0:01

Has it only been a week? This

0:04

is the midweek edition of

0:06

Legal AF. We do it

0:08

one place on the Midas

0:10

Touch network exclusively. And

0:12

we got to talk about at least three major

0:14

topics today that will take up the bulk of

0:17

our time, along with anything else that my esteemed

0:19

colleague and I, Karen Freeman-Ickdiflow, can come up with

0:21

one. We're going to talk about

0:23

Judge Mershan, who is, you know, who's going to

0:26

have to make a solemn monic decision soon about

0:29

whether and how to sentence

0:31

Donald Trump for a 34-count felony

0:33

conviction related to business record fraud

0:35

in the state of New York. And

0:38

in the interim, as we expected, he

0:40

made a major decision about the gag

0:43

order, the double gag order, in

0:45

advance of the debate. And

0:47

we have his five-page ruling, which I thought,

0:50

again, was solemn monic and

0:52

mature in how he handled it. Exactly

0:55

the opposite of what

0:57

MAGA and the world of

0:59

MAGA tells their listeners and followers

1:01

is the judge's temperament. And

1:04

we're going to break it all down, and

1:06

then we're going to find out as Karen

1:08

and I debate this, whether she's on the

1:11

Norm Eisen School of Sentencing, or she's on

1:13

My World or something in between. And

1:15

that's what always makes for a great

1:18

podcast. So we'll do all things Judge

1:20

Mershan. Then we got Judge Cannon. Judge

1:22

Cannon went from-she's like

1:25

a crocodile in the

1:27

Everglades as you're riding by

1:29

or an alligator. And they're

1:31

just really sleepy until they reach

1:33

up and bite your leg off. And

1:35

she went from sleepy to really aggressive

1:38

in both scheduling hearings.

1:41

She just had round two of another

1:44

half-day hearing in Fort Pierce. And she

1:47

is-yes, she's giving as good as she can

1:49

get. And she's taken

1:51

on Emil Bove, fresh off his

1:53

34-count conviction of his client in

1:56

New York, arguing for the Trump

1:58

side. and

2:02

taking on a couple of different

2:04

prosecutors. But it's become like canon

2:08

versus the prosecutors, which

2:10

is never a good place. And I wanna hear

2:12

Karen's opinion, of course, but I've been in a

2:14

situation where I've thought, and I won't name names,

2:17

I've thought the judge was

2:19

a little off-kilter and not making good

2:21

decisions and maybe not even that bright, but

2:23

you can't let the judge know it. And

2:26

we're gonna talk about the demeanor

2:28

of some of the prosecutors who

2:30

have gotten sideways with Judge Cannon

2:32

and whether that's a good thing,

2:35

a bad thing, or a neutral, agnostic

2:37

thing, as she decides whether she's gonna

2:39

suppress all of the evidence that

2:41

was obtained during the search

2:43

warrant execution, because maybe the search warrant

2:45

was faulty. The execution

2:47

was faulty, the chain of custody was

2:49

faulty. I mean, you name it, Donald

2:51

Trump's throwing everything at the wall to

2:54

see if anything will stick. Is she

2:56

buying any of that argument? Is she

2:58

buying any of the argument that was

3:00

done the other day about whether the

3:03

independent, well, he's not independent, the special

3:05

counsel is too independent from the Department

3:07

of Justice, that's a new one, and

3:10

therefore, and his funding is not properly

3:12

supervised by Congress, and therefore, the judge

3:14

should just pull the plug on

3:17

the special counsel and find that he

3:19

was improperly delegated to his authority and

3:21

his funding. We'll talk about

3:23

all of that. And then it's

3:26

drop day for the United States Supreme

3:28

Court. They're spoon-feeding us

3:30

their decisions as they hold back

3:33

the two that we're waiting on, which

3:35

is the immunity, whether Donald Trump has

3:37

it or not, for any aspect of

3:39

the Jan 6th insurrection or his attempt

3:41

to cling to power, and whether he's

3:43

gonna be charged with four counts or

3:45

two counts, or along with 300 other

3:48

Jan 6 defendants. We've got

3:51

some idea from some decisions rendered

3:53

by somebody like Gorsuch about

3:56

what might be coming, but more importantly, instead

3:58

of getting those decisions, got

4:00

one that's another screw

4:03

up by acknowledged by the United States

4:05

Supreme Court in accidentally

4:07

posting a ruling, this one turned

4:10

out to be decent, about abortion

4:12

and EMTALA, the Emergency Medical and

4:14

Labor Procedures Act thing, about

4:18

whether it overrides in

4:21

Idaho what looks

4:23

to be an absolute ban on abortion

4:25

or not. We've got an accidental posting

4:27

of the decision almost to the day

4:30

of the DOBS decision, which had

4:35

itself had been leaked several months earlier,

4:37

which took away a woman's right to

4:39

choose. What is it with

4:41

this court and abortion and its

4:43

IT department? We're just going

4:45

to have to talk about what the

4:47

ruling is there, which seems

4:50

to be actually a decent ruling for

4:52

once and a weird combination of

4:55

Supreme Court justices joining together. Some

4:58

other decisions that have come out in favor of the

5:00

Biden administration, including the one in

5:03

which lower courts had said,

5:05

oh, the Biden administration was

5:07

pressuring social media companies to

5:09

deplatform people and to deplatform

5:12

unfavorable viewpoint, first amendment expression

5:15

and the Supreme Court, including a

5:17

grouping here again of liberals

5:20

joining with right wing MAGA to

5:22

give a win to the Biden

5:24

administration. We'll talk about that

5:26

as well. I want to hear Karen's

5:29

view. We're seeing some

5:31

of the Supreme Court justices sort of

5:33

right on time starting to spread their

5:36

wings and I'm looking at you, Amy

5:38

Coney Barrett, because all of a sudden

5:40

she went from, well, she doesn't participate

5:42

much in oral arguments and she's rarely

5:44

in a dissent. All of a sudden

5:46

she is, this term in the last

5:49

gasp of the term is

5:51

coming into her own good, bad or indifferent. We'll talk

5:53

about what that means. It's about right. It

5:55

usually takes a Supreme Court justice a number of

5:57

years, unless you're Kenton G Brown Jackson. where

6:00

she like day one was active, right in

6:02

dissents and concurrences, but most of them wait

6:04

two or three years and we're going to

6:06

talk about what we may be seeing with

6:08

Amy Coney Barrett and what we may be

6:10

seeing with Gorsuch and what it

6:13

means for the future of decision making on

6:15

the United States Supreme Court. But

6:18

that's what we're doing midweek and then later

6:20

at the end of the week, Ben and

6:22

I will pick up with the rest of

6:24

the dribs and drabs release of the United

6:27

States Supreme Court decisions and we may have

6:29

a filing which I think is due in

6:31

the sentencing issue related to Judge Rashad will

6:33

pick up all that on Saturday. But Karen,

6:36

wow, just three topics picking

6:39

up, you know, just this is why

6:41

we this is why we do the midweek. You

6:43

know, Ben and I used to do like 12 or

6:46

14 topics and it was like it's

6:48

too much. We need help

6:51

and we need another great person

6:53

on this network. Oh, look, there

6:55

she is. Karen, there she

6:57

is. Talk

7:00

about bearing the lead. Okay. Yes,

7:02

these are all great things that

7:04

are happening, but even much

7:06

bigger than all of that is you are 48

7:08

hours into being big poppy. Your daddy.

7:16

There's Francesca. We had a baby on

7:18

Monday. We

7:20

brought a little girl into this world,

7:22

which we are. I can't even tell

7:24

you. I'm going to cry during this

7:26

podcast. Oh, there's our release today. That

7:29

was today from a shout out to

7:31

Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital up

7:33

in up in the Heights up in

7:35

in Fort Washington. What an amazing group

7:37

of people and dedicated health

7:40

care providers and nurses, doctors

7:42

and staff. I mean, it was just and

7:45

I mean, it was our first

7:47

experience, but an amazing experience. Thanks

7:49

for thanks for letting me show

7:51

Francesca Madeline Popock. I

7:54

know somebody wrote in one of the social media

7:56

posts. Why didn't you call her like something like

7:58

AF like Anna Francesca? like nah, we're not going

8:01

that far. I love

8:03

the network. It's just, she's so beautiful

8:05

and you have such a beautiful

8:07

family. And the fact that you're

8:09

here today after just this just

8:11

happening less than 48 hours ago

8:14

or about 48 hours ago is just a

8:16

testament to you and your

8:18

beautiful wife and your beautiful daughter and

8:21

just welcome Francesca to the family. And

8:23

from now on, you're gonna be big

8:25

poppy to me. Yeah,

8:27

and you're aunt KFA. You've been

8:29

tremendously loving and supportive and appreciative

8:32

and it's been a big help with my,

8:34

from the beginning, we won't

8:36

go into those details about

8:38

it all and they're all paying dividends. Now I

8:40

had one funny intersection,

8:43

not of law and politics, but of

8:46

labor, the labor, the

8:48

birth of the daughter and the show. So

8:51

we're with this great

8:54

Cathy, shout out to Cathy. We had a great

8:56

doctor, Dr. Fiorelli, love her. And

9:00

our birthing nurse was a woman who

9:02

was a traveling nurse from Chicago area

9:05

who had retired and then became a traveling

9:07

nurse, effectively to travel, but she had

9:09

been a professor of nursing and all that. So this was

9:11

like the creme de

9:13

la creme of a nurse. And she,

9:16

like just moments before,

9:18

we're about to go into the push

9:20

phase. She said, oh, your

9:23

wife told me about your show. I'm

9:25

sure my husband who, you know, listens

9:28

to all these YouTube things, what's the name of your

9:31

show? And like during a break in the action, she

9:33

actually phoned her husband and she, and

9:35

he's like, which one is it Ben or Michael? She

9:38

said, it's Michael. Oh my God. I know,

9:40

you know, it was just a weird moment.

9:43

And then it was like, okay, let's

9:45

start pushing. But

9:48

we're here now. All

9:51

right, so listen, let's

9:54

jump right in that I really appreciate and

9:56

I appreciate everybody in the legal life world

9:58

and the Midas touch world. who

10:00

have been so overwhelmingly loving and supportive

10:02

of it. We're not going to make

10:04

the whole podcast about this, but I

10:06

do appreciate it. But how can I

10:08

miss a show? I joked with Ben

10:10

on Saturday that like my daughter already

10:12

has exquisite timing arriving after Saturday and

10:14

before Wednesday. And then I can't like

10:16

not show up. So here we are.

10:18

And I do have a supportive wife.

10:21

All right. Let's talk about Judge Rashawn, your

10:23

old stomping grounds, the Manhattan DA. And it

10:25

basically came down. Let's do the gag order

10:27

first. It basically came down to those

10:30

three components of the gag order. One

10:32

was about jurors. Don't go

10:34

after jurors. It seems ridiculous that we

10:36

have to have a gag order that

10:38

says that. Don't go after jurors. Don't

10:40

go after certain elements of the criminal

10:42

justice system. The judge's

10:44

staff, but not the judge

10:47

and family. The DA's the

10:49

lawyers working for the DA's office on

10:52

the case, but not the actual Manhattan

10:54

DA. This was very, very surgically made

10:56

and created by the judge. And

11:01

that's two. What's the third one, Karen? Two

11:03

is Judge, jury. I mean, we

11:05

said we did jurors. We did the

11:08

oh, the judge and the staff and

11:10

the family members and

11:12

family members. Right. And so the witness

11:14

and witness. Right. All right. Oh,

11:16

thank you. That was the major one that

11:18

was missing. Sorry, that's where the brain I

11:21

do already have baby brain and witnesses in

11:23

the case. You know, the case is over,

11:25

but Donald Trump is now a convicted felon.

11:27

And there's appeals and they're still sentencing. And

11:29

so there's still some need for a gag

11:31

order. Your old office pushed for, yeah, we're

11:34

all right with not going out. I think

11:36

they were OK with the the

11:39

witnesses, right? Yes,

11:42

yeah, they were fine. They were fine with the

11:44

witnesses. I mean, look, the law, the law. Take

11:46

it from there. Go over what they were OK with and

11:49

then what the judge ultimately did. And I can read a

11:51

little bit from the order to. Yeah,

11:53

so so look, they

11:55

had to follow the law and

11:57

the law clearly shows that it's

11:59

about protecting. the integrity of the

12:01

proceeding. And the proceeding is

12:03

over with respect to the witnesses and the

12:05

jurors. And the judge was clearly pained by

12:08

this. He did not want to have to

12:10

lift it with respect to the jurors, but

12:12

he felt he had no choice given the

12:14

fact that the trial and the part about

12:16

protecting the integrity of the

12:19

proceedings are over. But he did say

12:21

that there's still a sentencing. And so

12:23

that part when it comes to staff

12:26

and family members and prosecutors who are

12:28

not the Manhattan DA and who's not

12:30

Judge Marchand, that's fair game. And so

12:33

for, you know, for that, that can

12:35

still remain as a gag order. So

12:37

he had to lift it as to

12:40

the jurors and the, and

12:42

the witnesses. So, so Michael

12:44

Cohen, Stormy Daniels, and,

12:48

and, and, you know, he was, you

12:50

could tell he was reticent about the

12:52

jurors and having to lift it, you

12:54

know, with respect to them because of

12:56

the law. He said, he said it

12:59

would be this, this court's strong

13:01

preference to extend those protections, but he

13:04

felt the law required him to drop

13:06

the restrictions. So you could tell he

13:08

was conflicted about the juror

13:11

part of it. But, you know, the witnesses,

13:13

he's always said that because Michael Cohen is

13:15

so vocal about speaking about Donald

13:17

Trump, that, that that could be an area

13:20

where he would lift the gag order and

13:22

now that he's no longer a witness. And,

13:24

and Stormy Daniels, her response to, to this

13:27

was quite dignified. I have to say, and

13:29

really lovely, where she just basically said, I

13:31

respect the judge, I respect the process. And

13:34

it is what it is. You know,

13:36

she, she, she wasn't, for example, coming out and

13:38

calling him names the way he calls her names

13:41

like horse face, but so

13:43

that's where we are. And the gag order

13:45

will remain as to the prosecutors and their

13:47

families and the, and the court staff until

13:50

the sentencing July 11th. This

13:52

one's going to have an on that one. This one's going to

13:54

have an impact, not just on the debate now

13:56

that Donald Trump is freed up within those

13:58

limits. have an impact on

14:01

what and we'll talk about it next, but

14:03

I'll just tease it in Mar-a-Lago

14:05

because the

14:08

government, the Department of Justice is arguing that

14:11

Donald Trump's arguments that the FBI

14:13

was trying to assassinate Donald Trump

14:16

because they properly brought their

14:18

guns with them to Mar-a-Lago while Donald Trump

14:20

was in New Jersey. That

14:24

actually put a target on the back of the FBI

14:27

and knowing his followers

14:29

and cult followers and the

14:31

violent rhetoric that usually triggers

14:33

something to happen that puts

14:35

people in harm's way. But

14:38

the judge, you know, we're gonna talk

14:40

about it next in the gag order, is not

14:42

only gonna, has asked, you know, for some

14:45

briefing about the gag orders in other places,

14:47

this ruling is gonna put some wind at

14:49

the sale of the Trump people to try

14:51

to convince the judge that they should lift

14:54

the gag order or not impose a gag

14:56

order or further gag order in

14:58

Mar-a-Lago. There's other problems with Mar-a-Lago, but this

15:00

gag order, but it was the right thing to

15:02

do. I mean, the judge, my favorite part

15:04

of the decision and order, the

15:07

DNO, the judge of Michonne just did in

15:09

New York, is in his recitation of how

15:11

we got here, including

15:13

that he, you know, has

15:15

won all the major issues at the appellate

15:17

division, which is his bosses at the appellate

15:19

court, even though Donald Trump and his minions

15:21

like to run around saying, oh, he keeps

15:24

losing at the appellate division, you know, the

15:26

judge keeps getting reversed, he never gets reversed.

15:28

And that has not happened here at all.

15:30

And the judge reminded that of the recitation.

15:32

But then when he gets to the date

15:34

order of things, my favorite part is when,

15:36

and he has to write this, it just,

15:38

but it just, I'm sure drives Donald Trump's

15:41

people up the wall and batty. He says

15:43

on page three on May 30th, 2024, defendant,

15:46

that's it. Defendant was convicted of

15:48

34 counts of falsifying business

15:50

records in the first degree in violation

15:52

of penal law, one 75.10 after

15:55

a trial by jury thereafter, the jury was discharged

15:57

and the case was adjourned to July

15:59

11th. 7-11, very unlucky

16:02

date for Donald Trump for sentencing. He

16:04

has to say it, but anytime you can put Donald Trump in his

16:06

place and remind him that he's just the convict or

16:10

will be soon in a judge convict is

16:12

great for me. And the judge did exactly

16:14

what you would expect, a proper

16:17

sober, as you said, applying the law

16:19

type of judge to do, which

16:21

totally turns on its head all of the counter arguments by

16:27

the minions that he's, oh, he, you know,

16:29

if I hear Elise Stefanik say this one

16:32

more time, his daughter, his daughter

16:35

works for Democrats. Okay.

16:37

He got sanctioned for, you

16:40

know, this is the house resolution. He got

16:42

sanctioned Judge Marchon because he gave $15 to

16:44

Joe Biden. He

16:46

got a warning letter along with a million other judges

16:49

that they don't, you know, the judicial ethics board doesn't

16:51

like any donations at all. So don't do it again,

16:53

but it was like $15, you

16:56

know, and all this other stuff. There's nothing in

16:59

Judge Marchon's record on

17:01

the bench for over 15 years, his

17:03

prior history as a prosecutor, how he

17:05

handled other cases before he got assigned

17:07

this case, how he handled

17:10

another case involving Donald Trump, the rulings

17:12

that he made as they were affirmed

17:14

by the appellate court that says that

17:16

he is anything other than a judge

17:19

with a proper temperament making appropriate decisions that

17:21

will not be reversed on appeal. It will

17:24

not end up at the United States Supreme

17:26

Court. I mean, we'll talk about that when

17:28

we get to the Supreme Court today, but

17:30

there's a lot of fear mongering because

17:33

it's distracting, because it sucks

17:37

the air out of the room of what

17:39

should be talked about by MAGA right on

17:41

cue when Donald Trump pushes a button that

17:43

the Supreme Court should intervene after

17:45

the conviction. And

17:48

with Congress is asking, MAGA Congress

17:50

is asking, it's not happening. Supreme

17:53

Court is on summer vacation and they're

17:55

not getting back together again to

17:57

talk about a garden variety criminal case about a

17:59

guy who wasn't even. president at the time he

18:01

was convicted. Oh, all right. Let's

18:04

talk about sentencing. Karen, you lead on sentencing.

18:06

Norm Eissen, who's a close friend of yours,

18:08

you've had him on your your I said

18:10

your award winning, it will be your your

18:13

hard hitting,

18:16

rating grabbing, amazing new

18:18

show called Miss Trial. Thank you, salty right

18:21

on click right on click. Thank you. Miss

18:23

trial with you and Donia Perry and Kathleen Rice. Have

18:27

you had you I don't have had them on

18:30

there, but I know you did an interview of

18:32

Norm Eissen. And I know you respect him greatly

18:34

as do I, he's got a whole thing out

18:36

on just security about, you

18:38

know, analyzing all the cases that

18:40

he thinks fall into the bucket

18:42

of a classy felony similar to

18:45

business record fraud. And

18:47

what happened in terms

18:49

of sentencing and jail time, and sort

18:51

of argues that the judge should impose

18:53

jail time. I don't know if that's

18:55

one year, six months, four months, five

18:57

days, but some sort of jail time.

18:59

Where do you fall along the spectrum

19:01

as we as we move into it,

19:03

we're going to see briefing soon, we're

19:05

going to know what the probation department

19:08

is recommended. But where does KFA fall

19:10

on this continuum? You

19:13

know, it's funny, I'm usually very decisive. And

19:15

I'm very clear. And

19:17

I don't change my mind very often when

19:19

it comes to things like this. But I

19:21

have an evolution when it comes to the Donald

19:24

Trump sentencing, I went for a

19:26

period of time where I thought, you know,

19:28

what Donald Trump should get is a some

19:31

kind of it's called the conditional discharge.

19:34

And which means you get certain conditions, it's

19:36

and the conditions I would impose on him,

19:39

in my head, what I thought would be

19:41

some sort of community service, like picking up

19:43

trash on the subway, because a

19:46

fine doesn't mean anything to him. probation

19:49

would do nothing for him. And so that's what

19:51

I'd want to see him do, I'd want to

19:53

see him do something that's really not fun for

19:55

him, like maybe 100 hours or 500 hours or

19:59

something like that of of community

20:01

service. So that's what I originally

20:03

thought because probation makes no sense

20:05

supervising him where he shows up

20:07

at a kiosk and all

20:09

the probation things made no sense. And

20:11

I didn't think logistically Jill, how would that

20:14

work? And so as a result, I kind

20:16

of, I defaulted to this

20:18

community service. But then when Norm Eisen

20:20

who did a study of

20:24

every single case of

20:27

class E felony falsifying business records, he

20:29

surveyed the state because this is not

20:31

unlike what Donald Trump likes to say

20:33

that this never been done before,

20:35

never been charged before, first time, no

20:39

one's ever seen anything like it. He

20:42

makes these ridiculous pronouncements. And that's

20:45

actually not true. Falsifying business

20:47

records in the first degree is

20:49

a very common charge that is

20:51

prosecuted regularly. And it's

20:54

a classy felony, which means there's a wide

20:56

range of sentencing options for a judge on

20:58

the low end. It could be nothing, it

21:00

could be probation, it could be a conditional

21:03

discharge, as I said. And

21:06

on the high end, it could be an indeterminate

21:08

sentence of one and a third to four years,

21:10

which means he can serve up to four years

21:13

per charge and they could run

21:15

consecutive. They would all eventually merge

21:17

to 20 years total as the

21:19

total he could do. But

21:21

he did a survey of all

21:24

of the cases in New York State because

21:26

there are a lot where this is the

21:29

charge and looked at similarly

21:31

situated defendants. And when you look at

21:34

people who have been sentenced to prison, which is

21:36

somewhere between, I'd say, 10

21:39

and 30% of the

21:41

people, of the individuals who

21:43

are charged with this exact crime. So the

21:45

vast majority do not get jail, right? Or

21:48

do not get prison, they get something less

21:50

of that. But there's around 25% who do.

21:54

And the question is, who are those people

21:57

and why do they get jail time? And

21:59

when you... look at those cases

22:01

and you see who actually

22:03

has received jail as a

22:05

sentence, there is no

22:08

doubt in my mind that Donald Trump deserves

22:10

prison, okay? He deserves it and he deserves

22:12

it in spades. Again, if you're going to

22:14

treat him like everybody else, if you're going

22:16

to treat him like somebody who

22:18

committed the crimes that he committed that

22:22

was convicted of 34 counts of

22:25

trying to steal an election, right? That's

22:27

what the jury had to find beyond

22:29

a reasonable doubt. That was one of

22:31

the elements of the crime. The means

22:33

and methods of how they did it

22:35

is what they could differ on, right?

22:37

It could be through the

22:39

three different charges. It could be through state election

22:42

crimes. It could be through federal

22:44

election crimes. It could be through

22:46

falsifying business records. It could be

22:48

through tax methods. Like the

22:51

means and methods is what he said is

22:53

what the law allows you to have a

22:55

general criminal intent. But here you had to

22:57

have it for an unlawful purpose. And

23:00

here they had to find beyond a reasonable

23:03

doubt that it was election interference. And so

23:05

because that is what they did and

23:08

because that was a requirement here and

23:10

that's what the jury found, how

23:13

does it get any more serious than that? Because

23:15

guess what? He stole it. He

23:17

won by what, 80,000 votes

23:19

in three swing states. What if this

23:21

was the thing that got him to

23:24

win that election

23:27

in 2016? If

23:29

that's the case, it doesn't get more

23:31

serious than that. He's the guy who

23:34

does deserve the prison time. And that's

23:36

why we are all bending over backwards

23:38

to try to come up with some

23:40

other sentence for him. He should get

23:42

prison without a doubt. It is as

23:44

serious as it gets. He's convicted a

23:47

full slate, 34 counts.

23:50

And on top of that, he was held in contempt

23:52

10 times for violating

23:54

this judge's orders 10 times.

23:57

I've never in 30 years of prosecuting. had

23:59

a defendant held in contempt. It's not a common

24:01

thing. This is not something that judges do every

24:03

day. In fact, I was talking to a retired

24:06

judge friend of mine today who told me

24:08

in all his years on the bench, and he

24:10

was on the bench for decades, he

24:13

has never held someone in contempt. It

24:16

is not a common thing. This is a

24:18

defendant who just

24:20

blatantly violates the law. The rules don't

24:22

apply to him. He's convicted by a

24:25

jury that he chose, okay? He

24:29

was adjudicated a rapist by

24:31

Judge Kaplan and

24:33

a jury in that court. He

24:35

was adjudicated a fraud to

24:37

committed business fraud in state

24:39

court in Judge Angoron's courtroom.

24:43

This is a man who has a

24:45

record like no other. And

24:47

as far as I'm concerned, if I was a judge

24:49

and he stood before me, I

24:51

would sentence him to the maximum.

24:54

However, it's called stay the sentence.

24:56

I would press pause on the

24:58

sentence pending appeal. And

25:00

I would say, because look, it's

25:03

a reality that there's an election and

25:05

it is what it is. And there's

25:07

something called federalism and

25:10

there's a federal election and

25:13

article to dictate the

25:15

presidency. And I'm not sure state court, I'm

25:17

not sure a state judge can sentence, can

25:20

put him in jail if he wins the

25:22

election and becomes president. And

25:24

so I do think I would

25:26

stay, there are some

25:28

appellate issues. I don't think he'll win, but there are.

25:30

So I would stay the sentence pending appeal. If he

25:32

wins, it is what it is. If he loses, guess

25:34

what? Bring your toothbrush, you're going

25:37

in. I agree with you.

25:39

It's sort of similar to what I've said before.

25:41

I think he's gonna impose some sort of incarceration,

25:43

maybe have these other components to it. He's gonna

25:45

suspend it or hold it in advance until the

25:48

appeal is over, which will get

25:50

him over the November election. So he's not

25:52

gonna be able to be legitimately accused of

25:54

election interference. I

25:56

don't know, I've always thought it was somewhere between six

25:58

months and a year. and

26:02

how they do it, whether it's home confinement,

26:07

an army base, something

26:09

that's constructed uniquely for

26:11

him because the Secret Service has

26:13

to be by his side. But

26:16

I don't think he's gonna give him a

26:18

pass. Well, I would normally, anybody that got

26:20

convicted of 34 felony counts with the record

26:23

this guy had and 10 violations

26:25

of my gag order, I

26:27

would just let him walk out the front door. I mean,

26:29

that's not what Norm Eisen's research says. He

26:31

wouldn't do that. And

26:33

I don't think it falls into that continuum

26:36

of the ones that Norm had that

26:38

listed like one day in jail, five days in

26:40

jail. I think it's

26:42

further down. You know, like the

26:45

female executive that stole $50,000 from

26:48

her employer and then

26:50

falsified an invoice as a result got like five

26:54

months or a year. I mean,

26:56

if that's the standard, or

27:00

the exemplar, I think he should get a

27:02

year or more, even

27:04

as a first time offender, but do all the other things

27:06

that you just said. If

27:09

he doesn't have to report or

27:11

it's abated until the

27:13

appeal process, which we could take over

27:15

a year in New York, it's not

27:18

gonna be expedited. And if everything goes

27:20

the way we think it's gonna go, he's gonna be

27:22

a two time loser for the office. He's not gonna

27:24

win in November and

27:26

he's gonna shrink back down to size

27:29

as a guy who lost twice after

27:32

serving one term as president,

27:34

having been twice impeached, 51

27:36

times convicted and a

27:39

judge to be a sex offender. And he'll hopefully

27:41

crawl back under the rock that

27:43

he crawled out under and go be a Florida

27:45

man, not our Florida man, not

27:48

the Florida lawyer guy. I

27:51

think that's just what's gonna happen. It's gonna be

27:53

the incredible shrinking Donald Trump because

27:56

he's gonna lose and that's

27:58

gonna be it. I mean, the MAGA movie. will

28:00

live on, unfortunately, as will

28:02

all of his handiwork, all

28:05

the devils play things related

28:07

to his Supreme Court and all of

28:09

that. But I agree

28:12

with you on that. So

28:14

why don't we, we're going to talk about Mar-a-Lago and

28:16

what some of the rulings, you know, it's like a

28:18

cascade effect with some of the rulings

28:21

that are being made by Judge Rashawn, how

28:23

they're getting picked up down at Mar-a-Lago with

28:25

Judge Cannon, who's holding her own bizarre hearings

28:27

with, again, just to remind everybody, or for

28:29

those that are new to this, she has

28:31

not set a trial. She's

28:34

just cogitating and analyzing

28:36

her navel and all

28:38

sorts of things, but she's not getting a

28:40

case on the docket for trial, which is

28:42

what really matters in

28:44

terms of our public justice system. And we'll talk about

28:46

how the Supreme Court is spoon-feeding

28:49

us the remainder of

28:51

the last 12 decisions until

28:54

they give us, apparently, on the

28:57

very last day of when, in July, before they

28:59

go off on summer vacation, they're going to tell

29:01

us what we really want

29:03

to hear is whether Donald Trump's D.C. election interference

29:05

case in front of Judge Jutkin has a snowball's

29:07

chance in hell of getting back up before the

29:10

election or not. I mean, yes, they

29:13

have to issue these other decisions, but like,

29:16

you know, and God forbid when we get an IT mistake,

29:19

apparently, and they posted early a decision

29:21

about abortion and reproductive rights, why can't

29:23

they do that for the immunity decision?

29:25

Although I'm almost not want to see

29:27

the immunity decision. We'll talk about all

29:30

of that and so much more with

29:32

Karen Freeman, Nick Fiello and me, Michael

29:34

Popock, in the Midweek Edition of Legal

29:37

AF. But we've got a great group

29:39

of curated sponsors that Jordy

29:41

and the Midas Brothers helped put together for our

29:43

network and for our show in particular. And now

29:46

we've got to take a break so

29:48

they can support our pro-democracy movement. Many

29:50

people are surprised to find out that I'm

29:52

57, almost 58, and

29:55

that I'm a grandmother. That's why I

29:57

love this product one

29:59

ski. This is something I use

30:01

on my face every single day

30:04

and it makes me look younger. I think

30:06

that's why people think that I'm younger than

30:08

I actually am. Super easy to

30:10

use. You just use it with any of

30:13

your other skincare products in your skincare routine. And

30:17

if you're like me, especially this time of

30:19

year, you always wear sunscreen on your face.

30:21

And this product, One

30:24

Skin has a sunscreen that I

30:26

use every single day to help

30:29

protect my skin. But it also

30:31

helps nourish my skin and repair

30:33

my skin with this

30:35

OS-1 that they have, this specially

30:38

designed ingredient. So I love it.

30:40

It also, you use it on

30:42

your neck area and

30:45

it gives you lots of protection,

30:48

three different types in fact,

30:50

from their non-nano zinc oxide,

30:52

their potent antioxidants and their

30:54

OS-1 peptide, which is the

30:57

ultimate defense against UV exposure,

30:59

college and loss and cellular

31:01

aging. So I love, I absolutely

31:04

love, I love One Skin. And

31:08

what really makes the OS-1

31:11

incredible is it's not just

31:13

sunscreen, but it really is

31:15

scientifically proved to switch off the aging

31:17

cells that cause lines, wrinkles and thinning

31:19

skin. They also have a

31:21

full body product with sunscreen that you can use.

31:24

And so it can help also the rest

31:27

of your body, not just your face. So

31:30

I've been using this regimen for a while

31:32

now, including the facial sunscreen. And I'm really

31:34

hooked. Don't just take my word for it.

31:37

It has over 8,000 five

31:39

star reviews, was recently recognized by

31:41

fast companies, one of the most innovative

31:44

brands of 2022. And my mother noticed.

31:47

And if my mother notices, it must be

31:49

true. She's actually said to me,

31:51

what are you doing to your skin? It looks so good.

31:54

So for a limited time, you'll get an exclusive 15% off

31:57

your first one skin purchase

31:59

using the code LEATHY. AF

32:01

when you check out at

32:03

onescin.co. Try onescin today

32:06

to get this trifecta

32:08

of protection for nourished

32:10

blowing skin. That's onescin.co

32:12

and put legal AF

32:14

in as a promo

32:16

code when you check

32:19

out. It's the world's first skin longevity

32:21

company. So by focusing on the

32:24

cellular aspects of aging onescin keeps your skin

32:26

looking and acting younger for longer. Get started

32:28

today with 15% off

32:30

using code legal AF at

32:33

onescin.co. That's 15% off

32:35

onescin.co with code legal AF after

32:37

your purchase. They ask you where

32:40

you heard about this. Please support

32:42

this show and tell them we

32:44

sent you proper sleep can increase

32:46

focus, boost energy and improve your

32:48

mood. Introducing beams dream powder, a

32:51

science backed healthy hot cocoa for sleep. If

32:53

you know me, you know that dream has

32:55

been a game changer for my sleep and

32:57

boy do I need sleep these days. I

33:00

drink beams dream powder each night in order

33:02

to get my optimal sleep. And

33:04

I got to say I wouldn't be

33:06

recommending this if it didn't actually help

33:08

me. And today my listeners get a

33:11

special discount of beams dream powder. There's

33:13

science backed healthy hot cocoa for sleep

33:15

with no added sugar. Better

33:17

sleep has never tasted better. Now

33:20

available in delicious flavors like chocolate peanut

33:22

butter, cinnamon, cocoa and sea salt caramel

33:25

with only 15 calories

33:27

and zero grams of sugar. Other

33:29

sleep aids can cause next day

33:32

grogginess. But dream contains a powerful

33:34

all natural blend of reishi magnesium,

33:36

L theanine melatonin and nano CBD

33:39

to help you fall asleep, stay

33:41

asleep and wake up refreshed. The

33:44

numbers don't lie in a clinical

33:46

study 93% of participants reported

33:49

dream helped them get better asleep. Beam

33:51

dream is easy to add to your

33:53

nighttime routine. Just mix dream

33:55

into hot water or milk froth and

33:57

enjoy before bed. Find out why Forbes

34:00

and the new New York Times are

34:02

all talking about Beam and why it's

34:04

trusted by the world's top athletes and

34:07

business professionals. If you want to try

34:09

Beam's best selling dream powder, get up

34:11

to 40% off for a limited time

34:14

when you go to shopbeam.com/legal AF and

34:16

use code legal AF at checkout. That

34:18

shop beam.com/legal AF and use code legal

34:21

AF for up to 40% off. You

34:27

better get out that Beam. You better get

34:29

out your Beam dream and get some sleep with... All

34:34

the sponsors products help me one way or

34:36

another. But now

34:38

more than ever, that's all I'm saying. Whereas

34:40

Salty said in our chat, Popox glasses always

34:43

match our sponsors colors. I

34:45

try. I try. And

34:49

for all the people in the

34:51

chat who are demanding more Karen,

34:55

I got great news for you. Besides

34:58

the midweek edition of Legal AF, she has

35:00

a new show. You should go watch

35:02

it. I don't know when it

35:04

is exactly. When is the show going down on

35:06

a weekly basis? You know, usually either Thursday or

35:09

Friday, it's hard to pin us all down. So

35:13

this week we have a really

35:15

special guest and they were only

35:17

available on Friday. So... You

35:19

don't want to tease the guest? It's

35:22

going to be Cy Vance. That's a

35:24

great... That's your old boss. My

35:26

old boss, the former Manhattan DA. So Cy

35:28

Vance said, and we had to do it

35:31

on Friday. So we'll be dropping that

35:33

Friday. On Cy Vance day,

35:35

mistrial for those that love Karen.

35:37

For those that love Karen and me, it's

35:40

the midweek edition of Legal AF. You're

35:42

here right now. Let's talk about Judge

35:44

Cannon in Mar-a-Lago.

35:47

How did she ever get this case? Ben

35:50

and I reported, or we talked about on Saturday,

35:52

you know, the new reporting that's out

35:54

there of the Judge Altenaga, as I

35:56

anticipated, as the Chief Judge made a couple

35:58

of phone calls. over to Cannon

36:00

early on and said, you know, it's not a good look.

36:03

You got reversed twice by the

36:05

11th Circuit, even before the indictment came out. Maybe

36:07

you don't want to handle this case. And

36:09

another judge, which I, if I was a betting man, I

36:11

think is judgmental Brooks and the

36:14

senior judge in West Palm Beach, who

36:16

also said, maybe you want

36:18

to give it to a more seasoned judge. And nope, no,

36:20

I'm going to do it. I'm

36:22

going to handle it. Somebody tried to criticize

36:25

me and say, Pope walk, you can't get your math

36:27

right. She's been a judge longer than

36:29

two years. I didn't say she was a judge for

36:31

two years. I said she had been a judge for

36:33

a short amount of time at the time that the,

36:36

and COVID happened and she had very little trial experience,

36:38

not that she was only, that she's only been

36:40

a judge for two years. I know who appointed

36:42

her. It was Donald Trump. And that was back

36:44

in 2020. However, we're here now. She's

36:48

holding hold head is holding day

36:50

two of her hearings on

36:53

suppression. I'll just map it out and

36:55

then I'll turn it over to our

36:57

resident former prosecutor. You got

36:59

a search warrant, which by the

37:02

way, the last time

37:04

we heard from poor magistrate judge

37:06

Reinhardt in Fort Lauderdale

37:08

was when he issued the search

37:10

warrant. Normally to

37:13

people understand in federal court,

37:15

in criminal practice, the

37:18

magistrate does a lot of heavy

37:20

lifting related to discovery, motion

37:22

practice, things related to the

37:24

search warrant and the like. But I

37:26

don't know if like, because his ruling

37:29

ultimately got upheld by the 11th circuit

37:31

and hers didn't, she put

37:33

him in an ice box and hasn't let

37:35

him out since and makes all,

37:37

and just has just decided it's just so important.

37:39

She's, she is the article three judge is going

37:42

to make all the decisions in the case, which

37:44

is really weird by the way. And, and it,

37:46

and it, and it gets her going

37:48

in the wrong direction, you know,

37:50

and then she has no help from them or the court or

37:52

the court that can help her out in these things. So

37:55

many times when you and I are talking

37:57

about judge Cannon, we should really be talking about magistrate

37:59

judge Reinhardt. We're not. And that's part of

38:01

the problem. And it's frustrating now to the

38:03

prosecutors. Let me just

38:05

give the prosecutor's frustration, get your view

38:07

on that and what's going on with

38:10

the search warrant suppression hearing. So

38:12

you've got all these hearings going on about

38:14

the evidence that was obtained

38:16

by the Department of Justice and the

38:19

Special Counsel, sorry, including

38:21

the 34 documents. That

38:24

seems to be a number that Donald

38:26

Trump has problems with. The 34, 38

38:29

total documents that are

38:33

the top secret classified documents that are at

38:35

the heart of the indictment. And

38:38

the search warrant which was prepared

38:40

by the Department of Justice, ultimately

38:43

signed off by magistrate judge Reinhardt,

38:45

specified where at Mar-a-Lago they had

38:47

reasonable belief, probable cause to believe

38:49

there were documents related to

38:51

a crime located. And

38:54

Emil Boveh, who did an okay job,

38:56

although they lost terribly with Manhattan DAs

38:58

against the Manhattan DA, he's been arguing

39:00

for Trump about, oh my God, they

39:02

went into the personal

39:05

bedroom of Barron and they

39:07

went into all these other

39:09

areas. And it was for the subpoena, the

39:11

search warrant was too broad and you couldn't

39:13

follow it. The judge is like, I don't

39:15

know what you're talking about. And

39:18

Judge Cannon was like, I think this

39:20

was about as reasonably

39:22

articulated as the locations

39:25

as possible. And it seems like they

39:27

colored within the lines when they executed

39:29

on the search warrant. And

39:31

the fact that you're complaining about they looked in

39:33

a bedroom, they didn't find anything there. So there's

39:35

nothing to suppress. In other words, they didn't go

39:37

outside the lines of the

39:39

search warrant and then find things they're

39:42

trying to use here. Even Judge Cannon

39:44

knew that is probably what's required for

39:46

suppression. Oh, we found it under Barron's

39:49

mattress. Okay, well, then we'll have an

39:51

argument and discussion about whether they should have been in

39:53

Barron's room or not. But when you

39:55

tell me they were in other rooms, they didn't find anything.

39:58

That seems like you're barking.

40:00

up the wrong tree even

40:02

for Judge Cannon. And we all know

40:06

here on Legal A.F. and otherwise that they

40:09

found things in weird places you

40:11

wouldn't think because they

40:13

were tipped off that they were there like in

40:15

the ballroom and in the bathroom

40:17

and in dining rooms

40:19

spilling out onto the floor. Well,

40:23

look, I love Salty, found pictures right

40:25

there. I mean, yeah, and as the

40:27

judge even said to Bovee, she

40:30

said it's not like it's a regular like 3,000

40:32

square foot single family house. This

40:34

is like a 50,000 square

40:37

foot resort and

40:40

he's hiding documents everywhere. That was the probable

40:42

cause. So she does, she hasn't issued any

40:44

rulings yet. You know, she's notorious for that.

40:46

She's like, we never have anything. You notice

40:48

when we do segments, we talk about real

40:50

judges that know what they're doing. We throw

40:52

up orders. We never have that really

40:54

with Judge Cannon because we got no order to throw up.

40:57

But we, so we get where she's

40:59

leaning. And then there's

41:03

this back and forth that

41:05

seems to have taken a turn with

41:07

the prosecutors who seem really frustrated with

41:09

her. You know,

41:11

she got into it again, Karen, with

41:14

Jim Hart, with Jim Harbach, who was

41:16

one of the, Dave Harbach was one

41:18

of the lead prosecutors. She's gotten into

41:20

it before with others. She

41:22

called him snippy. She counseled, she

41:25

warned him that he wasn't being,

41:27

he wasn't exercising proper decorum. She

41:29

wasn't treating her properly in the

41:31

courtroom. He was cutting off her

41:34

questions and she went and tolerated

41:36

it. And she basically said at one point, and if

41:38

you can't handle this hearing, there's other

41:40

people on your team that I'm sure can. And he

41:42

kind of woke up on that. But talk about it.

41:45

Have you ever gotten slightly sideways with a judge? But

41:47

talk about where you think she's

41:49

going with suppression and then this sort

41:51

of bad blood that appears to have

41:53

developed between the prosecutors and Judge Cannon,

41:55

whether it matters at all, or whether

41:57

the appellate court's just waiting for a

44:00

What she is doing is she is making, I

44:02

think she's smart. I don't think she's stupid and

44:04

I don't think she's inexperienced. I think she's extremely

44:06

smart and I think she is not ruling

44:10

on things and just holding them in abeyance

44:12

and pushing them out because if you don't

44:14

rule, you can't be appealed. So there's nothing

44:16

Jack Smith can appeal and go

44:19

and try to get her reversed or even get

44:21

her removed off the case. And

44:23

all they're doing is delay, delay,

44:25

delay, postpone, hope that he

44:28

wins the election and then

44:30

you'll see whatever the reward is that

44:33

she is going to get because she

44:35

is clearly auditioning for some other role.

44:37

And I don't say that lightly. I

44:40

don't say that about judges lightly, but

44:42

there is nothing about what she is doing that

44:44

resembles the practice of law as I know it.

44:47

And I say that in the context of what

44:49

you just asked and the questions you're asking because

44:51

she just held three days of hearings

44:54

on things that are head

44:56

scratching, that there should have never been

44:58

a hearing about that have

45:00

no basis remotely

45:03

in the law. It was almost like

45:05

an intellectual exercise. And to answer your

45:07

question, have I ever

45:09

become intemperate in court

45:12

and lost my cool in court?

45:14

It is very rare. Usually

45:17

when you do it, it's deliberate because

45:19

it's a tactic. You

45:22

don't wanna lose control, but

45:24

with Judge Cannon, I can totally

45:27

understand given how she

45:29

has behaved and ruled and conducted

45:31

herself. In this

45:33

case, why the prosecutors

45:35

here would lose their

45:38

mind because unbelievable. I

45:42

mean, just unbelievable. For example,

45:45

we had hearings on whether or

45:47

not the special counsel is appropriate. Just

45:50

the fact that the appointment of a

45:52

special counsel, the special counsel law, the

45:55

fact that this is a law that

45:57

exists, passed by Congress, we've

45:59

had... States

56:00

again. But you know, he

56:02

promised, Bork promised Congress

56:04

that he would appoint a special

56:07

prosecutor. That was the name. There

56:10

was no nothing on the books of the

56:12

DOJ, nothing in the code of federal regulation.

56:14

And the Congress was like, okay, and

56:17

he appointed Leon Jaworski and Leon Jaworski

56:19

ended up prosecuting and convicting a number

56:21

of people in and around Richard Nixon,

56:23

including the then Attorney General and

56:25

he had a budget and the budget came from the Department

56:27

of Justice and nobody said anything about it. And the Supreme

56:29

Court at the time in 1974 said

56:32

recognize the validity of a special prosecutor

56:35

being appointed by the Department of Justice

56:37

and enforced his subpoenas and his subpoena

56:39

power to turn over the now

56:41

infamous Nixon tapes. That was special

56:43

prosecutor, which is sort of sort of a

56:46

version of what we have now, but

56:48

even more informal. And that was fine

56:50

with with the Supreme Court. Then you

56:52

had the independent counsel through Congress, then

56:54

that got removed. And you had the

56:56

creation of the

56:58

special counsel, not prosecutor

57:02

created as it's a creature of

57:04

the Department of Justice. And then

57:06

ultimately the code of federal regulation,

57:08

which is adopted by Congress, and

57:10

we do have the congressional input

57:12

there, which outlines when, when

57:14

a special counsel will be appointed

57:17

or should be appointed by the Attorney

57:19

General and who it answers to, and

57:21

how it answers to it and the

57:23

oversight and then the Attorney General at

57:25

the time has oversight over him by

57:27

the leading ranking members of the House

57:29

and Senate Judiciary Committee about whether he's

57:32

going to accept or reject the

57:34

recommendations of the special

57:37

prosecutors, special counsel and there's funding

57:39

that comes from that. All

57:42

of that is like settled law, as far as

57:44

I'm concerned, received wisdom,

57:46

call it what you will. But as

57:48

you pointed out, Karen, to alien candidates,

57:50

all like this is fascinating. How

57:53

much money this is, this was the

57:55

last term, how much money is being

57:57

spent Mr. Prosecutor on this problem? What

57:59

is to

1:02:00

do this with you every week and

1:02:02

that you give so much time to

1:02:04

everybody is just, it's

1:02:06

fascinating, it is interesting and

1:02:09

I learned so much being with you. So

1:02:12

I'm just being way actually. I

1:02:14

don't take compliments that well,

1:02:16

but I love you at the bottom of

1:02:18

my heart and I really do appreciate that. And

1:02:22

you know how I feel about you. If people

1:02:24

don't know, I

1:02:26

had a choice to do this show with

1:02:28

many, many, many, many people. But

1:02:31

after one deep conversation with Karen leaning

1:02:33

up against the side of a building.

1:02:36

Well, I'm also bossy. Yeah,

1:02:39

no, that wasn't bossy. I didn't boss

1:02:41

me into it. I wanted to do

1:02:43

it. Yeah, I will. I'm just

1:02:45

saying though. Yeah, I appreciate it. I know what

1:02:48

I have, I know what I bring to the

1:02:50

table, but what you have is just, believe

1:02:52

me, it is incredible. That just blows me

1:02:55

away. And you do that a lot about

1:02:57

a lot of different things, not just about

1:02:59

a few things. We got to lean into

1:03:01

our competitive advantages and that's what I got.

1:03:03

And I really, I really do really appreciate

1:03:05

you. Yeah, it's pretty great. So we're gonna

1:03:08

see how much more Popox got to offer

1:03:10

today. We're gonna talk

1:03:12

about what dropped with the United States Supreme

1:03:14

Court and what shouldn't have dropped, but apparently

1:03:16

did to the point where the

1:03:19

actual Supreme Court had

1:03:21

to acknowledge that the

1:03:24

IT department had inadvertently posted

1:03:26

a full blown decision, this

1:03:28

one kind of in favor,

1:03:32

thank God, of reproductive rights and a woman's right

1:03:34

to choose in a way at least, but

1:03:37

should not have been posted today and did. And then

1:03:39

Bloomberg Law or Bloomberg News picked it up and then

1:03:41

you and I get to talk about it. And it's

1:03:43

like eerie. It's almost

1:03:45

to the day of

1:03:47

when the Dobbs decision dropped and you

1:03:50

and I have our own unique connection

1:03:52

to the Dobbs decision because the

1:03:54

day that you and I interviewed, it seems like

1:03:56

a lifetime ago, but it was two years ago,

1:03:59

you and I had. and

1:08:00

use promo code legal AF at checkout

1:08:02

for 50% off, 5-0% off your first

1:08:05

order plus free shipping.

1:08:08

That's the best offer you'll find out there,

1:08:10

but you have to use code legal AF

1:08:12

for 50% off your first order.

1:08:15

So that's promo code

1:08:17

legal AF at smalls.com.

1:08:19

That's plural. s-m-a-l-l-s.com for

1:08:22

50% off when you

1:08:25

insert code legal AF plus free shipping.

1:08:27

If you ever wish you had whiter

1:08:29

and brighter smile, well, before you visit

1:08:31

a dentist, you should know that their

1:08:33

whitening treatments can be very expensive and

1:08:35

it's not just the price. You also

1:08:37

have to book an appointment, schedule the

1:08:39

time away from work or family to

1:08:41

sit in a dentist office chair while

1:08:43

undergoing a procedure. It's hassle. And fortunately,

1:08:45

now you can try smile actives at

1:08:47

home or anywhere, anytime. Smile actives offers

1:08:50

safe and affordable alternatives to those expensive

1:08:52

whitening procedures. I have

1:08:54

had bad experiences with whitening agents. It's made my

1:08:56

teeth feel sensitive. I haven't liked the way it

1:08:58

made me feel. I didn't like the taste, but

1:09:00

smile actives makes a teeth whitening gel that you

1:09:03

can simply add to your toothpaste every time you

1:09:05

brush your teeth. So there's no

1:09:07

change in your routine, no extra time,

1:09:09

no more messy strips, trays or lights.

1:09:11

And it doesn't taste terrible. Simply add

1:09:13

smile actives pro whitening gel to your

1:09:16

regular toothpaste. It's been formulated with poly

1:09:18

clean technology to boost stain removal and

1:09:20

deliver active whitening ingredients into teeth, screws

1:09:22

and crannies and get better whitening. 97%

1:09:24

of smile actives users

1:09:27

in a clinical trial reported up to

1:09:29

six shades whiter on average all within

1:09:31

30 days. Smile

1:09:33

actives is for everyone who's ready to invest in the

1:09:35

next level of self care. Tap into

1:09:37

the personal power that comes from having a bright

1:09:40

smile. I care a lot about my

1:09:42

smile. I take care of my teeth and I

1:09:44

use smile actives. Visit smileactives.com/legal

1:09:46

AF today to receive a

1:09:49

special buy one get one

1:09:51

free offer with auto delivery

1:09:53

plus free shipping and handling.

1:09:56

That's smile actives, plural.com/legal AF

1:09:59

terms and conditions apply, see site

1:10:01

for details. My favorite

1:10:03

part of the Smalls commercial was that, I

1:10:06

don't know if you did it intentionally or

1:10:08

it was subliminal, but you actually started whispering

1:10:10

about you being a cat person as if

1:10:12

Boogie could hear you. You

1:10:14

know, so the thing is, well, first of all,

1:10:17

I'm an animal person, okay? I love animals. I

1:10:19

have dogs, I have cats, I have chickens, that

1:10:21

we have horses. I mean, you know, we have

1:10:23

goats. We actually have, I have all

1:10:25

of those animals. I love animals. I've always been

1:10:27

an animal person. But deep down,

1:10:29

I'm a cat person. I just am. And

1:10:32

I love the dogs, whatever. But I, you

1:10:34

know, I partly whisper it because, you know,

1:10:36

women in particular get judged for being cat people.

1:10:38

Oh, is that why you did that? Oh, that,

1:10:40

oh, I see where you're going. It's only as

1:10:42

I'm getting older. Oh, the cat lady. All right,

1:10:44

I see where you're going. Yeah, exactly. So it's

1:10:46

only that I'm getting older that I'm more confident

1:10:49

to admit that I am a cat person, but

1:10:51

I do love cats. And let me tell you

1:10:53

something. This cat food, and I'm

1:10:55

not saying it, it's crack. You

1:10:57

might as well call it kitty crack. My

1:11:01

cat goes in

1:11:03

the stream for it. It

1:11:05

is absolutely the cat. My cat

1:11:08

loves it. It's incredible. It's actually

1:11:10

incredible. I am sold. So we

1:11:12

had a similar thing in

1:11:14

the marriage. We had the union of

1:11:17

a dog and a cat when we

1:11:19

got together. Natasha had Chanel, which

1:11:21

I never in 50 years plus had a

1:11:24

good experience with a cat. Starting

1:11:26

with my grandmother who had, this

1:11:29

is stuff I'm politically incorrect. My grandmother who

1:11:31

smoked two packs of Paul Mall a day

1:11:33

had a cat named Smokey that was black.

1:11:36

And the first time I put my hand out as

1:11:38

a three-year-old, I got slashed. I

1:11:40

think every other cat I ever had experience

1:11:42

with, I got somehow got ripped or, but

1:11:44

wait a minute, not Chanel. So

1:11:46

Chanel and I, it's my best cat experience ever.

1:11:49

And then I had a dog at the time we passed. And now

1:11:51

we've got, of course, we have Lily. And

1:11:54

we made it work, but that was our first

1:11:56

attempt at joining a family together. It was literally

1:11:58

cat and dog. And

1:12:01

I get you and I like it. I

1:12:03

love this and I love our sponsors. I

1:12:05

use Nom Nom for Lily. And she like,

1:12:07

that Nom Nom face thing, she loves when

1:12:10

I get that little bag out that with

1:12:12

her, it looks like real food. We left

1:12:14

it out one day and I was like,

1:12:16

honey, what did you make? She's

1:12:19

like, no, that's the dog food. I

1:12:22

would never, to be honest, I wouldn't

1:12:24

promote these products if I didn't believe in them. No, no,

1:12:26

no. We use them all. Before

1:12:28

we actually do these commercials, they

1:12:30

send it to us, we try

1:12:32

them out. And they're actually fairly

1:12:34

amazing, but the cat in particular

1:12:36

was, I didn't expect it

1:12:39

to be that like incredibly,

1:12:41

the cat absolutely loves the cat. But I've never had

1:12:44

a bad experience with a cat. I've never had a

1:12:46

cat that's a loop. I've never had a cat scratch

1:12:48

me. I've never had any of that. My cats are

1:12:50

all, I've had cats my whole life and they've all

1:12:52

just been pretty amazing. Hey,

1:12:55

Smalls, no extra charge for the extended ad

1:12:58

read today. Let's move on

1:13:01

to SCOTUS. SCOTUS,

1:13:03

we got dropped, another dropped, someone else

1:13:05

dropped. Every day you and I shuttered

1:13:08

a look at our text message chain to see

1:13:10

what our producers have sent us that's dropped. We

1:13:13

got a couple of decisions today, two official,

1:13:15

one unofficial. Let's start with the unofficial because

1:13:18

that one's more interesting. Idaho,

1:13:20

in a case called Moyle versus the

1:13:22

United States and Idaho versus the United States. Almost

1:13:26

a virtual ban on abortion in Idaho. And

1:13:29

we've been teasing, I hate that word. We've

1:13:31

been talking about and anticipating this decision for

1:13:33

a long, long time here on Legal AF.

1:13:35

Ben and I have been talking about it,

1:13:38

you and I, I've been talking about it

1:13:40

in hot takes. What

1:13:42

are they gonna do when the Biden

1:13:45

administration smartly used an existing law

1:13:47

in the books under Medicare called

1:13:49

M.Tala, the emergency abortions, a

1:13:52

law, to

1:13:54

try to override and

1:13:56

require that when medical

1:13:58

necessity When

1:14:00

medical necessity and the life of the mother is

1:14:04

in jeopardy unless there's

1:14:06

an abortion that an abortion is given

1:14:08

in federally funded hospitals. Regardless

1:14:11

of whatever the MAGA

1:14:13

was able to pass or

1:14:15

what law from the 1880s or 70s was triggered by

1:14:22

the repeal of Roe versus Wade.

1:14:25

We're talking about the life of a mother

1:14:27

in labor and

1:14:30

an abortion being a medically necessary thing. So

1:14:37

the Supreme Court got it and

1:14:40

we've been waiting to see it. Now, assuming

1:14:43

that this holds, we've

1:14:45

got a decision that six to three and

1:14:48

a very interesting grouping of six to three with

1:14:50

lots of concurrences and basically a

1:14:52

per, not basically, it looks like it's gonna be

1:14:54

a per curium decision of the entire court with

1:14:56

no author but then a whole bunch of per

1:14:58

curiums. You can see the lineup. So

1:15:01

it's gonna be Kagan and Sotomayor, Katanji

1:15:03

Brown Jackson, of course, in

1:15:05

favor of Emtala requiring even in

1:15:07

a state like Idaho with a

1:15:09

virtual ban on abortion that a

1:15:11

doctor give an abortion when it

1:15:13

is medically necessary to do that

1:15:16

consistent with the law, the federal

1:15:18

law. Thank Joe Biden for

1:15:20

this. This is his way having

1:15:22

been dealt a terrible hand by

1:15:25

the United States Supreme Court trying

1:15:27

to figure out a way to

1:15:29

support women, try

1:15:31

to make them less of a second-class citizen in

1:15:34

this country when it comes to reproductive health at

1:15:36

the hands of MAG and the Republicans and they

1:15:38

already are doing it through executive orders. And

1:15:41

then he just unleashed his

1:15:44

administrative law team at

1:15:47

every department to literally to comb

1:15:50

the books of their current existing

1:15:52

federal regulations to find ways to

1:15:55

support women and the right to

1:15:57

an abortion under existing federal law. And one

1:15:59

of... them, a major one was Emtala. So

1:16:04

you've got Kagan, Sotomayor, Katanji Brown Jackson,

1:16:06

but Amy Coney Barrett, she the mother

1:16:08

of eight children, apparently

1:16:11

has joined this as well to

1:16:13

allow abortion

1:16:15

in times of medical necessity,

1:16:17

along with Kavanaugh and Roberts.

1:16:19

So that's the lineup. And

1:16:22

then a weird new little

1:16:25

grouping that has arisen in a number

1:16:27

of cases now of Thomas

1:16:29

Alito and Gorsuch against it.

1:16:32

And Alito saying it's never been a

1:16:34

medically necessary thing for an abortion to

1:16:36

save a woman. I don't I mean,

1:16:38

not only is he a white guy

1:16:40

that apparently doesn't have any children, making

1:16:43

decisions about women, which is always consternating,

1:16:46

but where's he get a science

1:16:48

from? And I thought we weren't

1:16:50

supposed to go to science with

1:16:52

judges making science. I thought that

1:16:54

was their whole problem with Roe

1:16:57

versus Wade, judges making scientific decisions

1:16:59

and medical decisions. Right? There's

1:17:01

a federal law on the books, it

1:17:03

either does or does not apply when a

1:17:05

woman's in need. And

1:17:08

so but of course, you can always count on Alito

1:17:10

and Thomas, but now Gorsuch, and he's

1:17:12

done it a couple of times now sides with

1:17:14

them. So

1:17:16

that's Emtala. Why

1:17:19

don't you, you know, tell me where you think

1:17:23

from the leak forward, what do you think it

1:17:25

means from a reproductive rights standpoint?

1:17:28

And if this decision holds, and then

1:17:31

why don't you take the decision

1:17:33

that just came out about you want to take

1:17:35

the decision on social media, or another win for

1:17:37

the Biden administration? We'll

1:17:40

divide it up that way. Whatever you want.

1:17:44

Look, the abortion leak,

1:17:46

you know, every the my

1:17:49

friends who are Supreme

1:17:51

Court appellate

1:17:55

lawyers and kind of nerds, if

1:17:57

you will, they say this This

1:18:00

was just a glitch. It was an accident. It was

1:18:02

a technical glitch. It was not a leak. I

1:18:05

don't know, not to be a conspiracy theorist,

1:18:07

but I don't believe in coincidences.

1:18:10

The only two times that's ever happened

1:18:12

were the two abortion decisions ever. I

1:18:14

mean, it just seems a little too

1:18:16

convenient, but whatever, maybe it is.

1:18:20

Maybe it is just sort of a glitch or

1:18:22

an accident. What upset me about this decision is

1:18:26

it's a victory sort

1:18:28

of. It's a good headline, but it's

1:18:30

not a victory. It's kicking the can

1:18:32

down the road. They issued

1:18:34

a dig is what they call it, which means it

1:18:37

was dismissed as improvidently granted,

1:18:40

meaning that's what it stands for,

1:18:42

right? They call them a

1:18:44

dig, and that's what the Supreme Court nerds call it. They

1:18:47

don't issue them very often. It's usually one

1:18:49

line, and it means, oh, we granted cert

1:18:51

and we shouldn't have. This is not a

1:18:53

case that we should have granted cert because

1:18:56

these people didn't have standing, right?

1:18:58

The few states and the individuals

1:19:00

who sued didn't have standing. So

1:19:02

we're gonna send it back down,

1:19:05

and you guys can kind of develop

1:19:07

the record more, and we'll see if

1:19:09

someone bubbles up that does have standing.

1:19:12

And guess what? That'll be after the election, right?

1:19:15

This is, to me, this is going

1:19:17

to be an absolute, and again, I

1:19:19

sound like a conspiracy theorist, and

1:19:22

I am absolutely giving my opinion right

1:19:24

now as opposed to when I read

1:19:27

decisions, and I'll tell people what they actually

1:19:30

say. This is my opinion, so

1:19:32

take it for what it's worth. It

1:19:35

absolutely feels like this was, they

1:19:38

know, the MAGA people know that this

1:19:41

isn't going well for them,

1:19:43

that women's, the abortion issue,

1:19:46

and

1:19:49

all the women's rights issues that

1:19:52

are happening, whether it's IVF, et cetera,

1:19:54

not going well, women are gonna show

1:19:56

up to vote soon. So

1:19:58

let's, you know, let's... We're not

1:20:00

gonna rule on the merits here. We're

1:20:03

gonna just kind of kick the can down the road.

1:20:06

But it's coming, it's absolutely coming. They

1:20:09

absolutely do not believe in

1:20:12

abortion for medical

1:20:15

necessity. It only has to be

1:20:17

for the woman's life. And doctors

1:20:19

were on TV today saying essentially,

1:20:21

what's happening is women are coming

1:20:23

in. They

1:20:25

are saying that they'll be a healthcare

1:20:27

issue, a

1:20:30

child that has an issue that

1:20:32

will cause them to

1:20:37

die in utero. But we'll wait for

1:20:39

that and we'll have to wait until

1:20:42

you go into sepsis before we can

1:20:44

intervene because that's when it becomes technically

1:20:46

necessary for you. And so

1:20:48

what do they do? They have to send these women out

1:20:50

of state to states where they can get the medical care

1:20:52

that they want. So I think it's an outrageous, it's

1:20:55

outrageous in my opinion. I

1:20:58

don't think it's a victory. I

1:21:00

think it's just, you know, it's kicking

1:21:02

the can down the road and we'll see what

1:21:04

happens. We'll

1:21:07

see what happens. Someone called it

1:21:09

an ominous punt, which is what

1:21:11

I think it sounds like. Really,

1:21:14

this decision, this fake leak that

1:21:17

was a glitch that I think was

1:21:19

very intentional or

1:21:21

just a nice coincidence is not

1:21:23

great news. It's temporarily good news.

1:21:27

The case you wanted to talk

1:21:29

about was Murthy. It's

1:21:32

a M-R-T-H-Y. And

1:21:36

it basically was a six to

1:21:38

three opinion where

1:21:40

Alito Thomas and Gorsuch, this group that

1:21:43

you commented on is coming

1:21:45

together as

1:21:50

a dissenting group. And

1:21:52

they essentially said there was no first

1:21:55

amendment violation in the Biden

1:21:57

administration asking social

1:22:00

media companies to

1:22:02

flagging misinformation for them on

1:22:04

either COVID or the election

1:22:06

denials. And basically, there

1:22:09

was a term that people are using. It's

1:22:11

called job boning. I don't even really understand

1:22:13

what it means, but it's

1:22:15

a term that is being thrown

1:22:18

out there as

1:22:21

the thing that the Biden

1:22:23

administration was being accused of

1:22:25

doing, that apparently they weren't

1:22:27

allowed to, they weren't

1:22:29

allowed to, the

1:22:33

argument was that they weren't allowed to

1:22:37

tell social media companies like

1:22:39

Facebook, etc. And there were

1:22:42

two states and five social

1:22:44

media users that sued the

1:22:46

executive branch claiming that there

1:22:49

was pressure for censorship. And

1:22:54

essentially, the Supreme Court said

1:22:58

that it's

1:23:01

okay, basically, and that this

1:23:03

is not First Amendment. So it was a

1:23:05

weird ruling that kind

1:23:10

of left the door open for

1:23:13

them to sue again, down the

1:23:15

road. But

1:23:17

again, it's kind of another, another, this

1:23:19

is another one where they said there

1:23:21

was no standing, right, that there was

1:23:23

no case in controversy. So, so

1:23:26

I don't know, they're, these

1:23:28

aren't really substantive rulings. It's kind

1:23:30

of, they're kind of these, these

1:23:32

half fake rulings that the Supreme

1:23:34

Court is saying, on procedural grounds,

1:23:36

we're not going to, I'm not

1:23:38

going to rule on these things

1:23:40

so that, you

1:23:43

know, so that, so that I

1:23:46

don't, we don't get criticized is what

1:23:48

I think is happening. But they're not really

1:23:51

ruling on substantive things are ruling on procedural,

1:23:54

procedural grounds, which has the effect

1:23:56

of leaving these things in place.

1:23:58

Yeah, all they need is a

1:24:00

so is some somebody whose actual

1:24:02

social media posting was banned by

1:24:04

a platform which they

1:24:06

will then argue is because of

1:24:09

pressure by the Biden administration. And

1:24:11

then they'll have standing and then I don't know exactly

1:24:14

what will happen on the merits. I know from

1:24:16

the oral argument in this Murthy

1:24:18

case, Murthy's our US Surgeon General,

1:24:21

he got enjoined along with some others

1:24:24

because he was going after

1:24:27

fake COVID and fake health

1:24:31

information that was being misinformation that

1:24:33

was being put on the internet

1:24:35

by internet trolls, Russia, China, MAGA,

1:24:37

you know, all the

1:24:42

us and killing people. And

1:24:45

that sounds like a bad thing. It sounds

1:24:47

like something the Surgeon General should be against. I

1:24:49

mean, the Surgeon General just came out with a

1:24:51

proposal to, you know, and through the

1:24:53

FDA to have social media have like warning labels

1:24:55

on it and have children

1:24:57

be banned from it almost like

1:25:00

it's a carcinogen, like

1:25:02

a mental carcinogen. And, you

1:25:04

know, the way the MAGA and our

1:25:07

Russian and Chinese trolls

1:25:10

who are masters of disinformation

1:25:12

and brainwashing

1:25:14

in order to pit Americans one

1:25:17

against the other and put

1:25:19

us at each other's throat. So they're doing a great job

1:25:22

with that, by the way. Shout out to the

1:25:24

Russians and the Chinese who have

1:25:26

figured out a way to activate and

1:25:29

mislead great

1:25:31

swaths of our country, including people,

1:25:34

Karen, and your family and my family. But

1:25:39

it'll just come back another day when there's

1:25:41

somebody with proper standing. That's why I didn't

1:25:43

get that excited about the

1:25:46

decision, you know, the last medicated

1:25:49

abortion decision about misopryfte,

1:25:51

mis-myphopristo, I got it

1:25:53

right. And

1:25:55

they're like, we're like, oh, you know, the headline and

1:25:57

everybody had was like, nine zero, like nine zero on

1:25:59

state. It was just because this

1:26:02

group of doctors never prescribed

1:26:04

it, didn't treat anybody that

1:26:06

had been harmed by it, and therefore

1:26:08

didn't have standing. Or as Brett Kavanaugh

1:26:11

put it in his, so

1:26:14

bluntly in his decision, what's

1:26:17

it to you? You've got to get over

1:26:19

the, at least the what's it to you standard

1:26:21

of standing, or you don't get into the courtroom.

1:26:24

I thought that was like a New

1:26:27

Yorker taxi driver. You're

1:26:29

like, you're talking to me. What's it to you? You

1:26:32

know, but it's like the bare level, the

1:26:34

bare minimum of what you need in order

1:26:36

to have a ticket to the courthouse. I

1:26:38

mean, we're not supposed to have, unless you're

1:26:40

in Judge Cannon's chambers or courtroom, you're not

1:26:42

supposed to be a complete stranger to the

1:26:44

case and then be able to argue about

1:26:46

it in a court of law. That's not

1:26:48

our adversarial process at

1:26:50

all, despite the existence of

1:26:53

amicus briefs. So and there

1:26:55

was another decision on bribery, which sort of refined

1:26:58

what bribes people can take that are

1:27:00

in federal office that'll pass muster and

1:27:03

sort of delegating it to the local

1:27:05

and state officials to figure out how

1:27:07

much is too much when you reward

1:27:10

a federal officer or state officer for

1:27:12

take, you know, for something to pass,

1:27:14

passing a legislation or something. I'm sorry,

1:27:17

I'm old school. I don't think civil

1:27:19

servants or people who are in an

1:27:21

elected position in order to avoid public

1:27:24

corruption should take anything. But you know,

1:27:26

this Supreme Court's always finding ways to

1:27:28

backhandedly help Donald Trump and his presidency

1:27:32

of kleptocracy. And

1:27:34

Clarence Thomas. I mean, seriously, right? Exactly.

1:27:38

It's consistent with Clarence Thomas taking

1:27:41

scads and gifts, right? You

1:27:46

and I should get such a gift. You ever

1:27:49

gotten a gift of an all expense paid vacation

1:27:51

abroad in Europe and all the finest hotels and

1:27:53

air? No, that's called a client who

1:27:56

pays you to go handle a case in that

1:27:58

country or whatever. Yeah, no, I mean, look. It's

1:28:00

essentially this case was about, is it a bribe?

1:28:03

Is it a quid pro quo? Am

1:28:05

I giving you something because I want something

1:28:07

in the future in return? But it's OK,

1:28:09

though, after you've already made your decision and

1:28:11

done something as a public official, if you

1:28:13

want to get a gift later, if someone

1:28:15

wants to give you a gift, that's a

1:28:18

gratuity. That's not a bribe. And that's what

1:28:20

they essentially said. And I couldn't help but

1:28:22

think, oh, OK, this was Clarence Thomas saying,

1:28:24

hey, what are they

1:28:26

going to do? Start saying that I'm being bribed by all

1:28:28

these all expense paid vacations that

1:28:30

we're all getting? I mean, it's absurd.

1:28:32

It's absolutely absurd. Public corruption is a

1:28:34

big deal and is a big problem.

1:28:36

We got two major public corruption cases

1:28:38

going on in my home state right

1:28:40

now in New Jersey. Menendez,

1:28:43

who got caught with his

1:28:45

pants down and over

1:28:47

the closet door containing gold

1:28:51

bricks, containing gold bars. Yeah,

1:28:56

that is then wife. And

1:28:59

he got, for helping an

1:29:01

Egyptian businessman get the halal

1:29:04

certification rights for

1:29:06

everything going overseas in the military,

1:29:08

a tremendously lucrative thing for which

1:29:10

the Menendez family got a Mercedes

1:29:13

and gold bars and everything else.

1:29:15

And we got another major former

1:29:17

executive in

1:29:21

government in New Jersey who's basically

1:29:24

taken bribes to approve real estate

1:29:26

development rights and other things

1:29:28

like that. And public corruption is a big deal. And

1:29:31

those that practice, Jack Smith,

1:29:35

years before he worked with you, but when he

1:29:37

was with the feds, he worked

1:29:39

in public corruption. And that's usually

1:29:41

a ticket for advancement within

1:29:43

the Department of Justice. I

1:29:46

don't know about the Manhattan DA's office, but

1:29:49

the public corruption unit and those

1:29:51

that headed, that puts

1:29:53

you on the kind of the glide path

1:29:55

for a lot of success if you're talented

1:29:58

as both a front line. a

1:30:01

line prosecutor the way that Jack Smith is and

1:30:03

as a sort of administrator and somebody that can

1:30:05

put teams together and make them work efficiently. And

1:30:07

you were both of those things. Of course, when

1:30:09

you were at the Manhattan DA's office, as was

1:30:12

Cy Vance, who's going to be your guest this

1:30:14

week on mistrial. Yeah.

1:30:16

Karen Freeman, Igniflow and Daniel

1:30:18

Berry, Kathleen Rice. So, and

1:30:20

people always ask, how do

1:30:22

we support progressive

1:30:26

pro-democracy legal shows

1:30:28

that happen to be on the Midas Touch Network or

1:30:30

on the Midas Touch Network, not by accident. And

1:30:33

there's lots of different ways. One

1:30:35

of them is we have different

1:30:38

shows and ways that we contribute. I

1:30:40

love doing hot takes. Karen developed

1:30:43

a new podcast and

1:30:45

you know, support us there. Watch us on those

1:30:47

things, chat, thumbs up,

1:30:49

comments, follow us wherever

1:30:52

we go within the network.

1:30:54

That's helpful. Karen writes a lot, for instance,

1:30:57

on the Midas Touch website. I

1:30:59

do less writing and more hot takes. We

1:31:02

all do things that we're comfortable with and

1:31:04

in our ways and our unique ways of

1:31:07

contributing. Watching the

1:31:09

show, being in here, we have

1:31:11

a loyal audience. It's amazing. It's

1:31:13

grown. We get anywhere between 14,000

1:31:15

and 20,000. Just watching us do

1:31:18

the podcast. And then, of course,

1:31:20

watching the episode. We do it

1:31:22

here, Midas Touch, free subscribe, help

1:31:24

them get to their 3 million

1:31:27

number before the November election.

1:31:29

We're building this network with our own hands,

1:31:31

as we like to say. No outside investors.

1:31:33

Nobody censors us. They couldn't

1:31:35

censor. They don't know what I'm going to say. They don't know what Karen's

1:31:38

going to say. I don't even know what I'm going

1:31:40

to say at any given moment. So they

1:31:42

couldn't possibly censor us. But we're unplugged. We're

1:31:46

unfiltered. We're unhinged sometimes. But

1:31:48

we're here and

1:31:50

we're doing our best on

1:31:52

this network. So we also have the audio version.

1:31:55

Some people on the audio

1:31:57

version don't know we have a video version and vice

1:31:59

versa. I've been... been told that by Brett and

1:32:01

others on the network. Some people don't even know

1:32:03

we have a live version on YouTube. We have

1:32:05

a live version on YouTube. And

1:32:07

some people like to receive their information that way, and

1:32:10

I get it. Some people know I'm

1:32:12

in a car. I can't watch things, but I'm a

1:32:14

podcaster. So we're on every major podcast platform out there.

1:32:16

Very easy to find any of the podcasts that we've

1:32:18

talked about. And you can go back and forth, and

1:32:21

you can subscribe. It's all free and like all of

1:32:23

that. We've got sponsors.

1:32:26

And it's not just like listening to the sponsors.

1:32:28

If you're interested in the products, and we

1:32:31

support them, and we try them, and we

1:32:33

talk about them, then we've

1:32:35

always arranged and negotiated some great deals

1:32:37

to give you the opportunity to get

1:32:40

these products. And that, of course, helps us. As you

1:32:42

can imagine, it's a circle of life. We

1:32:44

have sponsors. They sell products. They come back.

1:32:47

And we're able to keep this whole thing going,

1:32:50

because we don't have any outside investors. And

1:32:52

then we've got a Patreon that Ben

1:32:54

and I created, where we're sort of

1:32:57

at the intersection of law and politics.

1:32:59

And we're doing the law part for

1:33:01

people that want to geek out and nerd out on the

1:33:03

law, but non-lawyers. Although we've got a fair amount of lawyers

1:33:05

that are on there, too, where people that

1:33:07

wanted to go to law school and all of

1:33:09

that. And we do videos weekly. We

1:33:12

do duets. We just did an hour-long

1:33:14

live chat, Zoom, Ben and me, where

1:33:16

you got to ask questions. And we

1:33:18

answered them in real time. And that

1:33:20

was amazing. And then we

1:33:22

do tutorials. Ben just did one on

1:33:24

the Supreme Court. He's going to do two more versions

1:33:26

of that. I've

1:33:29

done it on procedural and constitutional,

1:33:31

criminal, and civil issues from a

1:33:33

practitioner standpoint. But again, the target

1:33:35

audience is the same as our

1:33:37

target audience for this podcast, which

1:33:39

is just really smart, educated, interested,

1:33:41

invested people. You

1:33:43

don't need a legal background, although we

1:33:45

do have. It's amazing. We do have

1:33:48

a fair amount of lawyers that do

1:33:50

like the show. So that's patreon.com/legalaf, patreon.com/legalaf.

1:33:52

And if you come in at any

1:33:54

level, the entry level is membership. Or

1:33:57

yeah, it's $10 a month. And

1:34:00

you'll get a lot of, I promise you, you'll

1:34:02

get a lot of value from that. We had

1:34:04

about 58 videos already up there that

1:34:06

we've developed over the last several months, uh,

1:34:09

patreon.com/legal AF. And then we've

1:34:11

got a store where you

1:34:13

can fly the flag of

1:34:15

legal AF store diet dot

1:34:17

Midas touch.com with for

1:34:20

all our latest gear, t-shirts that partially

1:34:22

was designed by Karen free

1:34:24

fitting inflow and all different shapes and

1:34:26

sizes there and colors. And that's another

1:34:29

way to, um, to support the show.

1:34:31

So sometimes

1:34:33

our personal life bleeds in to the

1:34:35

show and Karen's had some amazing events

1:34:37

that have happened over the last year.

1:34:40

Um, this is now with Francesca. We

1:34:42

figured out, I was talking to Jordy

1:34:45

earlier, earlier today. This, this will be

1:34:47

by when Ben has his baby in

1:34:49

three with his lovely wife, Sochie in

1:34:51

about three months, it will be the

1:34:53

third Midas baby in 2024. Amazing.

1:34:58

Jordy went first, then me and then

1:35:00

Ben like boom, boom, boom. And,

1:35:03

uh, that's, and the love and support that

1:35:05

we have has made this,

1:35:07

uh, all of it possible. Karen's

1:35:09

had some amazing events in her life

1:35:11

and we've all had some bad events that have happened during

1:35:13

the year, but we feel like we can, uh, we

1:35:16

were honest with our audience, we're authentic with our audience and we're

1:35:18

going to share with you where we are, when we are. And,

1:35:21

uh, we might be in amazing moods. We may be covering

1:35:24

up something else in our life

1:35:26

that we, but this keeps us going. And

1:35:28

there's a reason I, I got

1:35:30

permission to come on the show tonight from

1:35:32

my wife who's just that right next door.

1:35:35

Uh, because it matters and it's meaningful in

1:35:37

it. And I want to be here and

1:35:40

I know Karen has, has gone through heaven

1:35:42

and earth and, and been in places that

1:35:44

you guys didn't even know that she was

1:35:46

doing the show from, and it's just a

1:35:48

level of commitment and professionalism that I think

1:35:50

is unparalleled on YouTube. Um, but we

1:35:52

do it for the legal efforts and the Midas mighty

1:35:55

right. Karen. Absolutely. Absolutely. It's

1:35:57

nothing more important and nothing more worth

1:35:59

it.