them very often. It's usually one line, and it means, oh, we granted cert and we shouldn't have. This is not a case that we should have granted cert because these people didn't have standing, right? The few states and the individuals who sued didn't have standing. So we're going to send it back down and you guys can kind of develop the record more and we'll see if someone bubbles

up that does have standing. And guess what? That'll be after the election, right? This was, this is, to me, this is going to be an absolute, and again, I sound like a conspiracy theorist and, and I am absolutely giving my opinion right now as opposed to when I, you know, read decisions and I'll tell people what they actually say. This is my opinion. So take it for what it's, what it's worth. It absolutely feels like this was, they know the MAGA people know

that this isn't going well for them, that women's, the abortion issue and all the women's rights issues that are happening, whether it's IVF, et cetera, not going well, women are gonna show up to vote soon. So, let's, you know, let's kinda, we're not gonna rule on the merits here, we're gonna just kind of kick the can down the road,

but it's coming, it's absolutely coming. They don't, they absolutely do not believe in abortion for medical necessity. It only has to be for the woman's life. And doctors were on TV today saying essentially what's happening is women are coming in. They are saying that they'll be a healthcare issue, a child that has an issue that will cause them

to die in utero, But we'll wait for that. And we'll have to wait until you go into sepsis before we can intervene, because that's when it becomes technically necessary for you. And so what do they do? They have to send these women out of state to states where they can get the medical care that they want. So I think it's an outrageous, it's outrageous, in my opinion. So they, I don't think it's a victory. I think it's just, you know, kicking, it's kicking the can down the road. And we'll see, we'll see what happens. We'll see what happens. So someone called it an ominous punt, which is what I think it sounds like. Really, this decision, this fake leak that was a glitch that I think was very intentional,

or just a nice coincidence, is not great news. It's temporarily good news. But the case you wanted to talk about was Murthy. It's a M-R-T-H-Y. And it basically was a six to three opinion where Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch, this group that you said, that you commented on is coming together as a dissenting group. And they essentially said there was no First Amendment violation in the Biden administration asking social media companies to flagging misinformation for them on either COVID or

the election denials. And basically, there was a term that people are using, it's called jawboning. I don't even really understand what it means, but it's a term that is being thrown out there as the thing that the Biden administration was being accused of doing. That apparently they weren't allowed to... The argument was that they weren't allowed to tell social media companies like Facebook, etc. And there were two states and five social media users that sued the executive branch, claiming that there was pressure for censorship. And essentially the Supreme Court said that it's okay, basically, and that this is not

First Amendment. So it was a weird ruling that kind of left the door open for them to sue again down the road. But again, it's kind of another, this is another one where they said there was no standing, right? There was no case in controversy. So, I don't know. These aren't really substantive rulings.

It's kind of, they're kind of these half fake rulings that the Supreme Court is saying on procedural grounds, we're not going to rule on these things so that we don't get criticized, is what I think is happening. But they're not really ruling on substantive things. They're ruling on procedural grounds, which has the effect of leaving these things in place. Yeah, all they need is somebody whose actual social media posting was banned by a platform, which they will then argue is because of pressure by the Biden administration. And then they'll have standing and then I don't know exactly what will happen on the merits. I know from the oral argument in this Murthy case, Murthy is our US Surgeon General, he got enjoined along with some others because he

was going after fake COVID and fake health misinformation that was being put on the internet by internet trolls, Russia, China, MAGA, all the us and killing people. And that sounds like a bad thing. It sounds like something the surgeon general should be against. I mean, the surgeon general just came out with a proposal and through the FDA to have social media have warning labels on it and have children be banned from it, almost like it's a carcinogen, like a mental carcinogen. And the way the MAGA and our Russian and Chinese trolls who are masters of disinformation and brainwashing in order to pit Americans one against the other and put us at each other's throats. They're doing a great job with that, by the way. Shout out to the Russians and the Chinese

who figured out a way to activate and mislead great swaths of our country, including people, Karen and your family and my family. But it'll just come back another day when there's somebody with proper standing. That's why I didn't get that excited about the decision, you know, the last medicated abortion decision about Miss Apriesto, Mifapristo, if I got it right. And they were like, oh, you know, the headline that everybody had, it was like nine zero, like nine zero on standing. It was just because this group of doctors never prescribed it, didn't treat anybody

that had been harmed by it, and therefore didn't have standing, or as Brett Kavanaugh put it in his, so bluntly in his decision, what's it to you? You've got to get over the, at least the, what's it to you standard of standing, where you don't get into the courtroom. I thought that was like a New Yorker taxi driver.

You're like, you talking to me? What's it to you? But it's like the bare level, the bare minimum of what you need in order to have a ticket to the courthouse. I mean, we're not supposed to have, unless you're in Judge Cannon's chambers or courtroom, you're not supposed to be a complete stranger to the case

and then be able to argue about it in a court of law. That's not our adversarial process at all, despite the existence of amicus briefs. So, and there was another decision on bribery, which sort of refined what bribes people can take that are in federal office that'll pass muster and sort of delegating it to the local and state officials to figure out how much is too much

when you reward a federal officer, a state officer for take, you know, for something, passing a legislation or something. I'm sorry, I'm old school. I don't think civil servants or people who are in an elected position in order to avoid public corruption should take anything. But this Supreme Court is always finding ways to backhandedly help Donald Trump and his presidency of kleptocracy. Well, and Clarence Thomas. I mean, seriously, right.

Exactly. It's consistent with Clarence Thomas taking scads and gifts, right? He says, you and I should get such a gift. You've ever gotten a gift of an all expense paid vacation abroad in Europe and all the finest hotels and air? No, that's called a client who pays you to go handle a case in that country or whatever. Yeah, no, I mean, look, it's essentially this case was about, you know, is it a bribe? Like, is it a quid pro quo? Is it a, is it, am I giving you something because I want something in the future in return? But it's OK, though, after you've already made your decision and done something as a public official,

if you want to get a gift later, if someone wants to give you a gift, that's a gratuity, that's not a bribe. And that's what they essentially said. And I couldn't help but think, oh, okay, this was Clarence Thomas saying, hey, you know, what are they going to do? Start saying that I'm being bribed by all these all-expense, you know, paid vacations that we're all getting? I mean, it's absurd. It's absolutely absurd. Public corruption is a big deal. It is a big problem. We got two major public corruption cases going on in my home state right now in New Jersey. Menendez who got caught with his pants down and over the closet door containing gold,

I said gold bricks, containing gold bars. Yeah, that is then wife, you know, and he got for helping an Egyptian businessman get the halal certification rights for everything going overseas in the military, a tremendously lucrative thing for which the Menendez family got a Mercedes and gold bars and everything else. And we got another major former executive of a government in New Jersey, who was basically taking bribes to approve real estate development rights

and other things like that. And public corruption is a big deal. And those that practice, you know, Jack Smith before, before, well years before he worked with you, but when he was in with the feds, he worked in public corruption. And that's usually a ticket for advancement within the Department of Justice.

I don't know about the Manhattan DA's office, but the public corruption unit, and those that headed, that puts you on the kind of the glide path for a lot of success if you're talented as both a frontline line prosecutor, the way that Jack Smith is, and as a sort of administrator and somebody that can put teams together

and make them work efficiently. And you were both of those things, of course, when you were at the Manhattan DA's office, as was Cy Vance, who's gonna be your guest this week on Mistrial. Yes, he is. Karen Freeman, Nick Niflo, and Donya Berry, Kathleen Rice. So and people always ask, how do we support.

Progressive pro-democracy legal shows that are happen to be on the Minus Touch Network or on the Minus Touch Network, not by accident. And there's lots of different ways. One of them is we have different shows and ways that we contribute. I love doing hot takes. Karen developed a new podcast and support us there.

Watch us on those things, chat, thumbs up, comments, follow us wherever we go within the network. That's helpful. Karen writes a lot, for instance, on the Midas Touch website. I do less writing and more hot takes. We all do things that we're comfortable with and in our ways and our unique ways of contributing. Watching the show, being in here, we have a loyal audience. It's amazing. It's grown. We get anywhere between 14,000 and 20,000 just watching us do the podcast.

And then, of course, watching the episode. We do it here, Midas Touch, free subscribe, help them get to their 3 million number before the November election. We're building this network with our own hands, as we like to say. No outside investors. Nobody censors us. They couldn't censor. They don't know what I'm going to say. They don't know what Karen's going censor, they don't know what I'm gonna say.

They don't know what Karen's gonna, I don't even know what I'm gonna say at any given moment. So they couldn't possibly censor us, but we're unplugged, we're unfiltered, we're unhinged sometimes, but we're here. And we're doing our best on this network. So we also have the audio version. Some people don't even, some people on the audio version Don't know we have a video version and vice versa

I've been told that by by Brett and others on the network They're like simple even though we have a live version on YouTube We have a live version on YouTube and some people like to receive their information that way and I get it Some people know I'm in a car. I can't watch things, but I'm a podcaster So we're on every major podcast platform out there Very easy to find any of the podcasts that we've talked about and you can go back and forth and you can subscribe I can't watch things, but I'm a podcaster. So we're on every major podcast platform out there. Very easy to find any of the podcasts that we've talked about.

And you can go back and forth and you can subscribe. It's all free and like all of that. We've got sponsors. And it's not just like listening to the sponsors. If you're interested in the products and we support them and we try them and we talk about them, then we've always arranged and negotiated some great deals to give you the opportunity

to get these products. And that of course helps us, as you can imagine, it's a circle of life. We have sponsors, they sell products, they come back, and we're able to keep this whole thing going because we don't have any outside investors. And then we've got a Patreon that Ben and I created where we're sort of at the intersection

of law and politics and we're doing the law part for people that want to geek out and nerd out on the law but non-lawyers, although we've got a fair amount of lawyers that are on there too, or people that wanted to go to law school and all of that. And we do videos weekly, we do duets, we just did an hour long live chat Zoom, Ben and me, where you got to ask questions and we answered them in real time. And that was amazing. And then we do tutorials. Ben just did one on the Supreme Court. He's going to do two more versions of that. I've done it on procedural and constitutional, criminal and civil issues from a practitioner standpoint. But again, the target audience is the same as our target audience for this podcast, which is just really smart, educated, interested, invested people.

You don't need a legal background, although we do have, it's amazing, we do have a fair amount of lawyers that do like the show. So that's patreon.com, slash legal AF, patreon.com, slash legal AF. And if you come in at any level, the entry level is membership or yeah, it's $10 a month and you'll get a lot of, I promise you, you'll get a lot of value from that. We had about 58 videos already up there that we've developed over the last several months, patreon.com, legal AF. And then we've got a store where you can fly the flag of legal AFAFstore.mitustouch.com with for all our latest gear,

t-shirts that partially was designed by Karen Friedman-Niffalo and all different shapes and sizes there and colors. And that's another way to support the show. So sometimes our personal life bleeds in to the show and Karen's had some amazing events that have happened over the last year. This is now with Francesca.

We figured out, I was talking to Jordy earlier today, this will be, but when Ben has his baby and three with his lovely wife Sochi in about three months, it will be the third Midas baby in 2024. Amazing. Jordi went first, then me, and then Ben. Boom, boom, boom. The love and support that we have has made all of it possible. Karen's had some amazing events in her life, and we've all had some bad events that have

happened during the year. We feel like we're honest with our audience, we're authentic with our audience, and we're going to share with you where we are, when we are. And we might be in amazing moods, we may be covering up something else in our life that we, but this keeps us going. And there's a reason I got permission to come on the show tonight from my wife, who's just that right next door, because it matters and it's meaningful and I wanna be here and I know Karen

has gone through heaven and earth and been in places you guys didn't even know that she was doing the show from. And it's just a level of commitment and professionalism that I think is unparalleled on YouTube. But we do it for the legal efforts and the mightest mighty, right Karen? Absolutely, absolutely. There's nothing more important and nothing more worth it than being able to be here and

just that the people are here and want to hear what we have to say and people are listening and it's also building knowledge and building information and I love when you talk I sit here and I read the chats and just see how engaged people are and And just they're really, really just, it's, it's the thing that keeps us going. I know it keeps me going. Before we sign off, I just want to, I just want to point out one really quick thing, if you don't mind. The Menendez case that you just talked about, Bob Menendez, the reason we get so frustrated about how Donald Trump is being treated differently than everybody else. I think Bob Menendez. The reason we get so frustrated about how Donald Trump is being treated differently than everybody else, I think Bob Menendez is a perfect example of that. He was arrested and charged,

I think, six months ago. Okay, literally, but six months before his trial started. That's how things normally go. Things don't normally, what the Judge Cannon is doing, for example, and what the Supreme Court is doing to bend over backwards for Donald Trump is just astounding. It's unprecedented and it's lawless. And I just want to just point out the contrast that the way that case is going and the fact that it's already on trial, it's nothing more complicated about Donald Trump's cases. He is correct when he says he's being treated differently than everybody else. It is true, but not in the way he means. He is being treated differently in that he is given, people are bending over backwards for him so that he is not held accountable. I just want to point that out because that shocks me. And how about Hunter Biden? Hunter Biden's indictment to trial was under eight months. Exactly. And he's got another trial. He's not even done, the poor guy. I mean, talk about getting hit with both ends of the stick. He's got another trial in California

that's even worse than this one in terms of what he's facing in terms of sentencing if he gets convicted. That one's tax related, millions of dollars of tax issues he's got. And that one's going to trial before a year is up. That is, like you said, Donald Trump likes to say there's a two-tier system of government. He's right, but in his favor, not the other way around. Not the other way around. And these are just two examples of that that are just right before everyone's eyes. They don't have to take our word for it. And that's why we get so frustrated and get so annoyed at what's going on. So I just wanted to point that out. Tune into Miss Trial with Cy V Vance, special guest on the edition of

Mistrial that's this week. And then join Ben and me on Saturday where we're going to wrap up with whatever happened at the Supreme Court between this show and Saturday, just as we had planned, and then anticipate kind of future things as well on the Saturday edition of Legal AF. But until then, I hate to end the show tonight, but we got to. Shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal AFers.