Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:00]
Mackenzie
My name is Mackenzie and I started a GoFundMe for the adoptive mother of a nonverbal autistic child. The mother had lost her job because she wasn't able to find adequate care for this autistic child. So she really needed some help with living expenses, paying some back bills. So I launched a GoFundMe to help support them during this crisis. And, and we raised about $10,000 within just a couple of months. I think that the surprising thing was by telling a clear story and just like really being very clear about what we needed, we had some really generous donations from people who were really moved by the situation that this family was struggling with.
- [00:47]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
GoFundMe is the world's number one fundraising platform, trusted by over 200 million people. Start. Start your GoFundMe today at gofundme.com that's gofundme.com, gofundme.com this podcast is supported by GoFundMe. Whether you're into unsolved mysteries, solved mysteries, or creating your own mysteries, Amazon Music's got millions of podcast episodes waiting. Just download the Amazon Music app and start listening to your favorite podcasts ad free included with Prime.
- [01:19]
Michael Popak
Welcome to Legal af, the law and politics podcast you can't live without. And we're at the midweek and what Just a growing list of things. I never have to worry, along with Karen, that the glass isn't going to refill with stories that we can talk about. Tulsi Gabbard took to the Capitol Hill today for the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committee to give sworn testimony. I don't think it went well for Tulsi Gabbard, and I think it proved the point. We've all suspected Donald Trump effectively made up the rationale to go to war with Iran, whether he was being, as his now former Director of counterterrorism said, being led around the nose by the. By the Israelis or not. Nothing about Tulsi Gabbard's testimony today is helpful to Donald Trump. And I'm not sure Tulsi Gabbard is long for this administration. I think she pulled a Kristi Noem today during her testimony, and I'm not gonna be shocked if, if she's removed, but I want to bounce it around with Karen Freeman McNifolo and update our audience. And we're going to talk a lot about federal judges in year two of the administration. Year one of the administration was a lot of federal judges trying to figure out, like, what to do, like 250 executive orders, what powers do we have? Why is the Department of Justice so angry? Why are they so defiant and corrupt? Year two, they're figuring it out. And we've never seen this in, not my lifetime. Sitting federal judges who aren't retired, including at the United States Supreme Court level, going on panels, going on interviews and criticizing out loud Donald Trump. And that is just one of the ways that they are different in year two of this administration, the federal judiciary, than they were in, in, in one. We're going to talk about a story about a judge in New Jersey, the first Muslim federal judge ever, Judge Qurashi, and how he ripped the Department of Justice a new one and the U.S. attorney's office because he reminded them that judges are solely responsible for the administration of justice in their courtrooms. And if the Department of Justice continues to defy other federal judges orders about who can run the U.S. attorney's office, for instance, then you're going to fall into the mouth of a judge like Judge Karashi during a hearing. And, and I'll leave you on that, on that cliffhanger about Judge Karashi will marry it with a story about Chief Justice Roberts while court is still in session, slipping off the black robes, sitting in the interview chair and criticizing almost by name, Donald Trump. Just an hour or two or three, few hours after Donald Trump attacked the United States Supreme Court again in an insane, unhinged social media post, Roberts there to respond. And when you see the video, if you think presidents age in dog years, wait. If you haven't seen John Roberts in a while, wait, wait. I mean, he's starting to look like, you know, I'm trying to think what would be the Yoda. He's shrinking physically. He's aging before our very eyes. I mean, now, let's be honest, he's Dr. Frankenstein who created the monster, and now he's trying to figure out how to get him back into a cage. And then lastly, I want to talk about Trump and the media landscape because we're on the media, you know, Midas Touch and Legal AF and independent media. Anyway, but when I saw Trump going after and posting and bragging about reshaping the media landscape, look at all the great things I accomplished. You know, extortion against many companies in order to get them to pay him some sort of tithe or tribute. Conspicuously missing, of course, from that list was Midas Touch Legal af. You know, we don't, we don't bend the knee, but I thought something's got to be going on in his cases, that it's not going well, for him. And lo and behold, we get to talk about why CNN is winning against Donald Trump, why the BBC is likely to win, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Des Moines Register, you name it. Donald Trump, it's like a child with a toy. He gets tired of these play things anyway. And after the big splashy headline of billions of dollars sought against mainstream media by Donald Trump for defamation, he sort of gets tired. And the cases are tired. We will give you an update on those as well here here at the intersection of law and politics on Legal AF with Karen Freeman Nifflo and Michael Popak. Hi, Karen.
- [06:00]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
Hi, Popak. How are you today?
- [06:02]
Michael Popak
Good. I was playing lawyer today and took me away from a part of my social media and media responsibilities. But I'm glad to be back with you. How are you?
- [06:11]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
I'm good. It's so good to see you.
- [06:12]
Michael Popak
You too. TULSI gabbard, IRAN let's just frame this for our audience, shall we? I don't know if anybody's noticed if maybe you've fallen asleep over the last 20 days like rip Van Winkle and you've woken up and realized that we're at war with Iran. And what is that doing absolutely nothing good for the American people. It is strengthening the Iranian regime. It is consistent with what Tulsi Gabbard's intelligence community reports told the Trump administration prior to his attack on 28 February, that that the attack, the war would never lead to a collapse of the regime and it would only lead to Iran being forced to attack oil infrastructure and allied assets. And the Strait of Hormuz, this narrow strait between Iran and the UAE through which 27% of the world's oil passes at one point. KAREN at a bend, it's only 30 miles across, meaning there's no way to protect it. Donald Trump literally could send the entirety of the US Navy, combine it with the entirety of all of our allies navies, and they still would not be able to successfully stop the blockade and have the flow of oil on oil tankers go through the Strait of Hormuz as if it were before the war ended. Until the war ends, the Strait of Hormuz is effectively shut down by the Iranians and no amount of bumper busting bombs is going to fix this problem. And that, according to Tulsi Gabbard's own intelligence briefing, is what they told the president before he decided to ignore that and rely on Jared Kushner, his son in law, and his golf buddy, cryptocurrency partner Steve Witkoff for Their intelligence related to Iran was going to strike first. And leaning into Tulsi Gabbard's testimony today, along with John Ratcliffe, the head of the CIA was Joe Kent. Now, Joe Kent's an interesting dude, right? He 20 year Green Beret veteran, CIA paramilitary. He's also a rabid election denier. January 6th, denier, buddy of Nick Fuentes, the avowed white supremacist, white nationalist, and lost his wife. She was a cryptologist for the CIA in the Middle East. She was blown up in the Middle East. But even he can't take it anymore. And he resigned. Not just like with a handshake to the president, with a noisy letter in which he said, effectively, you lied to the American people. Iran was not an imminent threat. In other words, they were not about to fire first, which was Donald Trump's rationale for Iran. Oil prices have now skyrocketed. The Federal Reserve did not help out Donald Trump today with with the interest rate cuts. And Tulsi Gabbard took the stand first. I want to hear from Karen. Karen, give me Iran. Give me a wrap up in what Iran, what you're seeing with Donald Trump's end game, whatever that's supposed to be, over the first 20 days of this war.
- [09:27]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
Look, it really does seem like this war was an effort to get people to not be talking about the disaster. The fact that ICE was such a disaster killing American citizens. And now effectively these mass surges in cities has ended, thank God. And the deportations, these mass deportations, it's just not going like it was. And Kristi Noem is out. And so they needed something to get everyone to stop talking about, about that whole debacle and on the Epstein files is I think the second thing that we talk about every day and have to keep talking about every single day and is a thorn in this administration side with Pam Bondi getting called before Congress soon, subpoenaed before Congress soon, where she's gonna have to answer to basically what the Department of Justice has not done. And so it really just feels like this was a crisis that he had. Right. We are in a worldwide crisis. This war has just upended our economy, our relationships with our allies, which were already terrible. And I mean, he threatened to take Greenland. I don't know, that seems to have gone out the window. And now he wants Cuba and he just keeps coming up with these ideas and then when it doesn't go well, he has to come up with something else. And he rushed into this war with Iran when there was clearly no imminent threat. I mean, the fact that Tulsi Gabbard's deputy, her number two, the person who would know almost more than anyone else in the world about whether or not Iran is an imminent threat to this country because we don't have all the information. A lot of that stuff is classified. A lot of that stuff was not talked about in this hearing and we will never know about because it's classified. But guess who did know. Tulsi Gabbard and her number two. And he resigned, as you just said yesterday, and said they weren't an imminent threat. And of course they weren't an imminent threat because all we heard from Donald Trump and everyone else was how we obliterated their nuclear capabilities, how they weren't going to continue to try and re get their nuclear capabilities back up and running. They had no intelligence that showed that in fact they had the opposite. So this was a made up excuse. And it's clear that they were completely unprepared because as you said, they had no way of dealing with the Strait of Hormuz. Closing the fact that our allies have walked away from us because it makes no sense, this war for them or for us. And frankly, because we've abandoned our allies. And all Donald Trump does is shake hands of dictators and people like Vladimir Putin and he admires people like Xi Jinping and, and Kim Jong Un and those are the people he admires. And he criticizes our allies, our leaders. And so guess what? When you need them, where are they? They're not gonna just step in when we weren't attacked, we weren't about to be attacked. Nobody has any intelligence. Don't forget all of these countries of our allies, they have intelligence too. They have people who give them information as well. And all of them have made the same determination that our intelligence community, which is that they were not an imminent threat. The only person, the only people who wanted to do this were the Israelis, was really Benjamin Netanyahu. I don't even wanna tar Israelis with Benjamin Netanyahu's stain. And he is the one who wanted this war and he is the one who convinced Donald Trump to do this along with him. Side by side, they've gone into this war totally unprep, unprepared for a regime change. Right? They've taken out a lot of leaders, I'll give them that, but without any plan of what to do. And so far the regime has remained the same. Now you've got this radical regime that has killed many Iranian citizens, probably more than anybody else. And frankly, no plan for the Iranian people to retake their country, retake their government. And so now you've got a lot of really pissed off people who are leading Iran. If they hated us before, they hate us more now. And they know because they've been preparing for this for a long time. They've got their, their nuclear, the pieces of that you need to put together for a nuclear bomb, they have those buried deep, deep, deep, deep underground. They might have 10, 15, 20 of these things that you need, but they have like a thousand dummy ones that look exactly like it. So if you go into these tunnels and into these caves, you're not going to know which ones are real or which one's fake. No one's going to be able to be able to remove that or disassemble these parts or these pieces that you would need to get together to completely, completely dismantle their program. Same thing with the Strait of Hormuz. As you said, there is nothing that's going to open it if Iran doesn't want that opened. It is this choke point that literally is going to control 20% of the oil that goes around the world. And so we went in under false pretenses and we were completely unprepared. And Americans and other people are losing their lives as a result. And I think it's just dangerous. And it appears, and this is my opinion, that it was done to deflect from the disaster that is going on in this country and the fact that the Republicans are trying to create an emergency because when they go into the midterms that they've already determined they're going to lose, certainly at least right before the war, that we need to create an emergency that shows why we all need to be in control, why we need to be in charge, because we've got this worldwide catastrophe that we can't have change now. And that's what they're going to try and convince the American people. Or it's such an emergency that we can't possibly have an election. Right. Because we know he's either wanted to control the election or stop us from having one to begin with. So it just in today's hearing with Tulsi Gabbard speaking, and this is a hearing that she's required by law once a year to give a briefing, an intelligence briefing, an assessment of intelligence and threats around the world. She's required to give this to Congress and anything that's confidential, they do in a closed door session afterwards, but she's required to give an assessment of it. And frankly, she didn't do anything to help herself or help this administration in terms of justifying where we are and why we're spending. Put aside American lives and other people's lives, which is a shame that they are putting them on the line for this war. The billions and billions and billions of dollars that we are spending on this needless, senseless war that nobody wants. Nobody wants nobody. Not the American people. Nobody wants this war worldwide, nobody wants this war. But Donald Trump, and this is a war. And it seems like members of Congress, and he's convinced people in his administration to also say that this was a good idea. But this is a war that's costing billions and billions and billions of dollars.
- [17:07]
Michael Popak
Yeah. So Tulsi Gabbard, we can have a debate about how to pronounce her name, but I think. I think it's Gabbard. Tulsi Gabbard has disappeared from this administration, except for the congressionally mandated time she's got to come before Congress to give testimony. She's been sidelined by Donald Trump. She's been chastised by Donald Trump for undermining him in various other scenarios. She was left all that. We've seen the Director of National intelligence that controls 17 different intelligence organizations, including, on paper, the CIA. The only time we've seen her, despite two wars going on in Venezuela and in Iran, is when she showed up wearing some sort of baseball cap in some sort of Kristi Gnome cosplay to show up in Georgia when they pulled 600 boxes of voting data out of Georgia during a criminal investigation there in Fulton County. That's it. She wasn't on the stage for the announcement of the start of the Venezuelan War. She wasn't anywhere to be seen during the Iranian war. And she looked. This is a very leaky administration. We've already got the leaks that have come out from her intelligence community, including Joe Kentucky, who just noisily resigned, in which they said that intact was not imminent, that the regime will not fail and not be. And not be there won't be regime change because of bombing or war. And they have credible evidence that Iran was ready with their tactics and strategy to go after oil assets of the United States almost immediately and to choke off, as you said, the Strait of Hormuz, which Donald. Which Donald Trump, in a social media posting misspelled as the word straight, like you're going straight, as opposed to the straits, always concerning when he can't get basic fundamental geography right, when he's supposed to be the president. And she took to the we had it up live on Legal AF today. And she took to the stand today and gave this testimony, which, as I agree with you, does not help Donald Trump in a. Not in a wit. And I think it might be her swan song to be leaving the. The office. Let's play it.
- [19:28]
Senator (Unnamed)
The White house stated on March 1st of this year that this war was launched and was, quote, a military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime. End quote. That's a statement from the White House, Quote, the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime. Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?
- [19:55]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
The intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment capability.
- [20:03]
Senator (Unnamed)
Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no, Senator?
- [20:10]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the President.
- [20:15]
Michael Popak
False.
- [20:15]
Senator (Unnamed)
This is the worldwide. This is the Worldwide Threats Hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence, timely, objective, and independent of political considerations. You've stated today that the intelligence community's assessment is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated and that, quote, there had been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. Was it the intelligence community's assessment that nevertheless, despite this obliteration, there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime. Yes or no?
- [20:48]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat. That is up to.
- [20:54]
Senator (Unnamed)
Here's the problem.
- [20:55]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
Based on a volume.
- [20:55]
Senator (Unnamed)
No, it is. It is precisely that he received. It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States. This is the Worldwide Threats Hearing where, as you noted in your opening testimony, quote, you represent the IC's assessment of threats. You are here to represent the IC's assessment of threats. That's a quote from your own opening statement. And so my question is, as you're here to present the IC's assessment of. Of threats. Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that, as the White house claimed on March 1, there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no?
- [21:41]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has provided the inputs that make up this annual threat assessment.
- [21:49]
Senator (Unnamed)
You won't answer the question.
- [21:50]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
The nature of the imminent threat, that the President has to make that determination based on a collection and volume. You're here to be intelligence that he is provided.
- [22:00]
Senator (Unnamed)
You're here to be timely, objective, and independent of political considerations.
- [22:05]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
Exactly what I'm doing.
- [22:06]
Senator (Unnamed)
No, you're evading a question because to provide a candid response to the committee would contradict a statement from the White House. And you noted in your opening statement you're here fulfilling a statutory responsibility and that your testimony, quote, represents the IC's assessment of threats.
- [22:24]
Michael Popak
Correct.
- [22:25]
Senator (Unnamed)
That opening statement as submitted to the committee in advance of this hearing, stated that as a result of last summer's airstrike strikes, quote, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated, end quote. Correct?
- [22:38]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
That's right.
- [22:39]
Senator (Unnamed)
And is that in fact the assessment of the intelligence community?
- [22:42]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
Yes.
- [22:43]
Senator (Unnamed)
So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer's airstrikes?
- [22:49]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
Yes.
- [22:51]
Senator (Unnamed)
In the opening statement you submitted to the committee last night also stated, quote, there has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability, end quote. Correct?
- [23:00]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
That's right.
- [23:01]
Senator (Unnamed)
And that's the assessment of the intelligence community?
- [23:03]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
Yes.
- [23:06]
Michael Popak
I don't know why we don't talk about John Ostoff more for potential president. I mean, I was so impressed by, so impressed by his insightful cross examination of her. Obviously she's there trying to figure out a way not to piss off the President who made his decision based on his hunch, based on information he took in from his son in law, Jared Kushner, a real estate developer who has no nuclear, technical or military expertise, nor diplomacy expertise. And Steve Wyckoff, who is even worse as a golf buddy of his from Boca Raton, Florida, that they were up, that Iran was about to strike and therefore Trump had the right to strike first. Nobody believed that in the intelligence community, as you just heard, nobody believed that in the thinking part of our audience, our audience's thinking part, that they, after seeing what happened in June with, I don't, I'm not sure it was an obliteration of their nuclear capacity, but certainly she sworn, is sworn in a testimony and said that. But that, that having seen that, that Iran would then risk a broader war by firing first on American interest and to justify, to justify what's happened. I don't think Tulsi Gabbard is long for this administration. What do you think?
- [24:29]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
Well, I want to point out one thing. Okay. This has been scheduled for a long time, this testimony. She's been preparing for this testimony for a long time. The speech, these opening remarks that she gave, which by the way, she conveniently left out a portion of it that talks about her threat, she changes her testimony and leaves part of it out. And then she was called to the carpet on that and said, hey, your written remarks don't match your prepared remarks. And she goes, oh, well, in the interest of time, I was, you know, I saw, I saw, we were, we were, it was going long. So I cut some stuff out. And the questioner, I can't remember who it was, said something like, yeah, you only left out the parts that actually contradict President Trump conveniently. So I thought that was really interesting and I thought the senators did an excellent, excellent job at asking questions. Well, the Democratic senators in particular and cross examining her, much more effective than frankly, the House Oversight Committee did with Pam Bondi and the Epstein files or with Kristi Noem. I mean, this was just much more incisive, focused and really just trying to get her to answer questions. But anyway, she's been preparing for this for a long time. To write these remarks and then give these remarks had to go through numerous, numerous drafts. Had to go through lots of people because don't forget, she sits on top of the broader intelligence community. So she had to get input from all sorts of people. Sitting at the table with her was Kash Patel and the Director of the CIA was there. So she gets input from all of the various people. They put this together. And her number two, the person who knows as much as she does, if not more, the person on the ground, Jo Kent, was, I guarantee, was intimately involved and saw what these remarks were going to be, knew what she was going to say. And it's no coincidence, it cannot be a coincidence that he resigned basically two days before this hearing and made sure that his letter that directly contradicts what the President says and what she is saying here. I mean, she's not really saying it forcefully because she could have easily said, by the way, oh yes, there was an imminent threat, but she didn't say that. The most she could bring herself to say, because she knows there was not one, is, well, the President makes that decision. I can't make that decision decision, which is such bs. Her job is to make that decision. That's what she's being paid for. That's why she's being given access to classified, top secret, super duper, the most highly sensitive information that exists in the world. Why she's given access to that is for no other reason than to make that assessment.
- [27:10]
Michael Popak
What she's supposed to say is we gave the President a threat assessment and our threat assessment was the following. It's then up to the President as to whether that's going to be actionable intelligence to make A policy decision. She pushed that together into what's imminent is whatever the President says is imminent.
- [27:28]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
Exactly.
- [27:28]
Michael Popak
That just shows you how corrupted and captured she is. But I agree with you. That was a setup between Joe Kent and his best friend Tulsi Gabbard. To give Tulsi Gabbard a little bit of Runway for this hearing and have that letter which did not have to come out on that timing in advance of this hearing to give her some. Something to talk about. And Donald Trump knows that he's got a Tulsi Gabbard problem of his own making. And she's trying, I think desperately to try to find the light in a dark room to get out of there. I mean she, if she wanted to be in meetings and on podiums and she could probably force her way in, but she wants to really, I think, you know, I think the next one to resign as opposed to being fired, I think it's, I think Tulsi Gabbard would resign.
- [28:27]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
Yeah, I could see that.
- [28:29]
Michael Popak
Yeah.
- [28:30]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
I don't know what her. You know, I watched this today and you know, aside from being completely struck by the fact that her new hairdo makes her look like Elaine from Seinfeld, you know, Julia Louis Dreyfus, no offense to Julia Louis Dreyfus, who I think is wonderful, but she looks strikingly similar to her with this new hairdo, with her new MAGA hairdo. I can't tell what her end game is. Why she. Because she's sort of walking this weird line. So maybe she's on her way out. Maybe not. I don't know. I don't know that she's that altruistic.
- [29:06]
Michael Popak
Just another problem. I mean, I played it last night on the intersection. She, during the debates when she ran for president, she spent an entire amount of. Almost every time she was asked a question, she said that she would not support attacking Iran, that an Iran war was a folly, that she would, that she could, that no, she wanted to take a poll on the, on the podium of all the debaters that they would not, that they would commit to not attacking Iran. This is her problem. I mean, there's always been a rumor that she's a Russian asset that's the head of our national intelligence and, and that she's certainly been very vocal about being against any kind of war in Iran. Donald Trump obviously has sidelined her. He's making these decisions with, you know, Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio and his son in law. Scary. And trying to bomb his way to popularity, which is not working. When we come back from our, from our first break to support the show, we'll talk about how judges are fighting back against Donald Trump. And now we can add the chief justice of the United States to the growing chorus. This is a different approach for federal judges in year two of the administration, remarkably so. And we'll talk about that and Donald Trump's losing bid against all those cases he brought against the media and why he's successful in some settlements like with ABC and CBS and maybe with CNN in the future and not successful with others. On Legal af. So many different ways to support what we do here on the Legal AF podcast. We have the podcast and if you get it by audio, come over to the Spotify and Apple 5 star reviews and comments. That keeps us at the top of the ranks and the ratings, YouTube and helping us grow this, continue to grow this audience, if you know, and independent journalism and commentary in general. And then we've got the whole kind of infrastructure around Legal AF, the Legal AF YouTube channel, where we're gonna cross 1.1 million subscribers soon. 12 new videos a day. I do a fair number of them, but we have a lot of other amazing contributors and commentators up there as well. And if you want to become a member or a paid member, that helps keep the lights on, pays the bills, pays for this, pays for the editorial team and the production team and all of that. And then finally, Legal AF Substack, where we do live reporting again, nine to ten new pieces of information every day, including the orders and the filings and all the things I use as source material for my reporting, you can find on Legal AF Substack, where you can become a member as well. And then we've got our pro democracy sponsors. Jordy Meisellis has put them together, We've tested them, we like them, we've curated them, and they support what we do. And we support them as a result. And here's our first break, your credit score. It may have taken a big hit over the holidays and you may not even know it. Sure, a late payment hurts, but so does opening a store credit card just to get a discount and transferring a balance from one card to another that can drop your score fast. So if you're thinking about refinancing, buying a new car, renting an apartment, anything that requires credit, you need your best possible score. You need it fast. You need Smart Credit, the new science in credit scoring. Smart Credit's data experts understand how the credit bureaus operate. They build a personalized strategy designed to take action and maximize your score not by a few points in a few months, but potentially see a real upward change to secure better rates on everything you finance. Better scores could mean faster approvals, lower payments and more money in your pocket. Don't let holiday spending traps derail your entire year. Get ahead of it now with Smart credit. Go to smartcredit.com legalaf and start your seven day trial for just $1. Your results will depend on your unique credit profile, but I think you'll be excited to see how many points Smart Credit estimates you can gain. Results not guaranteed cancel anytime. That's smartcredit.com legalaf smartcredit.com look magnesium. It's something most of us lack. And if you're taking the drugstore variant, you're still not getting the full picture. Industrial farming, chronic stress and everyday aging all make it worse. Most supplements only use one form of magnesium, but magnesium comes in many forms that support your body in different ways. That's why you need to try Qualia Magnesium Plus. It combines 10 bioavailable forms of magnesium with more than 70 trace minerals for comprehensive full spectrum support. Sleep deeper, think sharper, recover faster, support muscle strength, a steadier mood and balanced energy metabolism. It's not just a sleep supplement, it's a full body magnesium system built for modern living so you can feel your best every day. Look, since I added Qualia Magnesium plus to my routine, I'm feeling easier recovery from workouts and a couple calm or centered wind down at night. It's been a supportive addition to my daily wellness routine. Experience the most trusted magnesium for purity, potency and performance Plus. It's non gmo, vegan and gluten free, making it a choice you can feel good about. Go to qualialife.com legalaf for 50% off federal judges are doing something I've never seen in more than 35 years. Years sitting federal judges. They're not even waiting to retirement to shove back against the lawless, defiant, corrupt Department of Justice and all of its constituent parts like assistant US Attorneys and US Attorneys. I never thought I'd see the day when a judge would, in an interview on a panel at the American Bar Association Conference, would criticize the administration. Not because I think they're doing anything wrong. We can have a lengthy debate about the ethics of a judge commenting about what he's what all the rest of us are observing, which is this kind of openly defiant, lawless Department of Justice. But they're just, you know, they're they're risk adverse by nature. They have their lifetime appointments they'd rather not. But when federal judges are being subjected to violent threats, are having their families and themselves and their staff violently threatened, they and Trump doubles and triples down on it, including going after the United States Supreme Court on a regular basis. There they are now speaking out. They're doing it, like I said, in speeches, in interviews, they're doing it in the courtroom. And we're going to give a couple of examples here now on Legal af. Thank you for being here, by the way. And hit the subscribe button on Midas Touch and on legal AF YouTube channel while you're here. Judge Karashi, who I like a lot, first Muslim. It's amazing. He's the first Muslim federal judge ever appointed by who else? Joe Biden sits in my home state of New Jersey, used to work as a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office that he's busy criticizing right now because I'm sure as an alum, it would be like Karen Freeman Agniphilo watching the destruction of the integrity of the Manhattan DA's office. You got to speak out. You know, he's been a prosecutor his whole life. He worked at Homeland Security. He worked in the U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey. And he's had it, especially after a second ruling came out by Judge Brann, who is in his full time job. He's the chief judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, but he moonlights as the judge that's selected by the third District Court of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals chief judge to decide whether Donald Trump is doing illegal and unconstitutional things with how he appoints somebody to be the U.S. attorney or some sort of shadow U.S. attorney in places like New Jersey and New Jersey in particular. It's Judge Brand back in November or so that ruled that Alina Haba was illegally appointed as U.S. attorney and kicked her out. Now, she stayed, presumably based on reporting in the Department of Justice as a special advisor to pam Bondi about U.S. attorney's offices. But she is not supposed to be in the U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey guiding policy or making decisions or anything like that. Well, Donald Trump didn't like that decision because, you know, I think Alita Hobbit's like his office wife. And so he fired a couple of U.S. attorney replacements that were put in place by the judges of New Jersey, which is required under the Vacancy Reform Act. And then he left it open and let PAM Bondi appoint three different people to split the job as assistant U.S. attorneys, but not appoint any acting interim U.S. attorney. And so it came back around to Judge Brand after a challenge by another criminal defendant. And Judge Brand starts with a quote again from the framers and the founders, and says, you cannot undermine our co equal branches of government and our checks and balance by just dividing the job among three assistant US Attorneys and hope nobody will notice. This is about power. This is about co. Equal branches. This is about checks and balance. And Trump obviously is chafing under all of it. So he made it clear. He said, you are to get a proper U.S. attorney in New Jersey or I'm going to start considering dismissing indictments. Wait till you hear this, Karen. As a prosecutor, dismissing indictments and opening the federal detention center and letting people out. So you're. You're flirting with that disaster. I don't know why you want to do that, but you're flirting with that disaster. The next day, Judge Karachi had a hearing in front of him, a sentencing hearing. And he had a. He had a young prosecutor. It's not that I feel sorry for the guy, but he had a young prosecutor in front of him. And along with the young prosecutor was a senior lawyer, the appellate head for New Jersey. And the judge said, we got problems with the sentencing memo. First of all, you got the facts wrong and you're not recommending under the guidelines, the appropriate sentence. Who screwed this up? This is how the judge starts. Was it the FBI? Was it your office? Who in your office? And now this kid's starting to do, you know, like. Like Jackie Gleason on the Honeymooners. And the senior lawyer decides going to bail him out. And the judge says, stop. Have you entered, have you entered an appearance in this case? And he says, no, says, then I don't want to hear from you. You want to pass some notes. You want to be here for moral support, but you're not to speak in my courtroom. Guy sits down. So then he gets down to. Let's get to the bottom of what's happening in the office you work in. Is Alina Haba running your office? This is Karachi. He gets to ask that question and the love, that face. And the guy says, not that I'm aware of. And he said, so it's possible that she's running the office and you're not aware of it? Is that what you're telling the court? And what about these three? What do they do? Who's making the decisions for them? So the guy jumps back up the appellate head to try to try to save the day. Alita Habe is not running the office. I told you to sit down that you're not going to speak in my courtroom. And if you speak one more time, I'm going to have you removed. You understand? That guy spoke one more time. He had him removed. He said, I'm going to make this easy on everybody. We're going to get to the bottom of whether Alina Haba, who has been cited in the office, is running that office illegally in violation of Judge Brand's order. So he ordered the three, the triumvirate, the three heads, Annaleen Haba, to show up in his courtroom. He's pushed it off till May now for an under oath hearing about whether there is a violation in plain sight of Judge Brand's order about the operation of that office. Take it from a prosecutor's perspective. Judge Brand threatening to opening the jails and Judge Karachi taking it on his own initiative to go after this issue in his courtroom.
- [41:56]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
I mean, this is just unprecedented in, I don't think in the history of United States attorneys offices has anything remotely like this ever occurred. Because we've never had anything like this before. It's really interesting because the federal judges are usually so close to the U.S. attorney's Office lawyers because they work together every day. A lot of them were clerks that used to clerk for federal judges. And frankly, the U.S. attorney's office and the Department of Justice had so much integrity and had such a great reputation of not being political, of being independent, of hiring the best of the best lawyers, and of really, because they can cherry pick cases that are really strong. And so judges really always, always bent over backwards to make sure that things went smoothly in their courtroom. And there's something in the law called the presumption of regularity, which basically means you give the prosecution and the Department of Justice the benefit of doubt. And so as a defense attorney, sometimes it can be frustrating because it feels like, wow, they're really bending over backwards for the US Attorney's office. But as a prosecutor, I understand it because of the reputation that these prosecutors have and the fact that their job really is to do justice, not necessarily be an advocate. So this type of conflict has, does not occur. And frankly, prosecutors typically don't enter a notice of appearance in a case because prosecutors are considered to be fungible. You all work for one United States Attorney. That's why they're all called Assistant United States Attorney. So they all work for the same quote, unquote law firm. Therefore they just come to court. Anyone can stand up on anyone's case in particular. And so it's a defense attorney who has to file a notice of appearance, meaning they are the attorney of record in a case. So just this whole scenario is just bizarre and shows what a breakdown there is and what lack of trust there is in this Department of Justice. Federal judges around the country. This is not a Judge Qurashi issue. He's just the latest federal judge to basically call them to the carpet and say, I don't trust you. I don't believe you. What you're doing is illegal and unlawful. And other judges would say you violate court orders. Right. How many times do we have to hear from federal judges accusing the Department of Justice of just blatantly violating court orders? So the whole situation and that whole hearing, sentencing hearing, and the way that went down and having someone removed from the courtroom who's literally a Department of justice supervisor trying to speak on the record is, I think it's just unprecedented and something I've certainly never heard of or seen in any scenario like this. And I think he's just utterly frustrated because there is no United States Attorney in the District of New Jersey. Judges have found that, that Alina Haba was unlawfully appointed, yet she continued to stay on and sign indictments until she was literally forced to resign. They, when, when the judges voted to have a United States Attorney come, you know, be. Be the U.S. attorney, because they can do that once it. The term expires in a district. They've seen. They've seen that Trump just. So what's the point of doing that here in New Jersey? Because he could just fire whoever they vote to be the U.S. attorney, and Trump is just not appointing anyone who would then have to be confirmed by the Senate, and that is the process that he's trying to avoid. So I think that the hope would be, from Judge Qurashi's perspective, is that since this hearing now is going to happen in May, that maybe they can just make this a moot point and Trump can lawfully appoint someone. But in the interim, it's a disaster if there's no United States Attorney. What that means is that these indictments that defendants are charged with that are signed by United States Attorney, if there's not one validly appointed, or the person who signed these indictments is not validly appointed, then those get dismissed. I'd love to see who's signing the indictments in the, in the U.S. attorney's office in the District of New Jersey. I wonder if it's someone from the Department of Justice, because there's nobody who is in the U.S. attorney's office right now in the District of New Jersey, who has the authority under, according to Judge Brann, and it seems like now Judge Karashi and others, who has the authority to represent themselves as the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey. So this could potentially be a disaster if you are, if, you know, when you, when you're talking about running as somebody who's trying to bring crime down and violent crime, et cetera, and if they open the jails. And again, as a criminal defense attorney, you know, obviously defense attorneys will rejoice at this, that that indictments get dismissed and people get let out. But from a public safety standpoint and from just a law and order standpoint, and is this really what we want happening in our Department of Justice? It's really a really dangerous situation that we're in. And also, interestingly, I saw recently that the Department of Justice put out an ad for US Attorneys looking for lawyers to come there, I mean, literally advertising for the job. And they are waiving the requirement that they always had or had, as long as I can remember, that you have to have at least one year's experience either clerking or working for a law firm. They are absolutely desperate to fill these roles. This used to be the hardest job in the country to get only people from top law schools or who graduated from the top of their class or who clerked from top judges or who worked for top law firms. I mean, there was like a pathway to get to the U.S. attorney's office. It's a really, really hard job to get, much harder than most state prosecut offices. It's kind of the elite bar of, you know, in this country. It was always so highly respected and frankly, some of the best lawyers I've ever seen worked there and have worked there. And so they've really lowered their standards because people are resigning in droves. And it's partly because of this really, frankly, lawlessness that's going on. And federal judges have had enough of it and are basically saying, no more, no more, we don't trust you. And. And you're not going to come in here and try to pull the wool over our eyes.
- [48:45]
Michael Popak
Yeah. And it's just remarkable watching judge after judge. You know, Karachi, of course, one of them, we reported on him a couple of weeks ago where he said the defiance and the violation of orders in related to migration, immigration and due process ends now. You know, it's just this level of frustration that is now peeking out from under the black robe. And they're at the boiling point or beyond the boiling point. And to put it in Perspective. No, this is not normal. Nor do we have an analog or an analogy for in prior times in history, even during the civil rights movement, when federal judges were annoyed at, at some of the, at some of the US Attorneys or even state prosecutors, you didn't see this. And, and they're doing it in different ways depending upon their approach, their personality, their seniority. Some of the younger judges, the Biden appointees are leading the charge here, as we expected, you know, many of them coming from diverse backgrounds, many of, some of them coming from public defender backgrounds. Some of them are the first Muslim, the first woman, you know, the first Southeast Asian, the first. There's a lot of firsts with Joe Biden that are now paying dividends because these people, you know, they, they walk in other people's shoes. They know from their own life experience and judicial and legal experience that what they're observing is wrong. And you know, sort of as a result, they are now finding new and innovative ways to hold the Trump administration accountable. You know, the first year was shock and awe. It was sort of like knocking out the teeth of the judiciary. And, but they found their teeth, you know, looking around on the boxing mat. And now they figured out their federal judges. I never, I always wondered why they doubted that and have a lot of power and a lot of authority and they're starting to use it. And so it's, this is not going to be a one off. This is not, this is not aberration. Us talking about Judge Karachi. We're going to be talking about more judges like this. We got Judge Murphy who just issued a ruling against RFK jr's anti vax vaccine recommendations, which is going to kill children, going to bring back meningitis, and they're not shy any longer. First year they were like, what are we watching now? They know what they're watching. They know the monster and it's like they know it's a vampire and they know how to slay it. It's a silver bullet, but stake through the heart and holy water. You know, they know it and they're doing their versions of that. In trying to control this presidency, it's gotten to the point where John Roberts, the Chief justice of the United States, and nobody, to continue the movie analogy, nobody's more of a Dr. Frankenstein who created the monster than John Roberts, who wrote all of the major decisions that emboldened Donald Trump, Trump to be the criminal president that he is. But now acting, put upon and chastising Donald Trump, if not by name, barely not by name, after Donald Trump does another, you know, whenever things are going poorly for him, which is now every hour around the world, now that he set the world on fire, you know, now does these late night, you know, those late night rants, those disjointed, unhinged rants that Ben does a version of every morning on his video. They take on a whole new look and feel when you put it up against the backdrop of a world on fire. And as you said, him trying to distract from all of the scandals and failures at home with trying to bomb his way to popularity abroad. And so when he goes after the Supreme Court not only for the tariffs, which is interesting, but goes after them for the 2020 election, that they should have put him in as president with a Sunday night screen. And then a day later, John Roberts is at Rice University being interviewed and had this to say about obviously, Donald Trump.
- [52:56]
Chief Justice John Roberts
In your 2024 year end report on the judiciary, you wrote that criticism comes with the territory for judges and justices and that it can be helpful. You've talked about the criticisms that your predecessors encountered. How do you handle criticism of your court or your opinions today? Well, it does, it does come with the territory. Often when any of us issued opinion, there's often a dissent, usually not. But I mean, people the most, most opinions or more opinions than anything else are unanimous. And that's pretty, you get used to the criticism right away. And it can very much be healthy. We don't believe that we're flawless in any way. And it's important that our decisions are subjected to scrutiny. And they are. The problem sometimes is that the criticism can move from a focus on legal analysis to personalities. And you see from all over, I mean, not just any one political perspective on it, that it's more directed in a personal way. And that, frankly, can be actually quite dangerous. Judges around the country work very hard to get it right. And if they don't, their opinions are subject to criticism. But personally directed hostility is dangerous and it's got to stop. It's very much part of our lives these days. And on behalf of trial judges everywhere, I want to personally thank you. Because while we know that you may not always agree with us, we always know that you have our backs and that means a great deal. So thank you. And I hope it I don't know
- [55:09]
Michael Popak
what planet that I like that judge, but I don't know what planet she resides on. Here's what Donald Trump said just the day before John Roberts answered that question in his posting. This was completely adept and embarrassing. Court was not what The Supreme Court of the United States was set up by our wonderful founders to be they are hurting our country and will continue to do so. Our country was unnecessarily ransacked by the United States Supreme Court, which has become little more than a weaponized and unjust political organization. The sad thing is they will only get worse. He knows he's going to lose, like the birthright citizenship case, so he's sort of already managing expectations there. But, you know, it's, it's a special brand of crazy to attack your own Supreme Court justice who have, who have sided with you 85% of the time on major important issues, at least the ones that you said were major important issues. And then because, you know, you petulantly attack them, including by name, Amy, Coney, Barrett and Gorsuch, and say they're embarrassments to their families because you don't like the tariff decision. It's a special brand of crazy to go after the Supreme Court, don't you think?
- [56:16]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
I mean, the whole thing is outrageous. You know, Donald Trump invented this let's go after judges thing. If you remember when he was on trial in New York, two trials in New York York, Judge Juan Merchan, who's a state court judge here, he attacked him mercilessly and attacked his family. And Judge Merchan was getting threats and there were all sorts of issues in that case. Same with Judge Engoron, if you remember the judge in the civil fraud case here in New York, also another state court judge who was mercilessly attacked by Donald Trump. And so much so that he was getting those, those threats, like people like a bomb threat to your house. He was getting things like that happening, fake bomb threats to his house so that the police would come. They call that swatting. And also needed security. I mean, I've never seen again, this is just so unprecedented. You don't attack judges, you don't go out. And especially if you are one of, especially if you have the microphone that Donald Trump has, right? Nobody does that. He invented this. And this is what he does. He goes after every judge that doesn't rule his way, whether it's a federal judge, a state judge. And he personally goes after them. He calls them out by name. And a lot of these judges are facing threats. You remember the same thing with Tanya Chutkan in the Jack Smith Jan6 case. She had to have 247 security because of the horrible things he said about her. And it's just on and on and on. This is what he does. And yes, now he's finally going after the Supreme Court as well. And I guess it's great that the Chief justice of the Supreme Court is speaking up now and saying that now, but I just wish he and others hadn't created this monster, frankly, with the Trump v. US Case where he is essentially immune from literally anything he does while he is President of the United States. And so there is no incentive for him to do anything and not to say anything that he feels like saying, saying it the moment he feels like saying it. And so great. It's great that judge, you know, that Justice Roberts, that Chief Justice Roberts is speaking up now and saying that now even in that clip that you played, you know, was a little bit measured. I think they have to be stronger and I think they have to really talk about how terrible this is. And it's really not appro, not only not appropriate, it's really, as he said, dangerous, but I think they should be stronger about it and there should be consequences because, because it's just, you know, it's also eroding the confidence and trust in the judiciary. And that's also very dangerous.
- [59:02]
Michael Popak
Yeah. And you've got. It gives license to everybody below Donald Trump and the Department of Justice, Pam Bondi and others to also attack federal judges and undermine the confidence in our judicial system. You know, they, you know, they got that playbook. I could, we could all, we should set it to a, some sort of drinking, drinking song. Activist, leftist, Marxist, criminal judge, unelected by the American people, made a ruling today about fill in the blank. It's like, it's like kitchen magnet poetry. You know, you just stick in the words and fill in the blank. And, you know, I heard the response from the Trump administration, not from Donald Trump himself, although, you know, a couple of late nights on Air Force One and wandering back to speak to the press. I'm sure we'll get a comment directly from him, but his spokesperson came out with I love this. As if he's some sort of modern day Will Rogers. The American people appreciate the homespun and plain truth telling of Donald Trump. The American people, they do. That's not what the polls say. The polls say that that act is old and tired and over as the American people have had a taste of 16 months of bad policy and affordability, lack of affordability, undermining of American values and due process of the Constitution. That's what the polls say when they're, when they're hovering just above 35 or 36% and even crashing below that for key demographic groups that got him elected. I think the old mean tweets, homespun, plain spoken language of Donald Trump that people have come to enjoy. I don't know. Again, this is like a fantasy land. These people that these people live in. Beth Bloom, who I know well, judge, a federal judge who was a Miami Circuit Court judge that I appeared in front of regularly. She was just on and she's up on Legal AF YouTube right now with Adam Klassfeld of All Rise News. Did an interview today. You guys should go all go check it out. And she's a sitting federal judge and she talked about the attack on the judiciaries being unacceptable and what federal judges are doing about it. See, they're speaking out year two in a way they didn't in year one. And just to round out what we talked about, Judge Karashi had this to say in court about this issue. Let me see if I can find the judge Karachi, quickly.
- [61:29]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
While you're looking for it, I'm going to tell a little story. I was Biden, the Biden presidency. Just because it's to your point, what something you just said, you just reminded me I went down south and visited somebody in Tennessee and I went into a store or a gas station and there were these baseball caps that had all these different sayings. And one of them was I miss mean tweets and low gas prices. And I wonder what those people are saying now right now that the gas prices aren't low anymore. And I think people are getting tired of it. To your point?
- [62:05]
Michael Popak
Point, absolutely. So here's what Judge Karachi said to the appellate lawyer, head of the Appellate division for the New Jersey District Court. He said, you have lost the confidence in the trust of this court. You have lost the confidence and the trust of the New Jersey legal community, and you are losing the trust and confidence of the public. And he's just channeling the emotions of all federal judges. I mean, we've had Judge Ludigon, formerly of the Fourth Circuit, who's renounced his involvement with the Republican Party. He was a right wing but non trumper who saved America with giving advice to Mike Pence to certify the election constitutionalist of the first order. And he says he speaks to federal judges on the bench regularly. And they were scared in year one and had trouble finding their footing. But they have found traction in their footing now. And woe be Donald Trump, the Department of justice, which as you said, is understaffed. Intellectual horsepower is missing. It's just a, I mean, if this was a company, you'd put it into bankruptcy. I mean, it's just a terrible, terrible organization that has to be rebuilt from the ground up. Once we have the Democrats back in power, we're going to talk about Donald Trump's attack on the media, including Midas Touch and Legal AF when we come back from a break. And what's going on in those court cases that he so loves talking about not going well for him. I'll cut to the chase. We'll talk about that after a break. So many ways to support what we do here on Legal AF. You've got the Legal AF YouTube channel channel. We're moving towards 1.1 million 12 new videos a day. We got them up right now all through the night, even during the Legal layoff podcast. We've got paid membership for those that want to contribute and keep us on the air. So think about it's really easy, just your finger or your thumb, hit the subscribe Button on Legal AF YouTube Legal AF sub stack which is different. Different type of audience, overlapping community at the intersection of law and politics. Eight to ten postings a day, live reporting. We're trying to be one stop shop for all things law and politics. That's why we run like, you know, Tulsi Gabbard is giving testimony today to a Senate committee. We want to be there. We put it up live, trying to make it so you can just really live, live out your day on media and social media on Legal af. And then of course we've got our sponsors, many of some of which have been with us for the whole six year ride, some of which have just joined us. What they have in common is they leave us alone, they don't censor us, they support the show, they keep the lights on and and Jordy curates them. I think that's all the things they have in common. And here is a word from our sponsors. 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 Armruck 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 from 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. Magic Spoon is basically the grown up version of your favorite childhood cereals. Same fun taste and those nostalgic Saturday morning vibes. Magic Spoon cereal is a high protein, zero sugar cereal that tastes like the classics you grew up with. Each serving packs 12 to 14 grams of protein, 0 to 2 grams of sugar and 4 to 5 grams of net carbs. And it's certified gluten free. So it's a simple option whether it's breakfast, a snack or something. Late at night they got a bunch of classic flavors like Fruity Frosted Peanut Butter, Cocoa and Cinnamon Crunch. Now they've also launched new flavors earlier this year like Classic Marshmallow and S'. Mores. Both include real marshmallows and have 2 grams of sugar. And these are part of a different cereal line from the original. These flavors are not certified gluten free. And Magic Spoon also makes Magic Spoon Treats, which are crispy airy snack bars with 12 grams of protein, 7 grams of fiber, 0 grams of added sugar and 2 to 3 grams of net carbs. They're great for tossing in a bag or grabbing between meetings. Look for Magic Spoon on Amazon or at your nearest grocery store, or get $5 off off your next order at magicspoon.com legal af that's magicspoon.com legal af for $5 off. Welcome back to legal af. Trump spends a fair amount of his time when he's not setting the world on fire and crushing the hopes and dreams of Americans going after the media. He figured out early on that if he he squeezed the nuts of the that's a legal term of the corporate parents that owned these media assets like the newspapers and the apes, TV stations and all. And he squeezed them hard. Enough money will come out. It's amazing. He tried it out first with ABC and owned by Disney and all of that and with Jimmy Kimmel. And he figured out that ABC for instance, and it's more more particularly it's local television owners because you have the network which sits in New York and la, the broadcast network, but then which does all the programming but the TV stations themselves, a couple of them are owned by the by the network, but mainly are owned by other entities. They own hundreds of these TV stations in your town, multiple in your town and they want to do mergers. It's very lucrative. If you ever want to make a lot of money, get some friends together and buy a TV broadcast license, even for a small little TV station? And so they want to get. And in order to do that, they got to get approval. They got to get approval from the federal government for the Federal Communications Commission. Aha. Donald Trump says, I'm not going to give you the approval unless you pay me $16 million or whatever it's going to be to settle. Because George Stephanopoulos called him a rapist instead of a sex abuser. I'm not sure in heaven there's really that much of a difference. When he was interviewing E. Jean Carroll, the only reason that got that check got stroked is because the underlying TV station owners put pressure on ABC because they wanted to get their deal approved and they need the local affiliates. So they folded, right? So that was that. And Donald Trump moved on to cbs. CBS Press edited an interview with Kamala Harris during the Super Bowl. Donald Trump didn't like the editing, okay? So he sued over it. They were winning that case in court. We reported on it all the time, all the motion practice. The case was brought in Texas and all this other bullshit, until a friend of Donald Trump, Larry Ellison and his family, his son, bought Skydance, Paramount bought cbs, bought the Viacom assets, which included cbs. Suddenly, days after the Ellison family, who is in business with Donald Trump, in truth, Social, who's in business with Donald Trump in TikTok, effectively, they suddenly wanted to write a check to Donald Trump for $16 million again and another $16 million worth of broadcast advertising, advertising to support the administration. So now you got abc, Right? That's the reason they took Jimmy Kimmel off the air as well, is in bed with Donald Trump and now cbs,
- [70:39]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
because the Ellis, that money goes into his pocket. That doesn't go into the Treasury.
- [70:43]
Michael Popak
The first two I'm talking about go into his. Well, goes into his pocket. He said it went to the library. But who really knows? There's no transparency about all that. Then you've got the. He then moved on. He put his fat, greasy fingers on the transaction to have the Warner Brother assets, including cnn, end up where the Ellison family. So now the Ellison family is going to own and control CBS and cnn. Antitrust problem. Anybody? I don't know? And so he's allowing that to happen. Once that happens, he then has a case against CNN that he's trying to keep alive long enough to get paid out. Talk about our audience. What happened with the CNN defamation case because they used the term big lie and called them Hitler or Hitler, like in their reporting.
- [71:37]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
Yeah. So this was a case that was brought of course in Florida, his absolute favorite place to bring cases and where he has a lot of judges that he has appointed or that are supporters of his. And he brought this, this case basically saying when, when they called it a big lie and analogized it to Hitler, that though that's a similar term that was used by Hitler, that, that that was defamation. And the judge in Florida dismiss the case because frankly it's an opinion, it's not a statement of fact. And you have to have a statement of fact to be able to get over the threshold of defamation. And the judge even said even if this was made with actual malice, meaning they did this intentionally, et cetera, it's still an opinion. And so therefore an opinion is 100% defense to a defamation claim. Donald Trump didn't like that ruling, so he appealed it to the circuit which is the mid level appellate court. And when you go and you appeal something to the circuit, it goes to three judges that are picked at random. There's usually, I don't know, 10 or 12 judges on a circuit and three judges get picked at random. And he lost there too. They upheld the lower court ruling. Well, he then requested that the entire circuit hear it, which you can do if you lose at the three judge panel ruling. But somebody has to vote. I think you need a majority of them that have to vote to be able to get the whole en banc, is what they call it, the entire circuit to have the case. And so if there's say 12 judges, they'd need seven of them to agree to hear the case en banc. And correct me if I'm wrong, Popak, but I don't think they got a single vote. Vote 0. 0. Yeah, that's what I thought. It's not a single vote from one of those judges. And so it was unanimously rejected and the case is dead in the water. So I don't know how he's going to keep it alive after this.
- [73:57]
Michael Popak
Well, and it's obvious he wants to keep it alive long enough so that he can convince the Ellison family to stroke him another check on a meritless case that's been rejected now three times by three separate courts because you can't that, because the opinion that Donald Trump has been pushing the big lie, that he lost the election because of fraud to Joe Biden, that's an opinion. You know, it's the, the term big lie is can't be actionable defamation under our defamation law. No more than if you called somebody Hitler like, you can't say you just defamed me. Well, that's. In my opinion. You're obviously not actually Hitler. And so you don't have to prove that you're not the little guy with a mustache who killed, you know, millions and millions of people. And I get to use the rhetorical flourish of calling you Hitler like and not have to be defamed. It didn't even get to the point, frankly, it was so meritless of whether there was actual malice, which is a standard that's used in the media under a case from the 1970s out of the Supreme Court called Times v. Sullivan, in which you, if you're a public figure, you have to prove that the media company not only made the defamatory statement, but made it without regard, knowing it was false. You're not Hitler or you're without regard to whether it was true or false. We call it reckless disregard. You didn't even have to get there. Fundamentally, the comments that Donald Trump sued on could not be defamation under Florida or any other state's laws. He was told that by the appellate, the 11th Circuit, three judge panel. He was just effectively told by the other nine justice that they have no interest in that he'd have to try to file some notice of appeal with the Supreme Court, because all he's trying to do, frankly, is give some political cover, some cover to the Ellison family to stroke him another check. You know, that's what's happening. So they could say to their shareholders, oh, we're all, there's an, there's an argument, you know, we paid it to get rid of it or whatever, whatever. And he's not doing well, the other cases either. Let's just do the rundown New York Times case. He sued because the New York Times criticized Donald Trump and his late father, Fred Trump, for being fraudsters and insurance dodgers. He didn't like that. That case is up on a motion to dismiss that was filed in December in front of Judge Gales down here in Miami, and he hasn't ruled on it. I would be shocked if he, if Donald Trump won that particular case. I think the motion to dismiss, which I've read is very well, is very well argued, and that is likely a dismissal. He's got a case against the Des Moines Register because Ann Seltzer, the longtime pollster, said that in the last poll that Kamala was going to win Iowa and Trump won Iowa instead. Talk about sour grapes. The last I looked, he won Iowa and he won the presidency. And Ann Seltzer retired, by the way, and resigned after it. So there's a motion to dismiss related to that, which I'm thinking will be granted as well. He's got a case against the Wall Street Journal that's down in Florida related to the birth, the Epstein birthday book. That's not doing him any favors to keep that case alive. And I think that case will be dismissed. So when I see Donald Trump bragging in the middle of the night night about how he's reshaped the landscape of media, there were a couple of things that struck me. One, where is Midas Touch? Where is independent media? Because he doesn't know it, but the majority of his own voters are getting news from sources like Midas Touch and Legal af. They're not getting it from cnn, they're not getting it from mainstream media. So for him to say, oh, I slayed cnn, I slayed cbs, I slayed it, and then pointing to individual people who got fired or resigned or retired, like, oh, Terry Moran is gone. That's the reshaping of, of the landscape of media. I don't think you understand the word media or what it, or what it looked like before, but I thought it was conspicuous by its absence. Something like, you know, Midas Touch. Midas look, Midas Touch has grown. It's like the little acorn that grew into the mighty oak tree, right? We were there for the acorn. Karen and I were watering it as a little acorn. Literally. It was like a garage band that suddenly got, you know, became like Led Zeppelin. And it, it's going to continue to grow. It has to grow. It's like a shark that has to move or it will die. Because we have to meet the moment. And so. But that doesn't mean at any way, shape and form, our independent credentials and bonafides are going to be compromised because of our size. The more podcasts we add or the more channels we add or the more whatever's does not undermine our credibility, our ethics, our integrity as commentators and journalists. It just means we've got to meet the moment and we've got to get bigger. And that's what we're trying to do on Legal af, which is why we implore you to join Legal A on a regular basis and Midas Touch and all of that, because the bigger we get, the more good that we can do as independent journalists. I assure you that no one will ever tell tell by his brothers, Legal af, Karen, me, or anybody what to say in advance, what not to say. Criticize Us not put. I've never made a video in six years and I have made thousands of videos that have been viewed BY over almost 3 billion people at this point. Not one video I've ever made has ever been pulled off the channel by some suit or brother because of its content. Not one. Ever. I've never cleared anything with anybody. I never will. And neither do the brothers, and neither do any of the other commentators or contributors that are on, on either of our two channels. And that is never going to change and it never will. Because we can't look you in the eye as an audience and tell you that we are independent, that we are not censored, that we don't have an ax to grind, that we don't represent a corporate interest. We can't look you in the eye and say that if it's not true. And that is the very nature of our ecosystem. And your support of it has been overwhelming at times. You know, Karen does too. I bump into, I mean it's getting to be like on a daily basis now, people coming out of the shadows who are fans and or supporters who come out and talk to me. And the number one thing people say, including a very well known graffiti artist in Miami who I got the pleasure of meeting yesterday who goes by the handle Evil EVL he it it's you give us heat. Meaning I'm taking the compliment for all of Midas. You give us hope, you've given us strength, you've given us confidence that the sun will come up tomorrow with all of the reporting and the analysis and knowing that there's a community that we are a part of, that alone, I can go to heaven a happy man knowing that in this stage in my career I contributed to that. Right, Karen?
- [81:10]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
Yeah. No, it is amazing. It's amazing. When I had a doctor appointment yesterday and I was waiting to get my blood drawn at the lab part of it and a woman walks up to me and just was like, you look familiar. Where do I know you from? And I named a few possibilities and she's like, no, no, no. I said Legal af. And she's like, yes, that's my favorite podcast, Legal af. And then she went on to it meant to her and what it means to her just to have the voices and have someone to listen and put words to what people like she are feeling every single day. And that's what by and large the vast majority of people who come up to me, at least they say, is to thank us for the work that we're doing to bring Together a community, because sometimes they feel that they are living in a world alone. Because when you turn on regular news, as you're showing and pointing out, that's becoming more and more Trump news and it's becoming more and more Trump controlled news. And when people see what's being fed to them, it makes you feel alone. When in your very eyes, when people saw Renee Goode or Alex Preddy get shot and killed. But you've got got people in the Trump administration going on television and saying, no, this person was dangerous agitator, they shot at us. Whatever the lies, I can't even remember what they were now, what they said. They're like, I saw it with my own eyes. She wasn't trying to hit me with her car or whatever it is. You can feel very kind of gas lit and alone. And the thing that the Midas Touch Network and Legal AF has done is really been able to show people that you're not not alone. What you're seeing is true. There is a community out there. And we're all going to fight this together because we're all in this together. And frankly, the very survival of our democracy depends on us all fighting this together and going out and voting in the midterms.
- [83:20]
Michael Popak
Yeah. On that note, I got at my office and I won't out the person by name because it's not fair, but I got a handwritten letter yesterday to my office which sums this up for me, me from a longtime supporter of Legal AF and his wife. And I'll just read you just a couple of parts of it. This is a brief note to thank you profoundly for keeping the flame of hope alive in my wife and I for years now. After the election, I couldn't get out of bed. I'm grateful to my wife who forced me to do so in that special way that only our partners can. But he said, knowing that our entity was out there and that he could be a part of it, and this is a person who immigrated from Cuba and lived through that regime and then saw it all over again with Trump. He said at the end, quoting Winston Churchill. This is how our audience member ended it. Please continue your work until this dark time passes and we may again ascend to sunlight lit uplands. Quoting Winston Churchill with great admiration. You know, that brought more than a tear to my eye. It's the reason you and I do this. I haven't gotten a handwritten note in a long, long time. And I really did appreciate it and appreciate everybody here in our, in our audience. You know, how to support what we do. Yes, we love the notes. The other ways to do it is become a member of Legal AF, the YouTube channel. Become a member of Legal AF, the substack. Support our sponsors. That keeps the ecosystem going. That is what keeps the lights on and keeps the editors doing their work for us. I mean, I'm, you know, as people know, I'm doing eight, ten videos per day, six days, seven days a week. I'm not complaining. I'm just observing that that takes a certain amount of resources and you have it at your disposal to help you help us, really, with just free subscriptions, which we really do appreciate. Kara, you might have given the last word with that last. That last comment, but last word for you on Legal af.
- [85:27]
Karen Freeman Nifflo
I'm going to defer to the gentleman who wrote that lovely note with the Churchill quote. There's nothing I can say that's more profound or better than that. So I would like that to be the last word.
- [85:36]
Michael Popak
Yeah, and I loved it too. And I, I'm a Winston Churchill fan and I had not really recalled that particular quote, but he just of sort beautifully summed it up. Thank you all for being here tonight on Legal AF Saturday with Ben Mysalis and me. In the meantime, shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal afers.