Loading summary
Transcript68 lines
- [00:01]
Ben
Seriously, why aren't Democrats in Washington doing more to stop Trump?
- [00:04]
Michael Popak
I know.
- [00:05]
Co-host
Have you heard about Phil Weisner in Colorado though?
- [00:07]
Ben
No. Is he different?
- [00:09]
Co-host
Yeah. A.G. weiser sued the Trump administration 65 times.
- [00:13]
Michael Popak
He's beating Trump in court again and again.
- [00:15]
Co-host
Things like protecting Obamacare against Trump's illegal tariffs and he even won against Ticketmaster.
- [00:21]
Ben
So he actually gets results.
- [00:23]
Co-host
Exactly as Governor Phil will fight for Colorado.
- [00:27]
Ben
Paid for by Phil Weiser for Colorado registered agent Nana Nasgese.
- [00:30]
Michael Popak
Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying.
- [00:38]
Co-host
It's not just for celebrities.
- [00:40]
Michael Popak
So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do@mintmobile.com
- [00:48]
Ben
Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full terms@mintmobile.com
- [01:02]
Co-host
this episode is brought to you by Fox 1. Watch all 104 matches of the FIFA World cup live in 4K for just $19.99 a month with 3 days free. Build your own multi view, choose up to three streams and follow player spotlights. Stay on top of every moment with live stats, highlights and instant replays. The FIFA World cup streaming live on Fox One offers a subject to change. See fox.com for complete terms and conditions. And we're live from the living room as Doug eyes up the match day spread. He's reaching for the Buffalo wing.
- [01:37]
Ben
Perfect.
- [01:38]
Co-host
Hang on.
- [01:38]
Ben
What's this?
- [01:39]
Co-host
Oh, he's gone for a can of Pepsi too. Incredible. What a finish. Sensational combination. Look at the delight on his face. There's no doubt about it. It just tastes better. Match days deserve Pepsi. Food deserves Pepsi. Grab a pack of Pepsi. Zero sugar for today's match. It's poetry in motion.
- [02:01]
Ben
Seriously, why aren't Democrats in Washington doing more to stop Trump?
- [02:04]
Michael Popak
I know.
- [02:05]
Co-host
Have you heard about Phil Weisner in Colorado though?
- [02:08]
Ben
No. Is he different?
- [02:09]
Co-host
Yeah.
- [02:10]
Michael Popak
A.J.
- [02:10]
Co-host
weiser sued the Trump administration 65 times.
- [02:13]
Michael Popak
He's beating Trump in court again and again.
- [02:16]
Co-host
Things like protecting Obamacare against Trump's illegal tariffs and he even won against Ticketmaster.
- [02:22]
Ben
So he actually gets results exactly as
- [02:25]
Co-host
Governor Phil will fight for Colorado.
- [02:27]
Ben
Paid for by Phil Weiser for Colorado registered agent Nana Nasgese.
- [02:31]
Michael Popak
We've got a lot to discuss on this episode of Legal af. We'll talk about how the Trump regime is now refusing to submit a declaration, surprise, surprise, under penalty of perjury, to a federal court, affirming in a court document that they will not be funding $1.8 billion to January 6th insurrectionist as part of Donald Trump's collusive settlement. And not only that, but the Trump regime attacked the federal judge for even making the request that, hey, if you're claiming you're going to get rid of this slush fund, why don't you submit a declaration? How dare you. That violates separation of powers, says the Trump doj. We'll get into that. We have Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee now accelerating their investigation into Donald Trump's cognitive and physical decline. And a letter from the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Jamie Raskin, demanding information from Donald Trump's personal physician about the 22 other specialists who apparently were with Donald Trump at Trump's purported physical. Also demanding information about the various tests that Donald Trump took. And asking information about what we all observed at Donald Trump's disastrous G7 appearance where he couldn't walk. He, he barely could talk. And when he did talk, he said some of the oddest, most vilest things. A combination of incoherent, rambling, disinhibition. I mean, how many times was he telling the various male leaders around him how attractive he thought they were? Prime Minister Modi El Sisi, the reporters talking about staying in the hotel rooms with them longer than he should and how handsome they are? I mean, it was some very unique behavior. I'll just say that. Then we'll talk about what we're now seeing as federal judges fighting back against the Trump regime, beginning to appoint or talk about appointing special counsels that report to the federal judge to investigate both kind of criminally, administratively, civilly, all of the above. The behavior of this rogue DOJ that's being, you know, that's been run into the ground by Todd Blanche, but which has zero credibility. We've seen this grand jury misconduct that was identified in high profile cases, but now that's led to a domino effect where we've seen grand jury misconduct infecting almost every case that this Trump DOJ has been involved with. So just kind of run of the mill criminal cases that may and cases that are big but aren't really getting the attention of some of the other ones, I mean, are getting dismissed left and right because Trump prosecutors are going in there and just misbehaving in front of the grand jury. Almost anybody who is able to get copies of grand jury transcripts, which used to be hard, but now with the presumption of regularity going away with the doj, when a criminal defendant's lawyer gets these transcripts, inevitably it like, leads to the dismissal of charges. Because these Trump DOJ lawyers are like, yo, let me tell you what you need to do. It's Friday. We're all tired here. Let's not get on with all the evidence. I, I'm going to vouch for this case. Okay? And I'm going to vouch, say these words. I'm going to just, let's get out of here, sign this document. I'll get you out of here in the next half hour. That's like the most egregious form of vouching, which if I put on a law exam for my students, the students be like, really? You made this the easiest exam ever about grand jury misconduct. We'll talk about that and more on this episode of Legal af. Michael Popak, so good to see you right now. How are you doing?
- [06:09]
Co-host
Sometimes when you do your intro, I'm on the edge of my seat about what we're going to about to talk about about. But I, but I'm very interested in all the things that you just laid out and the way that you laid
- [06:18]
Michael Popak
out the co host.
- [06:19]
Co-host
That's a good thing. I'm like, what are we doing today? And shout out to the Midas Canadians. My wife and I are in Montreal. What a warm and beautiful welcome that we've had here in Montreal. My wife's first time and we're with our daughter. Ran into a, a couple of Midas fans at a restaurant last night. Shout out to Colin at the Monarch restaurant, who was very excited that I was actually in there. We did a lot of talking about. He had a great line I told him I would repeat with his permission, which is, he said he lives in Canada. He says, I don't follow sport. The sport I follow is American politics. And I know every play and every player. And I thank you and Midas and Legal A for giving me the knowledge that I need to enjoy that sport. You know, I thought I was like, okay, well, at least I can contribute to that. But anyway, I'm on the road. As everybody knows, when Ben and I go on the road, we do lots of videos as if we're not on the road. Some people may not have noticed, except for the change in scenery, that I was doing that. But you know, listen, just to jump ahead for a minute, the whole G7, if, if the Democrats didn't open an investigation or try to about the mental decline, continued mental decline of the President of the United States after what they observed at the G7 summit, it would be professional and political malpractice. I mean, they have no choice. When you combine the Walter Reed Hospital missing for eight days. I mean, the only way Donald Trump is missing for eight days during a critical time during a war from public appearance is if, let's be frank, he's getting a procedure or treatment or something of the kind. It's another reason why you don't fly to go to your son's wedding because you can't take a pressurized cabin because you've just had some sort of treatment or, or, or procedure. I mean, that explains eight days missing as opposed to you just taking time off. Okay, 22 specialists. And then the thing, I mean, besides going after all of the male leaders in a weird way, as you outline, how about his attack on Maloney of Italy, who used to be one of his closest allies, saying to her, again, another narcissistic, misogynist attack on a woman and a woman leader where he says, she was begging me for my photo. She wanted to an Italian reporter. She was begging me. And she went off. I just, My wife speaks Italian. Italian. So we were watching it at breakfast. She, she went off. I said, I don't speak Italian. She seems very angry. Is she very angry in this video? And my wife was like, she is beside herself. Italians and meloni don't beg. And you know, that's an indication of how he craps all over allies. This is basically her paraphrase. And this is the reason he's, he's lost the war. The other thing, as we talk about, we'll touch on the war. New York Post run by Rupert Murdoch editorial board just declared what we've all known, which is Trump lost the Iran war and it's worse than Obama. That's a headline from the New York Post, not from a liberal rag sheet from, from the rightest of right wing controlled by Rupert Murdoch. So he's got that problem right now, which is he is the thing he hates. He's a loser. And he's wasted valuable resources and human lives in America, upended the economy here and around the world for no reason whatsoever other than to try to run interference for failing poll numbers.
- [09:52]
Michael Popak
Look, Iran forced him to do something he really often refuses to do, which is to put in writing an agreement. And Donald Trump hates that because he always wants to use the lack of agreement or oral understandings to defraud People, that's what he's done his whole life. When he has to sign a written agreement, he then tries to prey on the ambiguity of the language in agreements or things that aren't always spelled out in agreements, but which rely on something called implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing. And what Trump will often do, if there is an agreement, it is a failed real estate deal, failed businesses. He'll immediately try to go on the offense, just file scorched earth litigation, regardless of its merits, and then try to bog down people in the insanity and in the chaos and in just the depravity of his life, where most people don't want to even be. So he's used to not winning litigations and lawsuits. When people actually confront him in lawsuits and cases go before the jury, he loses almost every time when you have unanimous juries ruling against him. But what he tries to do in cases is just. And this is what he's done his whole life, and this is what he tried to do in the war but failed. Just relentlessly turn the fire hose on, push lies, push fraud, annoy, be weird, be gross, be threatened, and show love, hate, you know, just. It's all based on fraud. Let me be very clear. Just fake, fake them. Oh, now I like you. Oh, now I hate you now. Now we're going to be friends, you know, all of that. So it kind of. He's used to that, wearing people down and being like, all right, just, what do you, what do you want? Just, can we just get this, this predator the hell out of our lives? That's his whole shtick. But when you stand up, Jean Carroll wins when you stand up. Letitia James win when you stand up. Alvin Bragg wins when you. I mean, that's, that's the history of all of this, you know. And so now Trump signed this memorandum of understanding, which is not the full agreement, but it is what we would refer to in the legal profession as a binding short form agreement that the terms are binding. There would be a broader long form, what we would say in the law in the future. But he has to abide by this, and the United States has to abide by it. And to the extent the United States has made representations that others will abide by it, Israel and Lebanon, that's a representation that the United States, if we use contract principles, is essentially telling Iran that we will be a guarantor for certain representations, that there will be a full ceasefire in Lebanon, period, that there will be a $300 billion fund that will be created that Iran will have access to. So, you know, you may want to ask some of the Arab nations whose entire GDP is in that amount of money, are you aware that you're going to be paying Iran X billions of dollars and this and that? So Trump has built in, into this MoU a lot of terms and provisions that he doesn't even really have the authority for yet alone. The congressional authority for, because the removal of, of all sanctions from Iran based on our laws here in the United States requires, in the contract, you know, requires congressional approval in order to withdraw the sanctions. Like, there's literally a law that says if you're going to do anything that impacts sanctions involving Iran's nuclear capabilities at all, any type of side deal, it requires Congress to vote. So Trump's made promises that he doesn't even have the legal rights to. And so Popak, I'll bring you in right now. So what is Trump, what is Trump doing, though? So now Trump and CENTCOM do it just. It so follows his behavior and all others that it's just, it's too on point. So what does he do now? Just lies and he. And defraud and say, look, look what we've got, everybody. So we all know that earlier today, Iran closed down the Strait of Hormuz again because Donald Trump's promise that, you know, that he would be able to rein in Israel's attacks in Lebanon. Trump has not been able to do that. And Iran said, okay, that's whether you like or don't like that. As provision number one. That's what provision number one of the MoU says. And so Iran says, all right, we're closing this straight in for moose. So what CENTCOM now says, though, is that we as of Saturday have full control over the Strait of Removes. Not only that, Popak, 17 million barrels of oil cross the waterway today. That's more than basically pre war levels. A number that's so ridiculous. And that to me is like painting the reflecting blue blue. When we see green algae, they go, oh, the Democrats vandalized. That's why it's green. It's ridiculous.
- [15:07]
Co-host
The sun. The sun and biosynthesis vandalized the pool. The. The headline for the New York Post. This is the New York Post. With the Strait of Hormuz held hostage, Trump's Iran deal is worse than Obama's. I mean, this is what, this is how they put it. As he prepared to sign his memorandum of understanding with the Islamic dictatorship of Iran, President Trump again insisted that his deal was much different than that of his Predecessor Barack Obama. He's right, the editorial board writes. It's probably worse. Obama's treaty did not prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. It simply punted the issue down the road in exchange for cash. Trump's agreement has the same vague promises, the same payouts, but with an added twist that Iran can and will take the world hostage by shutting the Strait of Hormuz at will. And they point to the deal point number five, of the 14 point deal, of which only two are in favor in some way about the United States. We continue to not want a nuclear weapon or they've said that before. The rest of the 14 points is all in favor of Iran and getting them money either now and funds released now on the signing of the MOU, or 300 billion or $400 billion down the road. Point number five, the Post article says the Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz. To which the paper now says, why would opening the door for administration of a previously free international waterway be part of the agreement? And it goes on from there. It is, it is.
- [16:52]
Michael Popak
But here's why, too.
- [16:53]
Co-host
I want to pass it back to you.
- [16:55]
Michael Popak
Applying our legal principles to this framework in a mediation, right, the understanding often reflects the balance of power of who won and who lost. And the incongruity, perhaps to people out there who aren't fully paying attention to this is US lost the war, but Trump and the regime and lots of propaganda, including Fox was saying, we won and their navy's at the bottom of the sea, you know, so then you look at the document and look, the document makes sense if you're the losing side, right? And that's what we see in our types of mediated settlements sometimes. And that's the incongruity. The deal makes sense.
- [17:35]
Co-host
There is no doubt that if you showed that document, which we're doing, to an impartial group of people, some like your class, you know, the students in your class or somebody, and you said, who do you think is the. Tell me who the winner of this deal is and tell me who the loser is. There is no doubt that it is Iran is the winner of the deal. And not by a little, but by a lot. They get hundreds of billions, billions of dollars to, for in reparations to, to repair the 70,000 bombing runs by Israel and the United States. Trump, you know, Trump made a big deal out of Obama releasing $1.7 billion. This is a million years ago to Iran to Iran, like, oh, he released it. He released it because we had an arms deal to sell to Iran. We never delivered the weaponry because we were at, you know, we were at odds with them, but we kept the money. All Obama did was give them back money for weapons we never delivered. And then released about $50 billion from another, from another account. We're talking 10 times that, 30 times that, and taxpayer dollars being released to them. There is no doubt in my mind that the world believes that Donald Trump just lost the Iranian war. And more importantly, even MAGA believes it. You don't trot out JD Vance to go with Megyn Kelly or on the View to start pushing this narrative that Iran is a win. Okay? Which he's failing to do. If you don't think you have a major political and PR problem and you put that, this will segue to something, I'm sure, against this spoon feeding that we're getting the slow drip, drip, drip of the chapters and pages from Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan's book Regime Change. You know, the first bombshell was they ran the article about the Situation Room being the site of the COVID up at the highest levels of the Trump administration, of the Epstein files. But now we're getting all sorts of things about Iran, about, you know, every day I get like another. I feel like I read the book already and it hasn't even been released.
- [19:44]
Michael Popak
Right. And here's the thing, though. I don't want this deal to fall apart because I don't want us to be in this war or more war. I don't want to see more death. I don't want to see more war crimes. I don't want, I want, as much as I must obviously reflect on the reality that America lost the war, that this is a weaker deal than Obama's actual deal, because this isn't even a deal. It's a MoU. It has binding provisions, but it's not an actual deal like the jcpoa, which was, I think over a thousand pages in length, which had very specific, specific requirements and did a lot to specify how multilateral organizations and nations interacted. It brought in China, brought in Russia, it brought in Europe, it brought in Asia, brought in all of these, these people. But I want now that there is an MOU of all of the options. This to me is an option that reflects if you break something, you have to fix it. And that's what the US did and lost. So let's abide by the mou. But then as we talk this episode, Michael Popak about Donald Trump's behavior. Even when we'll talk about what happened in this Virginia federal court where a judge is saying, ah, okay, we're hearing from the DOJ and Todd Blanche that you are not going Forward with the J6 slush fund or this agreement that Donald Trump entered into with the Trump government, the regime, with this collusive settlement after some $10 billion lawsuit that was frivolous that Trump filed against the United States government. I'm, I don't know how I'm going to be able to explain this to my daughter. Like this era, you know, but that's what happened. Okay, so just put it in writing. So we all know that you're going to abide by the terms. Even if you put it in writing, we don't think that you'll abide by the term. But let's put it in writing and we'll talk about in the next segment that the Trump regime's like, no, we don't want to put in writing. We're just going to tell you we're not going to go forward with it. And so what Iran very sophisticatedly did in this 14 point memorandum of understanding, they built in mechanisms to test Trump at each level. As you go down, with the first test being the Lebanon test, which Donald Trump has not been able to create a lasting ceasefire in Lebanon, which is something that Trump promised. And again, whatever your view on that, that's what it says in the agreement. You go down deeper and deeper and deeper into this agreement and you see these other terms and we know that Trump is the ultimate contract breacher. And now Trump has trapped himself in this 14 point memorandum of understanding where his instinct is to do the Trump instinct, fraud, lie. However, as he's admitted, we are days away from tank bottom when it comes to oil reserves. We are days away from global economic. Trump has said that publicly now. And so Iran heard him say that. Donald Trump showed that he may hold cards, but he's showing the worst hand ever to the world right now. And Iran holds the cards. Iran has worked with Oman to sophisticatedly build this authority to govern the Strait of Hormuz. They've been solidifying their alliances with China and elsewhere. And the US Is left alone. The analogies. And we'll talk about this as the episode continues, though, to Trump litigation. Again, it's so on point. Trump would try to throw everything at Abrego Garcia and all Abrego did was stand up. And it's not all he did. It's impressive and he's a hero that deserves far more attention than he's getting. But Abrego wins. E. Jean Carroll, she wins again. Alvin Bragg and Letitia James. You could go through all of these cases if you just can deal with the Trump relentless. You will win the litigation. No doubt. Iran saw that and they know they can continue to wait him out and he'll flail and he'll project and he'll do all of these things. But these are contract. You know, this is our purview, Popak. This is contract principles. Here's what the MOU says. You're going to follow it or you're not going to. There's, here's the thing. There's not a lot of gray. I read the MoU the world, the Trump regime tried to deny that there was this MOU or that the points were the points. But now that it's been published, we all see it. So you either follow it or you don't follow it, with the ramifications being global catastrophe that are, you know that that's right here. Let's talk more about that.
- [24:33]
Ben
Popac.
- [24:34]
Michael Popak
I want to also now bring this into Virginia federal court because it ties right into what Trump's doing. I'm just going to defraud the court. Before we get in there. I want to remind everybody to please hit subscribe to our YouTube channel. But more importantly, subscribe to Michael Popo's YouTube channel. It's called Legal AF. Obviously you know that. It's the name of this podcast. Subscribe to Legal AF. Get Legal AF 2 million subscribers. The award winning Legal AF, of course, winner of multiple Webby awards. Subscribe on substack to Legal AF as well. Go on substack and search Legal af. And then also if you or someone you know has been injured in like a car accident or a trucking accident or because of the negligence of others. If you're looking for a lawyer popac, POPAC still practices law and he's got a firm that handles cases for Legal a effers. Go to 8 call 877 popocaf or visit the popocfirm.com the consultation is free. See if you have a case. POPOC mostly handles catastrophic types of cases, real serious injury. So if you or somebody knows been injured because of the negligence of someone else or a company or something, call 877 POPOC or visit thepopocfirm.com all right, let's take our first quick break of the show.
- [25:44]
Co-host
Look, magnesium. It's something most of us lack. And if you're taking that drugstore variant you're still not getting the full picture. Industrial farming, chronic stress and everyday aging all make it worse. Most supplements only use one form of magnesium, but magnesium comes in many forms that support your body in different ways. That's why you need to try Qualia Magnesium Plus. It combines 10 bioavailable forms of magnesium with more than 70 trace minerals for comprehensive full spectrum support. Sleep deeper, think sharper, recover faster, support muscle strength, a steadier mood and balanced energy metabolism. It's not just a sleep supplement. Oh no, It's a full body magnesium system built for modern living so you can feel your best every day. Since adding Qualia Magnesium plus to my routine, I'm feeling easier recovery from workouts and a calm, more centered wind down at night. It's been a supportive addition to my daily wellness routine. Experience the most trusted magnesium for purity, potency and performance. Plus it's non gmo, vegan and gluten free, making it a choice you can feel good about. Go to qualialife.com legalaf for 50% off and here's a bonus. Use the code legalaf for an additional 15% off your order. That's Q u a l I a life.com legalafe and then use code legal af thanks to Qualia for sponsoring this episode. 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 Sundays 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, Sundaes 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 the 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 Legal AF50 and get 50% off your first order. Or you can use code Legal AF50 at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at Sundays for dogs.com Legal AF50 one more time sundaysfordogs.com Legal Af50 or use code Legal Af50 at checkout.
- [29:06]
Michael Popak
Welcome back to Legal AF. Thank you to all of our sponsors who make this show possible. Link to the discount codes for those sponsors is in the description below. Make sure you subscribe to Legal AF on YouTube on audio and subscribe to the Midas Touch YouTube channel as well. All right, Popak, now that we've kind of, I think set the framework for Donald Trump not being a deal maker, he's a deal destroyer. He uses negotiations to lure people into good faith discussions to sucker punch right? Then if he is end up signing his name to something, I think he said this in the art of the deal, which he didn't even write, is that for him the deal is not actually a binding document. It's the beginning of a discussion as a tool to manipulate, which is not what it should be. And I think this is why he's gone bankrupt so many times and he's bringing us on the brink of that as a country right now. And there are many people, not his right wing oligarch friends who may be impacted soon, but the rest of the country who's feeling this pain right now and they feel that they're a casualty of the Trump bankruptcy. MO but let's talk about it in the context now of this Virginia case and when Trump is refusing now to sign a very basic declaration that Judge Brinkham has said and arguing it's a separation of powers issue. Popac which would seem to also mean that any judge order is a separation of powers issued to the Trump regime. If it's a simple request, talk to us about it.
- [30:38]
Co-host
Yeah, there's a number of things here. It shouldn't be the art of the deal, it's the art of deception. That's all Donald Trump perpetrates. And I got another way to tie things together that you and I are going to talk about in this segment, which is the Trump administration has made a decision. They do not want Todd Blanche and he will not testify under oath in any case, even if it means the Department of Justice will lose that case. Let me repeat that. Trump has ordered Blanche not to testify in any case, even when ordered to do so or it's obvious that he has to testify in order to salv a case. He would rather lose the case, dismiss the indictment, be found to have been vindictively prosecuting or committing a fraud on the court, than submit an affidavit. We got a case involving two major cases involving the anti Weaponization fund, one in front of Judge Brinkoma, which is brought by Democracy Forward on behalf of a very diverse group of plaintiffs that is currently being indefinitely blocked the fund by Judge Brinkama. We got the case, the companion case, I call it the parallel case, in front of Judge Williams in Miami. And yesterday was a red letter day for both of those cases because two major things happened in those cases and they actually, it's almost like call in response. They actually smartly, the lawyers, whether it was the lawyers for the 35 former federal judges in Miami or it was the Democracy Forward lawyers, they know about each other and they know what's going on in the respective courts. In Brinkama, the issue was she blocked the anti Weaponization fund. The Trump administration ran back in and said, you don't have to block anything because we, the case is moot because didn't you hear when Blanche was testifying in Congress, he said it was dead on arrival. Now, let me back up for a minute because this plays on the, on the Miami case as well. Allegedly, this was a, this was begun by a lawsuit between two adverse parties according to the government. Donald Trump on one side and Donald Trump's own IRS on the other, with the Department of Justice in the middle. And they tried to argue to Judge Williams in Miami that that was not a collusive lawsuit because all these were independent parties. Therefore, the lawsuit was legit. The settlement of the lawsuit was legit. The Department of Justice unlocking the judgment fund to pay out under the slush fund was legit, all under the imprimatur of the lawsuit. Problem with that is, as we've seen in the last couple of weeks, the only party or person that either amended the agreement or announced it was over was one party to the deal, not even a party to the deal, a guy named Todd Blanche for the Department of Justice. So if you're not, if you're fully diverse or fully separated, you would have needed the Treasury Department, the Department of justice and Donald Trump's lawyers to all announce the end of the deal. And you'd need those same three parties in order to amend the deal, which Todd Blanche did unilaterally the day after the deal was announced to give Donald Trump and his family a super Immunity. So the fact that Blanche is acting unilaterally indicate actually reinforces the argument that there is collusion, because how could he do it all himself? Where are the other parties? So Judge Brinkham has said in her hearing, and we did a great set of reporting on that on Legal af. I had Sky Perryman in an interview last week. She was in the room because her organization had brought the case. And I had Adam Klassfeldt from All Rise News, who was in the room reporting. And so they all we kind of put it together for our audience. And what Judge Brinkham has said, when Andrew Block, the lawyer for the Department of Justice, came in, who had just argued a similar case in front of Judge Leon in the District of Columbia, the ballroom judge, she said, this is how, this is how the hearing started. You're a very brave man to enter my courtroom with these arguments. That's how she started the hearing. And she eventually said to him, I read the transcript with Judge Leon, and you said that Todd Blanche had walked away from the deal, or have you spoken at the time, Ms. Judge Leon asked you had you spoken to Blanche recently? And you said you hadn't. All right. It's three days later. The eyes of the world are upon this case. I can't believe you haven't spoken to him since. And Block's like, well, I really haven't spoken to him. Really don't know his opinion. He says, yeah, that's not going to do it. So here's what we're going to do. I'm going to block indefinitely the fund. And if the fund is really dead, as you say it is, in terms of the balance of equities, public interest, why do you care that I'm blocking a fund that's dead? That I don't understand. So here's what we're going to do. If it's really dead, we're a court of law. She said this in the court of law. I need facts and evidence that are adduced in my courtroom, like in front of me, not a statement that's made somewhere in Congress by one of the parties, especially when the president has said he would be sorely disappointed if the fund were lost. And when he and she said, when he says things like that, that usually leads to the Department of Justice doing something in response. So here's what we're going to do. I want an affidavit, sworn statement under oath from Todd Blanche on the DOJ side, Scott Besant on the treasury side, and Stan Woodward, who participated from the Department of justice in the signing. If you give me those three things, I'm done. I will dismiss this case. You will never see me again. Is my paraphrase jurisdiction over case moot? If you don't do that, I'll see you next month with your response. The block stays on and we go from there. And so we waited patiently. You know, Scott McFarlane of Midas, I was doing a good foot tap in his social media post. Still no filing. Well, they finally filed a piece of paper, but it wasn't the one that Judge Brinkuma wanted it. It was one that we expected, which was Todd Blanche announcing to the world, I am not testifying under oath in any court. I don't care if we lose. See, in Judge, you mentioned Kilmer, Abrego, Garcia. In the Kilmer case, the judge was on the precipice of, of dismissing the prosecution against Kilmer for finding a vindictive prosecution and that the government didn't carry its burden to show they did. They didn't vindictively prosecute. And he basically told the government, you need to get me testimony from Todd Blanche or you're going to lose this case. And they refused to give him testimony. They'd rather lose on vindictive prosecution than have Todd Planche testify. Same thing when you and I turn to it in Chicago and we talk about what's going on in two courtrooms over the corrupted grand jury by the Department of Justice there and whether it goes back to Blanche and the White House, he will never testify there. They'd rather dismiss indictments than to have Todd Blanche exposed to being sworn under oath in a court of law. So here with Judge Brinkoma, we get a piece of paper file late last night that says you don't have the power. It implicates separation of powers. Not one case law cited underneath that that filing. We put the filing up on legal AF substack and you cannot command three cabinet members to file anything. It should be good enough for you that he said it in Congress. Good day. I mean, that's my version. So, I mean, they came up with their own version of what they wanted to tell the judge to go pound sand and that he's never going to testify. And now she's already in her order said, what's going to happen? You don't file those motion, those affidavits, I'm going to just see you in a month with your response. Now, they don't like all of this. I guess they could do what they've threatened to do, which is take an appeal. I would normally segue over to Williams. What do you want to do, Ben?
- [38:36]
Michael Popak
Yeah, segue over to Williams. But, you know, the point on the appeal that they're arguing is I don't think it's going to fly if it goes to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Right. I mean, they are saying this case should be dismissed because it's moot, because we've, you heard Todd Blanche in Congress. He said, we are not going forward with it. And we have said in open court, we are not going forward with the fund. Noticeably, they also don't address Donald Trump's super pardon of himself of all tax liabilities, tax evasion, criminal investigations into his own potential tax fraud, all of the things that are included in that waiver of all the past civil and criminal claims against his tax fraud. But they said, just TR me, bro, just trust me. And the federal judge says, trust but verify, and you've lost your presumption of regularity. We don't trust you. Your statements in open court don't matter and don't have meaning anymore. Your words are meaningless. Right. The same way Trump's words are meaningless to the world. They don't matter. I mean, it's, it's all a bunch of just nonsense. So you can put it in writing. And if you put it in writing, then I will dismiss the case. I will have a written document where I'll be able to hold Todd. I may not be able to, you know, fortunately, the Supreme Court gave Trump absolute immunity, which is ridiculous, but I will be able to hold Todd Blanche accountable and you accountable as the lawyers, and if you violate this. So there will be some level of accountability, although I think in perhaps a few years. And I won't, you know, won't belabor the point here. I've done other takes on it. The idea of absolute immunity for Trump as it relates to his filing of in his personal capacity versus as the President of the United States, actually means that he probably doesn't have absolute immunity regarding his behavior here. But at least during this term itself, I don't think that.
- [40:37]
Co-host
Yeah, yeah, I was just going to say, because you and I are going to do a lot of this over the next year when, when the Democrats take control, hopefully, of the House and the Senate and springboard to the presidency in 2028. Do not be shocked by a future Department of Justice in the hands of adults who are ethical challenging the absolute immunity ruling by the United States Supreme Court frequently and maybe even about Trump taking cases up to purposely argue to find out the Proper contours of this freewheeling decision that you and I have said is about as clear as mud when it came out three years ago. So even though you and I sometimes and others will shorthand it by saying the absolute immunity decision, you know it's not done. There's going to be challenges. I'm not sure what the Supreme Court does with them, but there are going to be a future Department of Justice and Solicitor General's arguments that things that Donald Trump has done fall outside even their version of immunity.
- [41:36]
Michael Popak
Let's talk about Judge Williams in Florida and this will tie into our other view in segment three about special counsels that are going to be appointed by federal judges to investigate the DOJ's behavior. Ultimately tying into what you just said, Popak, with Todd Blanche, who's really the architect gives him too much credit because the term architect makes it feel like there's architecture happening. Really the destroyer than the architecture. But talk about what's going on in Florida.
- [42:08]
Co-host
Yeah, absolutely. I've been in front of Judge Williams. I have a pretty good handle on and in talking to judges and lawyers sorry, talking to lawyers who are handling the case, including Andres Rivero, the local counsel and and Judge Michael Ludic is one of the 35 judges who he actually is probably one of the leading forces there about their, their filing and what last last night as well. Big, big red letter day for Donald Trump. And in hers, this could be the silver bullet because if Judge Williams finds that she was used, that the federal court was defrauded and that there was deceit on the court by Donald Trump's lawyers and the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department to give a phony imprimatur of legitimacy over the quote unquote settlement, to allow for a settlement to allow for a compromise of claims, to allow for the unlocking of the judgment fund by the Department of Justice, if she finds all that phony, then the whole thing gets she can and they've the judges have reminded her late last night in their filing. She can throw rip up the settlement and declare it a product of fraud almost like the fruit of the poisonous tree and throw it its amended settlement agreement giving that super pardon to the Trump family and everything else and toss it all into the trash can and they're imploring her to do that in the middle. A couple of days ago, Trump, Trump lawyers half hard a half hearted response would be a compliment. The thing that they file basically told the judge to go pound sand. We're not responding to you. We, we, you, you Say fraud and deceit. But we don't, we don't see it. Okay? The 35 federal judges, all 35 of them are hacks, even though many of them were appointed by Republicans who are there, you know, partisan hacks, and you don't have jurisdiction. And oh, by the way, we didn't commit fraud and deceit. No. Think about this, Ben. No sworn statement, no under penalty, perjury filing. If I'm on the receiving end, as a member of the Florida Bar and a member of the bar of the Southern District of Florida, of a, of a order by a judge, effectively in order to show cause, to prove to her that I have not defrauded her and committed deceit on the court. I know what my response would look like. First of all, it would lead with. In no way did we ever intend, nor was the court defrauded, nor deceived, and here's why. And then I'd have affidavits, including my own, because, you know, she's. She wants to hear from me, so I got to testify. So it wouldn't be a naked submission. It would be a verified submission, a sworn submission. And then I'd go get the answers to the questions from the Department of Justice, Todd, Blanche, Stan Woodward and the head of the irs, and I'd submit those as well, to show her that this is not a fraud on the court, that this was all legitimate. He doesn't do any of that. He said he sends in a naked submission with no support, effectively no case law, just ad hominem attacks on people and says, are we good now? And the federal judges wrote late last night, I just did a hot take that's up on Legal AF YouTube about it and said it's not good. First of all, you don't even have to worry about the 35 federal judges and whether we have standing or not under the federal rules of civil procedure, which we do. But the judge, you have inherent authority as a federal judge. I mean, you and I have been saying this since moment one judge, you have your own inherent authority. You don't have to wait for anybody to come along. I didn't want her to dismiss the case in the beginning, at the. Be in the, in the first instance. Use your own authority. And it is broad, it is expansive. They reminded her, including they didn't list appointing a special counsel. Hold that point for a minute. But tossing the settlement agreement and that she needs to police the justice system, her own courtroom, and only she can do it. And it doesn't matter whether the case was Mooted or not mooted. If the fraud on the court happened, which they say clear and convincing evidence establishes that it has, she must act. And they get the final word in that final brief. Now in there, they also say in the last week or two, there's more evidence that supports our position that under the circumstance of a party controlling the Department of Justice, they can never unlock the judgment fund to pay out money, period. That's effectively their argument. They said the new evidence is, you wanted to know whether it was collusive or not. Todd Blanche is telling the world that he alone can unilaterally put an end to the contract, that he alone can unilaterally amend the contract. I mean, you and I have been practicing law for a long time collectively. I mean, I would love to wake up the next morning after a deal is signed and say, I think I'm going to give myself a raise. I think I'm going to. I think I don't like this term. I think I'm going to buy that house for slight, for a lot cheaper, like half. I'll just do it myself. That's not how it works, but it is an indication that it actually supports the fraud and the requirement, the necessity that the court go forward with an investigation. And that's the final word of mic drop by those 35 federal judges. Now, here's what I think she's going to do next. I don't think she's got a sufficient record yet to find contempt, to find a fraud on the court based on the filing. And since the government didn't supply any evidence, I think she's going to have to open up an evidentiary hearing, a trial, if you will, where she's going to pull the parties in. And now lawyers are going to have to look her in the eye and say, for the Department of Justice, we're never going to testify. And it's going to be the exact same thing they argued in brink, separation of powers. You can't make us. She's going to say, I don't need. I need the Department of Justice to find out whether I've been defrauded. And you're going to testify. So they might have a fight that goes up to the 11th Circuit, but she's going to do that relatively soon. I'd be shocked if it doesn't happen in the next week or two after she. Now the dust settles on this final filing. So I think in other words, to sum it up, the Department of Justice and Top Blanche have bought themselves not only an evidentiary hearing, but possibly the appointment of a independent special counsel to advise the court because she still doesn't have adverse parties in front of her. And unlike in other countries, you know, if you have civil code countries where the judge can also be sort of the investigator, we don't do that in the United States. The judge is the trier of fact if they're sitting on the bench and the parties are, are, are expected to fight it out in discovery and otherwise and get those facts adduced in front of the judge. So she's done it before. She's had three very established lawyers, one of former federal judge, one a former Solicitor general and another top lawyer give her advice about the case. I think she does something very similar which bounces us out to Chicago where I think special prosecutors are going to be appointed by one, if not two federal judges. Against Todd Blanche, the Department of Justice.
- [49:26]
Michael Popak
Take a look at that powerful filing by those 35 retired federal judges escalating their challenge against Trump's $1.7 million slush fund and IRS super pardon deal. Thus the language that they use. Plaintiffs filings only underscore the need to investigate whether the parties have perpetuated a fraud on this court and corrupted the integrity of the judicial process. There is reason to believe the parties use this suit and subsequent settlements of to give cover for a giveaway to the lead plaintiff, who also controls the defendants. Plaintiff now seeks to complete that deeply concerning process by insisting that the court can do nothing. Remember during Donald Trump's first term, as bad as it was, how horrific as it ended, when there were all of these warnings, he was so close to doing this and so close to doing that. And could you imagine how bad it would be? Remember all those scenarios of people saying that here's where what the plans were. And then the Trump regime would say we didn't do that. And when the Midas Touch network would say here's their plans, here's what they're going to do. We would always get those fact checks from like the Daniel Dale's of the world and the snoops of the world. The Trump said they didn't do that. There's no evidence that I said, look at what they're actually doing behind the scenes. Let's look at their actions and let's call it out. And now that they're doing it and it's actually happening and you have 35 retired federal judges from all different political backgrounds who are out there, you know, it's just fascinating to me that, you know, those types of people, you know kind of are silent, you know, and they kind of just move to the side and then they don't recognize what there's no accountability for what they were doing, trying to shill for Trump. In any event, we, we're going to keep on building at the Midas Touch network and we got to build new structures to fight back at this. And that's what we're seeing federal judges do also building new structures, frankly, on a, on a bipartisan basis. I mean, judges from all different political backgrounds saying, how do we now deal with a DOJ that basically is not prosecuting the criminals that are the criminals? How do we deal with a criminal enterprise showing up, calling itself the doj, but are the ones covering up the child sex traffickers? How do we deal with these people? People talk about that when we come back. A reminder. If you or someone you know has been injured in a car accident, a trucking accident, if you've been injured by the negligence of a company or a third party and you're looking for a lawyer, call 877-POPAK AF or visit the popoc firm.com Michael Popak has lawyers and people across the country who will take your call to see if you have a case. The consultation is free. Maybe you know somebody who may have a case who was injured in a really bad accident. Reach out to Popak. The worst they'll say is that you don't have a case. 877 Popak AF or visit the popakfirm.com and also make sure you subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel and the Legal AF substack. Let's keep both the Legal AF YouTube channel and the legal AF substack on top of all of the respective charts. And then let's take our last quick break of the show. Let's talk about what judges are doing. We'll talk about what Democrats are doing, calling out Donald Trump's cognitive and physical decline as well. Let's take our last quick break of the show.
- [52:51]
Co-host
If you grew up like me, loving those classic Saturday morning cereals, you've got to check out Magic Spoon. It's basically the grown up version of your childhood favorites with that same nostalgic taste, but packed with protein and made with 0 to 2 grams of sugar per serving. Their original cereal line. It has 12 to 14 grams of protein, 4 to 5 grams of net carbs, and is certified gluten free, making it an easy option for breakfast, maybe an afternoon snack or something after a workout. They've got classic flavors like, wait for it, fruity Frosted Peanut Butter, Cocoa and Cinnamon Crunch and their newer classic marshmallow and s' mores flavors. Bring real marshmallows and those nostalgic childhood vibes. Magic Spoon treats are also crispy, airy snack bars with 12 grams of protein, 7 grams of fiber and 0 grams of added sugar. Look for a Magic spoon on Amazon or at your nearest grocery store. If you want to try something new, check out Magic Spoon's Protein Pastries. They're packed with protein and taste like those nostalgic toaster pastries you grew up with, but without all the sugar. You can get $5 off your next order, including the protein pastries@magicspoon.com that's magicspoon.com legal AF for $5 off all right, let's be real.
- [54:13]
Ben
Who likes wearing a bra? Nobody. Especially when you're working out, right? Sports bras are terrible to wear most of the time. And they whether it's that they dig into your shoulders on the straps or the band rolls up and feels too tight around your rib cage or, you know, whatever it is, they're a pain to take to put on, they're a pain to take off and they're so uncomfortable. But Honey Love has this sports bra that is different and they have this wonderful new product called the honeylove Cross Flex Activity Bra and it immediately felt different from every other sports bra that I've worn. It feels like a sports bra with a support, but it's also designed for all day wear and it's supportive without feeling too tight, too stiff or suffocating. It has 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 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 shelf 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 and comfort and support with HoneyLove.
- [56:52]
Michael Popak
Welcome back to Legal AF. Thank you to all of those sponsors. The discount codes for those sponsors, it's in the description below. Those sponsors support our show so support those sponsors and some really good discount codes right there. Popoc let's zoom in on what's happening in Illinois and specifically Chicago, where the Broadview Six prosecution, malicious prosecution that resulted in the dismissal there of the peaceful protesters outside the Broadview facility when they uncovered all of this grand jury misconduct that was taking place there, where you had the most obvious form of prosecutorial misconduct and grand jury misconduct called vouching, where a prosecutor tells the grand jury, I'm vouching for this case. You gotta just do it for me. I wouldn't bring you a bad case. Let's get you outta here early. I'm giving you the most exaggerated example of it possibly. Usually it happens in more subtle ways that are still misconduct. But that's exactly what the Trump DOJ did in that case, the Broadview Six case. They literally said, we wouldn't bring you this case if it was bad. We've got a lot more evidence that we're going to show in the future. So just let's get you out of here quickly. Sign your name to this document, it's an indictment and then we'll get you out of here quickly. We got some other good cases we'll bring you as well. Just do your civic duty, sign it and then we'll be done with it. It's obviously improper, it's unethical, it's criminal. Perhaps if you, depending on how you do it and you're not, and it's resulted in the dismissal of that case. But then lots of other criminal defendants in that courtroom said, whoa, whoa, whoa, we should find out if the prosecutor was doing that in our cases from this Trump regime that just Seems to be the modus operandi for these Trump regime prosecutors. And it's very hard to get your hands on grand jury material because it's usually viewed as grand jury secrecy, it's protected material. But because the presumption of regularity for the DOJ behaving ethically has been, has been destroyed by Trump's doj. And Blanche and Bondi federal judge is saying, okay, we'll give the criminal defense lawyer the transcripts. And then sure enough, the transcripts show, whoa, this is what the Trump DOJ is doing in every grand jury proceeding, it seems. So we gotta look at this entire courthouse now and we're seeing cases get dismissed for real serious charges of fraud and violent crimes, for big million dollar fraud cases and other really serious cases where, yes, everybody's presumed innocent. The allegations against some of these other criminal defendants, not the broad V6 ones, just some of the run of the mill cases that federal prosecutors are supposed to bring, which are serious charges, trafficking cases, you know, all these cases were like, whoa, the DOJ has now infected all of their cases with misconduct. And now all of all of these cases, thousands of cases could potentially be getting dismissed right now. And so just one more point I'll bring in before throwing Popoc in for grand jury proceedings. Just the way our system is, because we've never had literally a criminal enterprise as the doj. The system is the prosecutor is with the grand jury, the judge is not in the room, the lawyer representing the target that the DOJ is trying to get an indictment of is not in the room. The standard is a lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt. It's a, a probable cause standard. And that's been our system and we've trusted the DOJ to do that work ethically. But now that's out the window. So Popak we're seeing in Chicago, you know, they're saying we need special counsels to investigate what's going on here. The federal judges are. We've seen other cases now, serious criminal cases involving Covid for, I mean, fraud of people like creating like fake medical companies, alleged fake medical companies during COVID get dismissed. We're seeing a lot of, you know, serious charges get dismissed on technical grounds because Trump prosecutors have engaged in rampant grand jury misconduct.
- [61:03]
Co-host
Yeah, well, shout out to the Broadview six defense lawyers because they are not taking fraud on the court for an answer. They are continuing to, to push and I think push very willing judges, two in particular, Judge Perry and Judge Coleman, about the corruption that may reach to the highest levels, including Todd Blanche And Donald Trump. And they want to find out about it. So Broadview six case Judge Perry, Loretto Hospital case Judge Coleman, both occupy courtrooms inside the Chicago Federal Courthouse in the Northern District of Illinois. The reason that they're joined together here is there's a common denominator, a grand jury that met every Thursday for the last 18 months that was run by the handpicked, eventually BY the handpicked U.S. attorney Andrew Boutros for the Department of Justice. And then from there, you know, they always say the organization rots from its head. And then from there you had even 12 year line prosecutors, ones that won awards from the Federal Bar association, like Sherry Mecklenburg doing things that were eye popping is not the right term. I mean my eyebrows like flew off my head when you and I both got copies of the transcript. More importantly, it flew off the judge's head. Judge Perry was like, it's the worst example of prosecutorial misconduct in a grand jury that I've ever seen. And the one that you keep referring to when I, when I reread it, I get it now. She had been working with this grand jury for 18 months. Could you imagine being on a grand jury for 18 months? You get called in every Thursday and she starts it off with her boss in the room, with Andrew Boutros in the room, obviously there as an emissary from the White House. And it's this well worn path that we've now seen in a number of cases where Trump and the White House put pressure on Blanche, Blanche and his right hand person, Akash Singh, who's the number, whatever, the deputy whatever in charge of all U.S. attorneys offices. He puts pressure on the local U.S. attorney in that office who puts pressure on the lower level prosecutors. We saw the exact same blueprint, well worn path in the Kilmer Abrego Garcia case. And so, so what is the U.S. attorney doing sitting in on Sherry Mecklenburg's presentation about the Broadview Six to a grand jury in which he also apparently gave a speech to the grand jury when it looked like they weren't gonna return the indictment. Like a pep talk, made sure the pep talk wasn't on the record, which is already a violation of the grand jury processes and rules. Cuz he knew what he was doing was wrong. He didn't want it reflected on a transcript. And Sherry Becklenburg says to them, oh, oh, I said to my sucks in the young prosecutor into her conspiracy. I said to my buddy over here that I gotta bring this to the Thursday grand jury. Let me bring this one to the Thursday grand Jury about the Broadview Six. The six, you know, peaceful protesters against ICE and, you know, trying to curry favor with them. We've been in this together. We've been together for a long, long time. You know me. You know. You know me. You know, I don't bring it back. Like you said, I don't bring it back. Cases the evidence here. And then she tries not once, not twice, but three times to get the indictment. The first time she brings it, they don't. They don't agree with her. They. They return a no true Bill. She tries again, and this time she says, my fault. It's my fault. Like, she was breaking up with the grand jury. It's not you, it's me.
- [64:52]
Ben
It's.
- [64:52]
Co-host
It's not. I did something wrong. I didn't explain it right to you. Let me try it again. With her boss hovering in the background. And then she tries again. And that's when one of the jurors famously said, is this the same crap you brought in here last time? She's been with this grand jury so long that, like, this. This is the dialogue that they're having back and forth with each other. And then she, like, tried to dismiss the grand jurors that were not buying what she was selling and then commented that she had conversations with the grand jurors in the hallway, then had to come back and say, now I got to tell you about something I shouldn't have done. Which she. Because she has to admit it. And the weirdest thing is she uses. There's. She has, like, a Freudian slip. She says, vouch. During her presentation to the grand jury, she said, my. My. My. My colleague here can vouch. I'm like, does she know she's vouching? And that's why that word just came out of her mouth. Which is when. When a prosecutor says, forget the evidence. Trust me, this is good stuff. You should indict on it.
- [65:53]
Ben
It.
- [65:54]
Co-host
Which you're, of course, you're not allowed to do. So. Second transcript. No. Is this the crappy case you brought last time? Third time, she finally gets an indictment. Now, when the defense lawyers get the transcript released because they make the argument there must have been abuse if they heard about all these things. The judge says, send me the transcript. And they. Then they send her a heavily redacted transcript, like 217 lines in it, she eventually gets the.
- [66:20]
Michael Popak
The.
- [66:21]
Ben
The.
- [66:21]
Co-host
The. The regular transcript. And she sees why. Because they had abused the process, such prosecutorial abuse that the judge found it, like, eye popping. They. Then the defense lawyers Say we want our attorney's fees under a very little used rule of criminal. Criminal practice called the Hyde Amendment, where if you have a bad faith prosecution against you, you can get your attorney's fees back. You almost never win on a Hyde Amendment motion. So they file theirs and they say, we got to show his bad faith. We need all the emails. We need all the emails between Todd Blanche and Andrew Boutros and the regular prosecutor, we. And maybe the White House, we need them all. And that's when the Department of Justice and Putro said, no, no, we're going to agree to the attorney's face. We're gonna. We're gonna agree. We're gonna dismiss the indictment with prejudice, and we're gonna give you your attorney's face. And God love those lawyers for the Broadview six, they said, yeah, that only proves that we need the emails because this is an indicator, a badge of the fraud that you're so willing to agree. And we should all want. They actually said this. We should all want on both sides, prosecutor and the defense side. We should want these emails to know what happened here. Right? And then they. Then they hit the final nail in the coffin for the. For Andrew Boutros and maybe for Top Blanche, which they said, we need a special prosecutor. We need a special prosecutor appointed here. Judge, you have the power to do it under Rule 42. You need to appoint a prosecutor. And you and I have seen this before, where a judge believes that the Department of Justice is not going to prosecute or investigate itself and so has to appoint somebody to be an officer of the court. And that's what they're now demanding. That is now sitting with Judge Perry to decide. The woman, the judge who said out loud, I believe this is the worst case of prosecutorial abuse ever, and she wants to do something about it. Then you've got Judge Coleman, who's got a case called the Loretto Hospital case having to do with COVID testing, fraudulent COVID testing, and reimbursement to the tune of billions of dollars. Things are so bad with the Department of Justice that they have dismissed that indictment with prejudice. Not because the people aren't guilty because of the prosecutorial misconduct in the grand jury. Those two people are like, wow, we just got. We don't even have to go to trial. So now they're dismissing, you would think, indictments that they worked hard to get because of the prosecutorial misconduct, and they're trying to do it to get out from under Judge Coleman. And Judge Coleman has told them similarly to Judge Perry. You Opened Pandora's box. She literally said that. And if you think dismissing the indictment is going to get you out from under this and the examination by this court as to whether there is fraud and the lawyers are involved too, you got another thing coming. And she was also pissed off that Andrew Boutros didn't show up in her courtroom to dismiss the indictment and sent some more respected prosecutor in the office hoping that that would do the trick. It's not, but I think we're going to see a special counselor prosecutor appoint, more likely than not, appointed by Judge Perry, appointed by Judge Coleman, and maybe to round out what we did earlier in front of Judge Williams in Miami. This will be extraordinary. But this is the natural, inexorable next chapter. When you have a corrupted and captive and captured Department of Justice led by now, first Bondi, now Blanche, and really by Todd, by Donald Trump, this is the natural extension of that. In year two of that, as finally, finally fed up, federal judges, former and current, have figured out the tools in their tool bag and what they're going to do about it to protect justice. The days of shock and awe. And I can't believe they just did that. And are they, are they, are they not going to abide my. By my orders, it's over. It is over in federal courtrooms. And then of course, it'll go up to the appellate court and we'll see what the United States Supreme Court has to say about all this and how much they're gonna bend themselves into a pretzel. I'm Talking about the Maga 6 on the court to benefit their patron again, Donald Trump.
- [70:43]
Michael Popak
You know, I think about everything that's going on right now in this country. I think about the symbolism of Donald Trump telling everybody that the reflecting pool is crystal clear while it is more infested than algae than ever before, as Donald Trump promised that this was going to be his main cause, the reflecting pool, which is the oddest thing in and of itself. I think about that. I think about on Friday, Donald Trump doing a press conference in front of a Qatari jet that Trump turned into a Qatari Air Force One for the United States, which he's going to steal and make his own in the next 18 months. That MAGA Republicans just let him take a jet. We, the taxpayers, are paying hundreds of millions of dollars in renovations for a Qatari jet so that Donald Trump could own a billion dollar plane. I think about Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan's books regime change, where they talk about Melania not allowing Donald Trump to sleep in the master bedroom, even though Melania doesn't show up at the White House really on any meaningful period of time. But then Donald Trump sleeps in the second floor living room area. But then anything that is decorated in the White House that looks gold, Trump hoards and keeps in his second floor living room area. And apparently, according to all the reporting, he sleeps in filth wrappers, garbage all over him. He insists that there be rugs and carpets in the bathroom which have mold on them and are all wet and like, disgusting. And I think about what I observed at the G7, his behavior, his physical and cognitive issues, which I don't want to let him off the hook for his vile, evil, malicious behavior. But, you know, one day that's where he's going to go. I mean, you know, in two years, you know, it's fairly easy to predict where this is going. When accountability strikes, he's going to say that he was incapacitated. And this was, I'm giving you my opinion now, under the First Amendment, I'm giving you my opinion. I think he and others, ah, it was dementia, it was Alzheimer's, it was this or that. It was what Fred had. And, you know, and all these stories are going to come out and, you know, and we're going to be like, yeah, we knew that. Like, it's obvious. We're watching him. It's a combination of all of it. He was an evil, horrible human being. You compound that, the malignant narcissism, you compound that with the mental and physical decline right now. And you have the recipe, you know, for just kind of sheer and absolute and total disaster that we are, you know, that we're seeing right now. And so, you know, we, we need the levers of government to work. We need a function in Congress. We need a function in Congress that does real oversight. I've set aside this political part. It needs to do real oversight. The most egregious violations are taking place before our eyes that are frankly and that were frankly, unfathomable before. We need a re. Understanding and a reimagination of the Constitution because the Constitution has in it good faith and fair dealing and through the take care clause of Article 2. And Donald Trump does not take care that laws are faithfully executed. He views laws as something to be broken, to put your middle finger at. And he's involved in the most disastrous foreign policy fathomable and imaginable. And with all of these things happening, it is impacting the American people's lives. And all of our reporting shouldn't get lost in all of the Trump weapons of mass distraction. We need to reflect on him, of course, of course. And hold them accountable. But we should ultimately remember that the victims in all of this are the American people and people throughout the world. Not just myopically talking about Americans as a result of this regime, as a result of the Trump regime, but the American people, as we record this live June 20th, are suffering. They're the victims right now of this Trump regime. People are psychologically tortured as a result of what Donald Trump does. People don't know, am I going to be able to afford gas today? Probably not. When I go to the supermarket, am I going to be able to afford these meals? Probably not. Probably not. I mean, I'm sure you all experience this too, where you go there and they start ringing up the items and you go, ah, you know what, just take that back, take that back. I'll just take these right now. Wow, I didn't realize it was that expensive.
- [75:22]
Ben
It is.
- [75:24]
Michael Popak
You know, people struggling to pay rent, people struggling with basic day to day stuff right now. And Trump's out there bragging about luxurious Qatari jets and telling us the reflecting pool is blue when we know it's algae green and worse than ever, and giving no bid contracts to people of friends of his who have donated to the campaign and all of this stuff. And there's a lot of concern and doom and dread, but I'll leave it on a positive note, which is, we're here. June 20, 2026. We're here, we're standing. We haven't fallen. This Trumpian nightmare, it still exists, but I think people are wise to it right now. And my only hope, my project is less a political project of this party, that party, this person or that party. It's a generational project of we need real law and order. Because our systems were incapable of addressing a Trump, an authoritarian like this, as someone who fashions himself as a Nero version of the Caesars, we weren't equipped to deal with it. Project 2025, all of the federalist society destructions of our legal system was to hoist up a Caesar. They got right to Nero pretty freaking quickly. Who as Rome burns, he's talking about Qatari jets. That's what's going on here. And we need to rethink the way we structure laws. We need to rethink the composition of the Supreme Court and term limits. We need to, we need to really reimagine at a generational level what makes us Americans. And, and what, why are we in this together, what are we trying to accomplish here? And that's to me, what Midas Touch is all about, what legal AF is all about, what shows like this are all about. So I'll, I'll stop preaching right there. Popak, anything you want to say before we sign off?
- [77:16]
Co-host
No, I think you've got. I just want people to understand that the reason that we focus on the mental decline of Trump is not as a counterbalance to his attacks on Joe Biden and Joe Biden's legacy. I mean, you know, going after the recordings that Joe Biden did with his biographer or his author, which has now been blocked by a federal judge subject to appeal. It's not that. It's not because we're trying to come up with another counterpoint to President Auto Pen and all of that. We're talking about serious matters that people, somebody with his finger on the nuclear button is acting out in public, in public in ways that are alarming and concerning and would indicate that somebody is in the throes of dementia. A lot of the acting out, the cursing, the weird, the weirdness, the lack of continuity of thought, the physical frailty. And for a person that says, you know, there tries to act with gestures of transparency, like it's the most transparent presidency of all time, of course we know that's not true with the Epstein files Situation room reporting that's now been done. But the, his medical condition, it's not normal to have 22 specialists crawl all over another human being. It's not normal to have four dementia tests over, over a period of 18 months. It's not normal to disappear for eight days after that visit. And then when you do reappear and you take a relatively simple flight to Europe, you know, with all the luxury of Air Force One, that you showed up like something that the cat distracted who can't put a sentence together and seems beyond gassed during the G7 where he effectively without recognizing the historical, the historical parody of it, he at Versailles, you know, in France, he capitulated to Iran. I mean, you know, these kind of things are important. So I think Democrats are doing their job on just as the Republicans went after Biden and everything about his, his mental state, that's the same thing here. It matters who's running that government, you know, and if it's not him, God help us if it's who we think it is, which is the combination of Stephen Miller and J.D. vance and Susie Wiles and other people in the, in the inner circle or inner sanctum, them. So I'm glad that we're here together doing this. And, and to answer the question, there's two major questions that I get asked time and time again on this network and on Legal af. Is my vote secure? And the answer to that is I feel relatively confident in the abilities of the attorneys general, the public interest groups to do their job inside of courtrooms and federal judges to do their job to protect the vote in real time, starting now all the way into the day of elections. And I and the second thing people are, are very, very concerned about is will what we're watching. Will the people who are responsible for the Trump administration, the enablers, the sycophants, the bootlickers who are abusing our Constitution, our rule of law, will they be brought to justice one day? And I say, yeah, it's a combination of impeachment proceedings for those in the government for obstruction of justice and other things, and then prosecutions when the Department of Justice is in the hands of the Democrats, because many of the things we're watching now will be within the statute of limitations to allow for prosecutions. So the justice is coming, you know, like they used to say on Game of Thrones, winter is coming. Justice is coming for these people. The good news for America is that the other party can walk and chew gum at the same time. They're not going to be consumed by just doing investigation, investigation, investigation, the way this do nothing Congress has done. They're going to be able to do both, pass laws to help the American people around the kitchen table in the most intimate decisions of their life. Yes, they can do all of that and at the same time root out corruption, reverse all of those executive orders, most of them restore our position in the world and, and help the American people. We can do both and do impeachment and criminal prosecution. So that's the, that, you know, we always like to leave this on a, on a, not artificial, but a high note and a call to action for audience. So I'm glad that you, you kicked that off.
- [82:02]
Michael Popak
Everybody make sure you subscribe to our YouTube channel here. But more importantly, subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel wherever you also listen to audio podcasts. Why don't you give Legal F audio a try? Subscribe to Legal AF substack, not just their YouTube channel. Let's keep both the sub stack and the YouTube charts. Keep, keep Legal AF on top of both. Also, if you or someone you know has been injured in a car accident, auto accident, trucking accident, if you've been injured by the negligence of a third party involved in a catastrophic injury, know somebody who has have them or you give a call 877-POPAK AF or visit the POPOC firm, call or text 877-POPOCAF or visit the popoc firm.com and, you know, tell them to tell tell Popak you'll, you know, see if you have a case and if, worst case scenario, you don't have a case. But, but Popak created this firm to, to help, you know, and he represents a lot of people who listen and watch this show. And the consultation is free, as I mentioned before. All right, everybody, we appreciate you. Thank you for watching this weekend's Legal AF or whenever you're listening or watching this. We appreciate you for hanging out with us and learning about all of the stuff. We love spending time with you. And we'll see you next time on Legal af. Shout out Midas.