Michael Popak (7:45)

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the Voting Rights act is a prime example. We'll talk about it a little bit later. But you know, the, the, we're going to be talking a lot about constitutional amendments that came out of the Civil War or Reconstruction era. Right now we're talking about the Voting Rights Act. Later in the show today, in the next week or two, month or two, we're going to be talking about birthright citizenship, the 14th amendment. Today we're going to talk about the 15th amendment. And it took America a hundred years to move from the 15th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause in 1865-1965. If it was a minute for the civil rights movement to come together, led by Martin Luther King Jr. Medgar Evers, Malcolm X putting pressure on Lyndon Johnson after the assassination of JFK to pass the Civil Rights act, which was anticipated 100 years earlier by the amendment which said there'll be a congressional statute which will govern in this area. And then, and then they finally did it. And all John Roberts has been doing since he's been the chief justice of the United States and as soon as he got the numbers was to chip away brick by brick at the Voting Rights Act. He chloroformed it. He got rid of Section one, Section two is now beyond on life support, dealing with actual the rights of somebody to vote. And as it maps onto congressional maps. And it's easy. What your point that you, that you turned it over to me on is exactly right. That's not what the United States Supreme Court should be doing, legislating from the bench about these key issues. And then they have a very convenient little trick that again, when we get to the segment we'll talk about and I knew we were in trouble, not this week. I knew we were in trouble in 2019 on cases that you and I reported on. When the, when the Supreme Court said that partisan party gerrymandering, drawing up of congressional districts was not only was it okay, but you would not be able to come, even come into court. They were locking and chaining the door of the courthouse. To even have somebody come in and argue that a map drawn to, to basically draw away Democrats in the South. Let's say that that is a violation of the Voting Rights act or our Constitution. Oh, no, no. That's a political issue. That's not justiciable. Meaning you can't even come into the courthouse as soon as they said black and red and blue, redistricting is okay, even if it impacts black and brown people. Soon as I heard that, I was like, oh. And then they've combined it now with the Voting Rights act that we will get to. And the thing that really galls me so much calls me, but the thing that really calls me is Friday was May Day, which it's celebrated in different ways around, around the, around the country, around the world. It's either International Workers Day. It's also known as the Rule of Law Day in America, starting with Eisenhower in 1958 and codified in 1961 by Congress. And it's a time for lawyers like the ones on Legal AF and the judiciary and, and other people, other civic minded people to celebrate what makes America different from the tyrannical despots of the Cold War. And in the current era and this year, the American Bar association, who I think we'll touch on later, declared the theme rule of Law and the American Dream. Donald Trump, who's busy capturing, hijacking these concepts of American values and then contorting them for his own purposes. That's all we've been watching, right? You go on the website now for the White House. First you have to click through like I think, I think I'm on a, some sort of, some sort of. I've landed on some sort ofVendor on YouTube. I've got to click through the golden era email capture once I get through there. This is what he said about, or somebody wrote for him about Law Day. He said, under my leadership, we are in the new golden age of America. Who feels that way? One that remains firmly rooted in respect for our laws, reverence for our Constitution and an unwavering commitment to the eternal truths that have guided our nation to for two and a half centuries. Is that what we've been watching over the last 16 months? Our respect for our rule of laws, for our judiciary, for our United States Supreme Court. And it gets worse. The Justice Department, okay, Led by Todd Blanch, Donald Trump's former criminal defense lawyer. His a partisan hack by the name of Harmeet Dhillon, who runs Civil Rights Division. This is what we, this is what they said about it at the Department of Justice. We are deeply aware that the rule of law is not an abstract principle, but a living foundation upon which our society is built. Listen to this, Ben. This Law Day, we reflect on the dedicated public servants, legal professionals, judges and law enforcement officers who work tirelessly to uphold these principles and are committed to strengthening these institutions. That's the openly defiant Department of Justice that on a regular hourly basis violates court orders, tells them in effect to go F themselves, attacks them in social media posts as Marxists, radicalists, criminals, along with their family that sits idly by as the self proclaimed chief legal officer of America, Donald Trump, the criminal in chief, as he goes after even his own appointed United States Supreme Court justices. That's right before he brings them into a state dinner so they can have a champagne soaked dinner wearing white tie and white tails or whatever it is just before dropping the Voting Rights act decision. So this disconnect or this gaslighting of America, forget about the golden age of America, it's the gaslighting of America about Donald Trump and his Department of Justice. They crap on the rule of law and the institutions that you and I hold dear as professionals every hour of every day. And this is, I think, the moment, the reason that you and I founded Legal AF six years ago, having seen the tail end of the first Trump administration. And not that you and I were brilliant in our crystal ball about he could get elected again one day. I mean, we were both shocked when he is. He still had political viability after January 6. But this has always been a break the glass moment for and validates not only us creating it, but the audience and the fellowship that we've been building on the other side of the microphone. And I really just was so honored to take my oath again, which is up on legal AF substack on May 1st. I've been a lawyer for 36 years and just to renew my vows to my profession and to the, into the public publicly was just so cathartic, especially now. But you know, it just galls me. It's eye popping to read on the White House Post, the DOJ Post, how they are great, great supporters of the, of, of the rule of law. We'll talk later about what they're doing against the ABA and law schools as, as this podcast progresses.

Ben Crump (15:46)

Yeah, and corporate news will take that press release and they'll regurgitate it and say, here is what they said. How many times do we hear, here's what Trump said, here's what the DOJ said. And you have to look at it and say, are these things that they are saying, is that true or is it false? Do we republish it? Do we become the stenographer and the propagandist? Or do we speak with truth and do we speak with fearlessness and courageousness? And I think that's what's needed at this moment you think about the other headline from this morning, Popak, that it's official, Spirit Airlines is now bankrupt. They had 17,000 employees. I think around 7,500 were remaining. And so all of those employees lost their jobs. And what does Donald Trump and Sean Duffy and right wing media do immediately? They blame Biden and say it's Biden's fault because Biden brought antitrust proceedings against JetBlue and Spirit Airlines in 2024. It is everything is a Biden thing, a Biden this, a Biden that.

Michael Popak (16:54)

Donald Trump, Wait, wait, before you move on, finish that point, but I want to say something about Spirit, but the

Ben Crump (16:59)

point is, is that Donald Trump said He brought in $21 trillion or $18 trillion, depending on which metric of lies that you use, that we're living in a golden age, that everything's more affordable, including apparently jet fuel should be as well, that all of our businesses are now. And the buck stops with the person in charge right now. That's Donald Trump. It's May of 2026. We're recording this the evening of May 2nd of 2026. What Biden did or didn't do in 2024, these things weren't happening under Biden. Look, if, you know, Spirit Airlines went bankrupt January of 2025, you know, you know, maybe, you know, February of 2025, all right, I mean, you're in charge now, but you know, Donald Trump. Mr. The government's going to do this and I can do all of that. You know, it's your fault. It's your fault. You're the one in charge. You can't keep on saying, oh, the Democrats are responsible for the gas prices, the dumber, the this. And whenever you heard him speak like he's speaking in Miami, you know, in Palm beach and he was speaking at the Villages, you know, his whole thing is that he blames Biden for all of the bad and then he takes credit for all of the things that he thinks, you know, you know, was good. And it's just that's lame. Like that's, that's not, that should not be what our policy do.

Michael Popak (18:20)

The real contrast here, Donald Trump using his commerce secretary and Transportation Secretary Howard Lutnick and Sean Duffy, could not figure out a way to bail out a problem of their own creation with the Iranian war, which doubled jet fuel prices. Spirit Air, which frankly has not turned to profit since 2019 under Donald Trump's original, original, if you want to blame somebody, they haven't turned to profit since Donald Trump's second to last year in office. But it wasn't helping them in bankruptcy to come out of bankruptcy and to still be a low cost provider for American consumer and travel public and put pressure on the jetblues and the United Airlines and the American Airlines who are all literally rubbing their hands in glee that their competitor went out of business. Here's the sharp split. Split screen contrast. Trump, using his commerce secretary, couldn't figure out a way to bail out 17,000 jobs and keep Spirit Air alive. Go back to Obama. He saved an auto industry and a banking industry, working closely with Tim Geithner, his Treasury Secretary, who previous to that had been a chief economist and worked in the Fed, so knew what he was doing. And working together, Geithner and Obama saved two major industries and we got all our money paid back from those bailouts. Fast forward, he puts Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary, with the Treasury Secretary, nowhere to be found. Scott Bessant, nowhere, not that he's qualified either, but nowhere to be found. He puts Lutnick, the dealmaker, back in. Oh, the guy that cut the deal with U.S. steel and intel and all the other investments with our money that the Trump administration has made all of these sketchy investments. But when it comes to saving a major segment of an industry upon which our economy relies. We're coming into the summer travel season. The billions of dollars that would have been, that would have been a part of the GDP of our country and business travel, which is, you know, back, you know, you have to now attend meetings. You can't just zoom them in anymore. And they just blithely, well, we tried. We're the deal maker. They caught Donald Trump a day or so ago. Well, you know, if the deal's not right, I'm not gonna go for it. That's 17,000 jobs. Even Lutnick reportedly told him this is political viability for you. You can brag about 17,000 jobs in the Midwest or wherever it is if you, you know, during the midterms. Nope, folded. And that's it. That's another victim of Donald Trump's Iranian war because jet fuel prices have gone up double. And anyway, I just wanted to contrast. If you wanna go back and say whose stewardship should be admired and who should be despised, look at Obama did versus what Donald Trump just did at a similar moment.

Ben Crump (21:23)

And that's why often what we talk about in the courtroom and outside the courtroom, though, is steady leadership, steady hand qualifications. We might as well talk about the ABA briefly here because, you know, the aba, the American Bar association, plays a Major role as a kind of a broader governing body regarding, you know, the rules of professional responsibility, putting forward model ethics rules, model rules regarding legal claims. And then there are state bar associations that, you know, often utilize those model rules. And, you know, then you have state bar associations that work to regulate the practice of law and to ensure that qualified people become lawyers and that they're the ones who ultimately are able to, you know, practice in a way that is, that follows rules of professional responsibility and is done at the highest level. And Popak, you know, we should talk about this right now at the outset, because one of the things the Trump regime has done is attack state bar associations, to attack the American Bar association and to call things that have never been viewed as partisan. No one would ever look at the ABA and go, oh, the ABA is a lefty, a lefty organization. As a lawyer, that's like the craziest thing for me to even think about. Somebody calling the aba, which looks at judges, for example, and says whether a judge is qualified or not qualified to become a federal judge, that this is some sort of, like, radical, extreme organization. It's like the furthest thing from it. But Donald Trump, in his attack on science, on his attack on qualifications, on his attack and this whole regime, who are people who really didn't make it in their fields, they're kind of losers. And so they are now, like, in these positions, and they want to entrench kind of their whole group of losers, and they don't want governing bodies that deal with qualifications. And so you have the doj, like, the most wild thing for lawyers. Pope, Bach, you can maybe experiment better than me to have the DOJ making social media posts and filing lawsuits that basically try to get rid of the American Bar association and get rid of state bar associations and just have basically it be a free for all. It would kind of be like, you know, you know, you know, I'm trying to think of a good example. Like, like, you're at a restaurant, and then, you know, your waiter's like, what would you like to eat? You know, and it's like the waiter's like, well, in addition to the menu, if you like, I could be your. Your. Your cardiovascular surgeon. Like, I'll be happy to perform. Like, what. What. You know, what are you talking. I do that on the side. You know, it's like, okay, well, yeah,

Michael Popak (24:21)

so the American Bar association, just to give people a quick tutorial. When lawyers like Ben and me became lawyers, you go through an accredited credentialed law school that prepares you Both to be a member of the profession. We are a profession. To take that oath of office that we talked about, to uphold the Constitution, to be candid to the tribunal, to not lie, to help the underprivileged depends on your state. And then you don't have to be a member. You're not regulated for your license standpoint by a bar association. You are licensed by, depending upon your state, whether it's a unitary bar or not, either by the supreme court of your state or an appellate division of your state. Or like in Florida, where I'm also a member of, there actually is a thing called the Florida Bar. They're very big on the, the, the Florida Bar. And that's a unified thing that sits in Tallahassee and that regulates. That's how you get, that's how you keep your ticket to practice. Then there's voluntary bar associations, which are about the profession, the improvement of the profession, model rules of professional responsibility, continuing education courses, lobbying on behalf of the profession, being an inter, intermediary between the legal profession and, and society, civic involvement, courts, the bench. Bench and bar events, that type of thing. And then, you know, it starts if you want to do the funnel, if you will, there's the kind of, the national organization, the American Bar association, which has always been apolitical and it's not a lefty Marxist organization, especially since its founding. And then you have sort of other bars that promote the values and interests of different people, usually around, we call them specialty bars, county bars, state bars, city bars, and then these specialty bars. Let's say you're a, you're a Caribbean American, the Caribbean Bar Association, Black American, the Black Bar Association. I mean, literally in Miami, where I live, I, I am a member of the, and I have been for 36 years at least for the ABA, the American Bar association, the Miami Dade County Bar association, the Coral Gables Bar Association. I'm not even Cuban, but I'm a member of the Cuban American Bar Association, Cabo in Miami and so on. Okay. And I've been to all the events for the Caribbean Bar association and different things because they have, while they're all in favor of the profession, they also have individual interests for their members. Depending upon what those interests, you know, what, what, where they're from or what their commonality is. At the American Bar association, they're much broader, right. Macro. And they do things that Donald Trump hates, like ranking and rating the qualifications of judges. And almost all of Donald Trump's judges, especially in his first term and now especially that he's putting on a whole series of election deniers are being put up for life or have been confirmed for lifetime appointment in federal judge positions. At least eight former, recently former criminal defense lawyers for Donald Trump have been put up for or confirmed for federal judge positions at the appellate level, like Amel Bovey. But not just Amel Bovey. We just had a guy from Sullivan and Cromwell who's handling Donald Trump's appeals in New York. He's just got nominated for the Second Circuit and so on and so on. But every depending upon their background and their expertise or their, their body of work, the ABA would rate you acceptable, not acceptable. And Donald Trump is always on the wrong end of that rating because he picks people that aren't qualified. Like, if you ever picked Alina Haba and try to kick her upstairs to a federal judgeship, she's going to get, I predict she's going to be unacceptable to the aba, not because of her politics, but because of her lack of independence, her lack of, you know, mature, you know, qualities that are necessary to be a reliable, independent, apolitical, trusted neutral, which is what a federal or any kind of judge needs to be. Trump's been going after the ABA since he's been back in office. He's tried to defund them and that's led to lawsuits. The ABA is fired back and has and has sued the Trump administration. When all of those law firms were getting blacklisted by Donald Trump to have their security clearances taken away, to cut off their livelihood, their ability to handle client matters before the federal government. The ABA brought one of the early cases. So they're no shrinking violet either. They know that it's an existential threat to the legal profession and to the aba, and they have been fighting back. Now it's gotten down to a few days ago, an executive order where Trump's going to try to go after the APA for their sole role or the sole ability to be the accredited, to give the credentials. It's called accreditation for law law schools. You can go to a law school that's not accredited, but it doesn't mean you're automatically going to be able to sit for the bar. So you go to, like, if you want, like, you want your doctor as you, for your prior example, you want your doctor to go to an accredited medical school, you know, and, you know, listen, I don't know where that is. It could be outside the country. But you wanted to be accredited. You want him to pass his boards, you want him to be board certified in an area and the same thing with law. Now Trump would love to make a whole crop of MAGA lawyers who go through some sort of MAGA curriculum and are not diverse, not involved with equity or inclusion, just a whole bunch of white deeply read MAGA lawyers. We already have a law school like that, by the way. It's called the Antonine Scalia Law School at George Mason. If you want to be right, right wing or you want to go to a Catholic university, like Amy Coney Barrett was a professor at Notre Dame. I'm not bemoaning that, but they gotta be accredited. And the problem Trump has is that the bar association as independent First Amendment rights, the ABA is saying to be accredited you've got to be focused on equity, diversity and inclusion. And those are four letter words for Donald Trump because there's value in American society to have somebody like you and me come out of law schools where we were surrounded by people of diverse backgrounds. Even 30, even 40 years ago when I started law school, wow, almost 40 years. I started law school, it was reasonably diverse. You know, I went to Duke, Duke Law School. We had a huge international student population that came over for master's degrees. So people from China and from Eastern and Central Europe and Central and South America. And then we had a. I wouldn't say it's an. Oh, it was an overwhelmingly large black student population, but in fact, I just recently ran into, at my reunion, one of my classmates, Mo, Mo Green, who's now the superintendent of all schools in North Carolina. He ran for office, but he, he reminded me there were only eight men, black men, in my class. I was like shocked that it was that low. But anyway, we tried for diversity and that is important as we take up our role in society as counselors, as lawyers for the downtrodden, for the underprivileged. Not everybody goes into corporate law. People are also on the right side of the angels and do civil rights and constitutional law and other things. And some do it for free and pro bono to represent people who are the most disadvantaged in society. And that's important. And the legal system, if we've learned anything on legal af, is so important to the day to day lives of people, whether it's an accident case or a civil rights violation or what Trump is doing or your constitutional rights. I think people now understand that a good lawyer is a necessity in this country. And this is a fight now for the heart and soul of what our legal profession is about. So shout out to the aba. We love you and support you here on Legal AF and We will do whatever we can to platform these issues here so people know what is happening, but this is what's happening. He's trying to yank the ticket of the ABA to make law schools.

Ben Crump (33:25)

When we come back, I want to talk about the Newsom lawsuit proceeding to discovery, Trump's $10 billion lawsuit backfiring in his face and Trump trying to block discovery into depositions, his role regarding the January 6th insurrection. We'll talk about, you know, these major developments. Why you got to fight in litigation. That's why you got to make sure you're always pushing back. And, you know, and look, these Trump tactics that we're going to be talking about, you know, are always, you know, things that are certainly discouraging. But there's a way to win the win the ways to fight, to be relentless. And the way Newsom did, you know, Newsom sued Fox. There were lots of people who said, ash, did he file that lawsuit? Why file now? He's going to get a treasure trove of discovery as a result of this big win in the initial motion to dismiss phase. All right, let's take our first quick break of the show. Reminder, if you or somebody know has been injured in a car accident, a trucking accident, if you've been injured by the negligence of somebody else, reach out to the Popak law firm. Michael Popak has lawyers across the country and he's got team ready to take your phone call. Call or text 877- POPAK-AF or visit thepopocfirm.com they're available 24. 7. The consultation is free. And also make sure you subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel and the Legal AF sub stack. Check that out and let's get those to continue to climb the charts. We'll be right back after our first quick break of the show.

Sponsor/Ad Voice (34:55)

All right, let's be real. Who likes wearing a bra? Nobody. Especially when you're working out, right? Sports bras are terrible to wear most of the time. And they whether it's that they dig into your shoulders on the straps or the band rolls up and feels too tight around your rib cage or, you know, whatever it is, they're a pain to take, to put on, they're a pain to take off. And they're so uncomfortable. But honeylove has this sports bra that is different and they have this wonderful new product called the honeylove Cross Flex Activity Bra. And it immediately felt different from every other sports bra that I've worn. It feature feels like a sports bra with a support, but it's also Designed for all day wear and it's supportive without feeling too tight, too stiff or suffocating. It has an easy to take on and take off. And it's wireless using their technology called Cloud Fuse. So there's no poking or digging or pressure points, which is actually what I love the most about it. And it gives you of course great shape and separation instead of that uniboob look that sports bras can often give you. So if you find yourself reaching for a sports bra on a daily basis and you are, because you need the coverage and you need the support, but you're looking for something comfortable that you could also wear all day, I highly recommend the Honeylove Crossflex Activity bra as the solution you've been searching for. So it's really fantastic. They are now offering a crossover triple triple bra bundle. So if you want a full full refresh on your top drawer, you can get a huge savings by buying three at once. They are an independent female founded brand with products designed by women who actually wear them, including the founder Betsy. Honeylove doesn't just make bras and shapewear. They've built a full line of tanks, bodysuits and underwear with supportive structure, smoothing fabrics and premium finishes. And they recently launched their new Crossover Contour bra which features their best selling wireless crossover bra design plus built in molded light foam pads for extra support and beautifully contoured shape. Treat yourself to the most advanced bras and shapewear on the market. Use our exclusive link to save 20% off honeylove@honeylove.com legalaf that's honeylove.com legalaf and after you check out they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them Legal AF sent you. Experience the new standard in comfort and support with Honey Love.

Michael Popak (37:36)

You ever notice how drinking it just hits different as you get older? Like once I got into my 30s, even a couple of drinks and the next morning I'm feeling less than 100%. You know, my sleep's off, the energy's low, it just lingers more than it used to. That's why I recently tried Cheers Health Restore after alcohol aid. I was definitely skeptical, but I took it after my last drink and the next morning, surprised surprised me. I felt at least 50% better, like way more normal than I expected. And my sleep didn't feel nearly as wrecked. What's interesting, it's that it's not just about hydration, it's really about what's happening in your brain and liver overnight. Cheers helps your body. Process alcohol more efficiently while you sleep and supports your liver so you wake up feeling a lot closer to yourself. Take Cheers Restore after your last drink or before going to bed and wake up feeling at least 50% better or your money back. For a limited time, our listeners are getting 20% off their entire order by using code legal af@cheershealth.com just head to cheershealth.com and use code legal af for 20% off. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them our show sent you.

Ben Crump (38:57)

Welcome back to Legal af. Thank you to all of our sponsors. They help support this show. Help support our sponsors support the show. Discount codes are in the description below and Michael Popak and Jordi spend a lot of time with those sponsors, working with them to ensure we get you good products, good services, good discounts, good discount codes. All right, let's talk about three big cases that are happening and they kind of all relate to, I think, Donald Trump running scare, Donald Trump blocking discovery, the importance of discovery in litigation, why it's important to fight back and to make sure we assert ourselves with formal authority, legal authority, and never, you know, never back down from a fight. So let's talk about California Governor Gavin Newsom's lawsuit against Fox. He sued Fox for $787 million. He sued in the Delaware superior court system there. Why'd he sue in Delaware? We'll talk about that. What was the ruling by this Delaware state court judge and the ruling, an important one in terms of opening up discovery? We'll talk about that. Let's talk about the $10 billion lawsuit that Trump filed against the government or against, really the taxpayers. He sued the United States government. He wants to take our taxpayer money. It's really against us. Right. And he sued for $10 billion. He was trying to enter into a collusive settlement basically with himself. We previously reported how a federal court raised the issue of whether there's even jurisdiction in the first place because there has to be adverseness to have what's called Article 3 standing. Article 3 of the Constitution requires there be a case in controversy, an actual plaintiff against an actual defendant, instead of like two partners who just want a judge to rubber stamp a settlement. And so the judge said, I'm not sure I have jurisdiction. The judge ordered briefing before anything can continue in that case. But then the judge made a very significant move this week, appointing certain law firms to help guide her in the case. We'll talk about that. And then let's talk about what's going on in the J6 cases. Yep, those are still around. The civil cases brought by members of Congress and Capitol police officers and Metropolitan police officers against Trump. Trump dragged this thing out for five years trying to make every claim of immunity, staying the case. He went to every level. He lost by claiming that he should be entitled to all of this immunity for his involvement in the insurrection on a civil case. That is in the civil case and that case is proceeding. Judge Mehta opened up discovery and then Donald Trump rushed emergency order. We need an emergency order. And then he had the DOJ make filings. Emergency judge, emergency, stop the discovery. Right now. Donald Trump is way too busy. He's doing too many things. You can't force the president of the United States to have to sit through all of this discovery. So, Popak, I think that's a nice bundling of those three topics. I'll let you take them in any order, but let me pass it to you to break down those three developments.

Michael Popak (42:02)

I like, I like the order you set them up. And let's start with Gavin Newsom. There's. I always love this suit and I always love, I always get tickled when we start talking about the 787 million. For those that are joining the story late. He purposely picked that number because that is the amount of the settlement that Fox News, the same defendant in his case paid to Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation case in Delaware before another Delaware Superior Court judge for their platforming the big lie through Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and others. And so he picked it on purpose. And, and, and the, the heart of Governor Newsom's case was about a phone call and the timing of a phone call between Donald Trump and him just before Donald Trump sent in the jackbooted National Guard into California. And depending upon the timing of the phone call, if it was accurately reported, that'd be one thing. But the way it was reported by Fox, John Roberts and Jesse Waters, it not only made Gavin Newsom look almost complicit with like he agreed to the National Guard being called out, but actually went further when Jesse Watters did his show and had a chiron at the bottom. You know, we call it the lower third at the bottom of the screen. That said Newsome lies about phone call with Donald Trump. And that is untrue. That is untrue. And the question is whether actual malice has also been properly alleged in a complaint. The initial thing that kicks off a lawsuit. Yes or no? Because Gavin Newsom is obviously a public figure and you have to prove actual. You have to allege actual malice. Eventually you got to prove it. But we're only at the motion to dismiss stage. So Fox filed a motion to dismiss first. First piece of paper in a lawsuit is always the same thing. It's a complaint. That's what we call it, broken down by claims or causes of action. And you have to have operative facts to support it. Depends if you're in state or federal court. Here we're in the Delaware courts, but it's always a complaint. The next piece of paper is either an answer or it's a motion of some sort. Motion to dismiss, motion for judgment on the pleadings, maybe right to summary judgment, you know, depends. Usually a motion to dismiss. And in the motion to dismiss, the other party in this case, Fox argues that the elements are not present on the face of the complaint because you have to accept everything on a motion to dismiss. You have to accept everything as true. That's alleged. If I wrote in a complaint that the sky, you know, the moon is made out of cheese, for the purposes of that motion to dismiss, it has to be accepted as true. I might be in trouble later on for making false statements, but that has to be accepted as true. And then the complaint is also reviewed in the light most favorable to the party that filed the complaint. So you get two benefits of the doubt. Fox comes in with, suit should be dismissed. We accurately reported the issue was not about the time of the phone call. It was about whether a phone call took place or not. And forget the chiron said Gavin Newsom is a liar. It's opinion. It's fair reporting. You can't make out a defamation case and actual malice isn't made out. Their first argument was wrong. Court don't sue us in Delaware or apply a different body of law. Not, not California's. Apply Delaware's or New York or whatever. The judge quickly dis judge. The judge quickly dispatched the motion to dismiss. He said, first of all, you're a Delaware corporation, so suing you in your home state of incorporation can never be a hardship for you. That's what. Secondly, he said, we're going to apply the Delaware procedural law. Okay, great. Now let's get to the merits. Here's the timing. On June 6, it's hard to believe it's almost a year ago. This is a fact. Gavin Newsom has a 16 minute phone call with Donald Trump about. We don't know the content of it, but we know it took place on June 10th. Trump is interviewed in the White House and Says yesterday, meaning the ninth, I had a phone call with Gavin Newsom and leaves the implication that because that was the rollout of the National Guard, that almost like Gavin Newsom was okay with it. Problem with Donald Trump's story is the phone call took place three days earlier. But when Trump, when Fox reported it and John Roberts reported it, John Roberts apparently got Trump on the phone on Air Force One and he showed him his call log to try to show that the call took place the day before. Except the call log was for the three days before, but Roberts reported it. As we've talked to the President, he showed me his call logs proving that the phone call took place as the President said it did, meaning the day before, which made Gavin look bad. Jesse Waters then runs with it. Now we're like, you know, this is telephone game. He runs with it. And they actually are ballsy and they put a line at the bottom of the screen. Gavin Newsom. Why is Gavin Newsom lying about the phone call? Gavin Newsom admits there was a phone call for 16 minutes. He just says it happened on the 6th and there's proof of that. And Fox ran with it happened on the 9th. In the motion to dismiss, they said it doesn't matter when it happened. We thought Newsom was upset because he said there was no phone call. And so we reported that there was a phone call. The judge said no. The issue at the heart of the defamation is that you misreported when the phone call took place and you branded him a liar. And that's a statement, a fact that's untrue, at least as alleged, and I'm letting the suit continue. As for actual malice, he said, for now in the pleading stage, all the things that Gavin Newsom wrote in his pleadings about how Fox has it out for him, Fox has a political agenda against him. Fox has animus against him and knew or should have known that the call took place three days earlier and yet ignored all of the countervailing facts to run the story. Judge says that's enough for circumstantial evidence that there's actual malice. We'll get down later on whether that's actually proven at trial. Now, what is putting aside all the inside baseball battle, how emotion to dismiss works, what's the importance of this? It's that the floodgates of discovery now open, meaning the thing that led Fox to settle for $787 million against Dominion is that they had lost the motion to dismiss against Dominion suit, were forced into depositions and to have all Their emails, all the insider emails between on air talent and each other producers and each other executives and on air talent about all that. Those issues all got produced. They then got used in a motion for summary judgment by Dominion that got filed on the court docket. They never anticipated this. I don't know why. And all of the emails came out in the open. You and I had a field day. We had content for months of the emails of Tucker Carlson calling Rudy Giuliani crazy, but also saying we need to keep them on the air because it sells products, et cetera, et cetera. We're now in that same moment, emails about the relationship between Donald Trump and Fox, John Roberts, the phone call, the messaging, what they said internally before they went on the air is all now fair game to answer the question that inevitably will come up, can the Trump administration take an appeal? I've done Delaware practice before. It is very difficult to get what's called the interlocutory appeal on a motion to dismiss to stop the case, meaning this is going to, it's not going to be appealable or stop the discovery process right now. And so Fox's loss is Gavin Newsom's gain in terms of his suit. Now, is he going to be able to ultimately prove $787 million worth of damages? I don't know. That's for another day. But for right now, discovery is open. We're going to talk a lot about discovery and what it means when Donald Trump sues in a case and ultimately is going to have to pay the price and sit in a chair and not argue that he's the president of the union. You can't be both a plaintiff in a lawsuit and argue you're too busy and too important as president to participate in the process that you started. So we're going to. This is where a lot of in Trump 3.0, this is where a lot of this is going to go. As the Trump administration has been trying hard and has been successful so far in dodging having its key people sit for deposition. Pam, Bonnie sit for deposition. She gets fired. Todd Blanche, sit for deposition in a case involving Abrego Garcia. We're not going to put him on the stand at all. You know, we'd rather lose the case than put him up on deposition. Todd Lyons for a deposition. Oh, no, he's no longer the acting director of ice. So this is an Achilles heel for the Trump administration. And Donald Trump, he does not, he knows he doesn't do well in depositions or as witnesses in a witness box. And just one last thing, Ben. It reminded me, and as a reminder to Donald Trump, Elon Musk just had a terrible day testifying up in your neck of the woods, the Northern District of California, in a case involving ChatGPT where he took the stand and was cross examined at one point. I'll just leave this on, this anecdote because this would be Donald Trump at one point, he didn't like the question that was being asked of him by the opposing lawyer. And Musk himself said out loud, leading objection, leading question. To which the federal judge presiding over the case said, Mr. Musk, repeat after me, I am not a lawyer. And he said it out loud. And then he added, cuz he can't help himself, he has got to get the last word in. He said, but I did take law 101 technically. And everybody in the courtroom burst out laughing. Trump's not gonna do any better in those situations. You and I have seen him in deposition and in testimony in various cases. And so the more we can get closer to that moment, the better it is for justice.

Ben Crump (53:22)

Yeah. And that moment is truth. That moment is discovery. It's under oath. It's actually the reality, not the bending of reality, that exists on propaganda tv. It's why you and I became lawyers ultimately, and why we started this program and this network. It's not cheerleading a particular political party or specific politician, though. It's cheerleading the truth and the facts. And in a court of law, the rules of evidence govern. You can't just throw anything in a courtroom. There has to be evidence that is credible. It can't just be hearsay or rumors or innuendo. And there's ways to assess is the evidence credible or is this evidence purely speculative in nature. And if it is speculative in nature, then make it credible before it gets to, you know, to a jury and in this case, the audience, the American people. When we had a somewhat healthy fourth estate, there was a filter, there was a credible evidence check. And then Trump and MAGA and corporate news bending the knee and a broader authoritarian movement internationally kind of broke that and spread their propaganda using, you know, these various outlets. And it's time we flood the zone with the truth and get that in front of the people. So it's a good example though, Popak, because with Newsom v. Fox, that shows that these parties are clearly adverse. Right. They're fighting each other, you know, in a courtroom. Right. Fox wants to have the case dismissed. Fox wants it thrown out. Newsom is pushing to assert his rights to get before a jury there's conflict, there's a controversy. Right. Contrast that to what's going on in this $10 billion debacle where Donald Trump sued the government, the taxpayers, for $10 billion. And then Trump requested of this federal judge in Florida that he get 90 day extension for the defendant, who's also basically Trump, the Treasury Department, Besant, and the irs, which is under the Treasury Department, so they can spend 90 days to settle. Judge, we're going to try to do a little settlement here. Can you just allow this? You know, let's give a 90 day extension. And the judge is like, I was waiting to see if the defendant was going to respond because in a normal case, they would do what Fox did. In a Newsom case, they would fight. And when Trump's suing them for the government for $10 billion, there's so much defenses that exist, especially with the government entity. Immunity, statute of limitations, just failure to state a claim in general. And the judge is like, no, I'm not going to bless a collusive settlement in a case that probably isn't a case at all. So we previously reported on the Midas Touch Network how the judge said, I can't proceed right now until there's jurisdiction. So I want Trump as an individual and the defendants, the Treasury Department separately brief the issue that there's truly separation and that I have jurisdiction. In the meantime, the judge says, I'm going to hire three of the top law firms in the country that are well skilled in the most complex areas of law and they're going to give me guidance. So Popak talk about this because, you know, these appointments I think were noteworthy. The fact that it was three law firms, not one law firm. The fact that the judge is doing an amicus cure. It's what you and I said go to the back of the episode. It's exactly what you and I said should happen. The judge is now doing it. Talk to us about it.

Michael Popak (56:56)

Absolutely. And to your point about adversary process, if you're lucky enough to go to London, I'm talking about our audience. And you go and do a tour of legal London and you go to the Royal Court that the entrance of the Royal Court, carved in stone since the 1800s. We'll try to put a photo up is a dog fighting with a cat on the way in. And it was done as a whimsical reminder of the adversarial nature of the suit that is supposed to be administered by the Royal Courts of London. You can't have two cats, you can't have Two dogs. Well, I guess you could have two dogs. But, but that, that is, that is what we're talking about. So when, and I know Judge Williams well, when Judge Williams in the Southern District of Florida in Miami, who's not to be, most of the federal judges are not to be trifled with. And she's, you know, just really, really brilliant and had been the long time, how she got there. She had been the long time federal public defender for years in Miami and also in Orlando in the middle of the state. That was her background before. And one of the few federal public defenders that actually has been, has taken the bench. And as you and I said, she figured out right away that I don't have two adversary parties here. I've got Trump on one side and his IRS on the same side. And that is a problem. The problem for Trump is if there is not a real legitimate lawsuit, then there can be no settlement of the lawsuit because there's no exchange of consideration, which means if he wants his $10 billion, he's going to have to rob the IRS to do it because there won't be a lawsuit to use as a cover for settlement. That's why he's fighting so hard to keep this lawsuit. Some people might be asking, why doesn't he just have the IRS stroke him a check? Because that's, that is just broad daylight robbery at that point. That's just, that's just grand theft auto. Okay, so he has the lawsuit, you know, brought by his, you know, he brings against his own entity. So she wants to get to the bottom of it. Now, the you and I had covered before for, for instance, the inherent authority of a federal judge when they sense that the fix is in to bring in an outside party to advice judges do it in different ways. We talked last week or so about Judge Ho in New York, who, when he sensed there was a problem with the dismissal of an indictment against Mayor Adams of New York that she did, he didn't have an adversary party on the other side with the Department of Justice coming in to dismiss it and people arguing that they're doing it in order to, you know, coerce Mayor Adams into following their immigration policy. He said, you know what? I'm going to bring in a special counsel to advise me and write a brief to me about whether this indictment should be dismissed or not. And he did. He appointed a former Solicitor general under the Bush administration to handle that in Florida. And under Florida law, they also recognize another method equally as good, I think, which is that a judge can appoint Friends of the court, we call them amicus curi or amici to advise the court. Now, when you're in a regular lawsuit, a judge doesn't have to invite amicus briefs. They just come in on important topics, and they could have just come in on this important topic, or she could, she could be take the lead and the initiative to say, I want briefs to guide me. And she didn't just say one, like the way Judge Ho said, I'm going to appoint, you know, this former solicitor General. She said, I want to, I want a broad spectrum. And she was smart. I know these firms and so do you. Double voice in Plimpton, major white shoe firm out of New York, a boutique firm. It's very well regarded in Celine de Gay, which I've litigated with before. And they were. They all spun off from another major firm, but are very, very well respected in this area. And then a third firm. And they're gonna, they have a deadline. She still has an ob. She still has made it an obligation of the IRS and Donald Trump to do their own briefs. Don't do a joint brief. That would be, that would be the death. That would actually prove the point. But now she's going to have the benefit of the wisdom of three law firms that don't have an ax to grind, that are not connected to Donald Trump or the IRS or to, or to the judge to give her independent evaluation. The interesting thing is going to be these three firms. I participated in a situation where my firm and another firm were being, were up for a beauty pageant to see if we were going to be selected. That's what it used to be called for, to, to, to handle a client and to, to test us. They wanted both sides to sub, each firm to submit a kind of a white paper about how they would handle the case. And I saw the other sides after. But these three are going to be working completely independently. They're not going to be sharing, they're not going to be sending drafts around. And it's going to be interesting to see how the three come out in terms of can a president while he's in office sue his own executive branch agency for money, damages or otherwise? Now, if I'm a betting man, I'm going to, I think it's going to come up three cherries against Donald Trump on the, on the slot machine. I think they're going to find that that's not appropriate and that it would never survive Supreme Court review. But we'll have to see, and it'll be very Interesting. This is the first time, just to put us in context, first time in six years you and I have been doing the show that we've ever had this method be used by a judge concerning a Trump issue. And I think you and I are both curious and slightly excited to see what the result's going to be. And then what Judge Williams, she'll have a five total briefs, right? She'll have the one from Trump, the one from the irs. She'll have the three amicus briefs. You don't get an opportunity to comment on the amicus briefs and the way she set them. I don't. I have to look at the deadlines. I don't think Trump's going to have the benefit of them. So she's going to have five briefs giving her some opinion, but she's the one in the black robe. She's going to make the ultimate decision. But what hangs in the balance, and I don't want to make this, too, I don't want to make lose the point if she rules that he can't sue. He just lost his lawsuit, subject to an appeal, and he just lost his ability to shake down the IRS for billions of dollars.

Ben Crump (64:02)

And look, I think that we all know that that's what he's doing. I think what the federal judge is doing right here is making sure she does due diligence, and that if ultimately that's the decision that's reached, she gets a number of perspectives and she can make a record that when this goes to the 11th Circuit or to the United States Supreme Court, which is what Trump will inevitably do, that there is a significant record, because there isn't a record when there's no adversity. There normally would be a record when plaintiff sues defendant and they fight each other and they're trying to get in front of the judge, the law, the facts, the evidence, and they're trying to persuade and convince and have all the information, but that doesn't exist. So if the judge just says, I don't have jurisdiction, then that's going to allow Donald Trump to try to use that and go, ah, you just are partisan and you're an Obama appointee, and that's why you're doing it. And the judge, I think, is going to say, look, I've brought in this wealth of knowledge and I think she's going to make the ruling appeal, proof. And that's what I think is happening now, since we all know what Donald Trump is doing. Trump is on video and audio, bragging about settling with himself and that there is no adversity and that he's already won the case before it started. He's on audio saying that. And that's how Donald Trump and dictators and authoritarians want the system to look like it is foregone conclusion, the outcome. Because you're on both sides of the case, just very, very briefly, because I've touched upon it in the first segment. I've touched upon it right now as well. Those J6 cases that were filed against Donald Trump for his involvement in the insurrection, civil cases they were proceeding. Donald Trump using the Justice Department to try to block discovery there. He's saying that he's too busy. There's so much going on that, that, that the proceedings need to be stayed. He's kind of recycling arguments that he already made where courts have found that there's. He's not entitled to immunity for purposes of this case. And, you know, I just think it's worth noting here that Donald Trump, who's brought so many lawsuits in his individual capacity, including a $10 billion lawsuit that was brought against the government, whether he wants the taxpayers to pay. In a normal situation, you bring a lawsuit, you're subject to discovery. You have to sit for deposition. You have to go through the process. You don't get to file a lawsuit and go now. You don't get to question me because I'm the President of the United States. No, you brought in an individual capacity. You're being sued in the J6 cases as an individual capacity. Just sit for a deposition and stop being pathetic. You know, you go in front of, you do these weird speeches across the country where you make your noises and you grunt and you lie about everything. You call up state, regime, media, where you lie about everything. Tough guy, go under oath. No one wants to be deposed. It's not fun to having your deposition taken or being involved in litigation. But you're in it now. So sit there, stop whining, stop complaining, shut up, and just let the facts be what the facts be, you know, and it just, again, as a, as a former practicing lawyer, someone who watches it, just so pathetic to see someone like that who acts all tough and sues everybody. Then he squirms and refuses to even sit for a deposition. But that's him. A paper tiger. You hear him always saying, paper tiger, Paper tiger. This is a paper. NATO is a paper tiger. NATO is not a paper tiger. What are you talking about? NATO defended the United States after 9 11. NATO has been the opposite of your whole life is being a paper tiger. And having people bail you out and you're exposed right now once again in front of the American people and in front of the world, frankly, with this, this naval blockade that you think is working in Iran, which isn't as oil prices at record highs. All right, let's take our last quick break of the show. When we come back, I want to talk about the voting rights ruling by the Supreme Court. And then I want to combine the topics of the Southern Poverty Law center and the Comey indictment into one. Because to me, what it's really showcasing, and this will be the way we frame the topic, Popak is acting Attorney General Todd Blanche trying to endear himself to Donald Trump to become the attorney general by bringing prosecutions that even Pam Bondi wasn't going to do. I mean, this idea of indicting Comey for a social media post of seashells, Bondi didn't want to bring that. Similarly, the Southern Poverty Law center case wasn't brought for a reason under Bondi. I mean, and she brought some horrific cases because the Southern Poverty Law center was working with the prosecutor's office, working with the DOJ to get the bad guys. So in order for you to indict, you'd have to essentially lie to the grand jury and say that the Southern Poverty Law center wasn't doing that. And that's apparently what they did. They showed up apparently to a grand jury and told them incorrect information. We don't have the grand jury information yet, but Southern Poverty Law center is saying federal judge. We should now get even though normally their secrecy. We should be getting this because we should be getting this grand jury information because the only way they could have indicted on these facts is if they lied because it's just not true, any of the things that they're saying. And they know it. Let's take our last quick break of the show. A reminder. If you or someone you know have been injured in a car accident, trucking accident, auto accident, negligence of others, make sure you reach out to the POPOC firm. You can call or text 877-POPAK AF or visit the popoc firm.com you may know someone who's been injured or another family or someone who had a tragic thing happen. Reach out to the Popoc firm and see if you have a case. Also, subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel and the Legal AF substack. All right, thanks, everybody. We'll be right back after our last quick break of the show for the home stretch.

Michael Popak (69:36)

Look, magnesium. It's something most of us lack. And if you're taking that 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. Oh no, it's a full body magnesium system built for modern living so you can feel your best every day. Since adding Qualia Magnesium plus to my routine, I'm feeling easier recovery from workouts and a calm, more 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 qualylife.com legalaf for 50% off and here's a bonus use the code legal af for an additional 15% off your order. That's Q U A l I a life.com legalaf and then use code legal af thanks to qualia for sponsoring this episode. We love our cat Chanel, but for the longest time we were dealing with, well, the classic scarf and barf situation. She'd eat too fast, throw up and I just thought, well that's normal. Turns out, well, it's not. Then I switched Chanel to Smalls and the difference was immediate. Smalls Fresh cat food is protein packed recipes made with preservative free 100% human grade ingredients you'd find in your fridge and it's delivered right to your door. Since switching I've noticed better digestion, more energy and her coat is softer and shinier. Even the litter box is, well, less gross because more of the nutrients are actually digestible so less junk comes out. The other end. Cats use protein as their main energy source, so more protein means more sustained energy and you can really see it. And there's real proof. Forbes ranks Smalls the best overall cat food. BuzzFeed it said, My cats went completely ballistic for this stuff and after switching, 88% of cat owners reported overall health improvements. So stop serving your little carnivore a bowl of processed shortcuts for a limited time because you're a legal AF listener. Get 60% off your first order plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com legalaf that's 60% off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com legalafe welcome back to Legal AF.

Ben Crump (72:43)

Thank you to all of those sponsors. Two topics left we need to discuss. Number one, Attorney General or acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, wanting to become the attorney general, brought that Comey indictment against former FBI director for posting seashells, then the week before bringing that case against the Southern Poverty Law center in Alabama, saying that they basically kept informants with extremist groups but didn't disclose it. And that constitutes wire fraud because people were giving money to the Southern Poverty Law center to fight racism and to fight extremist groups. But I guess the theory of the case is that the Southern Poverty Law center, they were the racists and they were the ones promoting the. They were the extremist group. So they were promoting them and then saying, look, we're fighting the extremist group. And when that criminal case, when that indictment dropped, I was like, this makes literally zero sense. But I want to wait for Southern Poverty Law center to respond. And, of course, Southern Poverty Law center said, what are you talking about? Everybody knows about our informant program in the FBI and DOJ and local law enforcement because we work with you. We work with this prosecutor's office that brought these charges. We, we help you find the bad guys. And then people donate to us because we work with you to help find the bad guys. That's like, what we do. And so the Southern Poverty Law center is now saying, as it relates to, you know, the grand jury proceedings, which are usually supposed to be kept secret under Rule 6E, that we have to pierce the veil of secrecy as it relates to this grand jury. This is a theme we've been seeing with a lot of Trump grand juries, including Comey's first indictment, where Comey got his hands on the grand jury testimony, and it turned out there was egregious misconduct taking place there. The Southern Poverty Law center saying, it's impossible that you got an indictment based on these facts unless you literally lied to the grand jury. And just for those who remember those to note, in a grand jury, there's no judge in the room and there's no defense counsel in the room. The grand jury is just the DOJ and the grand jury members who rely on what the, what the DOJ tells them. There's no objection. There's really no rules of evidence. And it's based on the ethical behavior of the DOJ be, you know, bringing meritorious cases. Because if you bring a case that's not meritorious in the past one, you'd lose your job job. It would shatter the credibility of the doj. It wasn't think. I mean, yes. Did the DOJ overreach in the past? They bring some bad cases. Can you say that there was like, there was never misconduct before? Of course there was misconduct before it happened. But the systemic level and the egregious nature, you know, that we see under the Trump regime is truly unprecedented. So that was Southern Poverty Law Center's responses. We think that this grand jury proceeding was tainted by false information. And the Southern Popular Law center saying, we gave you all. We gave the DOJ the information. Also that shows we work with you. Even if you want to just ignore it. We put it in front of you anyway that we work with you. Then you had the James Comey indictment by this DOJ based on a thing he posted a year ago where he posted 86.47 with seashells and Trump and the DOJ. And 86 was a threat on Donald Trump's life by using the number 86. And 86 is a restaurant bar term. Get rid of, you know, you 86 somebody from a bar, you get them out of the bar, you get them out of the restaurant. But this, there's a criminal case that's filed on this basis. So Popak, talk about this. Then let's pivot quickly to the Voting Rights Act. I know you and I have covered the Voting Rights act extensively, so I don't mean to redo a whole rehash of that ruling, but talk about, you know, Blanche making his move right here, why these cases are going to collapse, then you can just pivot right to Voting Rights act if you want a

Michael Popak (76:29)

Voting Rights act is simple. We'll get there in a minute. Rather than do the top line, which we'll do in a second, it's what's happening since it's the starter pistol that got fired for the race to the bottom, but Democrats fighting back as well. We'll get to gerrymandering in a moment. On the on the Comey indictment, he and Patrick Fitzgerald, his lawyer used to be the Chicago U.S. attorney, should be lighting candles and saying novenas because if this is the indictment, the best they can come up with is seashell formations on a beach in North Carolina. And having worked in restaurants as a including in diners, 86 means remove it means remove it from the menu. Like 86 the coleslaw. 86 the onion rings. It doesn't mean take the onion rings out in the back and assassinate them. And this has always been the problem. There's new reporting that this indictment was so flimsy that even Pam Bondi, yes, Pam Bondi did not go forward with it. And apparently the only thing stopping it from being let out of the cage was Pam Bondi. Now, Todd Blanche, who has already demonstrated there is no depth he will not sink in order to try to obtain the permanent role of attorney general, sacrificing all whatever ethics or shred of credibility had before is now completely out the window. That's why we're seeing a ramp up of all the political enemies of Donald Trump indictments since Pam Bondi has left the building. So the seashore indictment is likely not going to make it past a motion to dismiss. As we've talked about before, there's a body of law out of the United States Supreme Court that defines what a attack on a threat, a criminal threat on a president and what it looks sounds like. And this ain't it. This is parody. This is sarcasm, this is hyperbole. This is rhetoric. This is core protected First Amendment speech. But it ain't a crime. And Donald Trump screwed up his own case anyway. When when reporter for CNN in the White House during this kind of wide ranging Oval Office presser asked Kaitlan Collins asked, were you were you afraid for your life last May when you saw the insta photo of a shell formation by, by the shells? Well, I don't know. It's hard to tell. I'm not sure. Well, hard to tell. I'm not sure that that does not a, a assassination attempt makes this administration also exploits any, any opportunity they have rather than try to bring the country together or otherwise. You know, a, a person breaks in a floor below Donald Trump at a White House press dinner, White House correspondence dinner with with malice in his heart. That's an excuse to build a ballroom. And to go after James Comey for a year earlier or you know, a seashell formation of 8647, forgetting that every other right wing podcaster has used the term 86 and Biden 86, 46 in the same reference or to go after Jimmy Kimmel again because of a joke he made two days before the White House correspondent's dinner about Melania Trump and the age difference with Donald Trump. So he never lets a tragedy or an averted tragedy go unexploited. But we're on to him now. I mean we're, we know the M.O. we know the blueprint here, I think the judge up in North Carolina who's a George W. Bush appointee is going to make quick work to get rid of that indictment. And Lord knows what was said in that grand jury room. See, normally you don't get the transcripts of a grand jury. They are secret to protect the grand jury. Even defendants don't get them. Unless you have a good faith argument that something awry went on inside, like the Southern Poverty Law center or James Comey, given the timeline here of their initial attempt to indict him having failed. And now vindictively, at least the argument goes, going after him again, there's last reporting here, Ben, before I turn over to the last story that even Trump thinks this is, this is not. This narrative of the Seashell indictment is so laugh out loud that even Trump's upset about it. And apparently Eastern District of Virginia prosecutors are working overtime to try to bring him on charges. Comey on charges of again, the classified documents that he already admitted in 2017, he declassified and sent to the New York Times in memos, which he already admitted to eight years ago, or what we like to say is three years after a statute of limitations is run. So even. But Trump, again, let's just say the obvious. Trump doesn't care about the conviction. He cares about the press news cycle and that there was a news cycle that said James Comey indicted. Adam Schiff, subject of mortgage fraud probe. Letitia James, subject of mortgage fraud probe. He got what he wanted and now we know he's got the attention span of an, of a gnat, of a fruit fly. So he's moved on already in his mind. But, but those around him have done his bidding as they try out for attorneys general or judges or Supreme Court justices. It's a lot of tryouts going on right now that you and I capture and analyze and synthesize. So you want to move to voting rights.

Ben Crump (82:22)

Look, this initial dopamine hit of the headline that gets out there, everybody's like, my God, he got indicted. You know, that commands the first 12 hours. And those are your best 12 hours in a case like that, that's been Donald Trump's entire life.

Sponsor/Ad Voice (82:36)

Life.

Ben Crump (82:37)

You know, you then have to follow it up with, with a plan. And you should start with a plan, but that's your best day. And then everything else after that is bad headline, bad headline. Because the other side, in an adversarial process going to adverseness, they have a say in the matter too, right? Like Iran, they're not going to agree that your fake negotiations are happening. They're not giving up the straight of Hormuz. You know, in a litigation, Comey is not just going to be like, okay, I guess, I guess I'm just going to, what, plead guilty to the Seashell case? No. So they're going to fight. And then what you have to do is you get into this fraudulent escalation trap where, you know, where you keep on doing the next headline to cover up this headline and the next one and the next one, the next one, and then you're flooding the zone with all of these bad moves and, you know, a simple, you know, I mean, just think, I was gonna say, like a really bad thing becomes a catastrophic thing. I mean, Trump lost the first Comey case. He could have just moved on. Right. I mean, think about it. You know, you had Lindsey Halligan. She got bailed out with ways that she probably doesn't realize, because if all of the grand jury stuff came out that she was doing, the best thing probably for her was that she was an unlawful prosecutor who didn't belong in the room to begin with. Because if you went into her conduct, stuff was going to get really real very quickly about her behavior. So you could have just moved on. But he does it again on Seashells, and then it just looks. So you're bringing a case over over Seashells, and then you shatter what the FBI is doing, what the DOJ is doing long term. And you think about other cases that the DOJ and FBI supposed to be prosecuting and the lack of credibility the DOJ and FBI speaks with when they show up in federal court on all the other cases that they're dealing with, sex trafficking cases, drug cases, extortion cases, you know, major federal crime type cases. They have no credibility before judges and juries right now. And that's a problem. And finally, though, Popak, it's like the Supreme Court's enabling this when they eventually, when they make these rulings, like gutting the Voting Rights Act. But you and I, we talked about at the beginning, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation along with other civil rights legislation from the 1960s where Democrats and Republicans did the right thing and came together. And then 2026, you have federal, you have Supreme Court justices and this right wing MAGA movement saying, yeah, Congress did all of that, but in the 1960s. But, you know, at the end of the day, that's not. All of that stuff is unconstitutional. You know what's really racist? It's racist to focus on creating majority black congressional districts to block the racism of a state that tries to dilute the black vote, the racism. What the right wing Supreme Court justice says is ensuring that there aren't racist maps by allowing there to be basically proportional representation of states to black populations or Latino populations. Factoring that in, the Supreme Court says that's being racist. And it's not being racist to actually do the racist map, but call it political gerrymandering, then you get away with it. That's what the ruling boils down to. Just call racist maps political gerrymandering. The Supreme Court essentially says, and you can do whatever you want with the map, feel free to dilute the vote of black voters. And if black voters step up and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is racist. There's 35% of the population's black and now we don't have a single Congress member from the black community, what does the Supreme Court say? Whoa, you're being racist.

Michael Popak (86:26)

The whole.

Ben Crump (86:27)

Why are you talking about race? We've moved beyond racism in this country where we've cured racism. And you're talking about black representation. You're being race. That's the gaslighting and the sociopathic nature of this ruling. And that's why Justice Alito wrote for the majority, because that's his whole shtick. There is no racism except people who call out racism and they're the ones who are racist.

Michael Popak (86:53)

And it's so nefarious to have Alito give lip service to our racist past. He has to acknowledge it first, the virulent racism in America. But as you said, good news, everybody. As he wrenches his his shoulder, patting himself on the back. We're in a post racial world now and with computers we can rely on to do maps we don't need to protect minority representation, especially in the South. Why would we? And that he actually, he almost said, I'm sure it was in a draft. This is a country that had elected Barack Obama twice. He came close. He said in the opinion. In Louisiana, for instance, in two out of the five presidential elections, black participation in voting was higher than white participation. I'm thinking to myself, are you talking about the two years, the two terms that Barack Obama ran for? In any event, then they do the lip service and then they say we don't need it anymore. Things have changed. And the major thing that changed is in 2019, which is they making a ruling that you could never come to a federal court and argue that we have too many Republican districts. You can, because it's not justiciable. It's a political question. So they, they, they barred the door literally to the courthouse, to anybody to come in and make that argument, which, as you said, gives license to everything to be couched in terms of red and blue instead of black and brown. Now, there's an interesting data set here that I wasn't aware of until I started really diving into these voting cases. And I had Sarah Brannan, who's the deputy director of the Voting Rights Project at the aclu, on with me this week. You can find it up on the ACLU playlist on Legal af. And she said, look, I know there's people and they're bipartisan and nonpartisan and all that. And she said, she acknowledged there's a group of people who believe, as Barack Obama once did, that we shouldn't have any gerrymandering at all, which is like computers. Design all the districts, let the chips fall where they may, little equal boxes. All good, right. She said, here's the reality. There are 19 seats in the south that are held by primarily black representation because of gerrymandering, because of district creation to give to make sure there are minority majority districts like the one that was drawn in Louisiana. That was at the heart of this the second time around case, which drew a gerrymander district that stretched 250 miles in distance with Alexandria and Shreveport and other places. The reality, she said, is if we go to neutral, maybe you get six of those seats, but not 19 anywhere near it. So if you're like, let's just do nonpartisan gerrymandering like some states have, and some people who are running for office have said, you also have to recognize that there is a dirty underbelly of that, which is it could actually lose black representation where it's needed most, which is in the Deep South. We may have it all read generationally. I mean, we just saw Donald Trump brag last week at another press conference about who we can get rid of the filibuster, which even his own party, knowing that he's going to get shellacked at the midterms, does not want to get rid of, which is the only power a party in minority has. A minority party, meaning the party that's not in the majority has to stop. A law is to threaten to filibuster or to procedurally filibuster. You take that away. And Trump said, take it away and we'll be in power for 50 years. Talk about saying the quiet part out loud. Holy shit. So there's, that's where Trump and MAGA want to be they want maps to embody it. But then fortunately, even though Alabama's already run to court to try to get maps that were thrown out waiting for the Calais decision, the Supreme Court decision to come out to get those racist maps back up and running, that's all the south is doing right now. In places like Alabama and Mississippi, Louisiana, they're all trying to shove, I mean, it's gone so far that in some states they had a primary that has already started, like balloting already went out, people have already voted and they're trying to extend, extend the time so there's no May primary deadline, push it off until June and July so they can remap. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And this is where dummy mandering comes in, which is a great term of art the Democrats have come up with, which is a we can do it too, so let's squeeze out five more seats here and there in all of our districts, if that's what you want. But dummy mandering also refers to the law of unintended consequences, where you spread, if you're the Republicans, you spread the red so thin of voter concentration that what was once secure districts become less secure and more purpley because you've spread them out to try to create and seed new districts. And when you have a very thin concentration of Republicans that make up a district meeting a blue wave tsunami election, which is what we're predicting with people voting and their interest in midterms, catastrophic things can happen. Give you one example, in a state that I live in, in Florida, before even waiting for the supreme court to rule, DeSantis, who's back to the tryout theory from our episode trying out to be Attorney General of the United States or department or head of the Department of Defense or labor or something because he's out of a job soon, Curry favor with Trump, went into special session and got A map approved that is 24 Republican districts and five or less Democrats. But that could backfire because of the shift in demographics and support for Donald Trump, like the Hispanic vote, which has completely abandoned him, especially the Hispanic Catholic Pope Leo vote. And if that happens, then it doesn't. It's not 24 Republican and 6 or whatever. It's more like 16 and 12 or whatever. Even where they think they're getting and creating new seats, they're not because they're pissing off the electorate and they're underestimating changes in just the last year reflected in polling against MAGA and Republicans. So if that blue wave, that tidal wave election meets this kind of last minute half baked redistricting good and then redistricting by the Democrats. Actually good things could be happening. But again, this is the floodgates that have the Pandora's box that's been opened by United States Supreme Court that does not care about civil rights and John Roberts finally getting what he wanted from the very beginning of his term as chief justice, which is to completely chloroform and put out of its misery or our misery the the Voting Rights Act.

Ben Crump (94:31)

There you have it, folks. My dogs couldn't agree more. There with you, Michael Popak, is if on cue, we'll be covering this and more throughout the coming weeks, months, years here on the Midas Touch Network. Thank you everybody for watching and listening to this week's Legal A app. A reminder, if you or anybody you know has been injured in an auto accident, trucking accident, been injured by the negligence of a company or a third party, if you know someone else who needs a lawyer, reach out to 877-POPAK AF. Call or text 877-POPAK or visit the popoc firm.com the consultation, of course, is free and they've got lawyers across the United States ready for your call. Also, make sure you subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel and the Legal AF substack. Subscribe to both. Thank you everybody for watching. We appreciate you so much and we'll see you next time on Legal af. Shout out Midas Mighty shout out Legal A.