Loading summary
Transcript36 lines
- [00:01]
Jerry Insurance Ad Voice
Are you noticing your car insurance rate creep up? Even without tickets or claims, you're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry handles the legwork by comparing quotes side by side from over 50 top insurers so you can confidently hit buy. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Jerry even tracks rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Don't settle for higher rates. Download the Jerry app or visit Jerry AI Libsyn today. That's J E R R Y AI Libsyn. Tired of your car insurance rate going up? Even with a clean driving record, you're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side by side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence. Download the Jerry app or visit Jerry AI Libsyn today. That's J E R R Y AI Libsyn.
- [01:14]
Ben Crump
I'm Kiana, and I leveled up my business with Shopify. Once I figured out that Shopify was a thing, I never turned back. I can create a site with my eyes closed. Shopify thinks ahead of us, you know, and it thinks about the customer more than anything. Every day I'm thinking about some other new business, but Shopify is doing it to me because it's so easy to use. It's like, I can't stop. I'm addicted. Start your free trial@shopify.com day or night.
- [01:45]
Legal AF Contributor
VRBoCare is here 247 to help make every part of your stay seamless. If anything comes up or you simply need a little guidance, support is ready whenever you reach out. From the moment you book to the moment you head home, we're here to help things run smoothly, because a great trip starts with the right support. And, hey, a good playlist doesn't hurt either.
- [02:13]
Jerry Insurance Ad Voice
Tired of your car insurance rate going up? Even with a clean driving record, you're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side by side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence. Download the Jerry app or visit Jerry AI Libsyn today. That's J E R R Y A Lib S Y N A week of
- [02:50]
Michael Popak
massive losing in court after court for Donald Trump. This week felt different because it was different. Michael Popak and I from Legal A, we will break it down. So Donald Trump lost in the case involving the Kennedy center, where he wanted to call it the Trump Kennedy Center. A federal judge blocked Donald Trump from doing that, said, remove your name from the Kennedy center immediately. Remember, reopen the Kennedy center immediately. Donald Trump's been throwing a temper tantrum, making these long posts on social media attacking the judge will break down what took place there. Donald Trump loses. The case also involving the $1.8 billion slush fund that he wants to give to January 6th insurrectionists. And it was double trouble, double loss for Donald Trump. Earlier in the day, a Virginia federal court temporarily blocked Donald Trump for releasing funds from this unlawful January 6th insurrection, slush fund, whatever you want to call it. Then the federal judge in the initial case that Donald Trump brought this thing, this $10 billion personal lawsuit against the IRS, which was then used as cover to engage in this settlement where Trump waives all audits against himself and from the past, and then creates this lush fund that federal Judge Kathleen Williams, at the request of 35 preeminent former federal judges who filed a brief under Rule 60, we'll break down what that means. She essentially says, I'm reopening this case and I'm conducting an inquiry into what this settlement was all about and whether it was tainted by collusion and fraud. And she used the words, this could be grievous misconduct, grievous behavior taking place, will break down what Judge Kathleen Williams did. And this is one to really focus on, because Judge Kathleen Williams inquiry could lead to a lot of things, with impeachment perhaps being the least of Donald Trump and some of the people involved in that worries. Also, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. refusing to just simply dismiss with prejudice the criminal convictions against the Oath Keepers people who are convicted of seditious conspiracy. Trump's DOJ said, we're exercising our discretion as prosecutors. Not only did Donald Trump pardon the Oath Keepers, but even though they've already been convicted, we want to just dismiss the case so that basically they're fully vindicated. It's not merely a pardon. We want the case dismissed. And the federal judge who is presiding over the case said, excuse me, excuse me. This is one of these rare, exceptional circumstances where, where I'm not just Going to accept the Department of Justice's discretion. And the judge said, I need to know more. I want to do an investigation. I want to conduct an inquiry into what's taken place there. It got worse for Donald Trump. The Brago Garcia criminal case got dismissed for vindictive prosecution in a scathing order out of a federal court in Tennessee. Then you had the Southern Poverty Law center file their motion to dismiss against the Trump regime for vindictive prosecution. I think we'll see the same outcome with that criminal case being dismissed as well. You have Donald Trump's top prosecutor against James Comey, quitting the case. You know, the 8647 Seashell case. The top prosecutor there just quit, and he quit all his other cases. He filed all these notices of withdrawals as the pressure for him is apparently too much. And the Midas Touch network host Katie Fang filed a lawsuit under the Epstein Transparency act, the first of its kind lawsuit like that against the Trump regime, against Todd Blanch individually, to turn over the Epstein files. This as Pam Bondi was supposed to testify under oath and before and on camera on Friday, but she refused to take the oath. She refused to appear in on a camera. She was represented by one of the top DOJ lawyers who claimed that the DOJ lawyer was acting in the personal capacity, not as a DOJ lawyer. And every question about Donald Trump was objected to. So were you covering up with Donald Trump? Objection. Executive privilege. Did Donald Trump tell you to hide these? Objection. Executive privilege. Did Donald Trump have this? The Donald Trump do this, that objection. Executive privilege will break it all down. Let's bring in Michael Popak. Popak, you ever think that we would talk about executive privilege being asserted to cover up child sex trafficking rings where a former attorney general refuses to go under oath or be filmed because they are too scared? On a week where a federal judge says, no, you can't put your name on the Kennedy Center. No, you can't have a $1.8 billion slush fund for insurrection as pope. Oakland, you know, it feels different this week, Popak. It feels different, man.
- [07:54]
Ben Crump
The list of things we just went over would. Would be an entire career for any other or an entire administration. We're just talking about this week. We have. Look at this checklist we have. I would have thought, like, if we're coming on, I was like, oh, Pam Bondi will be interesting. Pam Bondi throwing Todd Blanche under the bus, making him responsible for the Epstein files. That could be a major news story. And yet we have a federal judge finding that The Trump Department of Justice effectively vindictively prosecuted the first ruling. Talk about landmarks breakthroughs. First ruling by a federal judge that this Department of Justice vindictively prosecuted. It wasn't able to carry their burden of showing that they did not vindictively prosecute it. Which led two days later to the lawyers for the Southern Poverty Law center referring back to that vindictive prosecution finding by Judge Crenshaw to support their own motion now being the second or now third motion for vindictive prosecution. And then hours later, this is all the same week, a block of the of Donald Trump permanently has to now take his name off. And he's so petulant that he's now announced in social media postings that he's taking his ball and his name and going home, that he's going to turn. He doesn't understand how, how the separation of powers or the three branches work. He's giving back to Congress that which Congress already controls as federal property, which is the Kennedy center and says you guys do it. So that is another a taco moment for Donald Trump related to the Kennedy Center. Again, everybody, this is from last Saturday to this Saturday, mainly the half week because we started off with a holiday on Monday. Then you have the reopening this you know, we'll get to it in a segment the reopening of the phony Trump vs. IRS case where the judge wants to figure out and have Trump tell her Trump's lawyers Trump private Trump not Trump President Trump executive privilege Trump private party Trumps and Trump's lawyers tell her whether she's been deceived, tell her whether there's been a fraud on the court committed as and the settlement for the weaponization fund being part of that which helps the case that's in front of Judge Brinkoma in which Judge Brinka until 12 June has blocked any aspect of the weaponization fund getting up and running, including funding, disbursement, distribution or anything else. Because if Judge Williams in Miami, my backyard, if she rules that the federal court was used as a as in a collusive way and deceived in order to create that settlement because there was no legitimate good faith lawsuit to file in order for the attorney general back to Todd Blanch to settle under the Judgment act, the judgment fund and his powers, then that ruling that finding in a fact finding mode by the judge who having reopened the case can then be used in all of the three or four cases involving the weaponization fund with a finding by Judge Williams that the that would this, this is the string, the yarn on the sweater that if you pull it, the whole thing falls apart. And maybe, as you said, people get impeached and, or lose their bar licenses, including a guy named Todd Blanche. And then you. And I'd be like, oh, that's done. That's good for a week, right? No, you've got, you've got your, you've got your, the Pam Bondi. The Pam Bondi throwing Todd Blanche under the bus. You know, I don't know if that's payback because she got fired in and around the time that she had a cancer diagnosis and was being driven over to the Supreme Court for that, for that Tariffs ruling and Donald Trump heartlessly fires her. But she seemed to have no problem pushing this off on Todd Blanche, whether he was ready for it or not. And the worst nightmare, I'll leave it on this. The worst nightmare for the Trump administration is to have Cash Patel and or Todd Blanche have to be testifying about the Epstein files while our friend and colleague Katie Feng. I'm going to have Katie Fang and Alison Gill on with me on Monday to talk about this. I'm doing it from the angle of when legal commentators step out and become plaintiffs in cases to fill a need where they see no one else is stepping forward. And what is that like to be the plaintiff and then comment on your own cases? I think it's, as I told Katie when I interviewed her, it's, it's the first case, as you said, that was filed in order to declare the Epstein file production insufficient. It's not just the 3 million pages. It's pieces of paper. It's the 3 million or more that are still hidden by the executive branch related to Jeffrey Epstein. And, and here's one thing I do want to, I want the note. I want to hear your opinion on, you see Donald Trump, Melania Trump, all these things coming forward with, we support the victims. They should come testify, give congressional testimony in order for there to be an investigation into their sexual abuse. I'm like, only in Trump's America, in Trump's mind, does the victim of sex abuse have to give congressional testimony in order to start what, to start an investigation process by the FBI that should have been done already, should have been completed already. Where is the weaponization fund, Ben, for the Epstein survivors who were let down terribly by the Department of Justice and the FBI, including across administrations? Where is that fund? I mean, the, the women's Olympic gymnastics team properly got 140 million because the government let them down about Larry Nasser. Where is The Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Forget the rewarding the Jan6 insurrectionists. What about these 1200 or 1400 victims of a child sex trafficking ring that should have been shut down 20 years ago by the government?
- [14:00]
Michael Popak
What about Pam Bondi saying that I really had nothing to do with the Epstein investigation or the production of these documents. I fully delegated all of the tasks to Todd Blanche. Todd Blanche did everything, is what she said. And you think about a statement like that, you think about the fact that she refused to answer while they talk about transparency, this, that. And we know it's the opposite. She's refusing to be on video camera, she's refusing to testify under oath, kind of undercutting that whole transparency argument. And she has the number two or number three at the DoJ, Harmeet Dhillon sitting right next to her.
- [14:41]
Ben Crump
And.
- [14:42]
Michael Popak
And every time there's a question about Donald Trump's connection with Epstein, there's an objection on the basis of executive privilege, and Bondi refuses to answer. I think what was not said is actually just as powerful what was said, because Bondi always lies about everything. But you can see directly where the sensitive issues are by really just kind of focusing on that. But let's start, though, and talk about your neck of the woods. Let's talk about Florida, you know, Judge Kathleen Williams. And so you could provide a little bit more color on this, this federal judge. But there were two major developments as it relates to this. You know, this $1.8 billion slush fund. There was what took place in Florida in a federal court, and there's what took place in Virginia. Here on Legal af, we want to be very organized in our analysis. Remind everybody that that Donald Trump filed this frivolous $10 billion lawsuit in Florida in the Southern District. It got assigned to a federal judge named Judge Kathleen Williams. Right. She was very concerned about the posture of this case, that it seemed like it was Trump v. Trump. Trump, in his private capacity as a personal individual, suing along with the Trump Organization and his kids versus the federal government, the Treasury Department, and the IRS, alleging that his tax returns were leaked in 2019, along with 450,000 other people when Trump was in office in 2019 by an IRS contractor who would ultimately be working for Trump in 2019. This was a case that was time barred, meaning the statute of limitations had expired. And even if there was an ability to prove, the maximum damages, if it wasn't time barred may be $1,000 as a cap, as a ceiling under the law. But also, there's a variety of reasons and immunities that this case would never even make it past a motion to dismiss. So when the federal judge, after this was filed, said, this seems collusive and fraudulent, can you let me know what's going on here? The. The federal judge appointed a number of private law firms as amicus, as amici to say, hey, I need your help here because I want to get independent views about whether this was a collusive, fraudulent lawsuit that was brought to use and abuse this court to engage in nefarious purposes. And then rather than the Trump regime, rather than Donald Trump or the DOJ or the Treasury Department or irs, respond to the judge's inquiry, they dismissed the case with prejudice, did not disclose that there was a settlement agreement. And so the judge was essentially obligated on that record to say, okay, the parties are dismissing the case. I don't have jurisdiction if the parties are dismissing the case. So. But no one's. But she kind of. She kind of knew there was something brewing in the background. She goes, no one told me about a settlement agreement which I would need to be involved in. And so because no one's raised that issue, then I'm just, I have to dismiss the case. And so the case gets dismissed. Then Donald Trump enters into a settlement agreement in his personal capacity with the Department of justice, representing the DOJ and the IRS for this $1.8 billion slush fund for January six insurrectionist. And then also a settlement that waives all of Donald Trump's tax liability and the Trump Organization's tax liability and all of the potential fraud and tax EVAs and anything and audits and any potential thing that may have occurred that all gets waived under this settlement as well. And let's bring in POPAC to break it down because to distinctions of these two cases, because they then used in the settlement agreement the case number, the judge's name, and they acted like the judge approved this. When you read the settlement, it says, this is a settlement of this case. Case number, Judge initial. And then so Judge Ludig and 35 other 34 other judges brought something to the judge's attention there. There was a separate case in Virginia. Break down both popo.
- [19:03]
Ben Crump
Yeah. Because they are linked together. So the reporting that we did was that Judge Ludig, 34 other former federal judges, including Judge Ursula Ungaro, who I also know well, she's the only other person among that group that was. That used to be on the Southern District of Florida and served with Judge Williams. Judge Williams is a very well respected judge on the Southern District of Florida, because before she was judge, she was the federal public defender for the Southern District of Florida, for the Middle District of Florida as well. So for teachable moment, you have the U.S. attorney's office, which is the lead prosecutor for the district, and you have the office of the Federal Public Defender. And so they have. They're the counterparts. Right. They're the counterweights to each other. And so very well respected and had known the judges for her when she would appear would be a big deal because she's also the federal public defender. So she gets appointed and she's a judge and she's opposed the Trump administration a number of times for things that they've done wrong, including related to Alligator Alcatraz. So I was pleased when, when Trump filed in Southern District of Florida, he could have checked the box for West Palm beach or Fort Pierce, which is closer to Mar a Lago, 60 miles away from Miami, 70 miles away from Miami. But for some reason, he checked the box for Miami. My running theory on that is they don't want Cannon for everything because they're hoping to elevate her to something someday and they don't want her to, like, have every one of his cases. That's a working theory. The other thing is that his main lawyer for all things defamation and IRS is this small practitioner in Coral Gables named Alejandro Brito, who brings a lot of defamation cases. And his office is right near me in Coral Gables. Okay. So they file in Miami and then the judge. The case is sitting around for a while. A Trump v. Irs. What we now know and what the judge now knows and referred to in her. Her most recent order yesterday is that the lawyers for the Internal Revenue Service were had prepared a legal memo to have their lawyers at the Department of Justice argue for the dismissal of the case on the a number of grounds, statute of limitations had run that Trump brought this case too late. He's done that before in number of cases, usually involving Alina Haba, that he brought it too late, raising the issue of whether a president could sue his own agency, the irs, which is the issue of adversariness that the judge was keen on. This was all in a memo the judge had no idea about. And this is one of the reasons that this was kind of, you know, it sounds like most of the adults in the room for the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury, including the treasury general counsel, were against the lawsuit and wanted it dismissed and wanted the Department of Justice to do it. Of course, the Department of Justice and Todd Blanch are captured by Donald Trump. And so they didn't want to do that. So they came up with this idea that at the moment, when the judge said, I don't think I have jurisdiction, which is a, which is a code word for I don't think this is a legitimate lawsuit. And if it's not a legitimate lawsuit, then he can't. Trump and his parties can't settle and also use the judgment fund created by Congress. If there's no legitimate claim to be compromised by the Department of Justice, then there's no legitimate claim. There can't be a settlement. So if you pull that pin, the whole thing falls apart. Fearful that that was about to happen, rather than answer the judge on the deadline with briefs that told her why this was a legitimate lawsuit. I mean, she said it in the terms of tell me why I have jurisdiction. But what she's really saying is, how is this case legit? They didn't want to answer that question. They wanted to, as you said, use it as a smokescreen, as a, or as the judge referred to it, to put a sheen of imprimatur of legal, Imprimatur of officialness over the settlement by using her. Using the federal court literally and using that process. And that's what she's upset about. Now. Now, here's what happened. They don't want to file their brief. The judge gets in the friends of the court brief from former federal Judge Gleason, from the former Solicitor general, from another top lawyer in New York, and they basically tell her in their brief, yeah, there's no adversaries here. You should dismiss. She's waiting on Trump to file his. They instead announced the settlement. And as you said, and I pointed out in Hot Takes, they used her. They used the federal court system. They claimed it was a legitimate case, as you said, case number. And then they even have recitals in which this is where I think people are going to start losing bar licenses, where the plaintiff's lawyers for Donald Trump said, oh, and by the way, we were even, we were even thinking about a amending the lawsuit to make it a class action to cover all of these other people like the Jan Sixers. Somehow in the case, you were going to amend a case that the judge was about to throw out the window, procedurally and substantively for lack of adversariness. They knew that was a lie when they wrote that in the papers, but they were trying to give Todd Blanche power to compromise a claim, which also, as the judge noted in her recent order, violates DOJ policy because you can't make a settlement broader than the issues that are necessary to settle the case. So there's lots of problems here. So the judge, after reading the brief of the 30 for the motion by the 35 former federal judges and step out, step out for one minute. How can part, how can non parties bring a motion like that? Right. Because when it comes to fraud on the court, you can't necessarily rely on the parties in the case who are committing the fraud to report it to the judge. So the federal Rules of Civil procedure recognize that others, strangers to the case, even can bring it to the judge's attention. Now, she always had the power, inherent authority to do this fact finding on her own. In fact, I implored her to do that before she dismissed the case. But she didn't do that. She waited. I don't know, maybe it was a call and response. She waited for the 35 judges to come along, including a friend of hers and Garo to recommend it. She's hot. Now, when you read that order, that order is just dripping with I've been had. And I'm upset because what she's ordered them to do in the next week, two weeks, no, one week, is to answer three major questions. One, have I been hat, have I been deceived? Did you deceive me? Have you used this court in order to work that settlement? Has there been a fraud on the court to require me to reopen this case? And three, answer the question I told you to answer before. Does this court have jurisdiction? Is there a justiciable adversarial process going on or not? And I want your answers. And you see where this is going. She's raised the issue of Rule 11, sanctions against parties. And worse, you start, A judge makes a finding that there's been deceit, fraud on the court by the irs, the Department of Justice and Donald Trump's lawyers. Okay, have a seat. We're going to be here for a while when she starts forming the remedy. And that helps. All of the other cases that have been filed, there's now three of them to block the weaponization fund. The one that actually resulted in the block until June 12 is the one filed by Democracy Forward, our, our collaborators on Legal, a YouTube channel where they got an order from Judge Brinkama yesterday that said, listen, if the government is not going to agree not to make distributions in the next two weeks while I get my mind around and briefs around this issue, I've got no choice but to enter a administrative stay or emergency temporary restraining order from now until then. So she has completely blocked that fund as of right now. If Judge Williams rules that the entire settlement is phony and collusive at a fraud on the court, there goes the entire. That's a finding by a judge that that could be used in these other cases to completely as additional grounds to block the weaponization fund. I had the pleasure of interviewing Sky Perryman, one of the litigators for Democracy Forward also right at the moment. We got the order yesterday and I got a clip we're going to play. How important was that decision to call the Department of Justice and whomever else and ask them to agree to stand still until full briefing in Judge Brinkham's order?
- [28:32]
Legal AF Contributor
Not only is it important, this is actually what the federal courts want to see people do, right? They want to see parties be able to work things out on a temporary basis so that the courts can review things and rule on them. This administration doesn't want courts to be able to look at what they're doing and to rule on what they're doing. And so they've tried to move so quickly over the past year and a half to evade judicial review. And so it was very important, you know, to us as lawyers and the people representing clients. It's in the local rules, too, that you're supposed to try to work things out before you go to court. We don't go ask federal courts to take emergency action unless there's a real emergency. And here, as in so many cases that we've talked about, my Michael, just in so many cases, this emergency has been created by the Department of Justice itself because it refuses to preserve status quo so that courts can look and consider what they're doing because they're afraid of what happens when the court actually looks at what this administration's doing. So we are very pleased that the court understood the urgency of preserving the status quo while it can consider the president's authority here. And of course, we believe he has no authority to do what he's trying to do here.
- [29:49]
Ben Crump
And that Judge Williams that we talked about at the top of the segment in Miami, that fact finding, the fact that she's opening fact finding is going to make its way into the record in the case with Judge Brinkama that Democracy Forward is handling, as is factual information about Todd Blanche trying to lobby the Senate to try to get the funding and things that he said there and handouts that he made while he was there. So you see, all these things are going to be tied together at the very same time. There's another case in the District of Columbia. This is the one I'm referring to now, Eastern District of Virginia, District of Columbia with Judge Leon, the ballroom judge brought by two Capitol Police or Jan6police? Allison Gill, another contributor to Midas, has filed her own case out in California related to it and the rest. And one last thing before we leave, I said to sky, the one thing that has not been addressed, even though it was raised by Judge Williams in Miami, is the attempted next day amendment of the settlement by Todd Blanche by himself, without any of the other parties, which I've never heard of in 35 years of practice, where somebody woke up the next day and amended the settlement agreement and didn't involve the other parties or get their permission, where he announced, oh, by the way, I'm also going to wipe out 16 years of audit and tax exposure for the, for the Trump family. Okay, I said to sky, where is the suit for domestic emoluments clause and other violations related to the amended settlement agreement? Everybody's focused on the weaponization fund and she had a big smile. I think there's cases that you and I are going to be reporting on as early as next week that are going to be filed on the amended settlement, the attempted amended settlement agreement by one Todd Blanche.
- [31:43]
Michael Popak
Let's take our first quick break of the show. A reminder, everybody. If you or someone you know has been injured in an auto accident or a trucking accident or an injured by the negligence of a company, if you know someone who's been injured, if you know someone tragically who's been killed in an accident and their family's looking for a lawyer, reach out to the Popoc Law firm. Popak started a firm to help all of the legal AFers, all of the Midas touch AUD people who were saying, hey, can we, we need help. Popak, what can what can you know? Can your firm help us? So he started his own firm, the Popoc Firm. Caller text 877- POPAK-AF or visit the popoc firm.com they're available 24. 7. They have lawyers all across the country. And of course, the consultation is free. That's 877- Popoc- AF or go to the popoc firm.com also make sure you subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel and the Legal AF sub stack. Let's keep both at the top of the charts and continue to not just grow the Midas Touch YouTube channel here. Let's grow the legal AF YouTube channel and get it to over 2 million subscribers. All right, let's take our first quick break of the show.
- [32:50]
Ben Crump
Magic Spoon is basically the grown up version of your favorite childhood cereal. All those nostalgic flavors you remember but packed with protein. I've been loving the fruity and peanut butter flavors lately and they've also got Frosted Cocoa, Cinnamon Crunch and more. Plus they just launched new marshmallow flavors, Classic marshmallow and S', mores, both with real marshmallows and 2 grams of sugar that really bring back those childhood cereal vibes. Each serving packs 12 to 14 grams of protein and it's great anytime breakfast, post workout or a late night snack. They also make Magic Spoon treats which are crispy, airy, protein packed snacks, snack bars that taste like a treat. Look for Magic Spoon on Amazon or at your nearest grocery store. And if you want to try something new, check out Magic Spoon's Protein Pastries. They're packed with protein and tastes like the nostalgic toaster pastries you grew up with, but without all the sugar. You can get $5 off your next order, including the protein pastries at magicspoon.com legalaf that's magicspoon.com legalaf for $5 off
- [34:02]
Honeylove Ad Voice
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 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 Crossflex Activity Bra and it immediately felt different from every other sports bra that I've worn. It feels like a sports bra with a support, but it's also designed for all day wear and it's so 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 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.
- [36:42]
Michael Popak
Welcome back to Legal af. Thank you to all of our sponsors. Discount codes for those sponsors are in the description below. So all morning, pop, you had Donald Trump ranting and raving and throwing a tantrum over Judge Cooper's ruling. A federal judge in Washington, D.C. making this ruling to remove Donald Trump's name from the Kennedy center and to immediately reopen the Kennedy Center. And a lot of these kind of just look like a post by a crazy person. I don't describe it. They're like 500 to 1,000 word social media posts where you are Barack Hussein Obama judge. And then he goes and attacks Judge Cooper's wife and says Judge Cooper. I'm not going to say her. And Judge Cooper's wife doesn't use the same last name as Judge Cooper because she doesn't love him and so she's ashamed to use his last name. I mean, it's just this, it's the most like lunatic written thing ever. But Popak, I want you to go and explain why this is such a significant ruling though. And you know, Donald Trump continues now to lose all of these cases where he's trying to, you know, kind of rip DC to shreds. And I mean, you just look at what it looks like now by the White House. I mean it looks like this, like grotesque. I don't like Atlantic City meets. I don't, you know, I don't. I just, it's, it's Trump's destruction of Atlantic City abandoned meets Washington D.C. i mean, I don't even know what, I don't even know how to describe the imagery.
- [38:15]
Ben Crump
I like the imagery of being a kid from Jersey. Yeah, the. He. First of all, that ranting, raving thing that you just put up or, or that we decided, which is basically two run on sentences that should be shown to Captain Dr. Sean Barabella, the guy that just announced the clean bill of health for Donald Trump's fourth, fourth annual physical in the last 19 months and fourth cognitive slash dementia test. I just did a video on that. And you have too, that the Montreal assessment test is whether Donald Trump can identify a camel. Thank you. A lion, a rhino and a camel. And then whether he can subtract seven from the total of 104 or five times. Whether he knows his name and where he, where he is and whether he can draw a cube. And they're all like, hey, he passed the dementia test, everybody. What about a psychoanalytic test about what we're seeing in the guy and whether things like falling asleep in meetings, having ridiculous short temper, not remembering things and telling the same story differently over and over again, being hard of hearing and other aspects of mental decline. I mean, he just posted another one that. Because no performer wants to associate themselves with Donald Trump. Great news, everybody. A performer bigger than Elvis Presley but without a guitar is going to be performing because all these. I'm like, oh my, are you, are you effing talking about yourself again? Like he's going to go step on the New York Knicks making the finals for the first time. He's, by the way, wait. Get the Midas cameras ready for the Madison Square Garden. If, if Donald Trump shows up for the Knicks, you're going to hear epic booing and, and raspberries like you've never heard. But I digress. Let me go back to the Kennedy Center. Judge Cooper. Yeah, he was appointed by Barack Obama. That's about the only aspect that's interesting. He wrote a 94 page opinion. The case was brought by Representative Joyce Beatty. She was the ex officio member of the original board of trustees. That's an important concept, a trust. Because that performing arts center, which is, as the judge noted, is the only living memorial to JFK that exists in Washington D.C. until Donald Trump scarred it with his aluminum letters that were already being put up by a scaffold as his hand picked bootlicker of a board. After he fired, everybody agreed to put his name on it to honor him, which is a total Violation of the organic statute that set up the honor for JFK. And I love the fact that Judge Cooper uses JFK's own words against Donald Trump to frame the issues. And when Joyce Beatty got blocked from participating in the decision making, she literally got muted. Like they muted her like they were children in high school. They muted her. Rather than let her participate and object. The new board which can, which consists of Howard Lutnick's wife, Alison Lutnick, Usha Vance and a whole bunch of other people and they put the name on, they, they redo the rules to say that Joyce, the Representative Beatty doesn't have voting rights. That's news to the, to the Congress that set up the, the, the, the, the, the trust. And third, that they were going to, oh, look, nobody's performing, nobody wants to perform for Donald Trump. No shit. Let's close it for the rest of my term so that I don't have to be embarrassed by the fact that nobody is performing at the Kennedy Center. Shut it down and do the remodeling and the renovations. And so the judge came out with a 95 page opinion. I'll read a couple of aspects of it. In which he said no. First of all, permanent block summary judgment granted. Take the name down. That is a violation of the statute. Only Congress can change its name. Not you. Take it down 2. There you go, 2. Representative Beatty, ex officio member. She gets, she gets the right to vote. She gets the right to be a trustee. She, she, you permanent block. Get her back on the board. And that's two and three preliminarily for now. I'm not going to let you close the Kennedy center in July. Not because I don't believe that the repairs need to be done or maybe that it needs to close in order to do the repairs. It's because of your slap dash method and your lack of fact finding violated your duty of prudence, which you have as a trustee. Trustees are responsible for the beneficiaries in this case the American public Duty of loyalty, duty of prudence to make decisions on their behalf. And you haven't convinced me based on the record because there is no record that you have to shut down the Kennedy Center. I have a lot of social media posts and videos of Donald Trump demanding it, but not a, that you're, that you're proper, properly balancing the educational mission, the cultural mission of the Kennedy center for the community and the public and determining whether, no, we have no choice but to shut it down. So he gave them another opportunity. But with Representative Beatty participating in fixing it. Well, apparently, he didn't like any of that. We have a taco moment, as we like to call it, and he's decided, no, I'm going to take my Kennedy center name and I'm going to go home. And I love the fact that again, you know, second time around as president, 19 months into his second term, he just doesn't understand what Congress's role is under the Constitution. And his own Congress is the keeper of federal property. Congress owns and controls the Kennedy Center. Okay, the executive branch is supposed to faithfully execute the laws of Congress under Article 2. Right. And he doesn't have the right to pick and choose which ones he wants to faithfully execute and which ones he doesn't. Now, what you and I talk a lot about on the podcast and in our own individual videos is when he doesn't faithfully execute, when he. When he ignores the statute and he creates new law, which he's not allowed to do through executive orders or otherwise, cuts funding, doesn't fund, ignores, puts things through wood chippers and the like. Here he said, you know what? You want it, you got it. Well, Congress always has it. The question is, is this now going to lead Congress, hopefully the Democrats, to dumping, Reforming the trust documents, dumping this trust panel, this board of trustees, including Howard Lutnick's wife, and redo the trust with new trustees and start running this thing the right way and reevaluate maybe with a blue ribbon panel, whether the repairs need to be done and whether the programming needs to stop during that period of time. There's just a sneaking suspicion based on things that Donald Trump has said out loud, is that his embarrassment over legitimate performers? I mean, how many times can you see Lee Greenwood, legitimate performers performing and have Wall turned their back on him, that he's like, well, effort. I'm just going to shut it down for the next two years, and then I won't have to worry about. About the Kennedy Center. So I think many of these things are gonna, Are gonna happen. He's instructed the Commerce Secretary to interact with Lutnick, to interact with. With Congress to figure out how to. How to give it back to them. All right, that's a win for the American people. And that's a. That's a shout out to Judge Cooper for doing the right thing. I just want to end my segment because his words were so powerful, coming from JFK himself. Just a year before he was assassinated, he was at a fundraiser televised for the American people at what was then called the National Cultural Center. And on that video with his wife, Jacqueline Kennedy, he said the following. Boy, do I miss presidents who have amazing, an amazing ability to give a speech like this. Art knows no national boundaries. This is how the judge starts his order. Genius can speak in any tongue and the entire world will hear it and listen. Behind the storm of daily conflict and crisis, the dramatic confrontations, the tumult of political struggle, the poet, the artist, the musician continues the quiet work of centuries, building bridges and experience between peoples, reminding man of the universality of his feelings and desires and despairs, and reminding him that the forces that unite are deeper than those that divide. I am certain that after the dust of centuries has passed over our cities, we too will be remembered not for the victories or defeats in battle or in politics, but for our contribution to the human spirit. He then, he then ends his 94 page decision with another reference to JFK, pointing up the contrast between the current occupant of the White House and a real president like jfk. So another major black eye loss for Donald Trump. In a week of black eye losses for Donald Trump and his Department of
- [47:42]
Michael Popak
Justice, we got another black eye coming from Washington D.C. as well. Judge Amit Mehta, who's been very strong jurist in a lot of these Trump related cases and in general, just we've seen him handle a lot of high profile ones that you've been diligently documenting now for the better part of four plus years. And when Donald Trump's DOJ sought to dismiss with prejudice the criminal case against the Oath Keepers who were already convicted of seditious conspiracy, it's like you're dismissing a case where the people were convicted or pled guilty in all guilty for the most heinous of crimes. Trump already pardoned these people, so they're already out on the street. But now you want to dismiss the case while they're what, pending hypothetical appeals to the Supreme Court so that it's hypothetically still an active case, even though it's really not an active case. But so you're using the pretext that the case is still on the docket to dismiss the Oath Keeper case. I mean, it's like dismissing the Oklahoma, you know, bombing case. You know, it's, it's, it's like what? I can't think of a more heinous thing to do. And then they just, again, going back to the first segment, they want to use the fact that this is in a court to kind of say, look, the judge must have blessed it because the judge allowed it to be dismissed. Where the judges Function is supposed to be kind of administerial when it comes to dismissing a case. Right. But when it comes to Kathleen Williams, it's like you abused my basically administerial rubber stamp to dismiss cases when the parties who are supposed to be adverse dismiss cases. I'm supposed to dismiss what I'm supposed to do. But this is now as we talked about in the first segment as it relates to the January 6th insurrection slush fund, which one of these exceptional, exceptional, unheard of cases where the judge can say, no, no, no, wait a minute, I can't dismiss it. I need to do an inquiry because there's maybe fraud here. Popak, this is a criminal. You know, this is why we, we, we do the segments this way. This is like the criminal version. I mean, the other one, it's criminal conduct, but it was in a civil case that was filed where the conduct may be criminal. That's a different thing here. This is a criminal case where again, the Trump DOJ is on the side of the criminal defendant. The people who are guilty of seditious conspiracy are working with the DOJ as the RICO criminal enterprise. And our Constitution, our founders, our laws didn't really recognize the possibility that the DOJ would actually be the criminal cartel and that there would be this level of collusion taking place. And the founders envisioned, okay, well, I suppose if that happened, you'd have Congress step in and be a check and pass a law, you know, and then, and then have a veto proof majority. But when you have MAGA Mike Johnson out there and this Republican Congress that functions like the Duma, the whole system breaks down the whole constitutional framework that the founders envision that I think. And we won't spend time talking about it on this episode, but on another one we should, I think the Constitution has to have a lot of amendments after this whole Trump regime era is done. There has to be a lot of rethinking the executive branch in a, in a, in really dramatic ways because this, this system, the, the checks and balances and the guardrails are not working. But Popak, talk about right here. What happened when Trump DOJ working with the seditious conspiracy. Oath keepers, they just file, hey, we're just, it's just a one pager that they write. We're dismissing this with prejudice. We're exercising our prosecutorial discretion. And then Judge Mehta citing a case from like 1970s is the most exceptional circumstance goes, no, no, no, I can't just accept your representation that it just go, it just goes away. You need to explain to Me, why are you dismissing this case against the Oath Keepers? So talk to us, Pope Buck, about why this is a big deal and why this is also step one. I think in a multi step inquiry.
- [52:10]
Ben Crump
Yeah, I totally agree with you. And by the way, I'd love to do a show just devoted to the amendment, the Constitution. I totally agree with you. I mean, the founding people are. I just, I just did a show with somebody else and this, this came up and I said, look, the founding Fathers and the framers thought we would have been amended, we would have amended the Constitution more than we have. Yes, it's difficult. Yes, they put in some procedural hurdles to doing that, but I don't think, I think if we were to exhume the bodies of our, of the framers of the Constitution and in a seance, asked them, did you think in 2026 we'd be so infrequently amending the Constitution? I think they'd say no. We thought you were going to have like constitutional conventions every 15 or 20 years to kind of fix it as necessary as mores and morals changed. By contrast, state constitutions, which every state has, have been amended thousands of times in the last 30 or 40 years against one in the United States Constitution. It's going to need a lot of fixing. I think we need a Constitutional Convention. We'll do a whole another show on that and how that, and how that would play out. But Judge Maida, I mean, you know, Jeanine Pirro is the One in the US Attorney's office there in DC that's filing these things. Okay, Ms. Law and Order. Every time I see a clip of her, she's pounding the podium about some law and order. Somebody threw a salami sandwich, somebody, you know, we're cleaning up the streets of D.C. you know, it's always, it's, you know, oh, even if we don't get indictments from the grand jury, it doesn't matter. We're going to continue to try to go after sitting senators. I mean, just stupid crap about, you know, her version of law and order. And yet here she is, willingly filing to rewrite history, to not only absolve these people through pardon, including those that got the highest sentences after 120 juries convicted them. This was not a bench trial. These were jury trials presided over by Judge Mehta. A couple of them, Kelly Meigs and Stuart Rhodes, the two heads of the Oath Keepers, got 18 years and 12 years. Everybody else kind of went down from there, talking about 50 years of prison that Donald Trump pardoned and let Everybody out the back door or the front door, that's one thing. But to go back and then just take their indictments out and say, oops, sorry, public. You know, it's in the public interest for us to dismiss the indictment. And that's all they wrote. Even the lowest law clerk in Jeanine Pirro's office would have or should have found the precedent for that district. In every district that says there's a reason why the Department of Justice can't just, through stipulation, dismiss an indictment. It has to be a motion filed before a neutral Article 3 judge who then does fact finding to determine whether it is in the public interest or not, or whether it's an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. It's right there in the case law. And if it's not, every state, every federal district has case law like that. That's why it's always a motion, because the judge's point is in his order. It wouldn't be a motion if the judge didn't have a role in it. And you've cut the legs out from under me because you've only given me exactly what the case law says you're not supposed to do, which is to give me just perfunctory boilerplate language that it's in the public interest. Why is in the public interest. Now we know we can write. You and I and our audience could write it right now. We know what they're going to write in response to Judge. To Judge Mehta. They're going to write, it's the weaponization of the Biden Justice Department. These are victims. They are patriots. They are. They were political prisoners. They deserve. The public deserves. You know, and we have a fund and we, you know, all this other. But we could write it down, you know, and then the judge is gonna be like, okay, but he still. He still is gonna have to make a decision about whether those indictments get dismissed. He's not the only judge. There's been several judges that have called the DOJ on the carpet. We had a similar situation in. In New York about then Mayor Adams and the dismissal of the indictment. Judge Ho said, I need independent advice about this because I don't think I should be dismissing this indictment quite yet. But ultimately, these indictments tend to get dismissed because the prosecutor does have the right, whether we like it or not, even one that appears to be undermining prosecutorial, abu. Abusing prosecutorial conduct. But I would. If. If there's a judge out there who is willing to take on the Department of Justice and Let them take an appeal and rule against them. It would be. Judge Mater would be at the top of my list. So I think we have to follow it closely. You and I will follow when they do the filing that's required in the next couple of weeks and then what Judge Maida does next. But what we're watching are members of Congress, primarily Democratic, with a few exceptions, and judges pushing back against Donald Trump, doing the Orwellian thing of rewriting history in a way that suits his narrative. And we know that history books and real legitimate historians are not going to be kind to Donald Trump or anybody in his administration and everybody in his Department of Justice. Like, I never thought there could be somebody that could make Pam Bondi blush with the things that he's done until I met Todd Blanche trying out for the job. I mean, I mean, we could do a whole show on how he's just completely set himself up for a future bar license removal and impeachment. But this is what we're watching. You know, we're, and it's, and it's again for those out there. And I see, I see some people in my chats and in my comments will say, like, well, what does all this matter? You know, he's got immunity. He'll do whatever he does. And it matters because if in the voting, with predictive markets now saying there's an 80% chance the Democrats are going to take the House, no shit. If the Democrats get the gavel and they can do real oversight hearings, real impeachment proceedings, not just nasty letters and shadow hearings and closed door everything. They could really take over these committees while they walk and chew gum at the same time, while they pass laws to help the American people with affordability and healthcare and things that matter to them. Because if they're gonna get elected, they're gonna get elected on it's the economy, stupid. That old adage. And they can't forget that. But they also have to remember and the people have to send them there under mandate to root out corruption and provide oversight. And so when they can do that and then federal judges do their part, I'll give you, I'll leave it on this Sky Perryman made a very interesting observation when she was with me. From democracy forward, she said wins like she just obtained with this block by Judge Brinkoma about the weaponization fund is holding back the Trump administration as the political will catches up in the House and in the Senate. And so they work in tandem. Right. You have to file the suits, even if it's just a matter of slowing down Donald Trump to allow the public ire and anger to be expressed and the Senate Republican anger to be expressed about the same thing. And so they work in tandem together. I just thought you made a very, it's an obvious point, but a very good observation about how these two things work in tandem, the justice system, the rule of law, and what happens with elected officials in our Congress.
- [60:31]
Michael Popak
Let's take our last quick break of the show. As a quick reminder, make sure you subscribe to Michael Popak's YouTube channel. That's the Legal AF YouTube channel. Let's get them 2 million subscribers. Let's get them 3 million subscribers. Also subscribe to the Substack Legal AF Substack Legal AF on YouTube, Legal AF on Substack. Search both and let's keep them at the top of the charts. All right. Also, if you or someone you know has been injured in a car accident, a trucking accident, you've been injured by the negligence of a third party, a company or somebody else. If you know someone who's been injured. Michael Popo's law firm handles catastrophic injuries, really bad injury cases. He's able to help people through the consultation is free. Don't be shy. He's representing now a lot of people who watch and listen to Legal AF. So don't be shy. Reach out to 877-popakaf or visit the popoc firm.com 877-popocaf or visit thepopoc firm.com and reminder, make sure you subscribe as well to the Legal AF substack. Let's keep the Legal AF substack on the top of the charts as well. All right. Let's take our last quick break of the show.
- [61:42]
Ben Crump
Oh, I'm very excited to tell you about the world's number one expanding garden hose and their brand new product, the Pocket Hose Ballistic. I used to have to buy a new hose every year due to kinks and tangles, but the Pocket Hose Ballistic is the upgrade I've been looking for my entire life. It's the toughest pocket hose ever built. Reinforced with a liquid crystal polymer used in bulletproof vests. Pocket Hose is the number one expandable hose in the world. Super lightweight, easy to manage, easy to store. Turn the water on and it grows. Turn the water off and it shrinks back to pocket size. Comes with the pocket pivot, which gives you total freedom of movement at the spigot with 360 degree rotation. You move it, it follows and the water flows. And now for a limited time, when you purchase a new pocket hose ballistic. You'll get a free 360 degree rotating pocket pivot and a free thumb drive nozzle. Just text legal to 64,000 that's L E G A L to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase text legal to 64,000 message and data rates may apply. Bathroom comfort and hygiene are things most people don't think about until something isn't working the way it should. That's where Tushy comes in. Tushy brings a modern, comfortable approach to everyday bathroom hygiene with bidets designed to clean far more effectively than traditional toilet paper. Instead of endless wiping, Tushy uses fresh water to help remove up to 99% of bacteria while protecting your natural skin barrier. The Tushy bidet we received it installed in about 10 minutes and attached easily to an existing toilet without the need for additional plumbing. The cleaning experience feels noticeably fresher and more effective compared with relying on toilet paper alone. Tushy bidets can also help reduce irritation, prevent micro tears caused by wiping, and many people who switch end up using up to 80% less toilet making going to the bathroom the most comfortable thing you do all day. For a limited time, our listeners get 10% off their first bidet order when you use code LEGAL AF at checkout. That's 10% off your first bidet order at hellotushy.com with promo code LEGAL AF. Again, for a limited time, our listeners get 10% off their first Bidet order when you use code LEGALSAL AF at checkout. That's ten percent off your first bidet order at Hellotushy.com with promo Code LEGAL AF.
- [64:09]
Michael Popak
Welcome back to LEGAL AF. Thanks once again to all of those sponsors. The discount codes for those sponsors are in the description below. They help support our show, help support our sponsors, and Jordi and Popak work on getting you some good discount codes as well. And we try to only have sponsors for things that we know that you will like or we hope that you like. So check out our sponsors and give them a try. All right, I want to talk about Pam Bondi showing up before the House Oversight Committee. She was subpoenaed. It wasn't supposed to be voluntary. She was subpoenaed to show up and testify under oath on video camera. She refused to testify under oath. She refused to testify on video camera. And you had James Comer, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, basically convert the subpoena, which required attendance under oath deposition, into an informal meeting. Because Republicans control the House Oversight Committee, they unfortunately have control over the procedures by which these things take place. And he changed the format and said, we're not going to allow this to be on video camera. We're not going to allow it to be under oath. This will be an informal meeting. And one of the reasons, in addition to hiding it from the American public and not having it go under oath, one of the reasons they wanted it as an informal meeting as well is because they wanted Trump's Justice Department to sit right next to Pam Bondi. So Harmeet Dillon, who's one of the top DOJ officials, many people believe she could be the next acting AG or ag, especially with all the stuff that Blanche is going through because this was now just an informal thing. Be no different if you were hanging out with a friend. Like informal as carries with it no weight. And sure, the Republicans can say, well, anything when it comes to Congress can be, you know, if you lie to Congress, it's still a crime. I mean, sure, but then just do it on. If you believe that to be the case, then have it be under oath, have it be on video camera and have the transcript and video be released right away. The same way you did for Hillary Clinton, the same way you did for every other witness other than Pam Bondi, who is the central figure in the COVID up of the child sex trafficking ring and Lutnick, who was at the island, who's, you know, the top ranking current Trump official into who's, you know, who we know is in these files we know as the photos he got. Informal meeting, no under oath deposition, no video camera as well. It's out that it's absolutely outrageous. And so this number two person at the DOJ sat there next to Bondi. I'm not even sure Bondi wanted that person there or if it was Trump saying, you need to have that person there because you see all of these links that we're talking about in the show. But that Justice Department lawyer, the Justice Department acting as kind of Trump's personal attorney and representing Trump's disgusting authoritarian regime and not really representing Bondi so much. You know, every question that was asked about Donald Trump to Bondi, the DOJ lawyer objected to, we're not going to answer. He's not allowed to answer any questions about Donald Trump. And they claim that that's because of privilege, that there are privileges that need to continue this cover up of the child sex trafficking ring, which also tells you the basis with which they're withholding at least 3 million other documents that are probably the most damaging to Donald Trump and to others. They're claiming privilege. They're saying, ah, it's a privilege. It's executive privilege. It's attorney client privilege. It's deliberative process privilege. So we're not going to be able to turn any of that over. So sue me. So sue me. Well, Midas Touch Network host Katie Fang said, okay, we're suing you. We're suing you. These privileges are bogus. You have an obligation to turn over these documents. And we see a Midas Touch host not just talking the talk, which is important, by the way. Talking the right talk is an important thing. Especially when corporate news is talking the fascist talk. You see the potency when you have this horrible propaganda. So when people like, well, all you guys do is talk and all you guys do is do is news and all you guys do is deliver, like that's a lot. That's a big deal. It's a big deal to counteract the propaganda with the truth. But also we have hosts like Katie Fang who are filing lawsuits. Popak works with all of these organizations who don't just appear on the Legal AF YouTube channel. They're in court every day and they're partnered with Legal af. And when they're not doing videos with Legal af, you know what they're doing? Filing the most impactful lawsuits out there. So, Popacity, let me turn over to you this Pam Bondi, whatever you want to call, should raise all the red flags there alone that she's not under oath and not under video camera. And then go into Katie Fang and then let's finish off and land this plane with Abrego Garcia.
- [69:19]
Ben Crump
Absolutely. I've been known to sue or defend organizations like Midas Touch against Marjorie Taylor Greene back in the day when she was represented by Harmeet Dhillon. See how this world has come full circle for us?
- [69:35]
Jerry Insurance Ad Voice
Wow.
- [69:37]
Ben Crump
Pam Bondi is a human crash test dummy. I just don't understand who's giving her the advice that she's getting. She was subpoenaed. She apparently didn't want the optics of being sworn in. But under 18 USC 1001, if she lies under oath, she can be prosecuted. Doesn't have to be by this Department of Justice. There's a five year statute of limitations which will go into the next administration. Should she have lied read during this transcript. I guess she wanted to avoid the other statute, which is perjury, which requires her being under oath. But it was a bad look for her. A bad look to be fighting over being sworn under oath. A bad look not to speak out loud. To the American people and to have it be done behind closed doors. I don't think it did anything to bolster her reputation as being just a weak sycophant of Donald Trump. Even after her, her rude fire firing, he either knew she had cancer when he or, or didn't bother to, to, to ask about her physical and mental health as he, as he fired her on the way back from the United States Supreme Court hearing. So, you know, and left her twisting in the wind without really a, a place to land the testimony where she will get the transcript eventually, maybe two weeks or three weeks from now where she has effectively teed up Todd Blanche. We said that was going to happen because she claimed at first she didn't need to testify any longer because she was no longer the Attorney General. And we were like, well let Todd Blanche do it then. He is the one that seems to be the day to day running interference on the Epstein files. He's the one that takes the podium more than her. She effectively confirmed that with people in the room that heard her testimony and saying it's not me, it's a big organization, it's Todd. Bring Todd in. But of course she was prepped to within an inch of her life, you know, chained to the table by Department of Justice lawyers. But as you said, whether she wanted them or not for this kabuki theater created by the comer and the rest with what we'll just do roundtables like whatever that's supposed to be instead of real testimony to get to the bottom of the mishandling of the Epstein files. And it only reinforces the reason that Katie Fang brought that case now up on a full briefing for preliminary injunction that she's just, just filed to, to basically say that the Department of Justice has abused the, not only the survivors and the dignity of the process, but have also made it impossible for people like you and me and Katie to do our job because we're getting spoon fed documents and storylines by the Trump administration. I mean we do a good job avoiding the spoon feeding of dodging the spoon and coming up with our own reporting and digging deep and even, you know, into, you know, stories from 20, 30 years ago and finding video clips. And I guess one of the reasons people like coming on Midas touch and legal af but at the end you just have to draw the line in the sand and say enough is enough. And that's Katie's lawsuit, which is I can't do my job as a journalist and my credibility as a journalist is undermined by my Inability, you know, because then it rubs off on us. People think, well, what are they hiding? Why aren't they mentioned? Because we don't have it where we can only speculate to the size of the iceberg, of which this has only been a tip. And so, you know, we commend Katie for stepping out of just being the legal commentator and filing cases like that. Allison Gilmore, she wrote, filed a recent lawsuit about the weaponization fund. And that's why I want to bring them both on. We're going to do our own roundtable. But it's like the reason they do it, right? Because, well, frankly, let's, let's talk through that. They couldn't have done it if they were affiliated with corporate media, with linear corporate media. Right. Could you imagine going to your Barry Weiss at CBS or CNN and talk to your boss that reports to the Oracle guy and say, hey, by the way, I think there's a big hole missing in the filings, and this issue needs to. I can bring, I'm going to bring it. I'm going to file a lawsuit. They say, are you. You're not. You're fired. Not filing, you know, filing a lawsuit, you're fired. And, you know, there's also the, you know, we're journalists and commentators. We try to be independent. And, you know, we, we can, we admit things that, you know, so people understand where our point of view is. I've said out loud that I used to work for Howard Lutnick a million, it seems like a million lifetimes ago in a different capacity. And, you know, but I don't hold back in my criticism, as people know. And so that's one of the things, I think, in the world of commentary, that is very, very important. So you got what's going on with Bondi and the Epstein files and other things in and around Epstein that are very, very important, you know, as survivors continue to critique what's happening and demand justice for themselves. We have that going on. And what was the second thing you wanted us to talk about on this one?
- [74:54]
Michael Popak
We talked about Katie Fang's lawsuit. I want to talk about Abrego Garcia in the segment as well. Yeah.
- [74:58]
Ben Crump
All right, you want to do Katie, and then I'll bring it back to you.
- [75:00]
Michael Popak
I mean, just. You emphasize Katie right there. I mean, Katie filed a lawsuit, as I noted before, which is to release the Epstein files. I mean, she makes clear they were due December 19th. I mean, this wasn't, it wasn't optional. And here we are May 30, and there are still at least 3 to 5 million records, which could mean multi page records. So it could mean 15 million, 20 million documents. And you know, Bloomberg did a report this past week that says there's also all of these other files where Epstein was not the main target, but there were other investigations where Epstein is mentioned in, where these files technically are related to Epstein in that he may have been involved, but not the central target. Well, those files should be released too. And those involve often drug conspiracy investigations, money laundering investigations. All of this stuff needs to be produced. And when Donald Trump was running for office, he would weaponize the Epstein files and talk about this cabal. And that, you know, I'm going to be the one who's going to expose it all and I'm your fighter. And it turns out there was a cabal, the Epstein class, with Donald Trump leading it, essentially, in my opinion, that is, I'm giving you my opinion as protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. Because when you're mentioned in files more than Harry Potter in the Harry Potter books, more than Harry, more than Jesus or God in the Bible, and you're actively the person now covering it all up. And we all know that,
- [76:46]
Ben Crump
you know,
- [76:47]
Michael Popak
what else is the American people left to believe? And so, you know, there's still a lot of questions. I think that the Epstein files, the Epstein Transparency act by Ro Khanna, Thomas Massie and that being pushed through by Democrats, I think that was really the beginning of the end for Donald Trump in terms of really seeing the bottom fall out of his approval because it was obvious to, I think it should have been obvious to everybody. But if you're willing to lie about this, you're willing to lie about anything, I mean, anything. And that should, I know our audience like, duh, of course Donald Trump, we know that. But, you know, there's portions of the population that weren't, you know, following this. And when it came to, whoa, whoa, whoa, what are you doing with the Epstein files? I think it was a major deal, you know, also a big, big deal that we shouldn't lose sight of is, you know, the ability of someone like Abrego Garcia to fight back and to win. And Trump regime threw everything at this guy, their propaganda machine, the stochastic terrorism, the prosecutions, everything. Use the military against the guy and he won. He beat them. The case, the criminal case that was brought in Tennessee against him over some traffic stop from 2022 that was dismissed this week for vindictive prosecution. When Popak and I were preparing this show, I was like, that was this week it feels like it was like a month ago. But yeah, there's so many developments. But Abrego Garcia prevailing. Why don't you talk to us about what a big deal this is and how it relates to the Southern Poverty Law center as well?
- [78:26]
Ben Crump
Yeah, it's a blueprint for dozens of motions for dismissal for predictive prosecution that you and I are going to be covering from now till the end of the Trump administration. Because as soon as James Comey gets around off of his extension of time to filing his motion for vindict, his second motion for vindictive prosecution, anybody that gets indicted that's a perceived political enemy of Donald Trump now has license to immediately bring a motion for vindictive prosecution, just as they have a license to ask for the grand jury transcript. In zero times in my 35 years, career, 35 year career have had I ever been involved with a case where the grand jury proceeding was the subject of a motion that was successful to get the transcript. And now right now, if you're a defense lawyer for a political enemy or somebody on the other side of the Department of Justice and you don't seek the grand jury transcript, I believe you're committing professional malpractice because there's so much abuse apparently going on inside of that room that could form the basis of having your indictment dismissed or having the grant the US Attorney decide they're going to dismiss the indictment. And so it brings us back to Kilb Brgo Garcia, represented by lawyers that I know, including Shawn Hecker's law firm in Tennessee, another group of lawyers in with Judge Zenas in Maryland on the civil rights and due process violations when he was sent to that torture prison of El Salvador illegally over an order of non removal. The reality about about him, even though they continue, including as recently as a week ago with Cash Patel, continue to call him a gang banger, wife beater, criminal, he's nothing of the kind. He's never been convicted of a crime in any country. He's won at every level from the federal district court to immigration court to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals twice to a 9, 0 ruling by the United States Supreme Court. He's been a winner. He won at the magistrate judge level in his criminal case. He won at the criminal Article 3 judge level with Judge Crenshaw in the ruling that just came out. And there you and I said back in October of last year that when Judge Crenshaw watched and got was provided a clip of Todd Blanch, here we go again. Who made a statement on Laura Ingraham show that suggested to the judge that it was a retaliatory indictment directed by Washington against Kilmer, Abrego Garcia, because they didn't like the rulings they were getting out of Judge Siddis in Maryland. And he flipped the script and said, I'm going to, I'm going to find that a prima facie case of presumptive vindictive prosecution has been met and that the Department of Justice has to now have the burden of proving to me that they did not vindictively prosecute. The only way for them to win that the government would have been to bring in two people, Todd Blanche to testify and a guy named Akash Singh, who are also involved in the Southern Poverty Law center case. Akash Singh being the right hand person for Todd Blanche when he was the dag, the deputy Attorney General and now. And how he directed the local prosecutor to prosecute Kilmer Abrego Garcia, serving him up a witness on a platter and then telling him to indict. These are, this is what Judge Crenshaw ruled. I had the, the honor of interviewing in the last 24 hours the law, the lawyer team that won the case for Kilburn, Abrego Garcia and I want to show the audience a clip. Let's play the clip.
- [82:15]
Jenna Dabs or David Patton (Legal Team Member)
I know David and I were both thrilled to work on this case and to work with Kilmar. We, I think we knew as soon as we were brought into the case that we would bring a motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution. It was clear from public statements that were made by a variety of people connected to the government and in particular Todd Blanch, now our acting Attorney General, who had specific comments that, that featured prominently in Judge Crenshaw's decision and featured very prominently in our advocacy. Really, his were the only comments that really created kind of a direct bridge to the Supreme Court's order to bring Kilmar back to the US after his wrongful deportation to El Salvador. And so we, you know, we knew that was going to be part of our strategy all along. We started off as one often does in a criminal case, with sort of an omnibus to discovery letter. And we included very specific content in there, focused on this motion. And certainly the government was aware we were going to be bringing the motion. They, of course, you know, gave that part of our request the back of the hand. And it was interesting to have the idea in mind. But then as discovery was produced to have a much more fleshed out chronology of what had actually happened as we went along and we Only had some pieces of it. We only had the detail about, you know, the whole prosecution is linked to a traffic stop that happened back in November of 2022 coming out of which our client didn't even receive a traffic ticket. So that's that starting point already gives you the backdrop. And when we brought the motion, we had certain pieces, but really, Judge Crenshaw's decision to give, as you said, the decision shifting the burden and opening up discovery was a huge turning point.
- [84:17]
Ben Crump
I want you to understand who are behind these cases. We spent a lot of time talking about lawyers, some law firms that bent the knee to Donald Trump and did not do the right thing. But you heard there from Jenna Dabs and David Patton how important it is even in private law firms for them to take on pro bono cases to protect the rule of law. And now that case will be the template and the blueprint to be cited and used by all the other perceived political enemies and targets of Donald Trump going forward. In fact, just 48 hours later, the Southern Poverty Law center in Alabama and the Southern Poverty Law center, for those that aren't following, is the leading anti hate hate group in America, been around since 1971. They publish the hate index, which is like the Heat index, except it shows you on a map where all the 4,000 hate groups that they are tracking, even right now in America, where they, where they are. They don't care about political spectrum. They don't care if they're far left or far right or antifa or Nazi or communist or socialist or domestic terrorist or Muslim or whatever they are. They're just hate groups. And they have a page about each of the people. The problem is many of the people that support Donald Trump happen to be in the book, whether it's the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers or paramilitary organizations, you know, all the stand back and standby people. And so Trump doesn't like that. So after Charlie Kirk's murder, Trump decided to go after the left, or what he perceived to be the left. And part of that was the Southern Poverty Law Center. So they indicted them for things that they were actually cleared by the Internal Revenue Service, which is they were using donor money to infiltrate these hate groups, pay some of them some cash in order to get intel and to turn over to law enforcement exactly what they should be doing, exactly what I would expect them to be doing with my money. They shut down hate groups, they litigate them to death, they shut them down by law enforcement and other things. They don't just report on it, like our like our Midas media commentators, they're in the trenches doing the work. And so they got indicted. You know, Cash Patel first cut the supply line between himself, the FBI and the Southern Poverty Law center, and then they had the balls to accuse the Southern Poverty Law center of actually funding terrorism in order to have something to go after. In other words, they were the firemen of the arsonists. The arsonist and the firemen, which is outrageous given that Donald Trump, talking about gaslighting, is trying to fund paramilitary entities, including the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys in his anti weaponization fund funding. Where's the money going to them? So the Southern Poverty Law center, right on cue, boom, brought a motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution, citing Kilmer Abrego Garcia's decision from earlier in the week as, as additional grounds. And what I the reason, I think that, and this hasn't really been, I don't think, discussed, I think this is sort of my own view or my own thought is that because the Department of Justice and its hierarchy has been so flattened by Donald Trump, both literally in the sense that 8,000 people fired or left or resigned or whatever, the Department of Justice and were not replaced, but also at the hierarchical level that things are being run out of Washington with the group of Harmeet Dillon and Stan Woodward and Todd Blanche used to be Pam Bondi, and they're calling the shots and they're directing traffic on local prosecutions in a way that never happened before, before they were captured by Donald Trump. You know, I've done cases. You never, I mean, only if main justice was involved in my case that I ever talked to main justice. You know, I rarely if ever was able to get to the U.S. attorney for the District depends on the case. So to have that. But that flattening has therefore allowed very easily now defendants to make the argument that it's Trump to the three leaders of the Department of Justice in Washington directly to their acting, interim, whatever, or U.S. attorney in the District. And they can make that connect the DOT for militia for vindictive prosecution. They can connect Trump's social media posts, Patel social media posts in the government directly to the leaders and the leaders to the prosecutors locally to show vindictive prosecution. Because if you just look at the local person, you may not be able, there may not be an email chain. You know, they're like, I don't know anything about Cobra or Borrego Garcia. I just got the job. That was sort of Maguire's position in the, in Tennessee or the special agent for Homeland Security is Like, I don't know, I just got the file handed to me. Right, Right. But the animus and the venom and the object of scorn is coming out of Washington. And that's something you normally would not be able to argue, but now it's malpractice if you don't argue it as defense counsel. So I don't want anybody to lose sight of. It's not just we are all Abrego Garcia. It's not just about Kilmer Abrego Garcia, who's courageously, as his lawyers told me, has been fighting this, even though he could have taken a deal to been removed to Costa Rica and put an end to all of this if he had confessed to a crime he didn't commit and whatever, and he refused. Think about the weight of the world on this guy's shoulder, the entirety of the Trump administration on the slender shoulders of Kilmer Abrego Garcia. It's disgusting. And you think I'll end it on the political. You'd think with Donald Trump's polling numbers on immigration and migration, which are in the trash compared to a year ago, you'd think he'd say, eh, you know what, let's not continue. Let's let him go to Costa Rica where he's willing to go, and let's put an end to the draw line under it. Nope, nope. They're going to likely appeal Kilmer Abrego Garcia. Now, because it's this cascading domino effect of all these other vindictive prosecution cases. They may not have a choice. But that was all this week, Ben. Yeah.
- [90:49]
Michael Popak
You know, there's a, there's a connective tissue also, though, with Iran here as well. You know, if Donald Trump can't by force defeat Abrego Garcia in the courts, right, and then he can't make a deal. And Abrego Garcia holds his ground. The Trump regime loses. Donald Trump loses. That's what we've seen over and over again in Donald Trump's life. When you just stand up to the guy, when you confront him and you don't back down, even though he'll throw relentlessly in frankly, ways that seem psychotic, everything at you, that's what he does to intimidate you. But deep down at his core, he's a loser. He's a bankrupter. And he gets defeated. When you stand up to him now, it's exhausting for sure, but you got to do it. You got to do it because no matter what, he's coming for you. So you got to just always be Strong, always be on the offense and never backing down. He sues, you notice his deposition right away and hold to it and you know, and, and call his bluff. Stare him in the eyes, yell at him, scream at him, you know, whatever it takes, you know, call him out, call out the corruption, don't back down, show strength always. And I think that's what Abrego showed. One other quick thing I'll just mention before closing, which is, as we talked about, vindictive prosecution. Obviously James Comey, former FBI director, will also be bringing a vindictive prosecution motion. He'll probably prevail on that as well as Donald Trump and his regime brought this other case for the seashells 8647. Now we're learning that the main prosecutor in that case, Matthew Petreka, has stepped down from the case. He's also withdrawn from every other case that he's involved in also. Now he's a federal prosecutor out of North Carolina and he's done, I guess he's done practicing law. I don't know. He took a week vacation apparently because he was so stressed out. Then he wanted to quit, but I think the Justice Department thought it would be embarrassing, so they let him just withdraw from all of his cases and so he's out. By the way, this is a guy whose main thesis in law school, this is what he was known for, is that he wrote a law review article arguing that we were too mean to convicted sex offenders. This is directly out of his thesis. This was his law school thesis. Sex offenders are in need of the community's aid and should be rehabilitated and reintegrated instead of being ostracized. Municipalities are encouraged to seek professional advice from those people studying sex offender behavior. The debate should involve treating and preventing sex offenders from recidivism rather than wasting precious time and resources arguing and enforcing useful ordinances. And specifically, he said that ordinances designed to make voters feel safe may actually subject convicted sex offenders to punishment above their sentences. So he's very critical of ordinances that restrict sex offenders from living within 2500ft of schools, parks or other places where children gather.
- [93:45]
Ben Crump
He thinks obviously has no children.
- [93:48]
Michael Popak
Obviously he, he wants the sex offenders to be closer to the parks children. And these are use useless. I mean, and the thing I, I suppose you can come up with a way to study the mindset, I guess, I don't know and have other forms of keeping them away, but let's also keep them away from the friggin parks and the schools and then Whatever. You could do both there, Petraka. But anyway, this is the kind of guy who's the lead prosecutor who now apparently is having panic attacks and has withdrawn from the case. So, so we'll leave you on that note, everybody a reminder. Make sure you subscribe to our YouTube channel. But more important than this one, subscribe to Popox YouTube channel Legal AF on YouTube. Subscribe to Legal AF on Substack. Subscribe to Legal AF on Audio and if you or someone you know has been injured in a car accident, trucking accident, have you been injured by the negligence of others? People who are survivors of sexual assault at the workplace or elsewhere, reach out to the POPOC firm. The consultation is free. The worst that'll happen is they'll tell you you don't have a case. They handle real serious catastrophic injury types of cases. So if that's something that you unfortunately have experienced or you know someone who's experiencing, let's say you know someone who died in an accident and their family's looking for a lawyer, reach out to popac877 popak af or visit the popoc firm.com they're available 24 7. They're available in all states. 877 popocaf or visit thepopocfirm.com thanks everybody so much for watching and listening to Legal af. We appreciate you so much. We covered a lot of ground right there. I think you have all the updates on all the major cases going into this next week. We appreciate you. Shout out Legal A effers and shout out Midas Mighty.