Legal AF - 2/11/2026

Summary

Legal AF by MeidasTouch – February 12, 2026 Episode Summary

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Legal AF delivers incisive legal and political analysis on the latest developments at the intersection of law, justice, and democracy. Hosts Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo provide a hard-hitting review of the chaotic Congressional hearing featuring Attorney General Pam Bondi, dissect newly surfaced details from the Jeffrey Epstein files, analyze the grand jury’s refusal to indict six members of Congress, and dive into the FBI’s controversial affidavit related to Fulton County’s 2020 election data. The conversation is punctuated by a tone of outrage, concern, and urgent civic engagement, with both hosts offering clear-eyed, expert breakdowns for listeners navigating these turbulent times.

---

Main Discussion Points & Key Insights

---

1. Pam Bondi Congressional Hearing Meltdown

(Main Segment: 00:00–20:37)

• Pam Bondi’s Performance:
  The hosts describe Pam Bondi’s appearance before the Congressional Oversight Committee as “the worst congressional hearing I’ve ever watched” (Karen, [07:25]). Bondi is criticized for being disrespectful, unprofessional, evasive, and outright hostile—calling members of Congress “washed up losers” and refusing to answer straightforward questions.

• Treatment of Epstein Survivors:
  Bondi ignored sexual assault survivors, including Lisa Phillips, who were present in the hearing room:

  “She couldn’t even look at them or acknowledge them…I thought it was really, really upsetting.” – Karen ([14:12])
  “She doesn't even have the human decency and dignity that the office presupposes.” – Popok ([02:20])

• Weaponization of DOJ for Political End:
  Hosts argue Bondi embodies a DOJ corrupted by cronyism and a lack of professionalism:

  “The true Attorney General is Donald Trump…[Bondi] is the most spineless, corrupt political hack we’ve ever had in the Department of Justice. And that’s saying a lot.” – Popok ([17:03])

• Evasion and Gaslighting:
  Bondi refuses to answer basic questions—even when Jamie Raskin simply asks if she’d create a DOJ task force to investigate Epstein-related crimes ([19:34]–[20:37]).

• Notable Quote:

  “If you want information blaming Merrick Garland, well, he did it too. Or if somebody asks a question saying, oh well, do you know about this person who committed a crime in your constituency?…How about you answer the questions that are being posed to you?” – Karen ([07:25])

• Highlight Clip:
  Congressman Neguse presses Bondi about DOJ hiring a January 6th rioter, Jared Wise, who yelled “kill him” at police. Bondi’s response? “He was pardoned by President Trump.” ([21:08–22:47])

---

2. DOJ Mishandling of Epstein Files

(Epstein Segment: 12:51–17:03; 24:24–33:35)

• Failure to Engage Survivors:
  Survivors present at the hearing all confirmed they had never been contacted by DOJ investigators.
• Violation of Privacy & Retaliation:
  Bondi’s DOJ failed to properly redact survivors’ names from the Epstein docs and subsequently surveilled which names members of Congress searched on DOJ computers ([31:39–33:35]).
• Outrage Over DOJ’s Inaction:

  “Frankly, if I were there, I’d be just apoplectic over how she handled this hearing and frankly, how she’s handling this investigation or lack thereof.” – Karen ([14:12])

• Political Blame-Shifting:
  Bondi repeatedly blamed Democrats and the previous administration for current issues, deflecting responsibility ([13:21–14:12]).

---

3. Grand Jury Refusals & DOJ Prosecutorial Abuse

(Grand Jury Segment: 39:17–58:47)

• Grand Jury as a Check:
  Dozens of grand juries have refused to indict targets in politically motivated Trump-era investigations.

  “It is so easy to get an indictment that a judge once famously said you could even indict a ham sandwich…The fact that they are not getting indictments in these cases is astounding.” – Karen ([48:03])

• Examples of Failures:
  DOJ has attempted but failed to indict figures such as Letitia James (NY AG), James Comey, and six members of Congress known as the “Seditious Six” for reminding the military to reject illegal orders.

• Loss of DOJ Talent:
  The DOJ’s attrition of experienced, principled prosecutors leads to outrageous situations—such as Jeanine Pirro relying on a part-time dance studio photographer as a lead prosecutor in high-profile cases ([53:26]).

• Notable Quote:

  “She cannot get an indictment against these six people. That’s because the grand jurors saw it for what it is…This is nothing more than a revenge prosecution against six heroes.” – Karen ([48:03]) “You have to use a dance studio photographer to be your prosecutor for a major case.” – Popok ([53:26])

---

4. Trump’s Legal Maneuvers and the Scope of Immunity

(Trump Criminal Conviction Segment: 60:46–66:32)

• Trump’s Attempt to Overturn Conviction:
  Trump seeks to remove his 34-count Manhattan conviction (Stormy Daniels case) to federal court, hoping to exploit the Supreme Court’s recent broad immunity ruling.
• Judicial Response:
  Judge Alvin Hellerstein, 92, is expected to reject the removal; hosts speculate even the current Supreme Court majority could balk at extending immunity to Trump’s purely personal, pre-presidential conduct.
• Legislative Limitations:
  Congressional attempts to overturn the Supreme Court’s immunity decision are likely to fail due to constitutional separation of powers.

  “Congress doesn’t have the power to clip the wings of the presidency and to take away immunity…Only the Supreme Court could walk it back.” – Popok ([66:32])

---

5. Fulton County FBI Affidavit & Election ‘Fraud’ Claims

(Fulton County Segment: 66:32–87:01)

• Flawed Affidavit:
  The FBI sought a search warrant for Fulton County, Georgia’s 2020 election ballots, relying on testimony from unqualified and conspiracy-obsessed “witnesses”: a data analyst using “Zebra Duck” downloads, a Republican OB-GYN, and associates of Mike Lindell ([78:25–82:26]).
• Probable Cause Lacking:
  The affidavit repeatedly confesses that alleged crimes “may” have occurred if certain actions were “intentional” but fails to actually allege intentional, criminal conduct ([74:59–81:40]).
• Judicial Oversight Lacking:
  Hosts question how the magistrate ever approved such a warrant given the weak showing.
• Pattern of Bad Faith:
  The segment concludes this “dress rehearsal” aims at gathering data for future attempts to undermine elections.

  “They are testing what are the levers we can pull to try and essentially steal this election…it’s all gathering data on how to do this nationwide.” – Karen ([85:42])

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

---

Pam Bondi Hearing

• “She was shrieking. She spoke in unprofessional ways, calling members of Congress things like washed up losers. And I’ve just never seen anything like it…It was an embarrassment to the American people.” – Karen ([07:25])
• “She doesn't even have the human decency and dignity that the office presupposes to turn around and acknowledge these suffering survivors.” – Popok ([02:20])

---

On Grand Jury Independence

• “Thank God we have these grand jurors who are going in…They’re applying the law to the facts and upholding this Constitution. These are regular Americans who are unsung heroes.” – Karen ([48:03])

---

On DOJ Corruption

• “You, you have to use a dance studio photographer to be your prosecutor for a major case.” – Popok ([53:26])

---

On Trump-Era Weaponization

• “What it means to get prosecuted today is if…you are not Trump.” – Karen ([56:33])
• “This is just lawlessness of the first order.” – Popok ([66:32])

---

Notable Timestamps

• 00:00 – Episode intro, Pam Bondi hearing overview
• 07:25 – Karen’s full takedown of Bondi’s hearing conduct
• 12:51 – Epstein survivors in the hearing room
• 21:08 – Discussion of DOJ hiring Jan 6 rioter (Rep. Neguse questioning)
• 31:39 – DOJ surveillance on Congressional search history
• 39:17 – Introduction to the grand jury process and recent refusals
• 48:03 – Karen’s “mini law school” on grand juries and DOJ prosecutorial abuse
• 53:26 – “Dance studio prosecutor” anecdote
• 60:46 – Trump Manhattan conviction legal maneuvers
• 66:32 – Supreme Court immunity decision and its limits
• 74:59 – Fulton County FBI affidavit breakdown and “Zebra Duck” anecdote
• 85:42 – Analysis of the GOP’s “dress rehearsals” for election subversion

---

Tone and Closing Reflections

• Throughout, the language is blunt, urgent, and impassioned; the hosts convey a sense of crisis over the state of American law and democracy, mixed with optimism about the resilience of grand juries, judges, and engaged citizens.
• The episode ends by highlighting why Legal AF’s brand of cross-cutting legal and political analysis is needed—and issues a call for continued vigilance through the elections.

---

This summary covers the main content and analysis as discussed in the 2/11/2026 episode of Legal AF. For listeners seeking clarity, in-depth expert commentary, and accountability at the intersection of law and politics, this episode delivers both substance and urgency.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to a live edition of Legal af. Let's kick it off this way. History is not going to be kind to Pam Bondi. The future Department of Justice is not going to be kind to her either. And Karen Freeman and Nifolo and I are going to talk about this. I didn't think it could get any worse for her, not for Congress. At the last Oversight Committee hearing. Oh, no. Not only were the Democrats ready for her shtick, you know, the sneering, sarcastic put upon, it's all the victim is Pam Bondi. Instead of the US Constitution and the rule of law. I thought, they're ready. I know they were going to be ready. I know the Jamie Raskins were going to be ready. And the. And the rest. Because, you know, we talked to these people before, you know, about getting ready for this. So they're loaded. But it got much, much worse for her, for the administration, for the voters. It's just a tour de force of what you should not do when you are allegedly the independent Attorney General of the United States. We'll cover that. And that dovetails into Epstein, because of course, one of the modules, one of the segments that came up, obviously, when you've got a Pam Bondi in the hot seat with all the revolution revelations that just came out in the last 24 hours, you gotta be prepared for that. She was prepared for that. She had a binder. They love those binders. She had a binder with all her little cheat sheet of how she was gonna go after each of the Congress people and particularly what they looked at in the Epstein file review, which I think violates a number of privileges. We'll talk about all of that. The Epstein, a number of the Epstein survivors, including one of my clients, Lisa Phillips, in the room. Pam Bondi could not even as a human being, turn to look at them. Lisa Phillips is right above Pam Bondi's head when. When she raised. Raised her hands, a signal that they've been completely ignored by the Department of Justice. No surprise on that. She doesn't even have the human decency and dignity that the office presupposes to turn around and acknowledge these suffering survivors. So we got a bunch of things to talk about related to that. We'll wrap it up with Ghislaine Maxwell and her false attempt to take the Fifth Amendment. What about the 29 people, Ghislaine, that you listed, except by name in your writ of habeas corpus, that you said was involved with the conspiracy, the child sex trafficking you were at the heart of? What about the Six that Representative Massie said and six men that are in effectively incriminated by what he read that we haven't yet been able to see at Congress. And we'll do that. Then I want to switch gears, Karen, and go to Fulton county, because now we've got our hands on the actual FBI affidavit. And what a piece of. Can I curse? It's at night, right? What a piece of shit the affidavit is. I wondered how they got this search warrant from a federal magistrate to go grab the 2020 election voting data from Fulton County, Georgia. Donald Trump, six years later, still trying to convince America that he really won the 2020 election. He won't take I lost for an answer. I wondered what. I wondered what they could have possibly said. And now we know. It was a dozen of the most fringe conspiracy theorists, election deniers whose theories and half baked, half ass, too smart by half, analysis by amateur, do it yourself. Voter data, data analysts from home, all been debunked, all been rebuked. But it reminded us that Donald Trump has election deniers working inside the administration. One of them is actually the head of. Of Election Integrity, some Department of Election Integrity. So all of them got together, gave this FBI agent a load of horse manure, a shed fault. This guy wrapped it up in an FBI affidavit and submitted it. And my favorite part is, remember this when I. When Karen and I come together. Zebra duck. Remember Zebra duck. It's at the heart of the affidavit. We'll talk about what, what a federal judge, Article three judge should do. Will do about that. Then I want to talk about the grand jury process in America. Grand juries are the conscience of America, and they, like the rest of the court system, know a fraud, know a lawless administration and Department of Justice when they see one. And they just rejected yet another indictment request by this Department of Justice against six sitting congresspeople, United States senators that serve this country in the intelligence community and. Or in the military, over that video. The. The. Don't. Don't. No, not. Don't sink the ship. Don't give up the ship. Reminding the military only what's in the code of military justice and under the Nuremberg principles, which is don't follow an illegal order. Oh, that's. Oh, the chain of command. The seditious six. Yeah. Grand jury, along with dozens and dozens and dozens of other grand juries in this last six months, said, nope, we're not indicting, and we'll talk about the ramifications of that. And then I want to round it out with something that happened earlier in the week near and dear to our hearts and Manhattan, which is Donald Trump trying to get out from under the 34 felony count conviction of Karen Freeman McNiffalo's old office, the Manhattan DA by bringing it over to a federal judge and convincing him that it belongs in federal court to try to get the case ultimately kicked. Except that federal judge was the very diminutive but very powerful 92 year old Al Hellerstein. And we'll talk about that case and update everybody about that, that conviction and sentencing. Let's bring in Karen. Hi, Karen.

[B]

Hi. How you doing, Popak?

[A]

I'm doing, I'm great. I'm, but I'm so incensed with the depravity of the performance of the person masquerading as the Attorney General. We know the true Attorney General is Donald Trump. But this other, this other crash test dummy that shows up to address the, the House because she has to. We're going to show some clips. I want to. What was your, what's your takeaway? The Karen Freeman McNifolo analysis of what she wanted to accomplish and what she actually accomplished.

[B]

I'll start with this was probably the worst congressional hearing I've ever watched. It was an embarrassment to the American people. She was shrieking. She spoke in unprofessional ways, calling members of Congress things like washed up losers. And I've just never seen anything like it. Just how she treated the members of Congress was appalling. She didn't answer questions and she really, I think, did not do herself any favors. I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat. She didn't help anybody. She just looked really awful. She was dissembling. She didn't want to answer any questions whatsoever. And even look, some of the Congress people on both sides were speechifying and not asking questions and just using this as a platform to make speeches. Okay, fine, everyone, all Americans can all see what's happening there, right? But there were some legitimate questions posed to her, actual questions and she refused to answer them. She would, you know, and the fact that she, the way she treated the survivors who were in the room, the fact that, that, that members of Congress had them stand up and ask them, have you spoken to this Department of Justice? Not a single one had. And she'd say, oh well, you can call 1-800-FBI or whatever the phone number was. No, it's, it's appalling how she was treating the people in the room, the survivors of sexual assault and the fact that she just didn't answer any questions whatsoever. It was a terrible, terrible hearing. If you want information blaming Merrick Garland, well, he did it too. Or if somebody asks a question saying, oh, well, do you know about this person who committed a crime in your constituency? I mean, it was just, it was, it was. How about you answer the questions that are being posed to you? So I thought it was outrageous.

[A]

First time I've ever heard Merrick Garland accused of doing too much work. Do it. He did it too. That he did. He did something. And for those that didn't have the stomach or the intestinal fortitude to watch it, we did stream it live on Legal af. We had a couple hundred thousand people that watched it. Midas had it up with a few hundred thousand more. We have, of course, saved some of the worst of Pam Bondi and, and how knowing that she was going to go on, always go on the offensive and be offensive in doing so, calling Jamie Raskin, who she can't hold a candle to as a constitutional scholar, as a patriot, as a first rate legal scholar, to hear her call him and a washed up lawyer. Not even a lawyer is just a.

[B]

Washed up loser lawyer. That's what she called him.

[A]

Yeah. It's just beyond the pill. Let's show. Midas, of course, did a good job putting together a compilation of the worst of Pam Bondi. Let's play it.

[C]

There was one redaction where he's listed.

[A]

As a co conspirator.

[C]

And we invited you in. This guy has Trump derangement syndrome.

[B]

He needs to.

[C]

You're a failed politician. I find it interesting that she keeps going after President Trump, the greatest president in American history. And if they could maintain their composure. You don't tell me.

[A]

Oh, I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate law. You're not even a lawyer.

[C]

Many will be in the dust with Donald Trump. You have Trump derangement syndrome. All of you who participated in those impeachment hearings against Donald Trump, you all should be apologizing. You sit here and you attack the president and I am not going to have it. I'm not going to put up with it. The dow is over 50,000 right now. The S&P at almost 7,000. And the NASDAQ smashing records. Americans 401ks and retirement savings are booming. That's what we should be talking about.

[A]

Trying to intimidate and punish these ladies coming forward. No, your time is up. Pam Bondi, she can't even get the economic data Right. Dow Jones at 50,000. I mean, the fact that she thinks, as the head of the Department of Justice, okay, not the head of the economy, the head of the political. Political boosterism or propaganda platform. I thought I was. I thought they had trotted out for a minute Carolyn Levitt. I thought maybe Pam Boundy couldn't make it. They threw a wig on Carolyn Levitt and shoved her into the chair, you know, with other goons, you know, you know, laughing while the Epstein survivors were in the room sitting behind her. In fact, let's go to Congresswoman Jayapal with the survivors, including Lisa Phillips, who's one of. Who's one of my clients standing right behind. Right behind. Before we get to it, when I had Lisa Phillips on two weeks ago, I asked her that exact question. I said, lisa, have. Has Donald Trump or anybody in the Cabinet ever reached out to you or the survivors to meet with you in private because he meets with everybody to talk about the. What happened to you? No, I'd say apologize. I just. Just to talk about it. She said, no, never.

[C]

Let's play the clip to the survivors in the room. If you are willing, please stand. And if you are willing, please raise your hands. If you have still not been able to meet with this Department of Justice, please know for the record that every single survivor has raised their hand.

[A]

Right. So talk. Take it from there. Karen, you've got Epstein, obviously was going to be there. Thank you. And Lisa Phillips, my client is right above Pam Bondi's head. She was loaded for this question. She was prepared within an inch of her life. But her approach was going to be to blame the Democrats, to say the only reason they care about it is because it's a political talking point. And where were they, you know, like three years ago, five years ago, whatever. It's only because it's Trump. She never answers the questions. She never says she's going to prosecute any of the people that are now incriminated by the new release of new documents. She never explains how she cleared Donald Trump so quickly of any wrongdoing, despite all the documents we saw with his name on it. What was your takeaway related to Epstein and the Epstein survivors?

[B]

I felt bad for them, to be honest. You know, they were there to get answers. They were there to find out what happened and to find out what is the Department of Justice doing. Because everybody who looks at those files can see there are leads to pursue. There are investigations that you can still go and conduct, and it was just disheartening. And the fact that she wouldn't even look at them. She showed a completely complete lack of empathy. She never turned and acknowledged them. I mean, they're not Democrat or Republican. They're just there because they were survivors of crime. Right. They're the victims here. And they are the American people who show up at a public hearing to get answers from their Attorney General of the United States. And she couldn't even look at them or acknowledge them and answer any questions whatsoever. I thought it was really, really upsetting. She was also very gaslighting to them, you know, just by. By kind of not, you know, by. By essentially saying things like, well, we'll meet with anyone, we'll investigate any leads. Well, they know that no one's reached out to them. It's not their obligation. Right. They're. They're the ones. They know now their names are in the files because she didn't redact those names and had no explanation for that, by the way. Because if you remember Popak, what happened was they gave the Department of Justice a list of all of the names, over 100 names of survivors to make it easy for them to search through the records so that they can redact out their names and addresses. Right? And so, because there's millions of documents, so they were trying to help them, and the Department of Justice didn't do that. And so now these individuals who had never a. Didn't know necessarily if their names were in there at all. And because they'd never been contacted by the FBI, because no one's ever reached out to them, because no one's ever investigated, now they know their names are in there. Now they know the whole world knows that many of the names are in there. And they went there looking for answers and to hear from their Attorney General of the United States, and she wouldn't even look at them. She wouldn't even speak to them. She wouldn't even acknowledge them. And I just thought that was really, really upsetting. And frankly, if I were there, I'd be just apoplectic over how she handled this hearing and frankly, how she's handling this investigation or lack thereof, because certainly I have no idea what they're doing. All I know is you have Todd Blanche saying there's no leads to investigate. Right. But we learned today, no, there's at least six names that there are there to investigate and probably dozens, if not hundreds more. And so, you know, that that, to me was the biggest takeaway is what about them? Because this really is about them. This isn't about Donald Trump. This isn't about Republicans or Democrats. This is about those survivors. And they were left without any information.

[A]

And Trump is losing his mind because he's losing control of his party. He's spinning out of control. We're watching it. He gets his Department of Justice, who's so afraid of him that they're not even willing to look him in the eye and tell him the truth. Like, boss, I can't get this indictment because it's a shitty case. It violates the Department of Justice manual and principles of federal prosecution. No, they'd rather just lose in court. We'll talk about it next. Lose at grand juries, lose at juries, lose in court on motions to dismiss than to actually tell and speak truth to power. Especially when your boss is Pam Bondi, who's the most spineless, corrupt political hack we've ever had in the Department of Justice. And that's saying a lot. We had a, we had an attorney general go to jail under Richard Nixon's administration. Pam Bondi, you, you're next. You know, this, this acting like they, they have impunity to, to do all the political dirty work for Donald Trump on full display in front of the American people is just shameful. And there is a reckoning coming. It's the midterms with impeachment. If Pam, Bonnie doesn't think she's going to be impeached and doesn't think there's enough votes to impeach her. Let me remind everybody and then tell you a breaking story. You only need 218 votes to impeach. You only needed 218 votes in the House to get the Epstein files ultimately released. Okay? The Democrats are only a handful short of 218, maybe 3, maybe 4. They only need a few Republicans to come over like they did with Epstein. That's to start impeachment proceedings. That's right. Now, as we're coming on the air in this live, the House with six Republicans moving over to the other side to join the Democrats just struck down Donald Trump's tariffs on Canada. You know, go Midas maple, elbows up Canada. We took care of it. Okay, and this is in advance of what the Supreme Court, who's obviously watching what they're going to do to the entirety of the tariffs. But he just lost six Republicans and he threatened them in a social media post. Oh, I'm gonna primary all of you. I mean, he's, this is like the wizard of Oz. This is like the incredible shrinking Donald Trump. Oh, Donald Trump. And then he just disappears. Not soon enough for the Rest of us, let me play.

[B]

Before you move on, I just want to say one, one thing because there was one question that upset me the most because like I said, some of the questions was, were partisan, you know, speechifying. But there was one question that Jamie Raskin asked that was if whether or not Pam Bondi would create a task force to investigate these crimes. Right. That, why is that controversial? Why is that a Democrat question or a Republican question? The question is just, will you create a task force to investigate these crimes? She refused to even answer that. And that's when she went on her tirade about, oh, do you even know about this individual in your, in your jurisdiction that committed these crimes? And that's when I, that was to me the most, because a lot of the clips that you were showing are outrageous. But that was a simple, non outrageous question, you know, and her answers, you know, should have just been, yes, of course we're going to investigate this. But she can't even answer that. That, to me absolutely disqualifies her for the job of Attorney General right there.

[A]

Agreed. Well, there's other examples of that, but I agree with you. Let's look at her reaction to Representative Negus reminding her that somebody who was part of the Jan6 insurrection, enchanted for the death of the police, now works in the Department of Justice. Let's play the clip.

[D]

Attorney General Bondi, that man works for you now, right?

[C]

Who was that congressman?

[D]

The man in that video, the one who was in the police worn body cam footage, the one allegedly yelling kill him at police officers on January 6. His name is Jared Wise.

[C]

He does work for us.

[D]

He works for you at the Department of Justice?

[A]

He does.

[D]

This is an individual whom a federal grand jury indicted for two felonies and four misdemeanors related to his participation in the attack on January 6th. One of those charges was forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering with police with the intent to commit another felony. This is who you choose as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America to hire at the Department of Justice. Someone on video yelling kill him at police officers.

[A]

Right.

[C]

I believe he was pardoned by President Trump.

[D]

Oh, he was pardoned, you're right. You're right. Pardoned by President Trump for his offense. Pardoned for yelling kill him at police officers. And yet you expect hardworking police officers across the country to believe that you take law enforcement seriously. You could imagine the reaction of so many folks across the country hearing the chief law enforcement officer of the United States refuse to even condemn what that individual whom you've now hired did.

[A]

But in any, by the way, keep an eye on Representative Joe Negus. This is, this is a star in the Democratic Party rising. He's, he's a plaintiff in, in successful cases against this administration. I, yeah, put, put, put, put a star next to his name because you're going to be hearing a lot more from Joe Negus, especially the way he's handling himself in these hearings. JAN 6th Insurrectionist that said kill the police, now work in the Department of Justice. And all she says offhandedly is, well, he was pardoned.

[B]

It's honestly, it's outrageous and I thought it was really effective how he asked that question and showed that clip. But it's, it's everyone needs to understand and know who they're hiring and what they're doing. The Department of Justice doesn't look anything like it used to. People are leaving in droves. Career prosecutors are leaving in droves and the just they're trying to, they're putting out job descript job openings. You know, like they want to hire people, job postings for lawyers to go work at the Department of Justice. And the job qualification is that you, that you believe in, in Donald Trump and that you basically serve him as opposed to the Constitution of the United States. And it's just unbelievable that what is happening there and what they're doing and these are the people they're hiring, these people who had to be pardoned by Jan, by Donald Trump for yelling kill him, the cops. So I agree, he was excellent. He asked good questions. And I think the American people need to understand what this Department of Justice consists of at this point.

[A]

Absolutely. And for those here tonight, leave your questions in comments. We will try to answer them right before we take or some of them right before we take our commercial break. Let's go to Howard Lutnick. People know Howard. I used to work for Howard Lutnick a number of years ago is back in the news because his days of magical thinking and hoping that nobody would know what was in the Epstein files is now over because it looks like he had a much closer financial and business relationship, personal relationship than he revealed just four months ago during a podcast where he said I was so disgusted by his massage tables in his dining room that I would never be in that person's presence ever again for anything social or, or charitable or it's funny, it was like a tell because he was involved with him socially, he was involved with him in business and he was involved with him charitably. It was it seriously, it was like a major tell for the guy. So, of course, after he had to come forward yesterday in his own Appropriations Committee hearing, hoping he dodged the Epstein bullet and had to admit that he had. And it was really disgusting, too, because he brought his wife. Lnick brought his wife to the, to the hearing. Seriously, you got to bring, you got to, you got to embarrass your wife and bring mommy to your hearing. It just shows you the depravity of this administration. They'll, they'll use any political prop, even their wife, to try to get out from under their own, you know, poor judgment, you know, to put it that way. So Bambondi, of course, needs to be prepared to answer questions about members of the Cabinet that have a closer relationship with Epstein besides Donald Trump. And here's Representative Ballot talking about Lutnick and Bondi's response to it, which is, again, over the top and ridiculous. Let's play it.

[C]

Who is Chris Mayo? Was the President aware. Please stop talking. It is not your time to ask questions. It is not your time. I'm reclaiming my time, Mr.

[B]

Chair.

[C]

One second.

[A]

Time belongs to the gentle A from Vermont.

[C]

Was the President aware of Secretary Lutnick's ties to Epstein when he chose him to lead the Department of Commerce? Was he aware Chris Malan was a Border Patrol agent? Okay, so I'm going to conclude that the president, in fact, did know about his ties because he was the next door neighbor. Shame on you. Oh, for goodness sakes. This is pathetic. This is pathetic.

[A]

Mr. Will be in order.

[C]

I am not asking trick, asking trick questions here. The American people have a right to know the answers to this. These are senior officials in the Trump administration.

[A]

Right. And her response is to talk about some state trooper in her district in order to distract attention from the questions. And that person you hear in the background struggling to keep order and always siding with the members of Congress because he has to is Representative Jim Jordan, who chairs that committee. So when you hear all the time belongs to the, to the gentle woman from wherever. Right. Because he has to do that from a parliamentary procedure. And you know what? The next time, if Pam Bondi even makes it to the next hearing, why don't we have her bound and gagged? Why don't we have the sergeant at arms. Yes. To keep decorum for an out of control witness. Yeah, this is, this is where this is going, everybody. I mean, Karen and I have been in courtrooms where there's been acting out inappropriately. And what do federal judges do if you, if you have one more outburst to breach the decorum of this proceeding. We're going to have you removed and even criminal defendants have you removed from the room. And that's what's going to happen here. Except the Democrats don't want that because they want more of Pam Bonnie, because the more she talks, the more she acts out, the more she lashes out, the more, the better it is frankly, politically for the Democrats because you see, the mask is off from this administration. You know, this whole remember what we don't have the videos, but remember when she was in her confirmation hearings. I will be an independent head of the Department of Justice. I will not use it to weaponize really all the lies that RFK Jr. Told during his confirmation hearing about vaccines, all the lies that Pete Hegseth told, all the lies that Pam Bondi told. Right. We don't forget on legal af on Midas touch. Congress doesn't forget. And we're not we don't even have time to show you like Jamie Raskin taking her down. Let's show though one of my favorites, which is which is Congressman Moskowitz, the Moskowitz burn about her prep for him and also how many times Donald Trump is in the Epstein files by name. Let's play it now.

[D]

Madam return General, I have like 25 seconds left. So because I'm curious and I just, I'd like to see you flip to the Jared Moskowitz section of the binder. I'm interested to see what staff provided.

[A]

On the, on the oppo, on me.

[D]

And because we're in the Olympics, I'm.

[A]

Going to give it a grade.

[D]

I just want to see how, how good it is. So give me your best one.

[C]

So first of all, nothing is funny about mocking the Bible and holding up a Bible. That's what you did. That's the major made a joke and I find it. I want it that that's all I have to say.

[A]

I want it from the burn book. I want it from the Bernberg, which.

[D]

Is the best one. What you got has expired. The gentleman from Wisconsin's recognition.

[A]

Thank you for earlier he said that heard that Trump's name appeared more often than Harry Potter in the Potter series of books. And his name appeared more often. I guess he said Jesus in the Bible. And of course she thinks she's in some sort of long lost episode of Game of Thrones where she can just say shame, shame her way through her responses on the way out. I mean, if Donald Trump thinks this is effective for anything other than the most maga of His MAGA base, which is now down to about 30% of the country, because I'm trying to figure out what, you know, we got to think like the other side. Right. Karen and I are trained litigators, trial lawyers. You know, you, you'd be remiss if you didn't think about how the, the case from the other side's perspective, that makes you a more effective advocate. But when I think about, like, what is the audience for this? 70% of America believes this is a failed presidency. That means 20 to 25% of MAGA and red moved over into the Donald Trump's a loser category. The number's even higher for independents and even higher still for voters under 30. They all want their vote back. And, and continuing to trot out insubordinate, unethical, and unhinged cabinet members and, and put them into that hot seat is not doing Trump and his numbers any favors. So, Karen, who's the audience for this at this.

[B]

Yeah, I, I can't imagine that anyone thought she did well. I mean, even the most MAGA of maga, she really did not. I mean, she did not come across as well as, as a, as even for maga. I thought she came across horribly. So I think she was trying to be, as you said, kind of Carolyn Levitt, you know, really sort of aggressive and, and, and answer questions like that. But I did not think she did well at all. And she did not look professional. She did not look lawyerly. And so I think what, what the picture that, that salty just put up was crazy because so what that is what you see there is she, essentially she, what she did was she went into the computers that the Department of Justice set up for con. For members of Congress. This was one of the most outrageous things that we learned today. So in addition to all the files that were released to the public, they set up, I think, four computers in the Department of Justice for members of Congress to be able to go in and look at the files unredacted. And so they, they went in there and they went into, look at the files, et cetera. She then, her people went in to those, to those computers and looked at the search history of each member of Congress to see who they looked up. And she, and they, they made charts and diagrams. And she was using that, using that against the members of Congress. That is outrageous. I mean, I cannot believe they are doing that, that they are doing surveillance on members of Congress who are legitimately trying to represent the American people and frankly, do their job. And their job is to be a check, okay. A check against the executive branch. And they are doing surveillance, computer surveillance and looking up her search, their search history. Outrageous.

[A]

Sorry folks, I'm trying to say. Absolutely, absolutely. We have some, we're going to take our first break here in a minute, but we do have some questions. Kathy Hoff's 3166 says can't those attorneys in the White House working for Trump and against we the people be the sparred. Yes. Now the Florida bar where Pam Bondi will crawl back under her rock when this administration is over. It's not a two term administration. It's not like these people can go, well, for the next eight years I'll be working in the White House. No, you won't be. Okay. We're down to the sands of time here. Know, and if, and if Donald Trump doesn't make it the whole way, it's even shorter than that. So when she goes back to Florida, Florida Bar, because I'm a member of the Florida Bar has taken the position, which I don't agree with, that they can't do a thing about somebody in federal off at a federal office even if they're using their bar license until they leave federal office. Okay. Like Lindsay Halligan, also a member of the Florida Bar. Now would be a great time to reopen the investigation about Lindsay Halligan and her professional malpractice. Same thing with Pam Bondi. So those that hold the law license, J.D. vance, by the way, has a law license. At least he passed, he went to law school. I have to look into that. So yes, just as a half a dozen or more of the first round of Trump lawyers, first wave were indicted, disbarred and convicted. You know, some, all three. It's going to happen to this group too. You know, and we thought as lawyers frankly, and the bar, the big B bar thought that it would have taught a lesson. All the indictments and disbarring and convictions of the, of the first wave of Donald Trump lawyers for the, for the next generation. Nope, didn't, not at all. You know, you know, power is a drug a, it's an aphrodisiac. Right. They, they're, they're drunk with power and they think they enjoy the same superhero powers that Donald Trump has, you know, superpowers, which is immunity and they don't. And the sooner we can either get Republicans and every time something like the tariffs for Canada get struck down when six Republicans go pound sand Donald Trump, we're going over there. That's, we're One inch closer to having impeachment proceedings start even before the midterm elections. At the midterms, at the rate we're going, with 435 members of Congress. This is how we do it. Everybody around the world, every two years, 435 members of Congress all up for election at the same time. When that happens, we just need 218 polling right now. The prediction, the predictive models, 225 maybe higher in the House. We won't, we won't even need a Republican to do the impeachment proceedings. But along with a lot of other things that'll help the American people, you know, like passing bills that'll help the American people. This, this organization hasn't the do nothing. Congress under Mike Johnson hasn't done a darn thing. The Senate, you know, we'll have to see. You need a lot in the Senate. You need two thirds in the Senate to remove on a conviction for impeachment. But, but. All right, so that's, that's what, what happens there. Sassy Granny 01 P1 says, Wonder what the victims will do next. Yeah, I mean we're working with some of the victims, some of the survivors. They're, they're working together, they're working on state and federal legislation to get rid of statute of limitations to bring civil lawsuits against their predators. That's one major thing they're doing. They're working on the next round of Epstein laws because the one they'll pass is not enough. We need another one to go after the documents in the executive branch that are with the Treasury Department, the irs, banking, there's lots more piles of documents that are not just DOJ and FBI. They're working on that as well. That's the two major areas that I know, I know Lisa Phillips in particular is working on that. One more. This one's for you, Karen. Margaret Wilson wants to know if there are state charges that can be brought against these Trump officials for abusing states rights and the people of the states. So state criminal laws or civil laws that could be used against Trump officials.

[B]

I mean, sure, if they, if they absolutely violate. If anyone who commits a crime other than the president who has immunity while he's in office, anyone who commits a crime and commits a state crime can absolutely be prosecuted against this. You know, if it happens in that particular jurisdiction, that's the difference between state and federal law is in a state, it has to happen in that local jurisdiction. And so as we saw, that's why Donald Trump was prosecuted by the Manhattan DA's office and he was convicted and other crimes that people commit that are in that particular jurisdiction absolutely can be prosecuted by state prosecutors. And, and I think that's what we're going to see a lot of, for example, the, the, you know, the, the ICE shootings, etc that are, that are happening and killings. And if we see that the Department of Justice isn't going to do anything, I think it's, we're going to see the local officials who are going to do those investigations and if appropriate, prosecutions for, for those offenses. So absolutely, I think that this is where the states are going to step up and you're going to see justice being done at the local level.

[A]

Great. Now's your chance to ask questions of Karen or me or both. Put them in the chat. We will collect them at our commercial break and our sponsor break and we will answer them when we come back. So many different ways to support what we do on Legal AF Podcast. Always a great start. Keep us in the top of the rankings because that gives us the street credibility we need to continue to meet the moment and defeat the Trump administration with this audience, with this community. Come over to the podcast on Audio, leave 5 star reviews and comments, bring people to the audio and the podcast to grow the audience. And then of course we've got this YouTube channel. I mean last week's show Karen did with one of our colleagues, Lisa Graves, you know, 400, 500,000 people watch that show. We got 12, 13,000 people watching tonight. And so we have lots of people that can help us attain these goals to grow. And then you've got the Legal AF YouTube YouTube channel, which is at a million 50,000 subscribers with your help. And so becoming a card carrying member of legal AF means coming over there and watching the 12 videos that we do over there every day and new content and lives. You know, Supreme Court's going to be doing oral arguments soon on birthright citizenship. Where to go for that one? Stop shopping Legal AF YouTube under the Live tab, just like we had the Pam Bondi. If you want to watch the full Pam Bondi right now, you can go. Well, not right now, but after the show's over, you go over to legal layup YouTube and pull it up. You'll see her face there and you will be able to watch it. And then we've got a sub stack if you know what substack is. You, you got to be a part of legal AF, a substack. And to encourage you, we're running a 35% off sale on annual membership 10, 11, 12 new pieces of material every day. Essays, writings. I do two lives a day, two live recordings and reports a day with with an audience, with questions that I'm able to answer. And if you don't know what substack is, go check it out. It's an amazing world. You know any any interest or hobby that you may have. Regardless, somebody is an expert and is writing about it and doing some amazing page like ours. The Legal AF Substack and then of course we've got our sponsors, some of which have been with us forever, since like five, six years ago. Some of them are new, all of them know our who our audience is. They know our point of view in terms of what we talk about and they are here for it. And we're here for them. And here's a word from our sponsors. This episode is brought to you by IQ Bar, our exclusive snack, hydration and coffee sponsor. IQ Bar Protein Bars, IQ Mix Hydration Mixes and IQ Joe Mushroom Coffees are the delicious, low sugar, brain and body fuel you need to win your day. The New year means a clean slate. Time to power your day with IQ Bar. Their Ultimate Sampler Pack is a great way to try everything. You get nine IQ Bars, eight IQ Mix sticks and four IQ Joe sticks. And all IQ Bar products are packed with clean ingredients that keep you physically and mentally fit, like magnesium and lion's mane. The new year gives us all a chance to reset, maximize your brain and body's potential with IQ Bars, protein bars, hydration mixes and mushroom coffees. Their Ultimate Sampler Pack includes all three. I keep an IQ Bar in my bag for a clean no sugar snack. Start my morning with IQ Joe and use IQ Mix to stay sharp and hydrated after a long day. And right now IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQ Bar products, including the Ultimate Sampler Pack plus free shipping. To get your 20% off, text legal AF to 64,000 text legal AF to 64,000 that's legal AF to 64,000 message and data rates may apply. See Terms for details. Feeling sluggish? Bloated? Not like yourself? Life bombards us with silent threats. Processed foods, artificial light and modern stressors disrupt your gut and drain your energy and weaken your immune health. Your body isn't broken, it just needs the right inputs. That's why I've been using Arm Rock Colostrum. I've noticed less bloating, steadier energy and overall I just feel more like myself. Armruck Colostrum is nature's original blueprint for health. Colostrum is packed with over 400 bioactive nutrients that fortify gut health, fuel fitness recovery and strengthen immune health. Supporting your best performance every day. Take back control of your health. We've worked out a special offer for my audience. Receive 30% off your first subscription order. Go to armrud.com legal af or enter legal af to get 30% off your first subscription order. That's A R M R A.com legalaf and welcome back and thank you for being here. We got a really strong audience here tonight and we do appreciate it and honor each of you for being here. I want to switch gears, Karen, and go to let's see what, let's see what, what looks good. Let's do the grand jury. Let's talk about because you have a background, of course, on the prosecutor side. I've never been in a grand jury room. I've, I've only been on the, you know, when a client gets indicted. I've had to deal with that occasionally. But grand juries are ultimately and I want to hear your perspective as the prosecutor conscience of the the court system. They're the ones that will decide at the very beginning whether there's probable cause for a crime and indict somebody, but also a gatekeeper to decide whether the evidence is sufficient or not and keep the grant to keep the prosecutor on their toes. Now, I've been doing this for over 35 years. You can count on two fingers the amount of major cases where a prosecutor and a federal prosecutor particularly doesn't get an indictment returned. Okay. We've had, forget that. We've had 50 or more grand juries look at the Department of Justice under Donald Trump and, and say, nope, we're not doing it. Letitia James, New York Attorney general, she they've tried three times to get her indicted. One time, the grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, actually returned the no bill of indictment, pardon me, in open court with they wanted it known that they would not indict her. They did not have to do it that way. In fact, the government Department of Justice so freaked out, they, they asked the judge, demanded that the judge seal it. He said, listen, they didn't have to return that no bill in open court, but they did. And I can only speculate why. And I'm not sealing it. So the American people don't know what happened. And which brings us to this. We knew they were working on a criminal investigation led by Jeanine Pirro against the six members of Congress, including Senator Elisa Slotkin of Michigan. Senator Mark Kelly of the Arizona about their 90 second video to remind members of the military not to follow illegal orders. They took a constitutional oath. They need to follow their own. It's not asking to break the chain of command. It's reminding them that it's no defense, just as the Nazis found out in the Nuremberg trials, to say I was just following orders and that's the reason that they did it. But this led to a because Donald Trump said hang them treason, George Washington would have hanged them. And Pete Hegseth labeling them the seditious six. There was this investigation. Now Mark Kelly ran off to court and, and is about to get, I believe, an injunction against him being censured by Pete Hegseth as a retired Navy Navy captain. At the same time, Alyssa Slotkin was, quote, unquote, invited to come to the Department of Justice and meet with Jeanine Pirro prior to this week to, I don't know, talk about the criminal case. Her lawyer said, no, just stop the criminal case, just like you should stop the criminal case you brought against the Fed. Reserve Chairperson Jay Powell. And now we got the new reporting, Karen, about last night and a grand jury and what they did concerning the attempt to indict sitting members of Congress, take it from there.

[B]

So let's look, take a step back and have a little a mini legal AF law school, especially for our Canadian and other international viewers who don't necessarily live in the in the US So there are basically two ways to charge someone with a crime in the United States. One is by a criminal complaint and one is by the grand jury. Now, for felonies and serious crimes to proceed, typically most jurisdictions, but the federal government as well require you to have the grand jury charge you. And the way that works is it's like a jury of your peers, 12 jurors who sit at a trial, but in the grand jury, there's 23 of them. And you need a quorum. So you need at least you need more than 12 to show up to be able to vote, but you really need more than 12 to vote an indictment. It's a majority rules system and there's only one side that goes in, it's the prosecution. And the prosecution presents their case. And it's just is there reasonable cause or probable cause to believe that a crime was committed? It is so easy to get an indictment that a judge once famously said you could even indict a ham sandwich. That's how easy it is to get an indictment. It is not hard, especially federally, because federally you can put hearsay in. So you don't even need the victims of crimes or the actual witnesses of crimes to go in and testify. In certain states like New York, you do need that. So it's a little bit harder because you have to have live witnesses come in and say, this happened to me and this is what I did, etc. But federally, you just have an FBI agent come in and who, who basically says, this is what happened. These are the, this is, this is the evidence, this is what they said. And it's almost like a rubber stamp. And it is, I think 99.9% of cases that get presented to a grand jury forget an indictment because prosecutors don't bring cases where you don't have not only probable cause to, to believe a crime committed, but you. Up until this Department of Justice, every prosecutor, especially federally, wouldn't bring a case to the grand jury if they couldn't prove their case ultimately beyond a reasonable doubt. Because getting an indictment was so easy that you could indict anybody. And so rather than, you know, once you get an indictment, you have to live with it, so you have to be able to approve your case. So the fact that they are not getting indictments in these cases is astounding. Okay? It's absolutely astounding. And what that tells me is, you know, we talk a lot on legal AF popoc about how judges are being the, the great check on this unitary executive and the judges are the ones who are, are. Because Congress is doing nothing. Right? Congress is essentially the lapdog of President Trump, unfortunately, and they'll do anything he says. And so we really have one check on this government and that has been the judicial branch, but we actually have a second, a second check. And that's the American people. Those are the everyday people who are getting jury summonses in the mail, who watch the news. They see what's happening. They see exactly that. This Department of Justice, rather than investigating Epstein, rather than investigating all the different co conspirators of Epstein, rather than bringing justice to the survivors where they have millions of pages of documents, tons of leads and real crime. What are they doing? They're going after Trump's enemies. They're, they're, they're trying to. You got Jeanine Pirro, who was, who, who was an actual lawyer. She was the district attorney of Westchester county here in New York, the elected D. She ran a whole, a whole prosecutor's office. She knows very well what a grand jury is. She's not like Lindsay Halligan, for example. She is a real, or was a real prosecutor. And she cannot get an indictment against these six people. That's because the grand jurors saw it for what it is. It. This is nothing more than a revenge prosecution against six heroes. These are heroes. These aren't just members of Congress, public servants. These are people who served in active duty in wars in Afghanistan. You have an ex CIA agent. These are people who put their lives on the line for the American people, who are going out and telling the American people, which is actually their duty as members of Congress, to tell the American people what the Constitution says and what they're required to do. And their job is to act as a check on the executive. And their job is to tell people in the military, you don't work for one man, you work for the Constitution. And so that's what they did. And thank God we have these grand jurors who are going in. And they are not just indicting cases because they're being brought to them, they're actually evaluating them. They're applying the law to the facts and they're upholding this Constitution. These are regular Americans who are unsung heroes. And thank God they're doing it.

[A]

It might be another good reason why they, they didn't just reject Jeanine Pirro. Gene Pirro decided that to go against and to obtain a indictment against senators and Congress people, she would send in an inexperienced federal prosecutor who on the side, not even on the side during the day, runs a dance photo studio. A guy by the name of Steven Vander Velden who has an active photography studio. He's the one. He worked with her in Westchester County. But as you know, state prosecution and federal prosecution are not the same things, I assure you. When he was a Westchester prosecutor, he never brought a case against members of Congress under the First Amendment and the speech and debate clause. The guy was so preoccupied, apparently, that within hours of not getting the indictment, he was posting up on his Instagram about his photo studio. What this demonstrates is how completely hollowed out and bereft of talent the Department of Justice is. So much so that she had to use a crony friend of hers that's effectively a part time prosecutor and a part time dance studio photographer to bring this major indictment. Okay, so this is also a gift that keeps on giving. The fact that the Trump administration, Pam Bondi, who we spent half the show on, already can't hire and retain any talent because nobody wants to work for this administration. So when you take, when you, when you take the Department of Justice and you subtract, it's like a math equation. 7,000 talented prosecutors and staff and you don't replace them. Then you got to use a dance studio photographer to be your prosecutor for a major case. And so. And it wasn't even Jeanine Pirro. I mean, I would at least be like, all right, Pam Bondi went in to try to get that indictment against Letitia James or James Comey. She didn't go anywhere near it. Janine Pirro. Maybe she went to get the salami Subway sandwich guy. No, she has no, she. Janine Pierre. There's a reason that Cecily Strong used to do an amazing impression of Jeanine Pirro drinking wine on Saturday Night Live. It was like dead on. Because she's at this point, her career, she's an actress playing a prosecutor. She think that she's not going in to actually get. She just likes standing. That's what Trump wants. She just wants her standing at the podium saying, oh my God, violent crime is down. I can't believe it's down because of Donald Trump. Another political hack masquerade and it must burn your ass. Karen, as a 30 year prosecutor, you know, a career prosecutor who headed your office, headed units, started units, a prosecutor's prosecutor to watch this shit show at the Department of Justice.

[B]

It's, it's really sad. It's sad and it's terrifying, to be honest. And you know, even the prosecutors who are still there, who are holding on, who are excellent, won't go in, won't go near, and you know, won't go anywhere near these, these prosecutions that are politically motivated because they can't, they have their reputations, right? As a lawyer, Popak, you know, the only thing you have is your reputation right before a judge, before a court. And these are people who aren't willing to stake their reputations or their bar licenses or their morals to go after these people who, who are nothing, who've done nothing wrong other than they are not Trump. And that's what it means to get prosecuted today, is if. Unless you're. Because we all know you can commit the most heinous crime in the world, it doesn't matter. You can be the president of a country who supplies, you know, traffics cocaine, but you tell Donald Trump that, you know, I like you and you know, you're handsome and I was persecuted and here's your pardon. Or you give him a million dollars. Here's your pardon. Or Jan6, it doesn't matter what you do. You know, you can, you can, you know, attack police officers, threaten to hang your vice president and you know, poop on the floor of Congress and break in. Doesn't matter. You know, here's your pardon. It really is atrocious and outrageous, and he's going after people who don't deserve to be prosecuted. Letitia James, the Attorney General, does not deserve to be prosecuted. She's not a criminal. Right. James Comey was ex FBI director. Does not deserve to be prosecuted. Not a criminal. These six members of Congress absolutely do not deserve to be prosecuted. I mean, it's. And. And thankfully, the grand jurors are standing up, because otherwise you're going to find the dance photographer or the insurance lawyer or whoever else they're trucking in there to try to indict these cases. But it's just outrageous. What. What is. What the Department of Justice is turning into. And frankly, I'm concerned about how they're going to make up the for lost ground once this. This nightmare ends. Because there's such a drain of talent.

[A]

Yeah. And the good news is for the American people in our audience, that a lot of that talent is ending up at the state attorneys General's offices, the Manhattan DA's office, the Democracy Forward, public interest groups, the ACLU, they're hiring these people left and right. I mean, and in private practice. Don Lemon just hired one of the major prosecutors in the Minnesota U.S. attorney's office who led the immigration prosecutions. He just hired him as his defense lawyer. Really? So smartly done. So smartly done. You should always hire people that you think are well connected to the system that you are up against, don't you think, Karen?

[B]

Of course. I mean, they know where all the bodies are buried. They know the secrets. They know the judges, they know. What does this mean when they do this or don't do that. It's not, you know, it's tough. It's not the way people think. People think, oh, you used to work there, so someone's going to do favors for you. You know that doesn't work that way, right? Prosecutors, it. It really does. I mean, it typically doesn't. I mean, maybe in the Donald Trump world, but real prosecutors, you know, it's not that. That people are going to necessarily give you a better deal because you once worked there, you knew them. The difference is these people work there. They know exactly what things mean. They know exactly. Okay. You, this. You. You put this prosecutor on it. Okay. That's how you're thinking about this case. Oh, you. You didn't do this strategy. You did that strategy.

[A]

What resonates over there and what's going to ring a bell over there and who's going to be involved and how to get the attention. Right, exactly. All of that, all of that. That, that's, that is incredibly valuable.

[B]

And that was really smart of Don Lemon to hire the guy who just left. He was, he was the one at the podium, right. Talking about the immigration cases. And then he left because. He left because they refused to, that they wanted. Yeah, they refused to prosecute the ice. ICE agent instead wanted them to go after Renee Good's wife. And he left in protest. And Don Lemon was very smart to hire that guy.

[A]

So why don't we do one more thing that dovetails with what we're talking about before we take our next break. And I see questions. We'll, we'll do the questions in a moment, but keep, keep putting him in. I see two or three we're going to cover. Trump has wanted to get out from under the 34 count felony conviction of his, of him in the Stormy Daniels election interference case. You know, the one with the bribery to Stormy Daniels through Michael Cohen, in order or not to let Stormy go public with the sex act that she participated in with Donald Trump right before the election. So it wouldn't be an October surprise. In with Donald Trump, you have to give like, dates because people are tuning in late. Like which sex act with which person outside of his marriage. Okay, this is the, this is the one right before the election with Stormy Daniels and others. He hated the conviction. And the way the timeline went, the Manhattan DA's office, Karen's old office, got the conviction between conviction and sentencing, the immunity decision came out by the United States Supreme Court, which led the lawyers to go back to Judge Merchan and try to argue about getting the conviction overturned and, or not to sentence him. The, the weird thing here is, which came up in federal court is why didn't they run with the immunity decision in their hand and try to argue somehow that the case again belonged in federal court? You see, they want to take it to federal court in order to try to get a federal judge to reverse, vacate the conviction by the jury, throw out the sentencing and then let, and if he won't do it or she won't do it, take the case out of direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Look, 99% of what happened in that case, what, what a jury convicted him of was about a conspiracy, business record fraud, tax fraud that happened before he was president. Maybe a half of 1% with some evidence they put on after he was president, talking to Hope Hicks and talking to Michael Cohen in the White House and whatever. But they didn't run to federal court. They kept banging away at state court trying to get Judge Bershon to rule on it. Before I turn it to you, Karen, the other interesting thing is why they've never really appealed a parallel case that happened a year earlier where Donald Trump's companies were convicted of this by the same Manhattan DA's office, which was like the, it was like the dress rehearsal for the, for this case of, of 17 or 18 counts of business record fraud and tax evasion involving very similar players. He's never cared about that. That, that's on the record. That said those 17 counts, take it from there. What are they trying to do with Judge Alvin Hellerstein, and what do you think Judge Alvin Hellerstein is going to do about it in federal court, if anything?

[B]

So they went to, after they went to Judge Merchan to try to remove it to federal court before sentencing, and Judge Merchan rejected that. They did. They went to Judge Hellerstein after that, and Judge Hellerstein rejected it. They then appealed that, and it went up to the Second Circuit, and the Second Circuit sent it back down to Judge Hellerstein to say, we need you to make findings. We need you to hold a hearing and, and make more findings before we rule on this. And so that's what just happened was he had that hearing and essentially what he's trying to do is what you just said, there's no way Judge Hellerstein is going to remove this case to federal court because this was entirely a personal. A personal matter. Right. This was a personal. This has nothing to do with his presidency, which is what he'd have to show to get this removed to federal court. This was him in his personal life cheating on his wife when she had just given birth to Barron Trump with Stormy Daniels. And he didn't want that coming out because he was going to run as a candidate. Right. A politician. That's, again, still your personal life. It's not presidential. And so what does he do during that time? He cooks the books and pays off Stormy Daniels by essentially making it look like lawyers fees and lying in the business records. And so there's no way anyone's going to find that to be in the scope of presidential immunity. And frankly, I'm not even sure this Supreme Court will find it in the scope of presidential immunity. I think, and I could be wrong, but I think at least Roberts and maybe one or two others might actually regret their immunity decision. I don't think they ever thought it would unleash the monster that it is unleashed. And so I think they would even this is even a bridge too far for them, but maybe I'm just too optimistic. But they're trying to get it removed to federal court so that, you know, that way they can appeal rather than appeal in state court, which he's definitely going to lose. This is an ironclad, rock solid conviction that will stand until the end of time in state court. But he thinks his best hope is to appeal in federal court, appeal this conviction and get it thrown out. So that's what's, that's what's happening there. I think Hellerstein's going to reject it. That's my opinion. He'll appeal it to the Second Circuit, get it to the Supreme Court. But I predict that this is even a bridge too far for the Supreme Court because A, it's his personal life. He is not, does not fall under the presidential immunity rubric. And B, I do think they must, they must be having some regrets. There's no way they can't.

[A]

Which takes us to a question from our audience earlier. Let me see if I can grab it here about the immunity decision, see if I can find it. State charges talking about tens of thousands. Hold on. I'm just looking through our list here of questions. There was one in particular about what oh, here we go. Netzona asked what sort of legislation could be passed in the future to reverse the Supreme Court's decision that gave Trump immunity. None. Because the separation of powers. Congress doesn't have the power to clip the wings of the presidency and to take away immunity. They could try, but I think ultimately the Supreme Court would find that that is a violation of the separation of powers. They have interpreted from the Constitution that there is immunity for the president and only a, when they get a chance to revisit, which sometimes they do on, on a topic that is related, can they start rolling back and it's happened in the past. They think they went too far. They want to clarify the question is, are there five votes to roll this back without, without undermining their primary goal, which was to establish the executive branch as the preeminent branch among the other three, the other two, including their own, the judicial branch. So Congress, nothing Supreme Court could, in terms of interpretation, start to roll back and walk this back because we are on the precipice here. I think we're beyond the precipice with and, and you can and they see the real world implications that that decision in the hands of a madman with no moral, no Morals, no scruples, and a criminal, convicted criminal, what he would do with it, which is, which is to stretch, forget about stretching the immunity decision beyond its outer boundaries. If this is like, you know, it's like out, you know, outside the box thinking there's no box. This is just lawlessness of, of the first order. To paraphrase Katanji Brown Jackson of the United States Supreme Court. When we come back. Karen, let's do a deep dive to round out our episode about what's going on in Fulton County, Georgia and the new revelations now that we've got our hands on the 50 page FBI affidavit about what's really going on here. As the conspiracy theorists have run amok, the inmates have taken over the asylum and yet the FBI has no problem under Cash Patel to, to file affidavits with federal magistrate judges in bad faith to tell them that there's missing ballots in Georgia that we have to get to the bottom of. Although when you read the affidavit, Karen, he basically admits he does not have probable cause, that there is no probable cause to issue the search warrant. He says it throughout the affidavit and then we'll get to talk about Zebra Duck. One of my most favorite aspects of any of the research I've done lately for my hot takes is just, you have to remember Zebra Duck. Remind me if I forget, but we're going to take another break, support the show. You know how to do it. The podcast on Audio, Spotify, Apple, all that. Tell your friends about us. YouTube, you, your, your support consistently keeps us in the top 20 or 30 of all YouTube podcasts, all YouTube podcasts. And that's really a great compliment to you and we, and we love you for it. And then we've got legal AF, YouTube channel, subscribe. Keep, keep hope alive. Alive. Keep, keep us alive. You know, I hate to, I hate to be like morose but like if we lost our subscriber base, we lost our audience, we lost people contributing to us in that way, we're off the air. It'd be like, hey, wasn't this is, wasn't this where Legal AF used to be? Yeah. So continue to do the support thing, become a card carrying member. And we appreciate that. And then of course we've got our substack. Yeah, just I never knew about sub stack. Like a couple years ago I was like, what Sub stack? People were like, it's not like a blog. No, it's an amazing world that opens up when you get into substack and hopefully you'll find Legal AF sub stack there and our and our paid membership which pays pays the bills and keeps the editors and and the question takers paid and all that good stuff. And then we've got our Pro Democracy sponsors and here's another word from them. Deleteme makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online At a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable, Delete Me does all the hard work of wiping your and your family's personal information from data broker websites so you don't have to chase it down yourself. As someone with an active online presence, privacy is really important to me. There's so much personal information floating around out there and you often don't even realize it until you go looking. If you've ever worried about identity theft, harassment or doxing or you know someone who has, Delete Me can help by removing that data from hundreds of broker sites, take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners. You can get 20% off your delete Me plan when you go to join delete me.com/legal AF and use promo code legalif at checkout. But the only way to get 20% off is to go to joindeleteme.com legalaf and enter code legalif at checkout one more time. Join delete me.com legalif code legal a f scaling a business that takes the right expertise at the right time, upwork helps growing teams quickly bring in specialized freelancers so you can move faster and take the business to the next level. Upwork is a one stop platform to find, hire and pay expert freelancers across web and software development, data and analytics, marketing, business operations, and more. Upwork helps grow your business by giving you fast access to specialized talent across more than 125 categories so you can fill skill gaps, launch projects faster and scale support up or down without committing to full time headcount. You can browse profiles, review past work and get help scoping the role so you can hire with confidence and get started quickly. Upwork also cuts down operational hassle by handling things like contracts and payments in one place so you can spend more time running the business. It's free to sign up and posting a job is easy with business plus, you can access the top 1% of talent on Upwork and with AI powered shortlisting, you'll get matched to the right freelancer in under six hours. No endless searching required. Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That's Upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's up w o r k.com upwork.com and thank you to our pro democracy sponsors. All right, we're going to go to Fulton County. Put on your prosecutor hat, Karen. So in the affidavit of the FBI agent in which he summarizes the quote, unquote evidence that he has from a dozen unredacted name witnesses, he says more than one time the following. I'm going to paraphrase phrase. If, if the things listed in here were done intentionally, they may be crimes under federal law. That's it. Have you ever seen a, an agent, an FBI agent, law enforcement, tell a federal magistrate judge that they're not sure the crimes were committed, they're not sure that, that there's probable cause for a crime. But if they were done intentionally, crimes may have been committed as sufficient to support a search warrant application.

[B]

This is the biggest head scratcher for me is this particular affidavit. I've never seen anything remotely like this. And the biggest head scratcher is how did it get past a judge? And so again, let's take another legal AF law school course, little mini course on what is a search warrant and what do you have to show for a search warrant. A search warrant allows you to go in and search for evidence and, or seize evidence, right? And so because we have something called the Constitution, right? And then the fourth Amendment that basically protects you against unlawful searches and seizures. And so to get a search warrant to go into someone's home or to go into a place, any place where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, you need a search warrant. And so what, what this particular, this, this is a business, right? This was a storage unit. And to go in there and seize records by force, meaning you can't say no, is that you have to go before a judge and you have to write an affidavit and swear. You have to raise your right hand and swear under oath that what you're telling them is the truth. And in that affidavit, you have to establish by probable cause that both a crime was committed and you have to spell out the elements of that crime and why you have probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. And two, that there is evidence of that crime, that you believe there's probable cause to believe that the evidence of that crime exists in the place that you are trying to search. Now, the second part of that are Those records in that place that there's a lot of people who said, well, the election was in 2020. How do we know the records are still there? That's a slightly easier threshold to get to here because one, because there are rules and laws that require Fulton county and Georgia in particular to keep records for a certain amount of time. So the fact that they were able to get to know that the records were there and get in, I think I have less of a problem with that than I do. What's the crime? What. What is the probable cause to believe that a crime occurred and that there is evidence of the crime contained in those documents? Not that the documents are there or the records. Right. There's. There's was everything from. From. From computer tapes to ballots to envelopes to all sorts of things that they wanted to seize that was in there. Where is there. Where was it in this affidavit that. That there was probable cause to believe that a crime occurred and B, that there's evidence of the crime in there? And I didn't see either of those things in that affidavit. In addition to the fact that a search warrant affidavit often relies on informants. Right. You. In a drug case, you can rely on a drug informant. In other cases, you can rely on, you know, white collar case, you rely on other informants. So the fact that they relied on numerous informants in here doesn't surprise me. What surprised me is the quality of those informants. I mean, you had people in there, and it was shocking to me. You had people in there who. Who are making assertions that have been either debunked. Right. You have people in there who are looking things up that aren't experts in these things.

[A]

I give you an example and have.

[B]

Yeah, exactly.

[A]

I want you to comment on it as a prosecutor. Okay, we get. We get the Zebra Duck finally. Okay, now listen to this. I'm going to try to read it straight so people don't think I'm making this up. This is witness informant number five. It. The person is a data analyst who reviewed and analyzed original ballot images and recount ballot images. That person stated that he downloaded the data. Leave carrot up on the screen. I wanted to react on this. And real quick time. He. He downloaded the data online from Zebra Duck and believed. He believed that that was obtained from an open records request from Fulton County. But he wasn't. It gets worse. But he wasn't positive as he was not part of acquiring the data. He received it secondhand and then he used A computer program to do a review of the images like diy. That is an appropriate confidential informant. A guy who got a database where they don't know where they got the data from and did his own analyst.

[B]

So when you have someone like that who has a questionable background, you have to prove why they would be reliable. You have to actually assert that. And there was nothing in there. I mean, you know, witness number one, a chemical engineer and taught at a technical college. Okay. That's what they're saying. He's a Georgia resident. This is a different one. Witness number one, a chemical engineer and taught at a technical college, began conducting his own research and analysis on elections. Right. What is. What is a chemical engineer who conducted his own research know about election. You know about. How is he someone who you can rely on to say that there might be. Not that there is, but there might be irregularities here? And if there are irregularities, they certainly did not prove that they were intentional, that they were knowing willful or intentional, which is what you need for there to be a crime. Because otherwise it's an accident. Right? It's an accident, which is not a crime.

[A]

FBI agent concedes he doesn't know whether it was intentional. Look, you need to have probable cause to go in.

[B]

Can I just read one more? Can I read one more?

[A]

Wait, wait. Don't you need probable cause to. To. To in order to get a search warrant that a crime has been committed? Okay, where is it?

[B]

Yes, exactly. But I want to just give one more. One more of these. Of these witnesses. I know. Witness number two, the Republican appointed member of the Georgia State election board was an obstetrician. Okay, an obstetrician. Like an ob gyn prior to serving on the election board. Right. And she comes forward and says, you know, prior to this, she never worked on an election, but as a member of the election board, she's tasked with listening to state election board, you know, investigator reports. And she's coming forward and saying, you know, therefore, there. There might be irregularities. And therefore, I mean, again, these aren't experts. These aren't people who know anything.

[A]

You know, if you think we're being mean, I will tell you that the entire 12, led by a lawyer who's so fringe, but is in the department, is in the Trump administration now. He was one of those waves of lawyers that Donald Trump grasped straws to try to cling to power. He's so nuts. Sorry. That he couldn't even make the varsity squad of team crazy. So he. So even Giuliani and Sidney Powell and Chessborough were like, no, this guy's too far about seizing voting machines. He's been whispering about seizing voting machines for Trump for six years. Trump let him in to the administration. He's like in charge of election integrity. This guy makes a referral. He.

[B]

You.

[A]

He's so bad that he represented Carrie Lake in her challenge against Hobbs for the. The governor race. The governor race, and got sanctioned by the Arizona Supreme Court for fraud on the court, pushing these conspiracy theories. This is the guy that made the referral to the FBI. Right. And then who else is in there? Oh, a computer scientist that used to work or works with Mike Lindell, the pillow guy who also works with this guy that I just identified and so on that. And you'll see if you, if you want to, you know, if you can't sleep at night and you want to. Want to read something, you'll see this constant reference to 17,852 digital images of ballots that are missing. It's said by the person who's the Republican obstetrician. It's said by the data analyst with Zebra Duck. It is a debunked falsehood that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, the cybersecurity unit independent of the federal government, all rejected. Okay. And yet they continue to bring these QAnon down the rabbit hole conspiracy theories. And that's all there is, except it's given the imprimatur of credibility by this FBI agent in the Public Integrity Unit in. In Fulton County, Georgia. How they hoodwinked this federal match straight judge is beyond me. But we're going to get the bottom of it. Yeah, but here we're going to get to the bottom of it because Judge Booley, JP Booley, who's the actual Article 3 lifetime appointed federal judge because Fulton county brought a what's called a 41G motion under the federal rules of criminal procedure, which is what.

[B]

Give me back my records.

[A]

Which is what you do when you're on the bad end of a fourth amendment violation. You could be Daniel Richmond, the lawyer for Comey, who says, I want my stuff back. You can't be roaming through it without a search warrant against James Comey. 41G is very, very powerful when you're in private practice. And so Fulton county has. Has fourth amendment rights. And they said, give it us, give us it back. Unsealed, unseal the affidavit. That's why we're talking about the affidavit the last couple of days. And then the judge is going to hold a hearing and we'll, of course, report on it about what happens next. But when I saw it was. It took my breath away. The. The fact that this was just. I suspected it. Just a dozen of the craziest lunatic fringe of MAGA election deniers all strung together, you know, hoping that by volume it would make the whole thing more persuasive. But I do think the FBI agent, almost like a. Almost like a hostage, was blinking and signaling with his eyes that even he doesn't think this thing works, because why would he include two paragraphs that says, well, if this was true and if it was intentional, it may, it may be violative of crimes. That is not the standard. Who is this. This magistrate judge should be impeached.

[B]

You know, the scary thing about this Popak, is what the, what the Republicans are doing is they're gathering information about how, like, they're testing, right? They're testing, okay? They know the midterms are coming up, and they know that there's going to be certain midterm races that are close to call. And they're. They're testing out what are the levers we can pull to try and essentially steal this election. And so they. They are there. It's almost like they're just trying to, you know, like machine learning. Okay, let's try to do a search warrant and let's try to do a search warrant in, in Fulton county, and, you know, let's see how it goes. Can we get it? Can we not get it? And what are the pushbacks going to be? What, how are they going to act and what are the things so that we can prepare to do this? Because what has Trump said? We're going to nationalize elections, right? We're going to federalize elections. This is all gathering data on how to do this nationwide, how to do this at scale, when it really matters. And so a lot of these things that they're doing is testing it out so that they can be ready during the midterms and then again in 2028. So we have to be smart about this and realize what they're doing.

[A]

Totally agree with you. This, this is all a dress rehearsal. Like you said. It's like a child testing the limits of parental control. You know, can I do this? Can I, can I put my hand on the stove? Can I put my face on the stove? You know, eventually, the good part is the American people are wise to it. Congress, Democrats certainly are. Voters are becoming, federal judges are becoming. And grand juries. And juries are becoming wise to all of this. And so, but you're totally right. We got to be on our toes. We gotta be bouncing on. On our balls of our feet from like you and I do, naturally, from, from now until the midterms and beyond. And that's why we always talk about the show being like, what is our competitive advantage as a podcast? Right? There's plenty of law podcasts out there.

[B]

There.

[A]

There's plenty of politics podcast out there. But we saw early on that at that intersection of law and politics, that that was where we would live. That's where we would find our audience. That's where we would serve our best purpose, our highest and best use to one, build an audience, build a community, build a fellowship where we vibrate on the same frequency and that we would do the most good there. I mean, I was. And, and occasionally, as you, as you often do, you know, you get to bump into people who are, who love what we do and feel it fills a void in their life. Especially now. I was in, in West Palm beach today, which I hadn't been in like 10 years, and I took a lunch break from some meetings that I had up there, and I went to an area, frankly, that I used to live in 30 years ago that I wanted to see how it had it developed. And I stopped in, in City Place in West Palm beach, everybody knows it. And I popped into Italy to go grab a sandwich, and there was a couple about my age, and I was walking by them and the, the woman said popak like that. And I. And I knew at that moment that they were just tremendous supporters of Legal af. So the couple that I met today from Stuart, Florida, appreciate you. And they just said out loud what you and I hoped when we developed Legal af, which is that it provide. They love everything we do. It provides a tremendous comfort knowing that there's a community out there, knowing that they're. They're learning about these things that they can take into their own life. And it's the streets and social media and, and activate and motivate them. And they don't feel so alone. And so we're really glad that everybody's with us. We're growing, we're building the. We have the momentum. We all feel a big wave election coming, historic one. And we will continue to give you the fodder and ammunition and knowledge that you need in order not just to pull the lever for yourself, but to convince people how important this midterm election is. The most important election in my lifetime. I've never said that phrase before. And so that we get the fill in the blank 7 to 20 million people that sat out the last election and sat on the sidelines of our democracy. We get them back. We have to get them back and engaged. And the Democrats have to close the deal with the American people, which they're working on doing with, like, things we talked about today, like the oversight hearings and things like that. Karen, such a pleasure to always get together with you. Thank you for, for all that you do for the legal AF community. And last word, Karen Freeman, I want.

[B]

To give a shout out to two of our biggest fans who are with us every single Wednesday, my dad and Grammy, who are watching from home in Palm Desert. So I love you and thank you for being here and from being here from the beginning. So I love you.

[A]

Yeah, that's very, very, very sweet. We love you all. We'll see you, we'll see you Saturday, Ben Mysalis and me for Saturday, Legal AF and of course, all the other places in our ecosystem. Until then, shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal A.