Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:01]
A
Seriously, why aren't Democrats in Washington doing more to stop Trump?
- [00:04]
B
I know.
- [00:05]
A
Have you heard about Phil Weisner in Colorado though?
- [00:07]
B
No.
- [00:08]
A
Is he different?
- [00:09]
B
Yeah.
- [00:09]
A
A.G. weiser sued the Trump administration 65 times.
- [00:13]
B
He's beating Trump in court again and again.
- [00:15]
A
Things like protecting Obamacare against Trump's illegal tariffs and he even won against Ticketmaster. So he actually gets results exactly as Governor Phil will fight for Colorado. Paid for by Phil Weiser for Colorado
- [00:29]
B
registered agent Nana Nasgese.
- [00:31]
A
Some follow the noise.
- [00:33]
B
Bloomberg follows the money.
- [00:35]
A
Whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion dollar swings, there's a money
- [00:40]
B
side to every story.
- [00:42]
A
Get the money side of the story. Subscribe now@bloomberg.com starting a business can seem like a daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to
- [00:56]
B
start and grow your business.
- [00:58]
A
From designing a website to marketing, to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into sign up for your $1 per month trial@shopify.com SpecialOffer
- [01:19]
B
Fox News is now streaming live on Fox One. When it matters most, turn to the voices you trust. We go beyond the headlines, bringing you the stories you won't hear anywhere else. Live coverage, sharp analysis, real perspective at home or on the go. Stay connected when it counts. Stream Fox News on Fox one Download today.
- [01:48]
A
Seriously, why aren't Democrats in Washington doing more to stop Trump?
- [01:51]
B
I know.
- [01:52]
A
Have you heard about Phil Weisner in Colorado, though?
- [01:55]
B
No.
- [01:55]
A
Is he different?
- [01:56]
B
Yeah.
- [01:57]
A
A.G. weiser sued the Trump administration 65 times.
- [02:00]
B
He's beating Trump in court again and again.
- [02:03]
A
Things like protecting Obamacare against Trump's illegal tariffs and he even won against Ticketmaster. So he actually gets results exactly as Governor Phil will fight for Colorado. Paid for by Phil Weiser for Colorado
- [02:16]
B
registered agent Nana Nasgese. We have a lot to discuss on this episode of Legal AFA symbolism of the entire Trump regime. The TARP going up to cover up the removal of Donald Trump's name from the Kennedy center after Trump was ordered to remove it and the TARP had remained up as Donald Trump trying to, you know, say, well, Judge, if you told me to take my name down, well, I guess I'm just going to cover up all of the name on the Kennedy Center. So we'll talk about that. We'll talk about what's going on with the January 6th slush fund for the Insurrectionist. And Donald Trump basically negotiating with himself a super pardon where all of his allegations of tax evasion and non payments and past audits all get wiped away. We'll give you the latest updates from Virginia, the latest updates from Florida and we'll talk a lot about some groundbreaking reporting on the Trump regime's cover up of the Epstein files. What went down in the Situation Room repeatedly as JD Vance and others in the Trump regime were out there literally holding like meetings that you would expect in the Situation Room for like the raid of Osama bin Laden, but they're holding it there or talking about emails where Donald Trump is mentioned and to cover up this email or that email. And what do we do with Ghislaine Maxwell? And also I think we'll have a little time for it. I just want to highlight Trump appointed judge who and we're seeing a lot of this these federal judges, you know, across the board. Not all Trump appointed judges are like this but we're seeing a lot of unity amongst federal judges pushing back against the fraud on the court, the carelessness, the callousness, the incompetence that they're seeing in their court from Trump's doj. So we'll cover this all on Legal af. Good to see everybody. Michael Popak, great to see you. We've got a, a busy docket on the show today.
- [04:14]
A
Yeah, even, even things that like fall off because you and I try to curate keep keep we are, we're respectful of the generosity of our audience's time. You know, like Jay Clayton, the Southern District of New York prosecutor who's now going to be the director of National Intelligence despite the fact that he's never worked in the intelligence community, violates the statute by statute by his nomination is is a golf buddy of Donald Trump's. None of that makes anybody feel more secure today than we were yesterday while a president decides that he's going to use war and Iran will not be the last one, unfortunately to bolster his failing presidency at home and to have his buddy who will do anything he says to do and has since he was the securities and Exchange Commission chairman in his first term and now has already signaled that he will be he's, he will be a willing tool in pawn in going after voters because we were all scratching her like why is Jay Clayton commenting from his perch as the Southern District New York prosecutor on California voter issues? Oh right. Two days later he was nominated to be director of National Intelligence and he'll be pulling a Tulsi Gabbard, I'm sure lurking around, you know, some sort of cosplay, acting like there's some sort of fraud in voting or in mail in voting. But yesterday particularly, Ben, you and I were joking before we started. What a terrible day for Donald Trump, but what a great day for democracy in the rule of law. When you and I talk about what happened in Judge Brinkham as courtroom Eastern District of Virginia and an order she just issued same time in Judge Williams courtroom in Miami about the same settlement and anti weaponization fund. I think they're in deep shit. That's a legal term in, in Miami about. And the lawyers and Donald Trump's lawyers and even Department of Justice lawyers as well. Judge. And then Judge, bang bang, back to back, Judge Cooper, the Kennedy center judge and the appellate panel and even a Trumper on the appellate panel for taking down the name who denied the stay, which we'll talk about. Judge Katz says he didn't even dissent. You know, normally a Trumper would write at the bottom, well, Judge Katz would have granted the stay and would have have prevented the names from coming down. Nope, nope. All three judges were like, yeah, we're not, we're not, we're not preventing it. And, and on your, your live stream on Midas and on Legal AF of watching the names come down, the letters come down, it was, it was very cathartic. It was like watching, for me, it was like watching Saddam Hussein statues being pulled down by horse and rope during the end of his dictatorship. So I felt great about that and we'll, and now it's in the hands of the appellate court and maybe the Supreme Court one day. But that was all like in the last 24 hours.
- [07:06]
B
Right. You know, but the Trump regime did put TARP over the, over it because Trump was so pathetic and he's such a loser that he didn't want people to see his name being taken off
- [07:17]
A
of because of you because you were running a live feed and so was I to show it. And he like all of a sudden the scrims going up.
- [07:25]
B
Well, you know, they were, look, I'd like to take some credit for that, but he's such a narcissist that they seem to be building the scaffolding all morning and people like what are they building the scaffolding before last time they used those kind of cherry picking cranes to just put his name on. It's an hour and a half job. And if you speak to someone in construction, I mean it's an hour and a half job max to remove Those letters, arguably, it takes more time to put it, to put it in than to remove it, because you have to at least do measurements and things like that.
- [07:54]
A
Just taking. But one more thing on that, as long as before we go into that. And you caught too, that the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees. Talk about pissing off the judge. The board of trust, Judge Cooper already said they were not prudent and they violated their fiduciary duties on an incomplete record, no record at all, declaring that they were going to shut it down for two years. What is also two years left? Oh, right, the Trump administration. So he didn't want to have a Kennedy center. That was with Lee Greenwood doing 365 concerts a year. We'll shut it down. We'll say we have to shut it down for repair. The judge says, no, you're not going to shut it down. You have programming obligations that are statutory. You can't shut it down. You have to serve the community and you have to do a better record if you're going to do that because you were imprudent. So what do they do? They turned around and said, well, the name's coming down. Oh, we got to return all the fundraising, all the money that we brought in, immediately return it, even if the donors haven't asked for it because they all donated the money because of Trump's name on it. Is that this is rhetorical? Is that a proper exercise of fiduciary duty to just refund everybody because you're, you're. Because, because you're pissed, you got to take your name and go home? Is that what the board is supposed to be doing? Yeah.
- [09:13]
B
Judge Cooper, the Washington, D.C. federal judge who made this order, in making the original order, said, look, not only did this board, this Trump appointed board, breach its fiduciary duties and there's so much illegal conduct taking place, but the judge also said there's also no irreparable harm in the sense that, look, take the name down and if I'm overruled, you could put the name back up. Okay, so there is no irreparable injury that requires us to keep the name up pending the other steps in this litigation, the appeal, the Supreme Court. So it was at that motion the Trump regime tried to get game the system. It just shows you how bad faith they are. So then they created irreparable harm against themselves that didn't exist by amending the bylaws to say popak. Exactly what you said, which is that they got to return the money if Trump's Name comes down. So now they go and argue, well, look, now we go bankrupt because of your order. It's. Well, because you just inserted a poison pill to bankrupt yourself. That didn't exist before. What do you. What are you doing? Like, that's not. There's no donor who's like, you know what? I'm. Don't. I donated specifically because it was called Trump's name, you know, and. And we know that because that wasn't in the bylaws before.
- [10:34]
A
Yep.
- [10:34]
B
There wasn't in the agreement. They literally changed it this week. Now, some of them.
- [10:39]
A
Yeah, some of the board members, just so people know who's on the board, are, like, the wives of J.D. vance, the wife of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Some of them were required to make donations. But I, like Howard Luck, didn't make the donation because Trump's name was on it. He made the donation so his wife could sit on the board and because his boss him to.
- [10:59]
B
So let's get into just this order because, you know, I think it is also now being used as precedent in a lot of these other cases where the Trump regime. And it's based on precedent in other cases, by the way, that we're seeing in the east wing. And just think about what Trump did there. It's kind of, you know, a federal judge says, look, I understand, Judge. Judge Leon, I can't interfere with your Article 2, like, national security. But the ballroom isn't a national security thing. You say you're building a bunker underneath. The bunker underneath is national security. That's fine. I'm gonna stay away from that. So what does Donald Trump do? There he goes. No, no, no, no, no. The ballroom is a shield. What? Yeah, the ballroom is a shield against ballistic missiles and drones, and it's part of the bunker. So we have to build the ballroom, and then we're gonna build a drone port on top of the ballroom. Then he posts all of these AI Images, turning the White House into a literal drones all over the roof of the ballroom. And he's like, this is what we need, the drone port. And it's like, okay. The thing that we should all recognize is that why didn't this happen before? Like, why are we confronting a lot of these issues right now for the first time in American history? And it's because our Constitution is a contract, right? It's a contract between the people and the government in a way that empowers the people, by the people, for the people, and creates a democracy and creates checks and balances, and in contracts Move aside from the Constitution, there's something called an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in that a contract can't lay out every specific scenario and term. Sometimes you try as much as possible to list all of the details, but at the end of the day, courts will often look to, okay, what's the general thrust and color of this contract? That if someone tries to find some loophole, you can make an argument, well, look, that completely goes against what the contract says. You know, the contract doesn't use those exact words, but it uses words very similar. So clearly that's what was intended. It's an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which is in every contract. There is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in our Constitution. It's called the take care clause, and it's in Article 2. And it's that the President, in effectuating the laws, takes care that the laws which are passed by Congress are faithfully executed. So the Constitution doesn't list, no, you can start doing this or that. You can't do this or that. The Constitution sets out these broad parameters. Then you have the take care clause, which is the covenant of good faith and fair dealing that presidents, by and large, generally followed and executed laws, even if they didn't like it. Now, occasionally they can do an executive order that gives an interpretation of an existing law, but you can't change the law with an executive order. You need to go to Congress, and Congress needs to pass a law and the same thing. Laws that are passed by Congress are often created by compromise, so they don't list every specific thing as well. But the president's job is to take care that the law is faithfully executed and you have to follow what the law is. Trump doesn't do that. He does not take care. He's violated his oath every day, and he does not take care that the laws are faithfully executed. And so that's what we see here. And even where a judge makes the ruling, Take your name down from the Kennedy center, what does he do? He puts up tarp to block it and goes, well, if nobody. If I can't have my name up, then nobody sees anybody's name. And it's like, what are you, 2 years old? And no offense to, like, you know,
- [14:39]
A
bully, you know, no offense to our daughters. What are you.
- [14:42]
B
What do you. What do you do?
- [14:43]
A
Like, what do you.
- [14:43]
B
What are you doing? Like, what is this? Like, what is this behavior? I'm gonna toss it to you, Popak, but just also, like, I don't Want to veer away from the legal stuff, but it's like, you know, it seems for the first time they were close to doing this framework of a deal with Iran, even though we heard that 38 times. It seems like Pakistan and Qatar work together to really do this. All of the Middle east nations kind of work together to try to figure this out. And then this morning, Donald Trump posts a message that basically says, we're gonna work great with them, but if they don't do what I say they're gonna do, basically I'm gonna nuke them into oblivion. I mean, he makes a threat that clearly indicates that he'll blow up Iran with nuclear weapons. And it's like, why, why, why are you, like, why are you such an asshole? Like, why, like, why is this, like, why is your behavior truthfully, like, you are a sick, mentally ill, like, like, horrible human being. Just shut. Just, like, shut up, like, and behave with dignity. This isn't a Democrat, Republican thing. Just honor your commitments, behave with dignity. Stop with this shit. It's. It's just, you know, and I think when you see his approval declining so much, people see something like the Kennedy center, it's more symbolic of just how this guy moves. He's a grot thing. And people are just like, enough. Toss it to you.
- [15:57]
A
Yeah, I totally agree with you. And, and when, when they finally announced some sort of deal with Iran, it's going to be. Let's just. Let's just manage expectations. It's going to be better for Iran, the United States. It's going to be worse than the deal that Obama was able to negotiate and Donald Trump pulled out of, without warfare, without the loss of human life, including American soldiers, without trillions of dollars being spent. And in addition, there's going to be a component of it. I'd be shocked if there's not a component of it that requires America to rebuild Iran without regime change, without. You know, it's one thing during the Marshall Plan to kind of rebuild Europe after Hitler and Mussolini and everybody was taken out. It's another thing to, like, rebuild Iran while the government which hates us is still in power. So that's what's going to happen. The Strait of Hormuz is going to be a toll, continue to be a toll fundraiser for Iran. We're going to release money to them that's been embargoed. They're going to be able to transit oil more than they were before, and Donald Trump's going to go light a candle in some sort of church to hope the Economy recovers, which it won't. Not because I wish it not to. It just won't by the time of the midterms. And so, yeah, that is the erratic behavior social foreign policy by social media. And I am convinced, I'll get your opinion too about it, that if Donald Trump was doing well at home, right. If his approval numbers were high, if he, his economy and tariffs are doing great and Americans were like humming along. Right. Right. Giving us very little to talk about on the economy part, he would not have started the war with Iran. Iran was the tail, the tail wagging the dog to try to improve in. When he had dismal. It was almost the reverse of Lyndon Johnson. Lyndon Johnson did great on the domestic front. Terrible in the war in Vietnam. As he, as he continued it. Donald Trump's like, I got to start a war. I got to be a wartime president. I need a war. And so he bought himself and the American people a war. He would not have done that had he been riding at like 70% approval ratings and everything was hunky dory over here. And that's the truth. Now, let's. I forgot where we started. But we're talking about, I believe the name on the John. The Kennedy Center. So the name of the Kennedy center is Donald Trump's continued scarring of the face of Washington. He's trying in that. Because he knows he's going to get, he's going to get white, he's going to get wiped out at the midterms in terms of his power. So he's trying to cram all this in within the next seven months. Right. Put up aluminum letters on the, on the Kennedy center and, and build an arch and, and, and, and paint the, the reflecting pool tidy bowl blue and, and everything else he can do all this shit that we're going to have to take down and pay for, you know, come the, when the Democrats get control. You know, I have a, I have a thought about what the ballroom should be used for when the Democrats get control of the White House. And I think it should be dedicated, it should be split into a museum, half of which is a wax museum about all of Trump's and his enablers and this and the insurrection and the other half should be an Epstein survivors and victims commemorative or memorial. Maybe you take that, that Epstein Trump library and you stick it in there. But it shouldn't be used as a ballroom. We should not, the next president should not acquiesce to Donald Trump's lawlessness and use it for its intended purpose. I'M just sorry. I just don't think that should happen. On the Kennedy center. It was very clear. 94 page decision. So clear that the general counsel of the Kennedy center sent out a memo a week ago that instructed his staff to start taking the name down. Take it down from the website, take it down from emails, take it down from literature and postings and signs. In fact, Judge Cooper referred to that yesterday when he said, how could it be irreparable harm? You've already started the process of changing the name. It just seems to be the public letter thing that bothers you. And so they ran to judge Cooperation, having sort of ignored the name for a long time. In fact, I thought they weren't going to fight the name change any longer. They were going to fight the closure. The closure. They didn't like the fact that they couldn't close the thing for two years and they were considering their options there. But no, lo and behold, last minute they throw in a, an emergency motion to stop the judge's order that the name come down by Friday. And Judge Cooper, who got mercilessly attacked, side note, by Donald Trump, as always, not only Cooper, but his wife, you know, in his social media posts, Chris Cooper's wife doesn't even have his name. She doesn't even carry his name. She's embarrassed. I'm like, are you, are you kidding me? That's how you go after a man's judge's wife, you know, in the middle of all of this. So now they got to run back to the same Judge Cooper. I mean, at least Judge Cooper didn't bury his wife on the 19th hall of a golf course. I mean, if you want to talk about how you treat your wives or vice versa. So this is how Judge Cooper enters his order with a little dig at Donald Trump and his administration at the very end in denying the. He's the first stop on the train. Can, can I get the district court judge to stay his own order so I can appeal? And he goes through it. We'll post it up here on the screen. It says effectively that you haven't made out irreparable injury, given that there'll be de minimis resources that that would be required to restore the name if you win on appeal and you've already taken substantial steps towards complying. He notes a June 4th memo which you and I reported on from the Kennedy Center's Office of General Counsel, directing everybody to comply with the permanent injunction on the renaming. This shows that you don't have irreparable harm Then at the end, now, this is a little bit gratuitous, although I'm glad he included it. A little bit of a dig at Trump starts with, what's more, last sentence. What's more, issuance of a state pending appeal would not be in the public interest, which is rarely served by the perpetuation of unlawful, unlawful governmental action. And then he signed, he cites a case. So Trump gets that from the judge. So they run off to an appellate panel and they pull a terrible panel for them. Randomly, they pull three judges led by Judge Millett. If that name sounds familiar, it's because she just presided over the ballroom hearing in which she asked that there was that SEAL Team six moment where instead of Seal Team Six, can Trump use Seal Team six to kill Biden, get away with it. As came up in the immunity appellate case, she asked, are you saying that if Donald Trump wanted to destroy and knock over the Statue of Liberty, nobody would have standing to come into court to, for the court to rule on that? And, and the, the lawyer for the Department of Justice, Yakov Roth, said yes. So that Judge Millet, the judge that they spent a considerable, a considerable amount of time saying that she doesn't have jurisdiction over, over anything related to the administration. They now want her and her and the rest of her group to issue an administrative stay on an emergency basis. Her, the other judge is Judge Wilkins. Millet, Wilkins and Pollard all came on with the same class. They're all classmates appointed by Obama in 2013. Wilkins and Millett have been on hundreds of appellate panels together. They work really well together. And then you have Judge Katzis, who's the Trumper. Now, I would have thought the Trumper would have at least dropped a footnote when they denied the emergency motion for administrative stay and said I would have ruled for the stay. Nope, he didn't. He didn't even. He didn't think an administrative stay to stop the letters coming down was worth it. Right now instead, they're doing a full briefing schedule on the issue which, which will happen throughout the month of a month of June, and then they'll make their decision. But with Millett and Wilkins, I don't think Trump is going to be a winner. Just my view, especially given the ballroom arguments that were made without real credibility by those advocates. God forbid Yakov Roth shows up again, which he could, because they have a very thin, thin bench here at the Department of Justice. Could be the same guy again. Matter of fact, when you and I start talking about Judge Brinkama, there is an overlap of a of a lawyer in two cases a day apart, which did not serve him well. But that just shows you how. How brain drained the Department of Justice is. They got to trot out these people. Look, sometimes I'm sure, Ben, you've done it, too. Sometimes, you know, advocates, you know, if, like, if I've argued a bunch of cases in a row or I'm not getting great results from a judge, I've been known. If you're, if you're a mature lawyer and you're doing your client service, you'll say, I'm not resonating with this, with this judge. And you'll turn it over to an associate or another partner. I've done that. Or vice versa. It's like I keep getting losses with this person. Can you go in and argue it? They don't have that option here because there's not that many people that still work for the Department of Justice. And it's. We're starting to see how those chickens are coming home to roost.
- [25:16]
B
Yeah. They also are so delusional that they keep, you know, or just are so arrogant and narcissistic or just so malicious, they really don't care. Like when we talk a little bit about the filings that are taking place in the Miami federal court regarding the collusive settlement between Trump and Trump, where in the $10 billion lawsuit, Trump's lawyers attacks the judge. Judge, you don't know what you're, you know, essentially, I'm simplifying it. You don't know what you're doing. You don't have jurisdiction. This was a real settlement. Stay the hell away from it. Not a great way to speak to a federal judge. And this is how the Trump DOJ approaches it. That's why we'll talk a little bit later in the show as well about even Trump appointed judges saying the behavior borders on the surreal. And because there is no presumption of regularity anymore in the doj, we view things very differently. You know, I'm doing it. I'll talk about in this episode as well, very briefly. But the entire federal courthouse in Chicago right now is tainted by grand jury misconduct, quite literally. Like almost every case there, there's been vouching. Let's talk about it right now. Where the federal prosecutors have gone into the grand jury and committed misconduct. The Broadview Six case. Right. The six individuals who were protesting peacefully outside of Broadview who were then arrested by the Trump regime, they were able to get the DO DOJ transcripts, and it turned out the prosecutor was basically saying, all right, I'm going to vouch. Like, like literally said that I'm going to vouch right now. It's Friday. I only bring you good cases. I need you to get me an indictment here. I'm going to show you some other cases. I'm only going to bring you the good cases. Okay? And because of that, other cases said, whoa, whoa, whoa, you committed grand jury misconduct. Judge, we want to see the grand jury transcript. And now what's coming out is that the Trump regime on a nationwide level has been engaged in grand jury misconduct. And all these criminal defense lawyers are getting cases dismissed with very serious allegations on procedural grounds. I mean, people who are involved in heinous and horrible cond. They're presumed innocent until guilty. They're getting off as well. Not just the high profile Trump weaponized ones, these other cases also. So I covered it right there. All right, let's take our first quick break of the show. A reminder, subscribe to our YouTube channel. But most importantly, subscribe to Michael Popak's YouTube channel. Subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel. Subscribe to the Legal af substack. Also, if you or somebody knows been injured in a car accident, auto accident, if you've been injured by the negligence of a company or the negligence of a third party in some, you know, horrible situations Popak represents people in. If you know somebody who's been injured or sadly killed in an accident, reach out to the Popoc firm. Don't be shy. 877-POPAKAF is the phone number or visit thepopocfirm.com They've got lawyers available 24 7. The consultation is free. Seriously, he's representing a lot of people who listen and watch this show. So really, don't be shy. Call them up. 877-POPAK AF or visit thepopocfirm.com all right, let's take our first quick break of the show.
- [28:15]
A
Oh, I'm excited to tell you about the world's number one expanding garden hose and their brand new product, the pocket hose ballistic. Look, I'm tough on hoses. I drag them across the driveway, yank them around the yard and somehow they always kink or leak. But the pocket hose ballistic has been a game changer. It's super lightweight, easy to manage and easy to store. Turn the water on and it grows. Turn the water off and it shrinks back to pocket size. And this thing is built to last. The pocket hose ballistic is reinforced with a liquid crystal polymer used in bulletproof vests, making the anti burst sleeve practically bulletproof. 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 legal to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase text legal to 64,000 message and data rates may apply. Oh, have you ever actually looked at the ingredient list on your dog's food after that first ingredient? Well, good luck. You see, kibble is made using extreme high heat to keep its shelf stable and inexpensive. So brands have to add back synthetic vitamins and minerals in the form of strange chemicals whose names you don't understand and definitely cannot pronounce. Is that really what you want? Your dog eating sundaes for dogs is different. They start with more than 80% all natural meats and then finish with superfoods like kale, ginger and blueberries and gently air dries them instead of using high heat. Sundays doesn't look or smell like dog food. It looks like high quality human grade jerky. No fillers, no nutritional blends, no chemicals, just simple complete nutrition. Founded by Dr. Tori Waxman, Sundays was created to meet her high standards as a veterinarian and as a dog parent. And the best part, Sundays requires no fridge, no freezer, no prep, no mess. You get the quality of a home cooked meal with a scoop and serve. Ease of kibble. It's what dog food should have been all along. Over 100,000 dogs are eating sundaes and the reviews speak for themselves, especially from owners of picky eaters who had never seen their dog get this excited about mealtime before. Like my Lily, make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to sundaysfordogs.com LegalAf50 and get 50% off your first order. Or you can use code LegalAf50 at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at sundaysfordogs.com LegalAF50 one more time sundaysfordogs.com LegalIF50 or use code LegalIF50 at checkout.
- [31:02]
B
Welcome back to Legal AF. Thank you to all of our sponsors who make this show possible. Support our sponsors. They support our show. Let's get back into it. Michael Popak. Just as the Trump regime, quite literally covering up the removal of Donald Trump's name, vandalizing the Kennedy center, they continue to cover up the Epstein files. It's one of the totality of circumstances that led to this unlawful and catastrophic war in Iran. As we were all getting closer to finding out more and more and more what's really in the Epstein files and of course, identifying this massive Trump regime cover up. Lots of people believe, and I'm one of them, that one factor, there's a lot of factors, but one of those factors was the continued cover up of the Epstein files for this catastrophic war. Now, the COVID up obviously continues. Pam Bondi refused to go under oath as Howard Lutnick refused to go under oath. Both refused to be videotaped for their depositions. Bondi refused to answer questions that predate 2025. Questions 2025 on she refused to answer any questions about communications with Trump or anybody in the executive branch. I mean, what else would you be asking her? What did you do on vacation in 2020? What do we think you're going to be asking her? All the questions are going to be, what do you tell this person? What do you speak to that person? Sorry, I can't answer. Privilege, privilege. It's not a valid privilege claim to cover up child sex trafficking, but that's what they're going with. Oh, and then if you ask Pam Bo question that was not who did you speak to? Or what did you say? Like, so did the do. Are you aware of the doj? Did search terms to try to find Trump and did the DOJ try to, you know, delete or destroy files and photos and audio and things that have Trump's name on it or that involved Donald Trump? I don't recall. You don't recall that? That's something you don't recall really? Like that's not a. Of a significant import that you would delete documents and videos and photos of the president of the. You don't recall that? Well, now we're learning even more about this cover up. The COVID up has been a major topic and I think we all intuitively knew this was taking place. But a bombshell expose by the New York Times, Maggie Haberman, she put in a book out called Regime Change where they talk about JD Vance leading multiple meetings in the situation rooms. In the situation room where they would say things like, well, like there were emails, emails where people allege that Donald Trump, you know, has these sick, disgusting nipple fetishes with these girls. And, you know, should we release these emails? I mean, it's literally, I mean, these are discussions happening in the situation room. And then you would have like Bondi and Wiles. We can't release that email. And then JD Vans like, but people know that he's got a sick dark past, so let's just release it. I mean, that's how this was. And then Dan Bongino is always involved in, like, like, crying. Like, Dan, like the way Dan Bongino's always described the deputy, former FBI, deputy, FBI director. He always, like, is, like, crying and, like, running away. Like, like the job's like, too, too much for him, you know, and. And he, like, breaks down is how. At least that's how it's being described. So that's, you know, that was the bombshell reporting there. We'll get into more detail, of course, then on Capitol Hill, they have Leslie Groff, Epstein's assistant, who appears in the files like, 170,000 times. Again, the magas refused to have her testify under oath or on video camera. Again, it's one of these informal interviews. It's like, come on. But we know that she did. Leslie Groff did say that she would. Not infrequently. I mean, frequently she would book meetings between Trump, Trump and Epstein. But guess what? She doesn't recall how many times. But she knew it was enough. But she doesn't recall how many times. And so one of the things that Democrats have been saying also is, all right, look, let's get Attorney General or Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch in here right now. Donald Trump's former criminal defense attorney. I think I always got to mention that, that Trump's former criminal defense attorney in a case where Trump was found liable of dozens of felony counts is the acting Attorney General. And boy, has he behaved like Donald Trump's criminal defense lawyer, if you know what I mean. That's how he's behaving anyway. So let's, let's depose this guy under oath. Like, let's do a whole here. Like, if we care about transparency, it shouldn't be. You're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. Like, just like, like, let's let it out. I mean, just as an aside, too, I did a video about it this morning. Like, Butler, Pennsylvania, too. Like, you know, why are you redacting all of these files? Like, why aren't you turning over the files about what really happened in Butler, Pennsylvania? Just release them. And then. And then Trump's former, like, top legal advisor guy, even though the guy's not a lawyer. Tom Fitton had to do a FOIA request to get the Butler, Pennsylvania documents. And those files are being covered up. All of those are redacted from July 2024. And now the Trump regime's like, Tom Fitton is fake news. Clickbait. He's literally Trump's guy. Again, you don't get much closer to Trump before this term than Tom Fitton when it comes to these types of things. And Fitton had to sue Trump. And then once he got the documents, it was all redacted. And then they called him Clickb for saying that there were communications in there between Thomas Crooks, the alleged shooter, and police before the incident took place. It's like, okay, then just release the files. You know, just release it. But you know what the Trump regime did on Friday, they're like, okay, we've got more alien files for you, more UFOs. That's what you want, right? Everybody, the UFO files. We got some orbs, Northeastern orbs. Every. It's like, okay, I mean, I don't not want that. But that's not what we're looking at. That's not what we're looking for. That's not what we're looking for right now. And then you have Tulsi Gabbard go, how about. I'm releasing. This is her last act as the odni, as the head of the odni, Director of National Intelligence. She goes, I'm releasing all of this information about US biolabs across the world. But basically she only mentions Ukraine. Gain of function. You know, one of the conspiracies is that biolab gain of function research out of Ukraine and elsewhere was one of the things that developed Covid. This was used by Russia as a pretext when Russia invaded Ukraine that we have to get rid of the bio labs with Ukraine and the U.S. to be clear, there's biological research that takes place across the country, but this idea of like a bio lab that is developing these weapons of mass destruction and that's why Russia invaded. That's what the head of ODNI did, which is just pure Russian propaganda on Fridays. That's what they did. Release what they didn't release Popak. I'm going to turn it over to you just to take the rest of the segment, but let me just show everybody what James Comer said about should we be deposing Blanche? Here's what he said.
- [37:46]
A
Let's play it ranking under. Garcia said he put in a formal request with you to have Todd Blanch subpoenaed. Are you going to act on that subpoena? Will Todd Blanche, you know, Todd Blanche
- [37:55]
B
came to speak to us for a briefing, and the Democrats got up and tiptoed out and ran to the press clutching their pearls in outrage. What a wasted opportunity. We had Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi in there. He's always wants. Garcia, always wants more Popak like you Always want more. Isn't that like the idea of, like, what you do in an investigation, when you uncover a little, you're supposed to want more and then you. Why are you asking for additional details? I don't know. Because there's a lot of rent. Like, that's what you do. Make it make sense.
- [38:27]
A
Yeah, make it make sense, Popak. Yeah, I'll try. So look, there's going to be impeachments and criminal investigations coming out of Maggie Haberman's reporting in the New York Times. She has one or more moles. This is the leakiest administration I've ever seen. Thank God for that. And she has copious notes. I mean, when you read that article, the freak out session in the Situation Room is a paraphrase of the title, freak out, referring to JD Vance sweatily freaking out because he wanted he was the only one in the room, including Susie Wiles, James Blair, Cash Patel and, and, and Pam Bondi phoning in. Hold that thought, because I've got an idea about the leak. Todd Blanche, Stan Woodward, Stephen Chung and others in the room all trying to conspire like in the Ron Contrast on how to cover up a maybe criminal or statutory violations by the Trump administration about the Epstein files and the Epstein Transparency act and, you know, later, later adopted. And every one of those people who are quoted, that's why Maggie's reporting is so brilliant, because somebody is taking either copious notes and having turned them over to her, or they recorded what was going on in the Situation Room and those events. Now, you can't. It's hard to literally record with an electronic device in the Sit Room for obvious reasons. But two people phoned in and according to Maggie, that was Pam Bondi and Cash Patel. Now, does anyone put it past Cash Patel to have Dan Bongino in the room with him to talk about the Epstein files since they made their bones as podcasters promoting getting to the bottom of the Epstein. I mean, they also had conspiracy theories related to the Epstein of the Epstein files and the Democrats. But I mean, I definitely can picture Dan Bongino in the room. I can picture one or both of them recording it. Who would put it past the director of FBI hitting a record button and Pam Bondi? I mean, the fact even though Bondi and Patel were at each other's throats and blamed each other for undermining each other, they are also on mutual thin ice in the administration. And that's the kind of person that takes notes and copious notes, you know, and there's other people that are trying to save their own high too. I mean, I wouldn't put it past somebody like Stephen Chung, even though he's disgusting in confirming some reporting because he's also worried about. This is every, this is when you put crabs in a bucket and they fight their way out. Which is, which is what we're watching. You know, it's every, it's every man for himself with a sinking administration. Her reporting was too crystal clear. It wasn't like, well, like, it wasn't like passive voice. Somebody may have said this was quotes, quotes. And so Robert Garcia, Representative Garcia issues an immediate letter to comer and says this is a massive cover up that has now been disclosed at the highest level of senior leadership of the Trump administration. The only person not in the room was Donald Trump, but he was in the room because Haberman reports that Trump made it clear he wanted nothing to do with the disclosure of the documents. He did not want them disclosed. At best, what they wanted was a gesture. Listen to this term, Ben. A gesture of transparency. Not transparency, a gesture. Like you said, we need to distract our masses that follow us. Release the JFK files again. Release the Martin Luther King file. Release the UFO files files. How about release the Epstein files in full transparency? So Trump didn't want it. So that warped the decision making of everybody in that room. And the best line, there's two great lines that come out of the reporting is one is Stephen Chung quoted as saying giving a pardon to Galaine Maxwell, who's been convicted of girl child sex trafficking would be a priority nightmare. That's an understatement. See, he always puts things not in terms of morality, not in terms of doing what's right or what's lawful. A PR nightmare. Yeah, I think it is a PR nightmare to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell. The second greatest line was James Blair, who's also the, the, the young deputy Chief of staff. That is part of the, the gerrymandering or what we call the dummy mandering, a plan. You know, James Blair said with all somebody was pushing like J.D. vance for a press conference, we, you have press conference. We need a press conf. Press conference. And James Blair looked around and said, with all due respect, people in this room and the plan, the communications plan they originally designed is what got us into this mess. And I don't think a plan coming out of this group is going to get us out of it. Which is, I thought was a very telling comment about it. And then Todd Blanch, who is our going to be our Attorney General, Unless the Senate grows a set of balls on the Republican side during confirmation hearings. He says we should use Tucker Carlson to do the interview of Ghislaine Maxwell. No, I'll do it. Okay. Part of the COVID up and that was a pretty weak tea for James Comer. But even for James Comer, that was pretty weak in terms of clutching pearls. Again, they had the guy before the story came out. Why didn't they ask the questions about the story that hadn't yet been released? What are, what are, what edible are you on? But you know, it's just so let Garcia and the Democrats and Jamie Raskin. I was wondering why Trump freaked out about our friend Jamie Raskin the day before or right after Haberman's report came out. Because he knows that, that, that Raskin, who was his second impeachment manager and is a big, along with Garcia and others, is a big defender of the survivor's dignity and going after Donald Trump for being, you know, and for the COVID up around it, you know, he wanted to kind of undermine him in advance. You know, I was like, why you can always tell Donald Trump's tell his skin is so thin. You can like see his beating heart like when he stands in front of you. I mean, underneath the obesity. But in any, in any event, this reporting will have the impact, if not now, with Oversight Committee hearings in January of 2028 when the, after the midterms, when we have no 2027, after the midterms, when the Democrats hopefully get control of the House and the Senate because they're going to open up impeachment, impeachment investigations, forget Oversight Committee into everybody in that room that is obstructing justice. I mean, that is, that is a good argument. And try to lay the groundwork for it between now and then getting them under oath in Oversight Committee hearings to testify top Blanche coming back, whether it's to the Oversight Committee hearing, I mean, you could just ask the question in any hearing about, about it and see how Todd Blanche is going to respond to that. So I think this, you and I report a lot about the Epstein developments, but this one was, is, is pretty momentous because I think think it lit the fuse for something that's going to blow up in Donald Trump's face in a very short term. As soon as the Democrats get control and get the gavel in the House and the Senate. Yeah.
- [46:00]
B
And Democrats get to set the rules of the time. So they want Blanche for 12 hours. Remember when Hillary Clinton testified about Benghazi for 12 hours. She did it Willingly. She showed up, she spoke about it and she embarrassed the MAGA Republicans, or I guess they were the Tea Party Republicans then in the House. I think you're gonna be seeing, you know, at least dot Bland showing up. Except ain't gonna be. He's gonna look real. He's gonna be invoking privileges. I mean, when I read that transcript of Bondi and Lutnick, if that happened in public, I can't even. I mean, they are lucky and the DOJ knows it, that that stuff was. And that these were dense transcripts with lots of objections and it feels technical. And there was no video camera. I can tell you from reading, it was bad, bad, bad. You know, also, I'll just leave us with this point before getting into some other topics, which, as you mentioned, impeachment. I reflect on the impeachment, the first impeachment against Donald Trump, not for trying to overthrow the government, but for trying to overthrow a different government in. And it was really the quid pro quo javelins for. You need to launch investigations. Basically, it all goes full circle, especially with Hunter Biden in the room right now. You need to launch criminal investigations against Joe Biden and against my political enemies, Zelensky.
- [47:32]
A
Right.
- [47:33]
B
So this all goes full circle and Trump was impeached over these, over these quid pro quo representations that violated a lot of our national security laws and that it was literally a mobster style quid pro quo that occurred. Now when I think about Trump's first impeachment regarding the threats he made to Zelensky, I'm like, oh my God, dude does that every day. Like that's the least bad thing he. I mean, he does the horrible things. But I'm like, you know, it is. Is shocking where we've come. It shocks the conscience that the Overton window has basically been shifted, that every single day in public he probably does, in my opinion, 10 to 15 impeachable offenses that we can observe, things that he posts, things that he does says on any given day, maybe on a slow day, right. Maybe three to five on a day where he's out a lot. I mean, he may be doing 20 impeachable offenses a day. So the question also that I'm interested in is where are the Democrats going to focus on that? And I'll tell you a spot they're going to focus on too. One of the areas. And it's a nice segue to this next topic, which is Trump in his personal capacity suing the government for $10 billion and then entering into a collusive settlement where he waives all of his tax liability for the past forever, basically, and then had the slush fund. And we'll talk about what went down before Judge Brinkoma. What, what, what's going down before Judge Williams in Florida. This is a big, big, big deal, folks. When we come back, we'll talk about Trump's going to be in a lot of trouble in that federal court in southern Florida. This is going to be an issue that, that's going to linger.
- [49:16]
A
I'm going to that hearing and we'll
- [49:18]
B
talk about what happens. Yeah, we'll talk about what happens in Virginia as well. A quick reminder, if you or someone you know has been injured in a car accident, auto accident, trucking accident, you've been hurt by the negligence of a company or somebody else. For example, if you're driving, someone hits you with their car or hits you with a truck and you're injured as a result, call popoc or it doesn't have to be that. It could be any type of case where you suffered an injury as a result of a third party. But call 877popocf or go to thepopocfirm.com 877popocf or visit thepopocfirm.com Also, if you know somebody who's been injured, you know, refer them. Popoc represents a lot of people who watch and listen to Legal AF. Also, make sure you subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel, the Legal AF substaff. Let's keep those at the top of the chart. Subscribe to Legal AF on Substack and Legal AF on YouTube. We'll be right back after our last quick break of the show.
- [50:10]
A
I never thought a pillowcase could make much of a difference until I tried Blissey Blissey pillowcases. They're made from 22 Mommy 6, a grade 100% pure mulberry silk and I noticed the difference right away. The silk feels naturally cooling, breathable and gentler on my skin and hair the than satin. I've had less frizz and smoother hair when I wake up and fewer sleep creases. I also love that Blissey is dermatologist, tested and recommended, fully machine washable and comes in over 100 colors and designs, including Wicked and Harry Potter collections. Plus, there's a reason Blissey has sold over 3 million pillowcases and has been featured in Vogue, Oprah Daily and Good Morning America. Personally, it's been one of those simple upgrades I didn't expect to love as much as I do. Sleep more comfortably wake up with better looking hair and it feels like a small luxury. That's actually practical because you're a listener. Blissey is offering 60 nights risk free plus an additional 30% off when you shop@blissi.com legalaf that's B L I S S-Y.com legal af and use code legalaf to get an additional 30% off your skin and hair. Well, thank you. You ever realize how many customers slip through the cracks? Missed calls, follow ups that never happen. It adds up fast. That's why today's episode is brought to you by Quo, spelled Q U O the business communication system built so you never miss a call. Quo helps your entire team handle calls and texts from one shared number so there are no more missed messages or dropped conversations. Everyone sees the full thread, replies are faster, and customers actually feel taken care of. Quo is the number one rated business phone system on G2 with over 3,000 reviews built for how modern teams work. More than 90,000 businesses rely on it to stay connected, professional and consistently reachable. And Quo isn't just a phone system, it's a smart one. AI automatically logs calls, generates summaries and flags next steps so nothing falls through the cracks. And it can even qualify leads or respond after hours so your business stays on even when you're off. Money is on the line. Always say hello with quo. Try quo for free plus get 20% off your first six months when you go to quo.com legalaf that's q u.com
- [52:45]
B
legal a f welcome back to Legal AF. Thank you to all of our sponsors who make this show possible. Support our sponsors the discount codes for all of those sponsors are in the description below. Jordi and Popak they spend a great deal of time working with those sponsors to bring you those discount codes. They actually negotiate real deals, not Trump fake deals, and they think you'll like the products and the services. So go and check it out. Popak let's get into the topic that we were saying before we ended the last segment. This collusive settlement the Donald Donald Trump individually sues the IRS and sues the Treasury Department for $10 billion. Trump alleges that when he was president in 2019, Trump's IRS, through a contractor who was hired by Trump's IRS, leaked 450,000 people's returns. Trump was one of them. He said he suffered a great deal of emotional distress in 2026 while he's been president for a year and a half or so, and that he has to now sue himself, basically, not just in the current sense of suing the Trump government right now. But his government would have been responsible for the data leak because he was in charge in 2019, and it was a contractor of his own, IRS. So he's suing himself from 2019 and himself again in 2026. He filed the lawsuit in January. And basically, we the people are the ones who have to to pay it. It's our tax dollars. I mean, the fact that he was demanding that we pay $10 billion that he gets paid to himself. I mean, again, like, not only is that, like, to me, per se, impeachable. I mean, it's like, quite literally a racketeering criminal offense before our very eye. I mean, it's as heinous as he's stealing our money. Like, what are you doing, dude? I mean, it's horrific, but I'm doing it in plain view. No, you're still committing a freaking crime. We see what you're doing. Guess I'm giving you my legal opinion. You're entitled to different legal opinions. Then he enters into. Then he dismisses the case in Florida. He filed it in Florida Miami federal court. He then dismisses it, doesn't tell the judge that there's a settlement agreement. Then the Trump DOJ enters into the settlement agreement, which looks more like a decree. Like, Trump doesn't sounds like an order where one party signs it, which is just weird, too. And it's Todd Blanch, Trump's former criminal defense lawyer, and it's framed as, like, an order, and then it has an addendum, and then the order creates a January 6th slush fund for insurrectionists to get paid, like, $1.8 billion, 1.776 billion, to be exact. And then Trump settles, which Congressmember Raskin refers to it as a super pardon that basically says any of Trump's past tax evasion, past failure to pay taxes, all gets wiped away. He's total immunity. He doesn't have to pay his taxes. And by the way, I believe that includes a lot of his quid pro quo deals with Middle east countries that have taken place recently where he would owe at least capital gains taxes, at most regular income taxes. And so if he's earned $5 billion, people don't talk about this side of it. From these quid pro quo deals with Middle east nations and all these griffs across the world, he could potentially be avoiding a billion dollars in personal taxes or more because he'll say, I've got free immunity from engaging in tax fraud and tax liability based on what was said here. People have cited 100 million because they said that was the number of like what the original IRS audit was that went back a decade or so. But I'm like, you're missing the bigger billion dollar pie right here. Which he's just going to say, I don't have to pay any of my taxes right now. And all of these deals I just did where I owe between 25 to 37 taxes on it, depending on, you know, how it's, how it's ultimately characteristic. So I think it's a big deal. So Popak, you know, I just wanted to give that framework just to remind people of like what we're talking about here. The Trump DOJ then said, we're not going through with the January 6th slush fund. We're not, we're not doing it. They went silent about waiving all of the tax liability to Donald Trump. And we're not going to speak about that. But we're not doing the slush fund. Then maga, Mike Johnson, the Trump MAGA people on the Hill goes, we're not doing the, you know, he's giving us his word.
- [56:52]
A
Yeah, thanks, Ben. Look, as we said, or as I've been saying, Friday was a red letter day for the Trump administration when it came to that anti weaponization fund. You had a little bit of a stutter step earlier later in the week before the 12th, when the same issue about whether the fund was going to be blocked by a federal judge was before two different federal judges. One Judge Leon, the ballroom judge, as we like to call him now in the District of Columbia in a suit brought by 2Jan 6 officers by public Integrity Project and Brendan Ballou. I've had on the, I've had on Legal AF recently for an interview. They brought one from their vantage point of being at the Capitol on January 6th and not wanting to see insurrectionists get paid or insurrectionists get paid and have their debts relieved, a violation of the 14th Amendment. At the same time, Judge Brinkama had a case brought by Democracy Forward, which is our collaborators also here on the Legalif YouTube channel. In fact, I'm gonna have Sky Perryman, who was in the courtroom during the hearing in front of Judge Brinkama on the show on Wednesday to talk about it. So you had two different cases, same lawyer for the Department of Justice, this guy named Andrew Block is arguing in both places, but from very different results before two different judges. And to answer the question that often comes up up among our audience, why are there multiple cases and what happens when you have, when you have rulings that are inconsistent or even consistent. You have multiple cases because different plaintiffs for different reasons file in different places or maybe even the same courthouse, but with different judges. Those cases aren't generally consolidated. Judges then rule they're not bound by whatever another judge, even in their own courthouse, says. They're bound by what their appellate court says above them. They're not bound by a colleague, even if it's right down the hallway. Although, you know, I've been known, and it happened in the, in this weaponization fund case as well. If I get a favorable result from somebody, I take the transcript, I go, judge, I got a favorable result, although that backfired for the Trump administration in front of Judge Brinkama, which I'll talk about next. And the other thing that happened on the 12th is that Trump's private lawyer, a guy here in Florida named Alejandro Brito, without an affidavit, without sworn testimony, without support from the Department of Justice or testimony from Todd Blanche, tried to get out from under Judge Williams order, really, in order to show cause. Order to show cause that he and the plaintiffs, along with the federal government, didn't commit fraud on the court, didn't deceive the court. Those are some pretty, pretty big charges. Like, you never, as a bar member like I am, want to be on the receiving end of an order to show cause where a federal judge wants to know why. I wants to know whether you defrauded her or not. That's a bad thing. And as I reported that, that issue came up because 35 former federal judges, led by Judge Michael Ludig, who's a friend of the podcast, been on the show with me a number of times. He. They filed a unique motion under a certain rule of civil procedure, arguing that there was fraud on the court. But the parties are fraudsters on both sides. So we have to come into court to ask you to reopen the case and take a look. Even if, even if strangers to the case had not filed, the judge has inherent. Every federal judge has inherent authority and power to punish bad conduct in their courtroom or in the court process. Even if a case is dismissed. I mean, if a case is dismissed, but like, right before it's dismissed, somebody dropped their pants and took a crap in the courtroom. There's repercussions. You can't say, well, Judge, I dismissed the case. You don't have jurisdiction. I'm sorry, I just crapped all over your court, but there's nothing you can do about it. That's not right. It's not accurate. It's not right. Sort of what Trump's arguing. We can take a crap on the court and you can't do a darn thing about it and filed that way. So but let's, let's start in chronological order. Judge Leon holds a hearing. He finds that he's not going to block the fund. He finds that it was enough that Todd Blanche during a Q and A with a member of Congress, I think it was Grace Ming of New York said no, the weaponization fund is dead. He never talked about the next day when he alone, without anybody else participating, amended the settlement agreement to give what we now refer to or Jamie Raskin coined the super pardon to the Trump family against any criminal prosecution by any future Department of Justice or current Department of Justice for anything that Donald Trump labels lawfare or weaponization. And also out from under tax and audit liability. I mean a golden get out of jail free card. It is the, you know, Blanche, Donald Trump's former criminal defense lawyer, now attorney general nominee, it did and filled in the hole that the United States Supreme Court when they gave the immunity decision, Blanche gave a super pardon, even the immunity, even the Supreme Court didn't give that one. And he never wants to talk about the next day settlement amendment that he did and all, all. So Judge Leon was fine. Nah, he said it's not going to be, he's not going to go forward with it. Get out of my courtroom effectively. So Andrew Block, the lawyer who argued it there, got all excited and he filed that transcript with Judge Brincoma. Now she sits in the Eastern District of Virginia, not in D.C. they're both senior status judges of about the same vintage. But I don't know what her relationship is with, with Leon. Judge Leon, he was a Republican appointee. Brinkoma was not. So she starts, she opens a hearing on Friday and we had, we had a man on the ground, we had a reporter in the room, Adam Klassfeld of All Rise News, she starts it, I mean the very beginning when you come for those who have never been to a hearing, federal or state, you know, the ritual of it is pretty established. The lawyers come into the room, they set up at respective council table, these wooden tables. They cross a wooden bar that's in the room that separates the public from the well of the court, that is the bar. When people say they are members of the bar, that means they have the ability, they have the right, the privilege to cross that wooden bar and, and, and interact with the court as an officer of the court. So you pass the wooden Bar. You sit at your table, you set up your materials. There's courtroom staff in the room, and usually the judge is not in the room unless she's already. Or he or she's already conducting hearings. Then you all rise when the judge walks into the room. And then you start, you state your name, you. You make appearances. It's called judge will call the case, case number, blah, blah, blah. You know who's here for the government. And Andrew Block will stand up, who's here for the four plaintiffs against the weaponization fund in her case, which is Andrew Floyd, a former u. S. Assistant u. S. Attorney, a city, New Haven, Connecticut, an abortion rights group and common cause. Who's here for that? I'm. Blah, blah, blah. Democracy forward on behalf of the place. Soon as Block stood up, having made all his filings, he said, andrew Block for the United States of America. And judge Brinkhama said, you are a very brave man to come into my courtroom now when I've been on the other side of that, you know, not. Not getting that reception, but, like, watched one of my opponents that happened to, you know, you're. You just write, you know, to your colleague next to you, like, I'm not going to be saying much here. Don't snatch Victor defeat from the jaws of victory. You know, just the discretion is the better part of valor. Just sit down. If the judge is doing your work for you, just take the win, as they say. And here's Adam Klassfeld moments after he left the courtroom yesterday in the eastern district of Virginia, reporting about what he saw. Let's play the clip.
- [65:24]
B
It was a brutal hearing for the government. Just as soon, just to give you a picture, as soon as it began, the attorney for the justice department registered his appearance saying, andrew Block for the government. Judge Brinkman's reply was, you're a brave man, Mr. Block. And then it went downhill from there because she took out the hearing, the transcript of that hearing that you mentioned.
- [65:47]
A
Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Hold it, hold it, hold it. She actually said at the top of the hearing, his appearance, you're a brave man. That's what she started with.
- [66:00]
B
That's what she started with. And Michael, it got worse from there because Block was the same attorney who had argued in front of Judge Leon in D.C. she took out the transcript from that hearing where judge Leon asked him multiple times, why not just rescind the legal paperwork behind this whole thing? And multiple times during that hearing, Block said, I don't know, that he hadn't spoken to Todd Blanche, he just didn't have the information. So she put him on the spot, said, well, it's been two days. Do you know now? And when he said he doesn't know, he doesn't have ready access to Todd Blanche, she said, I cannot believe, given the significance of this case, that you, you just simply do not know this. You couldn't get the answer to that question.
- [66:54]
A
Yeah, that was a little. That was a little shaky, Cam. He was literally on the street. I feel like I was making a mumble core movie. But that, that, you know, we bring it to you. You know, we got. We got reporters in the courtroom or outside the courtroom, because you can't do it from the courtroom. Like Adam Klassfeld from All Rise News. Support all of his independent commentary and journalism when you can. So she then enters an order and she effectively tells in the order, which we have up on Legal, a F sub stack. And look, I'm going to paraphrase the order, Judge Brinkham, and says, look, if you want this case to end and you want to get out from under my jurisdiction, it's very simple. Todd Blanch, Stan Woodward, the number three, and Todd Bessant, who runs the Internal Revenue Service as a. As the Treasury Secretary, you each. There it is. You each file a sworn statement under oath called an affidavit telling me that you are going to kill. Put a stake through the heart of that fund. You won't create it, you won't fund it, you won't distribute from it. You do all of that and that you haven't already distributed, or there's not already money in there, and if there is, you, you. You reverse it. You do that and you don't have to see Judge Brink ever again. If you don't want to do that by a date. She gave a date. Then we're going to stay in this case till the very end. And I'm going to enter a preliminary injunction, which she did from the bench. And that. And with the order that we just posted, in addition, she indefinitely, until further order of the court, she has now preliminarily blocked indefinitely the fund, its creation, its exercise, any kind of agency or commission that Todd Blanche was going to create around it and all aspects of the fund. Now, she doesn't address the settlement agreement, and that's troubling to me. But that brings us next to Miami, because the settlement agreement and the amended settlement agreement is what I'm most concerned about because it's not just the money handed out to the Jan Sixers, believe me. The Department of Justice can find other money to do that. They have other funds to pay the Jan Sixers. And there are more than 600 claims against the government by Jan6 insurrectionists, nationalists for cash, hundreds of millions of dollars. Proud boys and Oath Keepers, they want to re. They want to recapitalize their paramilitary and white supremacist, white Christian nationalist entities with our taxpayer dollars. So Brinkama issued that late yesterday. You heard Adam Glassfeld in the courtroom about it. And she turned, she flipped the script, she flipped the transcript because Andrew Block came in because he had won in front of Judge Leon. He had filed the transcript, said Judge, basically just follow what Judge Leon did. And she says, you know, I noticed something in the transcript. I noticed that you told Judge Leon that you had not talked to Todd Blanche and you didn't know what the government's position was because. Because it was asked by Leon, why don't you just rescind the settlement documents? You know, there's this concept in the law, law of rescission or novation or you just. But where you declare a legal document to be null and void. Why don't you just do that? Just do that so we don't. And he said, well, I haven't spoken to Todd Blanche and I don't know. I don't know what the position is on that. Blah, blah, blah. All right, fast forward two days later, Judge Brink of a flips the script as you heard Glassfeld talk about and say, I can't believe you haven't spoken to him in all of this time. So I'll give you a choice. File the affidavits and you'll get rid of me. But if you don't, I'm going to continue to manage and monitor this fund. And I've blocked it, I'm sure. And Sky Paramount will be on with me on Wednesday this week. I'm sure champagne corks were popping, first in the brains and then in reality for democracy forward in the plaintiffs because it was a masterful job, especially when you come off of, you know, I'm sure it was deflating a little bit with Judge Leonard ruled against another set of lawyers on a similar issue. Another reason you file in multiple places, like what attorneys generals do, it is like a portfolio theory. You figure, we'll file in three or four places, we'll see which judge we get, we'll see which ruling we get, and that's the one we'll work with. And so that's often done as well that now we'll fast forward to Miami, because Miami was a different set of issues, but effectively would put a stake through the heart of the weaponization fund. It would sanction Donald Trump's lawyers and those in the Department of Justice as well. And it would get rid of, I believe, the super pardon attempt by, by Todd Blanche to amend the settlement to give the Trump family all of this immunity. So Judge Williams took the overture, responded to the overture by 35 former federal judges, the, led by J. Michael Ludick to reopen the case after the Trump administration had settled, rather than, rather than respond to her order that a few weeks ago that they tell her how she has jurisdiction. In other words, how is this a legitimate lawsuit where Trump is versus Trump, where Trump is versus his own Treasury Department and irs? I don't get it. This doesn't look adversarial. This looks collusive. And you file, and everybody here file a document separately, Trump, IRS and DOJ about why I have jurisdiction, why this is a real lawsuit. Because if it's not a real lawsuit, then it's not a legitimate settlement. And if it's not a legitimate settlement, then the Department of Justice doesn't have the power to settle a lawsuit that's phony, which they did. And that would unravel the whole ball of wax. And so the day before their papers were due, the Trump administration filed a notice of voluntary dismissal saying, good news, everybody. We got a settlement. We're not sharing it with you, Judge, but we got a settlement. And they published the settlement. We all saw it on the Department of Justice website. And in the settlement, it, it said, we had a lawsuit. It was before Judge Williams. Here's the case number. Here's just recital after recital about the phony lawsuit, using it to give an imprimatur of legitimacy to do the settlement. They even went so far as to have the lawyer for Donald Trump say, I was even thinking about amending my lawsuit before Judge Williams to add a class action for all Jan Sixers. You were going to amend a lawsuit that the judge was about to throw out the window, and it already said she didn't think she had jurisdiction over. That's a lie. And so she entered an order after these 35 judges asked her to. She didn't need to wait for them. She could have done it on her inherent authority. And she said to the, to the lawyers for the plaintiffs, which is the Trump side of the case, and we'll put the order up on the screen. Here's what she ordered on 29 May, she says on page three, the non party movements, which are the judges, advance grievous allegations that plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss this litigation to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that was collusive from the start. They point to the fact that the settlement in question includes a three paragraph addendum that purports to forever bar and preclude the United States from pursuing claims against the defendants. Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that plaintiffs filed by yesterday a paper detailing their position on the matters set forth in the motion, including one, the charges of collusion and whether the parties are truly adverse. Two, the assertion that the dismissal in this case was premised on deception by the parties, meaning the Trump parties and the irs. And three, the question of whether the case should be reopened because the court was the victim of a fraud. Those are serious charges. Fraud, deception, victim of fraud. And I'm like, okay, they better come up with something good when they file, right? So they file a 22 page response. They never mentioned it's not broken down to actually respond to the judges order. They skip deception outright. The D word doesn't appear anywhere in the 22 pages on fraud. They just say that the judges, the 35 judges, didn't carry their burden to show there was fraud. The judge already said there's been charges against you of fraud. Answer for it. The answer can't be, I don't think they carried their burden. The burden is on you. You're an officer of the court. And then how they frame their entire filing, we have it up on legal AF substack is to attack the judges. Oh, the judges are political hacks. 35 former federal judges, including Michael Ludic, who should have, should have been the Chief justice of the United States instead of John Roberts. Really political hacks. Many of them were appointed by Republicans and they don't know what they're talking about. And they insult the rule of law. And basically judge, you too. You don't know what. You don't know what you're talking about either. And then they go off to say, judge, you have no jurisdiction. Not that they didn't commit the fraud of the court because we dismissed. And so you can't. There's nothing you can do about it. Judge, this is the I crapped in your courtroom and you can't do anything about it theory. Let me just put it this way. This is an intentional file. This is a filing that intentionally does not accurately or appropriately respond to a judge's were. If you were writing this. If I were. If I were on the receiving end of that after I was done crapping my pants for having received it. I would have. I would have prepared my own affidavit, testimonial under oath that made the judge feel better that I didn't commit a fraud on the court. And I would have said, I am an officer of the court. I represented this. This is the reason the lawsuit is not. Is not collusive and wasn't a deception. This is why I didn't commit fraud on the court. I did not commit fraud on the court. I never would commit fraud on the court. And I would get that together. I would get affidavits from people in the Department of Justice to talk about the settlement, like Todd Blanche. See, Todd Blanche never wants to be under oath. He'd rather lose a case than be under oath. I doubt he'll file an affidavit in Judge Brinkoma's courtroom on the weaponization fund. He didn't file one here. He didn't file one in the Kilmer Abrego Garcia case in. In Tennessee to avoid a vindictive prosecution dismissal. He's not going to go under oath. He's. That's not him. So you. That's what you would prepare. Those are. That's the. That's the. The sheets of paper you would prepare to submit to a court to save your hide and your law license from a sanction by a judge. Judge. That's not what they did. And so now, now the judges, the 35 judges get the last word. They file next Friday, and then the judge will decide whether she wants a hearing or not. If there is a hearing in front of Judge Williams where she would throw the book at these lawyers, and I think she'll hold the hearing. I'll try to be there. If it's only zoom or audio, I'll phone in. If it's something I can go to live, I'll get into the courtrooms. You know, I'm in Miami. That I assure you. But this just shows you the depravity and corruption of the Department of Justice. I think that's a common theme here. A golden thread that we pulled through this entire episode. And it usually now starts and ends with Todd Blanche, but federal judges are fighting back. You know, and how many times have we done a legal AF episode where we said this is an epic losing streak? 5. Like, two weeks ago, we did a show where we said it was 05 in one week. We just had a similar O and 4 and things that we also touched on, like, you know, the entirety of the Chicago U.S. attorney's office up in flames and federal judges there of all stripes, not believing a word that they say. This is what happens when you undermine the credibility, the legitimacy of the Department of Justice and you make it a weapon for the executive branch that's not independent. Then grand juries don't trust you, juries don't trust you, judges certainly don't trust you. And of course, the public and the voters don't trust you. And that's what's happened with the worm turning against the Department of Justice and Donald Trump's command of it over the last 19 months, 20 months. If anybody were to say me, what is the number one, besides the polling numbers, what's the number one thing that has changed radically since the start of the Trump administration? It's their now inability to get away with their attacks on the courts to their, to their benefit. Like benefiting from, for moving so fast and being so unlawful and getting a benefit from that federal courts are now on to them. And it's the rejection of the Department of Justice by the American people and the very stakeholders in our institutions that matter to justice, grand juries, juries and judges that has now changed 180 degrees from the start of the Trump administration, reflecting how the American people now also see Trump as being completely corrupt and untrustworthy. And no amount of bombings in Iran, and unfortunately, Iran's not going to be the last Iran. First of all, I'm not even sure Iran is going to be the last Iran, because I'm not sure whatever they're going to announce on Donald Trump's birthday with some confetti cannon is really going to hold or last or be good for the American people. But he's not the last one, because every time Donald Trump falters in the polls in America, which is going to be a regular occurrence and a weekly occurrence, he's going to go run out and try to bomb somebody, you know, like he announced yesterday or today. We, we bombed the trend Aragua guy in Venezuela. Okay? You control the country. I'm not sure that's that surprising at this point. People don't lose sleep, you know, on the scale when they pull people. One of the things that keep you up at night trend Aragua is, doesn't make, you know, doesn't break the top 2,000 of things that keep people up at night. Affordability, housing cost, health care, immigration, and Donald Trump's assault on immigration and immigrants. Those are things that people are voting on. And it leads. It starts as it always has historically, with the economy. And we'll continue to follow all of that. We're so glad you're here. You may notice I've been solo here for a bit, then had a little bit of a technical difficulty. Sometimes it happens, you know, we do when we do our taping and our live recording, so. But I'm glad you're here on Legal af. As you know, we do the show twice a week on the Midas Touch Network, Wednesdays and Saturdays at 8pm Eastern time. And then we have a new live version of Legal af. It's called Monday Night Live. It's hosted by Dina Dahl and Lisa Graves, and it's on the Legal AF YouTube channel. Another good reason to come over there and subscribe and help us with, you know, our ratings, our reviews, because that keeps us on the air over here. Over my left shoulder or yeah, my yes, is the three Webby Awards. There they are. I know that somebody said that they look like coils, but they're the Webby Awards that we won two of them for Legal AF and one for the Intersection Podcast, my podcast on Tuesday night. So many ways to support what we do here. Keep the gas in the tank, keep the lights on. You're. You're doing it by being here. Our audience is kind of rebuilt back to our four or five hundred thousand people watching our League of Layoff episodes every week, which we appreciate. Come over to Legal AF, the YouTube channel which I curate. Get 12 fresh new videos a day, a great community over there in the live chats. You'll Love Legal, a YouTube channel. Help us cross the 2 million subscriber barrier soon, with your help. Then we have Substack. And if you don't know much about Substack, you're going to love it. Legal AF substack, where all your interests and hobbies, political, social, sport, whatever, there's somebody writing something good over there, running a channel and we do for law and politics with 10 pieces of content a day. I do a live report every day on there with with about a thousand people join me at around lunchtime Eastern time. So become a sub stack member or a paid subscriber there as well. And then of course we've got our sponsors and we've had a couple of breaks for them today. And what we love about the sponsors, some of them have been with us from the beginning over the last six years. Some of them are new, but what they have in common is that they know our point of view. They know that we are we don't blow smoke or sunshine in our commentary. We tell it straight independently, and they support it and they want to speak to our audience. So, look, economy is rough right now, so we're not telling you to spend money you don't have. But if you, and if you think these products are interesting, we certainly did and do and like them and you have a little extra money. That's a way to support what we do. So thanks for being here on Legal af. I'm going to shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal afers, and we'll see you on Monday night for the live version on Legal AF YouTube, 5pm Eastern Time and again Wednesday at the midweek. Till my next report, I'm Michael Popo.