Loading summary

Transcript21 lines

[00:00]
A
Welcome to Legal AF on the Midas Touch Network. I'm Ben Meiselas. In just a little bit, we'll be joined by our co host Michael Popak. He's on vacation, but of course, Michael Popak would not miss a Legal AF with all of the breaking legal news to discuss this week. Midas Touch breaking down the breaking legal news. Also Midas Touch in the legal news, making legal news. Midas Touch co host Katie Fang pushing forward with her lawsuit against Todd Blanche and the Trump Department of Justice under the Epstein Transparency act to release the files that are still being concealed. A major order was issued in the federal Courthouse in Washington D.C. in Katie Feng's case. A big win for Katie Feng. A big win for transparency. And there will be a major hearing this week. Todd Blanche and the DOJ have been ordered to appear to answer questions before Judge Sullivan will break down for you what the court order is there. This happens the same week that Todd Blanche sadly was confirmed as Attorney General. We warned you. You can never have any faith in the spineless MAGA sycophant bootlickers. Even MAGA sycophant bootliickers who have had their entire careers destroyed by Donald Trump. Whether that's Senator Tillis of North Carolina, whether it's Senator Cornyn of Texas or Senator Cassidy of Louisiana, you can always count on these individ to do the wrong things. That's one of the reasons we're in this hell in the first place. Our pathetic men usually like these MAGA bootlicking sycophants who think more about still being invited to their MAGA country club than throwing the entire American democracy in the trash. But that's why we need fighters and we need to be the fighters, too. We can't be looking for heroes. We need to do it ourselves. And that's why it's such an honor and privilege to work with Katie Fang. This past week as well, another hero, David Hearn, had his case officially dismissed by Trump's doj. We talked last week how they requested the dismissal, but now that case is officially dismissed. Donald Trump ranting and raving like a lunatic. Ah, he still did it. He's really a vandal. Further defamation by a despicable little tiny disgusting thing in the Oval Office. Again, just so utterly offensive. But that's Trump's whole life. He's a bankrupter, he's a defamer, he's a fraud. He's. I mean, he's a Tara. He's a horrible human. And that's how horrible humans behave. Also Four other cases that were filed by the DOJ where they fabricated evidence against people they called vandals, that was dismissed. So big loss for Donald Trump there. That's good news. Other good news, the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals and a 2 to 1 ruling blocked Donald Trump's further construction of the ballroom. They did give a 14 day period for Trump to file an appeal. Their order stayed. In other words, it's paused for 14 days for Trump to issue or make an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. Donald Trump's obviously going to do that. He is a terrible loser, but a lifelong loser. And now he's saying, my ballroom is a drone port. It's the whole, the whole thing is a military operation.
[03:18]
B
The whole thing.
[03:19]
A
That's what I really wanted to do. I wanted to turn the White House into a military target. That's what I wanted to turn the People's House into. Oh, and then Donald Trump posting some real sick messages as well, because the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals said, said, look, the President is a temporary tenant of the White House. That shouldn't be a controversial statement. And Trump goes, I'm not the tenant. I'm the president and I have rights. I have rights as the president. You have the obligation to be a public servant and under the Constitution, Article 2, to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. You are a steward, although you don't behave like that. You are a steward of the Constitution to take care that laws are faithfully executed and Congress passes laws. And the D.C. circuit Court of Appeal very clearly said under the property clause of the Constitution, the funding for construction and for major alterations in the White House lies with Congress. Go do a law and then you can take care that that law be faithfully executed and you can do your renovation. So we'll talk about that. We'll talk about BBC, right? Donald Trump scared of BBC. Unfortunately, it was a Trump appointed judge, though, in the Southern District of Florida after the discovery judge, who's referred to as a magistrate judge, ruled that Donald Trump needs to turn over his financial records because he sued BBC for $10 billion back in was it December of 2025? Saying they defamed him for a documentary that just aired in the UK on Panorama that didn't air in the United States. He said, you defame me $10 billion. My businesses were harmed. So BBC says, okay, your business were harmed. Produce your records. Donald Trump's like, those don't belong to me. Those belong to the trust. That's a third party. The Donald J. Trust isn't me. I'm Donald. That's the trust. They're represented by a different person. Okay? BBC said, well, then have them turn it over because you're demanding $10 billion. So I want to know how you were damaged $10 billion when you made billions and billion. First off, there wasn't defamation. They said. Second off, damaged $10 billion by what? By us splicing together a video. And you believe that it defamed you by showing that you supported the January 6th insurrection. That's your claim of defamation of character right here. Federal magistrate judge said, donald, turn over your records. You're suing for $10 billion. The federal judge supervises the magistrate. So a magistrate judge is not appointed or confirmed. They are hired basically by federal judges, and they handle discovery, and they handle some things in criminal cases, but in civil cases, they handle discovery. So Trump sought an emergency action from the federal judge, who was a judge who Trump appointed in 2019. And the judge was like, okay, Donald, do you want to change your entire lawsuit now? And Trump's like, yes, I do. I want to change my lawsuit. So Trump wants to now, even after he blew all of the deadlines. Because the time to change your lawsuit or amend your complaint would have been back in March was the. You know, when you're a lawyer, you have to follow deadlines, right? And if you miss them, especially in federal court, you don't get to go to judges and go, judge, please, please. You missed the deadline. You missed the deadline. That's life, right? That's not a Democrat or Republican thing. That's being an adult thing and being a professional thing, especially in federal court. And deadlines are very important in the law. They're very important. So Trump misses the deadlines and goes, but now I have an emergency. They're gonna see my confidential business records
[07:03]
B
and all of the money, and I
[07:05]
A
can't let them see that. So, judge, can I change my lawsuit? And a judge who Trump appointed, because Trump's terrified of BBC, right? He's scared of BBC. But the judge who Trump appointed said, okay, Donald, we'll pause your obligation to turn over documents to BBC. Show me how you're going to amend the complaint. How are you going to change? And Trump said, well, I'm just going to say my reputation was harmed by $10 billion. I'm not going to say that my businesses were harmed. My reputation was a $10 billion, right? This fool, this coward, he goes around, he sues everybody for $10 billion. Oh, my reputation, my reputation. Meanwhile. And Popac will cover this. Meanwhile, what was the thing that he wanted most of all when he sued in Another case for $10 billion, the IRS and the Treasury Department, what he want tax immunity. That's the main thing that he wanted. He didn't want to pay his taxes. And those same cowardly MAGA Republican senators gave him that said that they were okay with the DOJ entering into that agreement with him or they were not going to compel Todd Blanche to actually void the settlement agreement, which is what they said they were going to do. There was a May 18 and May 19 settlement agreement in Trump's stupid lawsuit, I mean, frivolous lawsuit against the Treasury Department and the irs, remember? And they said, well, it's okay. He clarified the scope. What do you mean he clarified the scope? The scope. We know what it was. It was tax immunity for him and his family and his trust in all of his entities. He clarified that. We knew that. So what are you even talking about? In any event, you have in the lawsuit that was filed in Virginia in federal court, where the plaintiffs blocked the anti Weaponization fund or whatever the hell Trump calls it for the J6ers, which Trump really doesn't even care about. He just cares about his own tax immunity. In that case, the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to now include allegations to block the tax immunity. And the argument is, if you look at. So there's a case in Virginia, and the argument is, in Trump's initial lawsuit in Florida, the federal judge there, Kathleen Williams, found that the entire settlement agreement is void. It was done by collusion. It's an improper agreement. Using her name on the agreement and acting like that was a settlement in her court. It wasn't. She said that's not something that occurred here. And so in Virginia now in a separate lawsuit, the argument as well, look, in Trump's case against the IRS and Treasury Department, the federal judge there said it's void. So if the anti weaponization fund is void, the whole thing is void because the settlement agreement is voided by the judge because it was done by collusion and fraud. And you can't have a settlement agreement made by collusion and fraud. So they amended their complaints and they want a preliminary injunction there. Popak will break that down. He also is going to talk a little bit about Lisa Cook, what's going on with the Federal Reserve governor, and Trump's attempt to now fire her by creating a kangaroo court that will try to find for cause basis to terminate her with the foregone conclusion type of stuff you see in banana republics and in authoritarian regimes. We'll talk about that. Popak will talk about the Capital One
[10:34]
B
case
[10:37]
A
where they push back against Donald Trump, saying that they didn't debank him because he's Trump. They didn't let him bank there because certain triggers of money laundering were flagged. And when those are flagged, no matter who you are, if you're Trump, if you're Dump, if you're Gump, if you're Stump, whatever your name is, doesn't matter. This criteria is hit the bank has an obligation not to bank you. And they said that's what we were doing. We were following the criteria. All right, so in other words, we've got a lot to discuss. I covered a lot of it. There's a. Let's just go at the outset and talk about Katie Fang's case. So you know, Katie Fang sued under the Epstein Transparency Act. She sought a preliminary injunction. Her preliminary injunction was granted. The court ordered that the DOJ do certain things. The DOJ didn't do it. So then the court said, send me certain documents. I want to look at them immediately. I want to understand why you have certain categories of redactions and why you are redacting people who appear to be co conspirators, the bad guys, Their names appear to be redacted. Show me why you're redacting their names and we should unredact their names. But let me justify those redactions. Then show me the notes regarding FBI 302 reports regarding an underage girl who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault. Trump denies those allegations, but there's an FBI 302 report which says Donald Trump and their allegations against him. Produce the notes. You just produced the 302 report. I want to see those notes. And then the court said, tell me what's going on with the privilege log. I want to know about what's happening with the other 5 million documents that you haven't produced. What's the update there? The DOJ fully violated the court order, didn't do anything. So this past week, Federal Judge Sullivan ordered the DOJ to now show up August 13, 2026. Regarding the redaction log or privilege log, the judge said, I want all of the 5 million documents. I want to know when you're going to have a justification for withholding every single one of the 5 million documents that you have been turned over. I'm not asking you if you're going to. I want a timeline of when that's going to be done. That's a big win for Katie Fitzgerald. The judge said why aren't you producing the notes of the FBI interview about the allegations against Trump? You're saying because it's substantially similar to the FBI report. That's not a, that's not a reason to withhold under the Epstein Transparency Act. And if you're withholding documents by coming up with your own category of exclusion, substantially similar, that's another reason why I want to see your privilege log and your redaction log. And is that how you're withholding lots of other documents inappropriately? And then the court talks about how we want to understand why you're labeling people who appear to be the bad guys, the co conspirators, the powerful men. Why are you redacting their names? Why are you covering them up? In the filing that Blanche previously made, he said, well, it's because their lawyers called up and said they're victims. So you see what Katie Feng uncovered here, and this is amongst many reasons why she's so heroic. Because what we've been able to now identify through Katie Feng's courage, through her pushing this forward, is a really broader sick conspiracy where it appears that Trump's DOJ would go to all of these wealthy men, these powerful men who are implicated in the files and they would say, here's how we're going to help you. Call up with your powerful high paid lawyers and tell the DOJ that you're the victim. If you tell us the DOJ you're the victim, we'll have to acknowledge that you're the victim and we won't show your name and we will hide you and we will basically, that's our way, that's our loophole around the Epstein Transparency act because it's intended to protect the victims. So bad guys, perpetrators, co conspirators, just say you're a victim. And then we'll just say, got it, you're a victim. And we'll acknowledge that. Meanwhile, the real victims and survivors were tormented and tortured one by Epstein and by the co conspirators and by the Trump doj because their information was leaked. Their privacy, their photos, their dignity was not respected. But the bad guys claimed victim protection and Judge Sullivan is on to that. Katie Fang is on to that big hearing happening on August 13th. Great work. Katie Fang. Let's talk about the big ruling as well regarding the ballroom, Donald Trump's Golden Ballroom. My Golden Ballroom, My Golden Ballroom. It was a two to one ruling, two judges to one. And in this ruling you had, and obviously the Trump judge who's trying to, Judge Rao, who's trying to get on the Supreme Court was the one who gave the Trump sycophant bootlicker ruling. But really, in short, the ruling boiled down to the property clause of the United States Constitution, provides that these alterations, these adjustments, these any demolition, obviously it requires Congress. I mean, the Constitution makes it very clear that Congress has to approve it and pay for it. And if you can get Congress's approval, all good. In terms of national security, if you're claiming underneath the ballroom you're building bunkers and hospitals and all of these things, and that there is an actual national security basis for it, you can still do that. As the federal judge, Judge Leon, who, by the way, is a George W. Bush appointee, already ordered saying, look, the ballroom itself, that needs Congress. If you want to improve the bunker underneath or build a hospital or whatever, then you can do that with taxpayer money. But you can't. And this is what the judge said, though, too, in the district court. I'm not stupid. Like, you can't claim the ballroom is the military installation to get around this order. The judge made that very clear. And the D.C. circuit acknowledged the federal court's order, saying there's no loophole just to claim the entire ballroom is a military facility. And Judge leon and the D.C. circuit, in ruling against Donald Trump, also used Trump's words against him. Because Trump's lawyers said that they were independently building the bunker and all of these things, and that was separate and apart from the ballroom. And the reason that they were saying that also is because they wanted to use taxpayer dollars for all of this stuff. And they wanted to make it seem like, well, we were using the money of Trump's billionaire buds to build the ballroom. So that's separate. There's an underground project. That's why we had to do it so quickly. But the ballroom is being paid for over here, and that's why we didn't go to Congress, because it's being funded by the billionaires or whatever, who are obviously in on these quid pro quos. And then that's why we did the hospital and the bunkers and all of these secret military installations or whatever the hell they're trying to come up with. I mean, such a ridiculous, demented regime. So in any event, the Federal Court in D.C. circuit said, your own lawyer said these are separate things. So you can't claim the ballroom is now like a shield for you also to see Trump's paranoia. So Trump's golfing, obviously. He golfed today. He golfs all weekend. He golfs now with an E3, one of those surveillance planes, it's always up in the sky. He's terrified of Iran right now, and he's paranoid that they're always going to try to get him while he's golfing. And it's truly haunting him right now. One of the things that Trump and his sycophants have said was, well, what do we do now? We've already, we have this hole in the ground. What do we do? What do we do? Well, Judge Leon Bush appointee addressed this point. As Dan diamond explains, defendants predictably object, arguing that any delay to construct would imperil national security and expose the White White House to damage. Grasping for straws, defendants call the construction site a coordinated and managed safety hazard that has disrupted existing security protocols. In other words, they broke it, and now they're complaining and saying, well, now it's a security threat to us because we have this hole in the ground and we have all of this material everywhere. So now it's a national security concern to Trump because he destroyed it, and now we have this big hole in the ground, and that's dangerous. Thus, according to defendants Trump, any construction delay will undermine national security. That Donald Trump now caused the problem for himself. Please. The judge goes, please, exclamation point. While I take seriously the government's concern regarding the safety and security of the White House grounds and the President himself, the existence of a large hole besides the White House is, of course, a problem of the President's own making. Bald assertions of national security cannot excuse the government's failure to follow the law and then insulate those failures from judicial review. And that was affirmed by the D.C. circuit. And that's a Bush appointee, man. That's like what a Republican judge once was, where I would see stuff that that judge would do and I'd probably disagree with a lot. Not that I'm just saying in normal times, we may have different, broader perspectives on things, but you would respect the judge. This judge is smart, intelligent, well reasoned. You wouldn't really see their politics drip into the rulings. You would see them apply the law. And they may come out certain ways differently than you'd like, but that's the way it used to be. George W. Bush appointee. This whole new batch of Trump sycophantic judges, though, are unqualified young people, often who. Who don't know the law and who are just MAGA bootlickers. And that's why I've been showing you a lot of their confirmation hearings, where they all show up and they're all just like, you know, they all, they can't even answer the basic, who won the election? Oh, there was a electoral college. Not just who won, who won. You know, you have this whole crop of just like awful, terrible people. But Judge Leon's good judge. So Trump's been posting drone port. This is my drone port. Look, this whole thing is a military asset, sits on top of the ballroom. Why would you want to turn the White House into a military target though? Like just at a common sense level, why would you want, we have military bases. Why would you want. Even at the most logic level? So in an all out war, you want the White House to be saying as a legitimate military target under the rules of war by turning it into a drone port. I mean, and this AI slop on top of it, what the hell is this? Even on top of it? I mean, why are there military trucks? And why do these drones look gigantic? Why is there an entire army? I mean, how dystopian and sick is this, right? Like if you wrote about this scene in some sci fi book with these drone port posts and you describe that scene in a sci fi dystopian alternative history type book, which I used to enjoy growing up, but I can't enjoy them now. I don't enjoy those shows anymore. I don't enjoy those books anymore because it's real life and we're in the trenches fighting it. So I just can't watch that stuff anymore personally. But you'd be like, come on, what are you talking about? Here, I'll leave you with this though, because here is what Donald Trump's been posting. I could show you 40 of these, but I'll just show you one. Two judges, one appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, the other by Sleepy Joe Biden, said in a ruling on the desperately needed secure ballroom military complex, including a major drone port on the roof, that each president is a temporary tenant of the White House. Then Trump says, we are not tenants who pay rent and do all other things that a tenant must do. We are presidents elected by the people of the United States of America and have many rights, including the right to fix, renovate, secure, protect and beautify the White House grounds, which has been built and rebuilt, renovated and re renovated, repaired and simply made better many times since 1792. But as the court order explains, we are aware of no instance in American history in which a president is unilaterally and using privately collected funds, demolished a substantial portion of the White House that Congress authorized to be built and American taxpayers paid for until now, that's the truth. And when you look at the order and you look at Trump's frantic, chaotic, crazy social media posts, you have to ask yourself, which country do you want to live in? And to me, this is never a. Oh, well, Democrats, Republicans, Independent. No, no. It's really much deeper and more profound of bizarre Kim Jong Un, authoritarian. Frankly, Kim Jong Un looks very rational, very well reasoned compared to Donald Trump's behavior. I think his craziness is truly unprecedented, even amongst the authoritarian class, even as you think, through some of the people who we may have conceived as the craziest authoritarians, the most unhinged. Trump is in a authoritarian crazy pantheon to himself. Right? Do we want that? Do we want that? Or do we want logic, rules, evidence, the truth, the reality. And the reality is that the President is a public servant. You serve us, we don't serve you. You work for us, we don't work for you. We're not your employees. We're not your cogs. We're not your data center robots. We the people. We the people. And you work for us. And you're supposed to make our lives better, not inject deranged chaos, unpredictability, pain and suffering every day. And I believe, call me naive, but part of what we're building here at the Midas Touch Network is to do this, that one of the ways out of this hell is through a strengthening of our legal organizations, our legal systems, working hand in hand with what I can control here, building the independent media ecosystem the way we have to get out the truth, to bring in the top experts. All right, I'm going to bring Michael Popak in, I'm sure you're saying, Ben, enough of you. Let's bring in Michael Popak. Okay, Deal. A reminder. If you or someone you know has been injured in a car accident, trucking accident, if you've been injured by the negligence of somebody else, reach out to Popak's firm. We'll put the link in the description below. Subscribe to Michael Popak's YouTube channel, Legal AF and his substack, Legal AF. Let's keep that growing. All right, after this break, I'm going to bring in Michael Popak. Popak's on vacation, but he wants to be here. He wants to make sure he updates you with the legal news. So let's bring in Michael Popak. Let's take a quick break first.
[26:59]
B
Running a business means you're always reachable. Until you're not. And the moment you miss that call, that text, that follow up, a competitor is the one that picks it up. That's why today's episode is brought to you by Quo, spelled Q U O the business phone system built so you never miss an opportunity. I like the Quo keeps all your calls, texts and voicemails in one place so anyone on your team can see the full conversation history and respond quickly. And when you're unavailable, Quo's built in AI agent can answer questions and even book appointments so you're not losing potential customers. After hours, money is on the line. Always say hello with quo. Try quo for free plus 20% off your first six months when you go to quo.com legalayoff that's Q U O I've got to tell you about my Lola blanket because I've become completely obsessed with it. I'm definitely a blanket person and every night when I'm winding down, whether I'm watching TV or I'm just relaxing, this is the one I reach for. The first thing I noticed was how unbelievably soft it is and I love that. The design actually looks great. In my house, it's honestly replaced every blanket I own. I totally get why they call it the world's number one blanket. It's made with ultra soft luxury faux fur and a signature four way stretch. It's machine washable and it doesn't pill or shed even after repeated washes. It also has over 20,000 five star reviews and it makes an amazing gift because it's something people actually use every day. For a limited time, our listeners can get 40% off select Lola Blankets products with code LEGAL AF at checkout. Just head to Lola Blankets.com and use code LEGAL AF to get 40% off your order. Seriously, if you're looking to upgrade your cozy setup, don't miss this. For a limited time, our listeners can get 40% off select Lola Blankets products with code LEGAL AF at checkout. Just head to lolablankets.com and use code LEGAL AF to get 40% off your order. Now look after you purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and let them know we sent you Wrap yourself in Luxury with Lola Blankets. Thanks Ben and welcome back to Legal af. It was worth the fight. Some people are questioning whether the bruising battle to try to block Todd Blanche from being Attorney General because he's unfit, because he's immoral, because he's unethical and illegal and he's promotes and enables the worst instincts of a lawless president. Some people question whether it was worth the fight. Was it worth having a 50 to 49 squeak through for Todd Blanche. And I would argue that he's been left damaged goods as a result, a result of the promises he made that he cannot keep to senators. He's going to be subjected to oversight. He's going to have a unfavorable Congress, Senate and House that he's going to have to respond to after the election in just about three months. Did he lay the framework and the groundwork for his own impeachment and removal as Attorney General? You know, I had the opportunity to interview within a couple of days apart, two members of the Democratic leadership in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Cory Booker, the senior senator from New Jersey, and Senator Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. And both of them said it was worth the fight in their own way. Let me show you a clip I think is important of Senator Cory Booker as to why the fight, even if it was one that we ultimately lost, will pay dividends in the future. Let's play the clip. I would say please don't surrender to that idea because that will lead us into a pretty terrible place. I know from my own history as a black American that people fought hard as hell for every inch of ground we gained. And this idea that if we just acquiesce, if we just give in, maybe it won't be as bad as we imagine it to be. That to me, is inviting disaster and accepting, resigning yourself to injustice. We have to fight. I am telling you right now, when it comes to principled stands, we have to stand up or there'll be the slow erosion of the very principles that are worth fighting for. So I just hope your viewers understand this is one of those moments where even if we lose, the fact that we stood, history will look back and take strength from our resistance. And with, with the Senator Blumenthal, there was a different angle. I asked him about impeachment. Yeah. Todd Blanche may have a pardon in his back pocket. I'm sure he does. Which makes it ironic that his office is now considering whether to indict Dr. Anthony Fauci, who frankly, his sure hand guided us through a very treacherous moment during COVID with an out of control, irrational president. You know the guy that was saying we should drink Clorox and got a pardon by Biden along with everybody in his administration that make key decisions. Now it's landed in the lap of Todd Blanche. Does he really need, based on a 9 to 8 Senate Oversight Committee, Homeland Security and Government Affairs Oversight Committee headed by Rand Paul, does he really need to be prosecuting Anthony Fauci? After he just got done telling senators that he would not do the president's bidding and he would not go after the perceived targets of the president. He is not stronger to date Todd Blanche than he was yesterday or two days ago. And I don't think the first thing on his agenda should be going after an enemy and critic of Donald Trump. So we'll have to see what happens there. When I asked Senator Blumenthal, do you think this is the, the makings of his impeachment, his own impeachment, did he hang himself in the way he conducted himself in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee and in promises that he made in order to secure votes? And here's what Senator Blumenthal had to say. I think that, you know, his failing to acknowledge that the January six rioters
[33:30]
A
committed crimes, his support for pardons, his enabling.
[33:34]
B
Donald Trump's profiting from crypto.
[33:37]
A
$1.4 billion is what Donald Trump made
[33:41]
B
last year from crypto alone, $2 billion plus total. It is absolutely stomach turning, it's jaw dropping, the kind of corruption that Todd
[33:56]
A
Blanche is enabling as we speak.
[33:59]
B
So I think the kind of complicity
[34:02]
A
in that kind of corruption is
[34:09]
C
for
[34:10]
B
me, a very important reason that there could be impeachment. But remember that Donald Trump, under recent Supreme Court opinions, can't be held responsible
[34:22]
A
criminally while he's in office for anything he does while he's in office.
[34:26]
B
But Todd Blanche could be. So it's worth the fight, it's worth the struggle, Right? The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice. We just don't know at any given moment where we are along the ark, if you know what I mean. But we need to be bending it towards justice because history will look back and future, you know, very immediate future generations will not look kindly on us if we don't fight that good fight. And we have. And now it's left to the federal courts. There are only safety valve, circuit breaker, firewall, whatever you want to call it between now and the midterms and the installation of a new Congress, hopefully led by the Democrats come next a year January. Right. And one of the key cases, there's actually two in particular that I'm thinking of. But one of the key cases is before Judge Brinkama, Senior Judge, Eastern District of Virginia. She's the judge that blocked with a injunction the operation, formation and operation of the Jan6Anti weaponization $1.776 billion fund. Now, she didn't reach at that moment a month ago the issue of whether Todd Blanche's next day gift, a obvious quid pro quo to get the nomination from Donald Trump in giving his boss, his client, his friend and his family and 400 companies that Donald Trump controls through a trust and affiliates effectively a free pass to tax evasion, giving him immunity or a release for the last couple of decades of IRS investigations and audits, including some that are ongoing, worth $100 million to Donald Trump and his family. Running with interest, that issue of the next day massacre of our rule of law by Todd Blanche and Donald Trump and the illegality of it, the crime that was committed, a crime on the book since post Watergate and Richard Nixon that has not been front and center with a judge and wasn't considered at the moment by Judge Brinkama. Our friends Democracy Forward, a public interest group and law firm that is prosecuting the case in front of Judge Brinkama on behalf of a series of plaintiffs as diverse as municipalities like New Haven, Connecticut, former federal prosecutors who are drummed out and have been attacked by the Department of Justice protesters and members of the Internal Revenue Service and former members of the Internal Revenue Service. They have now filed their amended complaint to put squarely in front of Judge Brinkama the first and only of its kind lawsuit right now to have a federal Judge declare that May 9, that May 19 unilateral declaration of a pardon by Todd Blanche to be illegal, invalid and unconstitutional. And that just got filed in her court as of right, meaning they didn't have to seek leave or a motion to be filed because the government had not responded to that particular motion. Now the government is going to file another motion to dismiss. But in the meantime, Judge Brinkama, who sided with Democracy Forward a month ago, has this issue front and center even in Judge Williams courtroom in Miami. And I'm going to talk a lot about Miami in the coming segment because of about three or four different cases there. Even Judge Brinkama or Judge Williams, sorry, did not, did not address the issue of the next day settlement. She did it in her own way. She's the one that declared in response to a motion by 35 former federal judges that the entire lawsuit was a illegal, illicit, collusive conduct among Todd Blanche, Donald Trump, the Internal Revenue Service and the treasury department and Donald Trump's private lawyers. And therefore the settlement, the Jan6 fund settlement agreement and the amendment to that settlement agreement giving, giving Donald Trump and his family a free pass to tax evasion was also illegal. It was like a silver bullet, illegal and illicit. But there's still issues that are being resolved in her courtroom. The way that she handled it. Enter Judge Brinkama. Enter Democracy Forward. Now. I had in the last 24 hours, Sky Perryman, who's the CEO and runs Democracy Forward, on to talk about the new filing. And here's a clip.
[39:17]
C
Kudos to our brave clients that have been, you know, in this case from the beginning, the Floyd case. We have amended the complaint and we've continued to add allegations about the slush fund because as we know, every time Donald Trump, Trump opens his mouth, he talks more about how the slush fund needs to exist. And so we are still challenging the slush fund, but we also added new brave plaintiffs, the National Employees Treasury Union or the National Treasury Employees Union, nteu, which has employees as members who work at the irs. And those employees are essentially alleging that what this agreement that the, that Blanche and Trump and the Trump Organization are engaged in to provide Donald Trump and his associates, his family, his organization, IRS immunity conscripts them into the violation of law and is unlawful and is an unconstitutional emolument. It's giving the president a gift that, you know, that, that, that it's an unconstitutional emolument. So, so those are the claims with respect to the IRS immunity provision that the amended complaint. If you, if you, I know your listeners always go to our actual court documents. You guys love to feature the actual court documents. There is tremendous, great history in there about why there are provisions of our tax code that prevent exactly what this agreement did, including, by the way, in a circumstance where in the Watergate era, in the Nixon era, he was seeking to weaponize the IRS against people and to use also the IRS to favor his friends. And Congress took action there to add additional protections, which is one of the many legal bases for, for our, for our case.
[40:59]
B
Exactly. Now what's going to happen? The Department of Justice is going to file another motion to dismiss to argue that none of these people can be plaintiffs. They're going to argue that the case has no merit, which they've already done in Todd Blanche's own filing. Here's what Todd Blanche said on August 2 as he was trying to get the votes on from Senators Cornyn of Texas and Tillis of North Carolina to get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said, for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this order is intended to contradict or otherwise be contrary to the prior representations by the Department of Justice that the fund is not operative. That doesn't answer the question. They're still gonna, they're still going to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to Jan, six defendants who beat up Capitol Police. And they're going to get paid to do it with your taxpayer dollars through Todd Blanche, the Department of justice, through the backdoor, because there's budget allocations in the DOJ budget to pay these things. Even without the fund, the fund would have been easier, but they can do it. They can do it in the back. So here's what they said about the Judge Brinkhama case. Nevertheless, several frivolous lawsuits have been filed challenging the fundamental. I don't think Judge Brinkama thinks it's frivolous. In fact, she said when the lawyer appeared for the Department of Justice in her courtroom alone, she said, you're a very brave man. And it went downhill from there. In the hearing, she ended up blocking the fund and the fund creation. And now, of course, turning to the next day, settlement and unilateral agreement by Todd Blanche to give his boss a pardon just hours after he granted that he was nominated by by Donald Trump after being passed over three prior times. Three prior times Todd Blanche was passed over for Attorney General until he finally hit the magic button. Give my boss the immunity that even the United States Supreme Court would not have provided. We're going to follow that case very, very closely. If you want to read the lawsuit, it's up in legal AF substack for paid members. So we got that going on. Now let me pick up with a series of cases that all have a common theme. Filed by Donald Trump in his alleged personal capacity, even though he keeps referring to himself as the president. And all of the filings in the Southern District of Florida in a Miami courthouse, all in the same courthouse but with different judges. I practice in the Southern District of Florida. I know these judges well. And let me give you my perspective and kind of synthesize what's happening as Trump loses a series of cases already filed, filed for political reasons, filed to save his ass, filed to divert attention away from his failing administration. I mean, let's be frank. We're 550 days into the administration. It's pretty good sample size, don't you think? People in general hate the administration. We just saw the new polling numbers that just came out. He's lost his core MAGA group of non college educated voters. He's lost them favorable to unfavorable by 32 points from where he was when he beat Kamala Harris. Right. People are running away from Donald Trump and his administration and heading for the exits. I know there's new reporting that Donald Trump is about to anoint J.D. vance to be the heir, apparently. Where is J.D. vance. I'm about to put him on the back of a milk carton. I have. I mean, between Melania Trump abdicating her responsibilities as first lady completely, and J.D. vance, who I haven't seen, hide nor hear of in a long, long time, despite a lot of, let's just say, challenges and scandals around this administration. I mean, what do they have him in? They have him in, like, some sort of cryogenic chamber. He's been wrapped in bubble wrap to protect him and his reputation. Not going to work. Okay, so you see the failing polling numbers, you see the failing economic numbers. We're supposed to be in the throes of Donald Trump's grand golden era. Every time I have to go on the White House's website, which I have to do for my job, I have to be. My eyes burn. You know, when I have to look at the golden era of Trump and everything, everything, literally gold, gilded. But when you get past all of that and you look at the job numbers coming out from Donald Trump's own administration, his commerce secretary runs the Labor Department. The labor numbers for the jobs are abysmal, and that's being kind. He didn't make jobs last month. In the month of July, he lost 23,000 jobs. They just revised May and June's number to lose another 125,000 jobs. So he's only been averaging about 50 or 60,000 jobs per month, which I guess sounds like a lot, but not when you have an economy of 330 million people. By contrast, Joe Biden was making jobs at about 3 to 400,000amonth every month of his administration. Donald Trump, I don't know 10% of that. So we feel it. Prices sky high, inflation above the Federal Reserve target percentage of 2% for five years, years in a row, 60 months in a row. And the failing polling numbers. So everything that we talk, many, many of the things that we talk about here on Legal af, we have to also acknowledge that they are a bag of tricks. They are a bag of monkey wrenches that Donald Trump throws out after he's had a terrible week or a terrible day in lawsuit, failure after failure after failure. You would never know, for instance, instance of looking at this administration and its spokespeople, that they have lost 19 cases in a row. They're 0 and 19 about trying to get voter data from states and these judges that voted against it or ruled against it run the gamut from arch conservative Republicans to Democrats and everything in between. You would know in watching them that they've lost about Six or eight cases in the last week worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Americans in funding. You would never look at it if you heard their spokespeople or Donald Trump's ramblings that you know he's going to have to stop the ballroom likely and it's construction. He's going to have to stop screwing around with the reflecting pool. Right. You would never know it because what he tries to do is distract. Right. Bad news cycle. Let's try to indict Anthony, Dr. Anthony Fauci. Bad news cycle. Let me try to fire Lisa Cook again from the Federal Reserve. I'll talk about that at the ending segment. Bad news cycle. Oh, let me, let me try to rewrite the Supreme Court's decision against me in birthright citizenship by issuing a new executive order that's equally as unconscious, unconstitutional. So whenever we talk about these things, you, you, we always have to see it with a jaundiced eye that his actions a social media post that that mainstream media chases a lawsuit that gets filed with no merit by his private lawyers, a prosecution that his Department of Justice led now by his, his right hand man, Todd Blanche, his consulari goes after. Those are all distractors from a completely failing administration which will go down in history as one of the worst ever. And Donald Trump can't live with it. I mean, we just heard him say out loud, basically acknowledging he's going to lose at the midterms in saying they don't hate me. The public hates the Republicans. The public hates the public hates the Republicans. I think you are the leader of the Republican Party. You know, he sticks his big fat nose into controlling the House. So he's effectively his own speaker of the House. Forget Mike Johnson. He's trying to become his own Senate Majority Leader. Forget John Thune. So he's running around in the Capitol in the legislative branch making a mess. He's trying to run the Federal Reserve into the ground. It's not working. His economic numbers are terrible. The only thing that's up is his bank account and he thinks it's the public is, doesn't like the Republicans. I mean, I agree that the unnamed Democrat versus the unnamed Republican, the Democrat is now up about 10 points in the polls without even putting a name to it. I mean, you have to still run the races. So I don't want to say that these are not important because the fight for the soul of America is now with the federal courts because we can't rely on Congress until it changes hands. Yeah. So let me talk now about three Cases, one involving the BBC, one involving the Wall Street Journal and one involving Capital One. What do they have in common? They were all sued by Donald Trump in what I guess is his favorite courthouse, although he keeps losing, which is in Miami, Southern District of Florida. He does. This is, this is interesting. He doesn't file these cases in the, in the northern hinterland of the Southern District of Florida to try to land them in the Aileen Cannon courthouse, which is, she's the sole judge in that courthouse in Fort Pierce. They could, they could file all these in Fort Pierce. I have a working theory why they're not doing that. It's because these are loser cases brought in bad faith as Judge Williams, another judge in the courthouse in the IRS case has ruled. And they're using Alejandro Brito, this local lawyer in Coral Gables, to sort of run interference like, like Chafe, you know, for the media to go follow to get heat off of the White House, to get heat off of Donald Trump with these failing in my personal capacity lawsuits generally for defamation or something else ridiculous. And they don't want to put that in front of Judge Cannon because a, they're saving her for things like the grand conspiracy criminal investigation that allegedly is still going on under Todd Blanche, led by Joe DiGenova, an 81 year old former Reagan appointee and conspiracy theorist who's trying to figure out whether he can indict Barack Obama for something that happened 15 years ago, even though all presidents have immunity for what they did when they were, when they were in office. So they're saving her for the big magilla. Right. And I've got a working theory that even though Sam Alito said he's not retiring this year, you know, and is going to, is going to ride it out maybe to see what happens in November with the midterms and who controls the Senate, they are saving her for a potential seat on the United States Supreme Court. Heaven help us. That's my working theory. Let's get back to what's going on in the courthouses in Miami. In the BBC case, Donald Trump in December of 2025 sued the BBC for what he first said was $5 billion, but then it was $10 billion related to them. Clipping his hour long, how boring. Hour long vomitus speech on the ellipse that led to people attacking the Capitol. And they cut, they used the first part of the first minute, last part of the last minute. They put it together. He's suing for defamation, what's called defamation, by implication saying there it's my words but the way they edited it, it made me look bad, made me look like an insurrectionist, which of course we did now, which we of course he was. But you have to put that in context because in order for there to be damage, a, in order for there to be defamation, it has to be untrue and you have to have a reputation that's capable of being defamed. Think about that as when it comes to January 6th, putting it aside, Donald Trump a sex abuser. Donald Trump as many other fraudster you know, Donald Trump as convicted felon. If you're just looking at Jan6, how can you defame his reputation? His reputation has been set in the public conscience and consciousness by the Jan6 Committee and its 600 page report that I still have at my desk in my office, by the eight days of hearings and testimony of dozens and dozens of witnesses who were Republican against him, by Jack smith's indictment in D.C. in front of Judge Chutkan and the resulting volume one of his special counsel report report. When you look at all of that in Donald Trump's own words in and around January 6th, walk in the park, innocent bystanders, political prisoners, how can you defame that reputation? There is just some reputations that can't be defamed. Like Hitler could not have brought a defamation case. That makes sense, right? Jeffrey Dahmer could not have brought Charlie Manson could not have, you know, brought a defamation case. Trump can't, in my view, given everything that he's done, can't bring a defamation case. They're actually bringing. They're actually raising that same argument in the Wall Street Journal case, which is before a different judge, Judge Gales. This first case is in front of Judge Altman. So in the new reporting that we have, is that in the BBC case about a video clip on a documentary, nobody I'll be, I'm trying to be kind here that nobody watched in America on a channel I never heard of that BBC runs. They Trump's trying to argue that he suffered 10 billion with a B billion dollars worth of damages, but because he didn't want his trust, the Donald J. Trump trust, to have to be compelled to release all of his tax returns and all of his financial reports for the last two years. So he ran into court on an emergency application. But what he did is he killed his case because he had his lawyer tell the judge, oh, you don't have to look at the business numbers of the trust or its assets or its brand because we're not suing on that, we're Going to, we're going to rewrite our complaint to only focus on reputational harm to Donald J. Trump. Let me translate that from the law. That means that Trump's going to have to show that he, for a guy that made $2 billion last year while he was President of the United States, his best, best year ever of revenue, of income, he's going to have to show that he would have made about $10 billion more. He would have made $12 billion, except for that pesky little two minute clip on a documentary nobody watched on a channel that BBC barely distributes in America. Okay, good luck. As the lawyers for the BBC said, if he's changing it to reputational, and that's all, we'll take it because. Because his reputation for gen 6 is terrible. That was the best thing the BBC ever heard. I know mainstream media reported it like, Donald Trump won an emergency motion related to his, his finances. That's a big win. That's because, you know, I don't mean to be. What's the word? I'm kind to fellow commentators, but many of the fellow commentators are not practicing lawyers and they don't understand what happens next. You know, they just rip the headline and they can't explain it to you because they've never tried a case in front of a live jury. And I think that's one of the competitive advantages we have on legal af. I think that's one of the reasons that you come to us and then you've got. So that's what's going on in the BBC case. He killed his own case because he says, I'll stake my reputation on the case. Good for you. You're going to lose on the Wall Street Journal case. That's before Judge Gales down the hall from Judge Altman. And in that case, he's so sided with the Wall Street Journal who got sued for billions of dollars again, because why? Because they published an article about the Epstein birthday book. This scrapbook that Ghislaine Maxwell put together, four volumes for Epstein's 50th birthday filled with disgusting comments and pictures, bringing down most of the men that were listed in there. But for Donald Trump, he said, yeah, it's not me. Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes? That's not my signature. I don't. Somebody must have set me up. Yeah. 30 years ago, before Epstein was arrested and before you ran for president, somebody time traveled and shoved your birthday card into the book with a naked woman and some crazy language. Nobody buys that. In any event, Wall Street Journal got a copy of it. We know where they got a copy of it from. They got a copy of it from the Epstein estate. That same book got published by Congress. Hell, we have it up on Legal AF substack and Midas Touch has it up as well. So how can you continue to maintain a defamation case about. Oh, well, I've denied it. Okay, well, I called Rupert Murdoch. Trump said, no. I told him, I deny it. Okay. And they wrote that in the article. But that's not actual malice to publish reporting about what they've seen and what it implies. I mean, that's not how journalism or the First Amendment works or freedom of the press works. So he filed a couple of laws, a couple of complaints. One got dismissed. He tried it again, and the judge took a look at it. I'm pretty sure he's signaling Judge Gales he's going to dismiss it finally and permanently and put it out of its misery because he's blocked all discovery in the case. He's not allowing Donald Trump to go traipsing around the electronic forms and files and information and emails and depositions, whatever, of the Wall Street Journal to try to find a lawsuit needle in the haystack. My lawsuit's here somewhere. Yeah, you're not going to go finding it in discovery because to unlock the key, to unlock the door of discovery, you've got to have a valid operative complaint. And it looks like you don't. So that's going to be Judge Gale's. Just get ready. When I come back on Legal AF or on substack to tell you the Wall Street Journal case is finally dead and buried. Which brings us to the third case in Miami, all happening this week also before Judge Altman, the BBC judge, in a case brought by Trump against Capital One, Trump and his family. Why? Because Capital One fired the Trump family and 400 or 300 of their bank accounts for 400 of their businesses. So Trump did like it and he said, oh, the reason I got debanked at Capital One and Chase and all these, because they're woke up. They're woke. Yeah, they're diversity, equity, inclusion. They're trying to take advantage of John 6 on me. What capital One did now that we know, because they just made a filing, is that they told the Trump family, we're getting rid of you because activity in your accounts triggered our anti money laundering compliance program and anti terrorism funding program, which is run by a combination of AI software and former law enforcement. And they have the right to fire anybody from the bank. It's in your account opening documents. I assure you in my prior life of being a deputy general counsel in a Wall street firm, financial services firm, I work very closely with the compliance department and I know all about know your customer regulations, AML regulations, anti money laundering, Patriot act and the rest and bank secrecy act. And when you onboard a client or offboard them, the decision making process that goes forward. And so they didn't make it public because they said, you know, listen, just go find other banking. Took them about six months. They gave them an extension go. I think they went to Charles Schwab and some other places. Oh no. They wanted to bring the suit for billions of dollars against Capital One because they got their taste for getting, what's the word? Getting extortive payments, extortion payments from media companies and banks and law firms. They thought they could try it on Capital One. Capital One fired back this week and said, you know the reason we got rid of you and put it in a public filing motion to dismiss, bright red letters blinking because we thought you, you were a potential money launderer along with your companies and a, or and or a terrorist financier. What happens is they look, they scour and audit the accounts and they look at the transactions, the money in, the money out, the wire in, the wire out, the timing of it, the counterparty and stakeholder on the other side, where's the money coming from? Is it consistent with what the bank understands your business to be right? Are you kiting checks? Are you running personal expenses through your accounts? Probably all of it. And bells and whistles go off and people in positions of authority at banks have to fill out suspicious activity reports. Sars. There are probably dozens and dozens of SARS that were filed for the bank to make the decision to fire Donald Trump. By the way, they could have done it for no reason, any reason, even a bad reason. That's what your account opening statements say or documents say in the agreements. They could have done it because he's a persistent fraudster as a judge, by a New York judge. They could have done it because his companies, two of his companies were convicted of tax evasion and books and records fraud. 17 counts and he was convicted of 34 felony counts of books and records fraud and election fraud. Could have been that. Could have been he's a judged a sex abuser. Could have been that he was indicted related to gen 6 picket. They didn't use any of those. They said no. Our own personal AML program flagged him and we fired him and they pushed the bank so hard that he, that they had to disclose it. I mean, I think they did it with special delight. They actually didn't have to put that in the motion to dismiss that they filed, but they have. And that's in front of Judge Altman as well in the Southern District of Florida. So we've got the BBC case, we've got the Capital One case, and we got the Wall Street Journal case, all in the Miami Southern District of Florida, along with Judge Williams, who has the IRS case, all in the same courthouse. He's doing terribly there. But remember what I said at the top of this segment. Why aren't they bringing these matters to Judge Cannon? And I've given you my working theory on that. When I come back, I want to talk about Lisa Cook on the Federal Reserve, them going after her again to try to fire her and get control of interest rates in this country by undermining the Federal Reserve's independence. And I want to talk about birthright citizenship and how Donald Trump once again is trying to deny people the right who were born in America to be U.S. citizens despite the fact that he lost 5 to 4 or 6 to 3 on birthright citizenship just a month and a half ago. Many ways to support what we do here on Legal AF and on the Midas Touch Network. Firstly, Legal AF, the YouTube channel. Come over to Legal AF YouTube channel. This weekend we're going to cross 1.2 million subscribers with your help. It's absolutely free, cost you nothing, but it means the world to us. You may think you're already subscribed. I don't think you are to me as I'm traveling. Do me a personal favor. Check and hit the free subscribe button. That's 1, 2 substack. And because of your generosity, our substack is. What's the word I'm looking for? On fire. We are now in the top two and rising of all US politics substacks. And we're in the top 25 overall for us for all US news substacks. I like to get us to the top 10. It's that important. And we post all of our filings and all of our new content. I do live streams on Legal AF substack for you. So that's two substack three. This podcast, it's been around for six years. We just won the Webby Award for best news podcast in the world. But we still need audio downloads. Hit the audio download for Legal AF the the podcast and leave a five star review. As Ben talked about, I've got a New firm that we set up to service Legal AF and Midas Touch community members. It's called the POPOC Firm. There's the QR code, brand new website, same tireless fighters. If you've been injured in an accident or anybody in your family, God forbid, there's been a death, catastrophic injury through the negligence of others, car accident, trucking accident, uber accident, medical malpractice, you name it. A product's liability. We are the firm for you. We'll evaluate the case for you. I've got lawyers in 50 states recovering billions of dollars and we're representing hundreds and hundreds of Midas touch and legal AF community members. So check out the Popoc firm. 1-877-popocaf or hit the QR code. And then we've got our sponsors, some of which have been with us since the very beginning. Some have been with us just recently, but all want to support what we're doing here. Our First Amendment right to speak, your First Amendment right to hear what we have to say. They know our audience and community and they want to support it. So now let's take a break for our sponsors. Life insurance. We all know we need it, but we keep putting it off because we think it's complicated or expensive or that I don't know, will live forever. Stop telling yourself you'll handle it later and take care of it today. With SELECT quote In 15 minutes, you could have coverage that fits your life and budget. Here's what makes Select Quote different. Their licensed insurance agents work for you, not for one insurance company. They compare options across multiple carriers to find you the right coverage at the lowest price. Even if you have health issues, they can help high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease. Their agents know which carriers will give you the best rate for your specific situation. Other brokers push policies that pay them the most. Select quotes agents actually shop for you get the right life insurance for you for less at selectquote.com legalaf go to selectquote.com legalaf today to get started. Long summer days. They're great until you're trying to keep up with your crew while overheating. And you're checking for sweat spots as summer plants heat up. Stay fresh from sun up to sundown with Mac Weldon's Airknit X fabric. It all started with underwear designed to wick moisture, fight odor and give you maximum airflow. Now they're expanding that bestseller to a full line of essentials, including undershirts, T shirts, polos and socks. I just added Airknit X T shirts and polos to my summer rotation. Their lightest fabric is fused with nylon mesh for maximum air flow. The four way stretch means no bunching or sagging and the barely there feel helps keep you dry and fresh all day. They look like regular clothes but feel like modern performance wear, making them an easy confidence boosting choice. For summer. Browse the full Air Knit x collection@mackweldon.com plus get 20% off your first order of $125 or more with code legal AF don't sweat the heat this summer. Feel as effortlessly cool as you look with Mack weldon. Go to mackweldon.com and get 20% off your first order of $125 or more with promo code legal AF. That's M A C K W E l d o n.com code legal af welcome back. You're on legal af the podcast. I'm Michael Popak along with Ben Mesalis on the Saturday edition and I appreciate we all appreciate our audience, without which their generosity, their devotion, their thirst for law and politics commentary that's unvarnished, that is, without blowing smoke or sunshine, we wouldn't be here. And we never let ourselves forget that. And it motivates everything we do. On Midas Touch and Legal A Athletes coming to the home stretch now two cases that are back. I mean, as I joked recently in a hot take, I feel like I'm watching Jordan Peele's masterpiece. Nope. When I hear that Donald Trump's trying to fire Lisa Cook of the Federal Reserve again and trying to rip birthright citizenship as now redefined by the United States Supreme Court out of the Constitution. I thought we did this already. He just got the rulings in June that he is wrong on both counts. He can't screw with the Federal Reserve and its independence the way that he's decided to do it by taking out Lisa Cook, whose term ends in 2038, in order to gain control of not just the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, but its Open Market Committee that sets interest rates. And no, he can't ignore nor the clear direction of the Supreme Court 5 to 4 decision that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution precludes any attempt to deny people birthright citizenship, no matter who their parents are, no matter what crimes may have been committed, including birth tourism, whatever that's supposed to be. But Donald Trump's issued a new executive order and he sent a letter to Lisa Cook saying he's going to start her firing all over again. Let's I mean, they are conjoined twins, so let's Talk about them that way. Lisa Cook appointed by Joe Biden giving at least through 2028 the Democrats or non Trumpers a four to three advantage on the seven member board of Governors they pick the regional presidents of the border of the Federal Reserve. Five of those rotate on they form a committee once a month called the Federal Open Markets Committee to set interest rates which determines how much you and I pay for mortgages and loans and credit cards, how much people who borrow money for business purposes or otherwise ultimately pay. And it the lower that number, the more free money is in our economy to stimulate it. If you overstimulate it, you get hyperinflation. We're already at inflation. That's five years too long. So Lord knows what would happen if Donald Trump got his hands on the spigot related to cash. He tried to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell, claiming there was criminal construction cost overruns related to the refurbishment of three or four hundred year old buildings that make up the Federal Reserve. Lost there badly. Jay Powell stepped down as chairman when his term was over, but it's still on the Federal Reserve. So he went after Lisa Cook. Lisa Cook is one in a series of half a dozen political targets of Donald Trump that he's tried to claim committed mortgage fraud. Suddenly mortgage fraud is so rampant, everybody in Donald Trump's administration or on the Federal Reserve is doing it, including reporting by the Wall Street Journal that Scott Bessant, the Treasury Secretary has done exactly what Donald Trump claims that Lisa Cook and others did, like Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York or Adam Schiff, which is have multiple homes, okay. And check certain boxes that gave them a slight advantage in an interest rate, maybe 30 or $50 a month by claiming that this was a first home, not a rental home, not a second home, that they wouldn't rent it out or whatever the particular, the particular circumstances were. He tried Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, try to get her indicted three times. Grand jury's rejected it. He hasn't tried since he never got a grand jury to indict Adam Schiff, the senator from California. Mortgage fraud. And then of course he went after Lisa Cook by having Bill Pulte, his political hack, who is a mini Trumper who runs his mortgage unit, the Federal Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to violate the Privacy Act. Pick and choose pieces of paper out of thousands of pieces of paper about Lisa Cook's buying of two homes from her credit union, an Atlanta condominium and a home in Michigan from the same credit union. So how do you defraud the same bank. I mean, isn't that literally impossible to say? Well, she said the Atlanta home was her primary and the Michigan home, it's the same bank. Don't they know what their own branches or their own loan officers are doing? So they take, oh, look at these signatures on the same day. Right? It was a double closing. Right. On the same day. It's not fraud. It's not criminal fraud. It's not criminal fraud to provide a good reason to remove her from the Federal Reserve. But they're trying to rattle her cage and get her off. Fortunately, she's not easily rattled. She's, she, she's won every court case involving this that has she has filed, including up to the United States Supreme Court. And her lawyer, Abby Lowell, is ready for the next round. Why are we in a next round? Because when the Supreme Court in June blocked Donald Trump from firing her, they said they didn't like it because he didn't give her due process. The good reason for firing her wasn't properly developed. They affirm that courts have jurisdiction to provide oversight in this area. There has to be a good reason. There has to be due process. And they also said in one of the footnotes, they also said that she, Trump, can try it again, but they have to develop the facts and show that the thing she's being accused of would undermine her ability to be fair and independent on the Federal Reserve. Unless you're a personal mortgage fraud that was allegedly committed before she became a member of the Federal Reserve. The way this is being alleged constitutes that. But we're going to find out really quickly because they've now sent a new letter to her in which they've said, again, not listing any of the facts, we think there's reasonable cause to believe that you are, you've committed mortgage fraud. I mean, when you have a Supreme Court case that tells you you better be pretty specific, very specific in your case that you're building against the Federal Reserve member before you fire them. Do you think this satisfies that? Here's what the letter reads from those that have seen it. You are hereby provided notice that the President is considering removing you from your position on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve due to there being sufficient reason to believe. Stop right there. Who wrote this? To believe that you made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements signed Dan's Covino for the President? Are you. Are you effing kidding me? That's not going to pass muster. And Abby Lowell, the lawyer for Lisa Cook, ready. Has been ready for this. As soon as the Supreme Court ruled in her favor, Abby Lowell came back and said that the new allegations, whatever they are supposed to be, they're basically, they're not even grammatically correct, as baseless now as they were a year ago. No matter what President Trump tries to do next, Abby Lowell said this much is clear. There is no valid cause for removing Governor Cook as we did before. We will challenge this latest pretext and preserve her position in the historic role of the Fed. Because to get rid of her would give Donald Trump a 4 to 3 advantage on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which would let him pick the five additional members of the Federal Open Markets Committee, and he would gain control of all the votes there. Right now, he just controls the chairperson and maybe one or two other votes. And it's, and it's making him upset. So he's going back after Lisa Cook, we'll update you as this will inevitably land probably back on Judge Gia Cook's bench. She was the judge in the lower court on the original case and then up to the United States Supreme Court. I don't think it's going to be an August event. I think the new term is going to reopen. We're going to have some litigation in the courts below through the month of August, probably into September. And sometime when the new court opens for the Supreme Court the first Monday in October, we'll probably see some action. October, November, December, similar to last year. Related to Lisa Cook again in the the Federal Reserve again, this is just Donald Trump trying to distract from the failings of his economy. When you're not making any jobs and prices are stubbornly high and people continue to suffer and blame you and your administration, you gotta come up with something else. Let's attack Lisa Cook again. Now let's turn briefly to the birthright citizenship case. There we go. Now, when we did the reporting on birthright citizenship, which just got completely affirmed with a final notice by the Supreme Court court in the last few days, we reported it as either a 5 to 4 or 6 to 3 decision led by Chief Just Rob Chief Justice Roberts to reaffirm 100-year-old precedent in a case called Wong King Kim Ark From, I think 19, 1901, that said that if you are born in the United States, except in very rare circumstances, like you're born to an ambassador on, on, you know, like inside the embassy, then you're not going to be a U.S. citizen. But everybody else is that precedent. Five to four, Roberts, Roberts, Katanji Brown, Jackson Sotomayor. And Kagan. Right, that's four. And then you had a couple of more people sort of join, including Kavanaugh. Right. But it was dangerously close. You know, we like to say it was six to three. It was really five to four. On the Constitution, Kavanaugh ruled that the Nationality act, which came out later after the Wong Kim Ark case, effectively was Congress memorializing what the Supreme Court had done in a statute. But in a footnote, Kavanaugh said, but if Congress wants to create new exceptions where people aren't US Citizens, Congress can do it. That was an invitation apparently, to Donald Trump to use the, what we now call the great concurrence, the great concurrer in Kavanaugh. He's always concurring about something to say, aha, Congress can do it. I probably can do it by executive order. No, you can't. In fact, John Roberts said in his decision that this historical precedent of birthright citizenship stretches back before the American revolution into like 15 and 1400, Britain, London, England. And it's a right that has been unchallenged. And it was the, it was the, the purpose or the goal by the framers and by the 14th amendment framers to have as broad birthright citizenship as back in pre colonial times in England. And the only exceptions were very limited. It was like certain Indian tribes, Native American tribes, and ambassadors. Trump heard that and saw Kavanaugh's concurrence and said, aha, I can create an entire new group. So he had a whole thing and an executive order about, well, if you're participating in birthing tourism and you're committing a crime, a child that's born on US Soil, whose parent was involved in birth tourism, that's not going to be a U.S. citizen. That's not what it says. Look, if Trump wants to make illegal birth tourism, people trying to drop, have babies here in America on purpose in order to make them into US Citizens, you can criminalize that. You can criminalize that. You can criminalize the mule, the broker, the service, the person put them in jail. But the baby, if the baby slips through, no pun intended, if the baby comes out in America, it's a US Citizen. So saying, no, no, if it's birthday, if you're not just ambassadors, anybody that works for a foreign country that's in America, anybody, anybody, anybody in the front office, in the back office, clerical, otherwise, yeah, we're going to throw you. Yeah, your kids aren't. Aren't US Citizens either. If you're in certain territories that are American territories, like The Mariana Islands or whatever. No, you're not going to be a US Citizen either. If you work for a government, a foreign government or a foreign corporation, and you have some sort of immunity in this country from suit. Yeah, your kids aren't going to be US Citizens either. What does it say that in the Supreme Court decision? It didn't. In fact, it's the opposite. The Supreme Court was trying to shut down the exemptions, not add to them or let Donald Trump add to them. But you see how hot Donald Trump got about Kavanaugh's observation that Congress can do it. Then let Congress try. And then we'll see if Congress's act is inconsistent with the 14th Amendment and whether there are five votes, five votes, which right now there are, to protect the birthright citizenship as a part of the 14th Amendment, not as part of a statute. So what's going to happen there? You know what's going to happen. Groups are going to join together and file multiple lawsuits like the first, first birthright citizenship case in places like Washington State federal court, Rhode island federal court, Massachusetts federal court, Maryland federal court, the District of Columbia, Louisiana. You know, there's a reason that these, these cases are filed in those federal courts. And then they'll go up to favorable appellate courts like the ninth Circuit, the first Circuit, the fourth Circuit. You know, you know, we sort of avoid the 5th Circuit, the 11th Circuit, and then it'll land on the doorstep of the United States Supreme Court in blocking this executive order. Some judge in the next 30 days based on a lawsuit filed maybe by the Democratic attorneys general next week is going to block this executive order as being inconsistent with the case of Barbara versus the Trump, which is the birthright citizenship case. And then it's going to get up on an appeal and a fast track to the Supreme Court. I don't think, again, it's going to be in August, but maybe in late September or early on October, we're going to be reporting on it. Where do we do that? Right here on Midas Touch and Legal af. I'm so glad you've joined us. You can see that even though Ben was on vacation last week and I'm still on vacation with my family now, this is important to us, the continued cadence and content and speaking to our audience and keeping our audience knitted together in the face of Todd Blanche's confirmation and focusing on the federal courts that are doing God's work right now, the laboring or right now to protect our democracy, whether it's Judge Sullivan in Katie Fang's lawsuit about the Epstein survivors and their dignity and the documents that we all deserve. Or Judge Williams in the Southern District of Florida, who's protecting us about the way she's declaring bad faith and foul in the way that Donald Trump and Todd Blanche created the Jan6 fund. Or judge Brinkama, who's about to decide whether Donald Trump's immunity pass for tax evasion given to him by his now attorney general is constitutional or not. As other federal courts, about mail in balloting, which is now up at the United States Supreme Court court as we speak, and about the weaponization of the post office, whether their decisions are going to be upheld. You know, these, these cases matter. And even the private cases by Donald Trump as president, not president in all of his defamation cases, the cases in front of Judge, in front of Judge Gales, about the Wall Street Journal, in front of Judge Altman, about the BBC or Capital One, these cases matter. And you need and you deserve to get the straight scoop right. Honest commentary, knowledgeable, educated commentary. I'm so tired of reading in mainstream media misinterpretations, getting judges names wrong, getting what the meaning of a phrase means in an order or in the procedure, procedure of something on appeal. And I like slap my forehead. I'm like, I got to hurry up and do a video to educate our audience about what's really going on because this is wrong. I just read something about Judge Altman and the case I just talked to you about related to the BBC. And they, as they, they, even though Judge Altman signed the order, this mainstream media outlet referred to it as the magistrate judge's order. I'm like, oh my God. I mean, they can't even get the basics right. So I'm glad we're all here together. You're generous with your time. We appreciate it. I can't even tell you how many times we talk internally at Midas. Ben, the brothers, me, our team, our producers about our audience and how, I mean, everything we do, the guiding light and principle for what we do is what is good and right and just for our audience. That's it. And that we, because we never waver from that. We don't disappoint because we have our moral compass. You set it for us. You know, we have the sextant, but you are the North Star. We appreciate you being here. So many different ways to support what we do. You've got Legal AF, the YouTube channel, 12 hot new videos every day. I do many of them. But we've got amazing contributors. Come over to legalif YouTube hit that free subscribe button. Another community overlapping community legal AF substack helped get us to the top 10 of US news substacks were dangerously close. With your help, we'll get there. So legal AF substack 10 or 12 pieces of new content there as well. This podcast. We could use some audio downloads. Some people don't even know we're on audio. They just think we're YouTube. Some people in audio don't know, vice versa. Download the audio. That helps us tremendously and keeps us on the air. Keeps the gas in the tank. And then finally, the Popoc firm. I literally founded a law firm to support our Midas Touch and Legal AF community and put together a group of lawyers, top plaintiff's lawyers in all 50 states with billions of dollars in recovery for personal injury cases, high end catastrophic injury cases. So if you or someone you know, like a loved one has been injured or God forbid there's been a death related to the negligence of others in car accidents, auto accidents, truck accidents, medical malpractice, products liability, you name it, then have somebody on my team speak to you about your case. We don't get paid unless you do. And we'll tell you whether you have a case or not. Hit that QR code right? New brand new website. Same tireless fighters. I'm so pleased that you're here. We're keeping the content going until my next podcast, which is going to be on Tuesday on the Intersection, which is on the Midas Dutch network. And of course back with Ben Meiselas next Saturday, you're on Legal AF the podcast. I'm Michael Popo. Shout out to the Midas mighty and the Legal A eff.

Summary7 min read

Legal AF – August 8, 2026 Episode Summary

Podcast: Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Hosts: Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok
Date: August 9, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode provides a comprehensive, in-depth legal analysis of a tumultuous week in American law and politics as it intersects with the ongoing Trump administration. The hosts cover the Katie Fang v. DOJ (Epstein Transparency Act) transparency fight, major courtroom setbacks for Trump (notably relating to the Golden Ballroom construction at the White House and several high-profile lawsuits), the controversial confirmation of Todd Blanche as Attorney General, attempts to undermine the Federal Reserve, new litigation on birthright citizenship, and a series of Trump’s personal cases aimed at the media and finance sectors. The tone is urgent, critical, and energetic, blending legal scholarship with political critique and activism.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Katie Fang’s Lawsuit Under the Epstein Transparency Act

⏰ [00:00–14:30]

Background: Katie Fang, MeidasTouch co-host, is pursuing the release of DOJ files still being concealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, seeking transparency into redacted documents—especially names of “co-conspirators.”
Court Order: Judge Sullivan in DC federal court granted a preliminary injunction compelling the DOJ to justify the redactions and demanding a timeline to review all 5 million withheld documents.
Major Hearing: DOJ and Todd Blanche (now Attorney General) ordered to appear August 13, 2026.
Key Issues: Why are accused co-conspirators’ names redacted? The court suspects a loophole whereby powerful men are labeled as “victims” to shield identities, while actual victims get less protection.

“What we’ve been able to now identify through Katie Fang’s courage… is a really broader sick conspiracy where it appears that Trump’s DOJ would go to all of these wealthy men… and say, ‘Call up with your lawyers and tell the DOJ that you’re the victim...’”
— Ben Meiselas [13:10]

2. Trump’s “Golden Ballroom” at the White House Abandoned

⏰ [14:30–22:00]

Appeals Court Decision: D.C. Circuit Court (2–1) upholds blocking further construction. Trump given 14 days to appeal to SCOTUS.
Legal Rationale: White House alterations require Congressional approval & funding under the Constitution’s property clause — can't claim national security as an excuse unless substantiated.
Judicial Commentary: Trump’s actions were called out as creating his own security concerns by breaking ground illegally.
Memorable Moment: Judges (even conservative ones) mock Trump’s shifting claims that the ballroom is a “drone port” or military target, calling it “dystopian and sick.”

“Bald assertions of national security cannot excuse the government’s failure to follow the law…”
— Citing Judge Leon [21:10]

3. Lawsuits: BBC, Wall Street Journal, Capital One

⏰ [22:00–55:00]

BBC $10 Billion Defamation Case

Trump’s Claim: BBC defamed him via a UK-only documentary, causing $10B in damages.
Discovery Pushback: BBC requests business records to evidence damages. Trump tries to recast the claim as “reputational harm” only to hide financial records.
Judge’s Response: Pause granted by Trump-appointed judge; Trump must show how he’ll amend complaint.

Wall Street Journal “Epstein Birthday Book” Case

WSJ Reporting: Identified Trump’s connection to Epstein via a published scrapbook. Trump sues for defamation.
Judge’s Stance: Signaling likely dismissal; not allowing far-reaching discovery based on insufficient complaint.

Capital One “Debanking” Lawsuit

Trump’s Claim: Capital One closed 400 Trump family business accounts due to political bias (“woke-ism”).
Capital One’s Response: Accounts closed due to flagged money laundering/terrorism triggers—not because of political reasons.
Legal Reality: Such closings are standard when anti-money-laundering (AML) criteria are hit.

“When those [AML] are flagged… the bank has an obligation not to bank you.”
— Michael Popok [10:40]

4. The Wall of Trump Litigation: Context & Impact

⏰ [35:00–42:00]

Tactics: Trump weaponizes lawsuits and prosecutions to distract from a failing administration (job loss, poor polling), and to keep himself and MAGA topics in the spotlight.
Judicial Landscape: Trump consistently loses in these cases. Popok notes a “bag of monkey wrenches” deployed whenever Trump faces setbacks.

“Whenever we talk about these things, you… have to also acknowledge that they are a bag of tricks, a bag of monkey wrenches that Donald Trump throws out after he’s had a terrible week or a terrible day in lawsuit, failure after failure…”
— Michael Popok [37:15]

5. The Todd Blanche Dilemma — New Attorney General

⏰ [27:00–35:00]

Confirmation: Blanche confirmed 50–49 amidst fierce pushback. Popok interviewed Sens. Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal for Democratic perspectives.
Sen. Booker Quote:

“When it comes to principled stands, we have to stand up or there’ll be the slow erosion of the very principles that are worth fighting for... history will look back and take strength from our resistance.” [28:45]
Blumenthal’s Take: Focuses on Blanche’s complicity in Trump’s agenda (pardons, cryptocurrency profits, tax immunity), and foreshadows possible impeachment for ethical lapses in office.

Tax Immunity “Settlement” Fallout

Controversial Settlement: Blanche granted Trump, his family, and his trust sweeping tax immunity as AG—immediately challenged in federal court.
Judge Williams (Miami): Called settlement “illegal and illicit collusive conduct.”
Judge Brinkama (VA): Now has a direct challenge to the immunity order; public interest law firm Democracy Forward leads.

“…the agreement that Blanche and Trump and the Trump Organization are engaged in to provide Donald Trump and his associates... IRS immunity conscripts [IRS employees] into the violation of law and is unlawful and is an unconstitutional emolument.”
— Sky Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward [39:16]

6. Attacks on Federal Reserve, Lisa Cook

⏰ [1:18:00–1:29:00]

Lisa Cook: Trump attempts (again) to remove Biden-appointed Fed governor Lisa Cook for alleged “mortgage fraud,” despite all previous allegations having failed in court.
Legal Standards: Supreme Court ruled there must be substantive, specific cause and due process for such removals. Trump’s notice still lacks specifics.
Political Motivation: With Cook removed, Trump could gain a voting majority on the Federal Reserve.
Lisa Cook’s attorney, Abby Lowell: Ready to challenge “pretextual” accusations once more.

"No matter what President Trump tries to do next, as we did before, we will challenge this latest pretext and preserve her position in the historic role of the Fed."
— Popok channeling Abby Lowell [1:28:30]

7. Birthright Citizenship – New Executive Order

⏰ [1:29:00–1:36:30]

Background: Just weeks after SCOTUS (5–4) re-affirmed the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on US soil save rare exceptions, Trump issues an executive order limiting citizenship in cases of “birth tourism,” government employees, etc.
Legal Prognosis: Clearly inconsistent with precedent; expected to be enjoined imminently by federal courts, then fast-tracked to Supreme Court.
Historical Context: The Supreme Court’s decision drew on English common law and original intent—Trump’s order is seen as a blatant disregard for the judiciary.

“The only exceptions were very limited… Trump heard that and saw Kavanaugh’s concurrence and said, ‘Aha, I can create an entire new group.’”
— Michael Popok [1:32:30]

Notable Quotes & Moments

“You can always count on these individuals to do the wrong things. That’s why we’re in this hell in the first place.” (Ben Meiselas, [01:10])
“Donald Trump is a terrible loser, but a lifelong loser… ‘My ballroom is a drone port. It’s a military operation!’” (Ben Meiselas, [02:56])
“He’s a bankrupter, he’s a defamer, he’s a fraud… he’s a horrible human. And that’s how horrible humans behave.” (Ben Meiselas, [01:48])
“Judge Sullivan is on to that. Katie Fang is on to that. Big hearing happening August 13. Great work, Katie Fang.” (Ben Meiselas, [13:51])
“Think about that as when it comes to January 6, putting it aside, Donald Trump a sex abuser, Donald Trump as many other fraudster you know, Donald Trump as convicted felon… how can you defame that reputation?” (Michael Popok, [52:00])
“This judge is smart, intelligent, well-reasoned. You wouldn't see their politics drip into the rulings. You would see them apply the law… This whole new batch of Trump sycophantic judges, though, are unqualified young people, often who don't know the law…” (Ben Meiselas, [24:50])
“I believe, call me naive, but part of what we’re building here at the Midas Touch Network is to do this… one of the ways out of this hell is through a strengthening of our legal organizations, our legal systems…” (Ben Meiselas, [25:30])

Important Timestamps for Segments

Katie Fang v. DOJ (Epstein Transparency Act): [00:00–14:30]
White House Ballroom Ruling: [14:30–22:00]
Trump’s Lawsuits (BBC, WSJ, Capital One): [22:00–55:00]
Todd Blanche confirmation, tax immunity litigation: [27:00–42:00]
Federal Reserve/Lisa Cook: [1:18:00–1:29:00]
Birthright Citizenship Litigation: [1:29:00–1:36:30]

Closing Thoughts

This edition of Legal AF is a strikingly candid, well-reasoned, and hard-hitting legal recap, highlighting both major victories and ongoing dangers at the highest levels of government. With Trump’s legal maneuvers repeatedly rebuffed, the federal judiciary is painted as a critical firewall against ongoing attacks on transparency, democratic norms, and constitutional protections. The hosts urge their audience to stay vigilant, take active stands for democracy, and rely on credible legal analysis amidst a sea of misinformation.

“You are the North Star. We appreciate you being here… everything we do, the guiding light and principle, is what is good and right and just for our audience.”
— Michael Popok [1:39:50]

Listen to the full episode for further detail, expert insights, and analysis of filings and decisions referenced throughout.

Loading summary

Transcript21 lines

[00:00]
A
Welcome to Legal AF on the Midas Touch Network. I'm Ben Meiselas. In just a little bit, we'll be joined by our co host Michael Popak. He's on vacation, but of course, Michael Popak would not miss a Legal AF with all of the breaking legal news to discuss this week. Midas Touch breaking down the breaking legal news. Also Midas Touch in the legal news, making legal news. Midas Touch co host Katie Fang pushing forward with her lawsuit against Todd Blanche and the Trump Department of Justice under the Epstein Transparency act to release the files that are still being concealed. A major order was issued in the federal Courthouse in Washington D.C. in Katie Feng's case. A big win for Katie Feng. A big win for transparency. And there will be a major hearing this week. Todd Blanche and the DOJ have been ordered to appear to answer questions before Judge Sullivan will break down for you what the court order is there. This happens the same week that Todd Blanche sadly was confirmed as Attorney General. We warned you. You can never have any faith in the spineless MAGA sycophant bootlickers. Even MAGA sycophant bootliickers who have had their entire careers destroyed by Donald Trump. Whether that's Senator Tillis of North Carolina, whether it's Senator Cornyn of Texas or Senator Cassidy of Louisiana, you can always count on these individ to do the wrong things. That's one of the reasons we're in this hell in the first place. Our pathetic men usually like these MAGA bootlicking sycophants who think more about still being invited to their MAGA country club than throwing the entire American democracy in the trash. But that's why we need fighters and we need to be the fighters, too. We can't be looking for heroes. We need to do it ourselves. And that's why it's such an honor and privilege to work with Katie Fang. This past week as well, another hero, David Hearn, had his case officially dismissed by Trump's doj. We talked last week how they requested the dismissal, but now that case is officially dismissed. Donald Trump ranting and raving like a lunatic. Ah, he still did it. He's really a vandal. Further defamation by a despicable little tiny disgusting thing in the Oval Office. Again, just so utterly offensive. But that's Trump's whole life. He's a bankrupter, he's a defamer, he's a fraud. He's. I mean, he's a Tara. He's a horrible human. And that's how horrible humans behave. Also Four other cases that were filed by the DOJ where they fabricated evidence against people they called vandals, that was dismissed. So big loss for Donald Trump there. That's good news. Other good news, the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals and a 2 to 1 ruling blocked Donald Trump's further construction of the ballroom. They did give a 14 day period for Trump to file an appeal. Their order stayed. In other words, it's paused for 14 days for Trump to issue or make an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. Donald Trump's obviously going to do that. He is a terrible loser, but a lifelong loser. And now he's saying, my ballroom is a drone port. It's the whole, the whole thing is a military operation.
[03:18]
B
The whole thing.
[03:19]
A
That's what I really wanted to do. I wanted to turn the White House into a military target. That's what I wanted to turn the People's House into. Oh, and then Donald Trump posting some real sick messages as well, because the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals said, said, look, the President is a temporary tenant of the White House. That shouldn't be a controversial statement. And Trump goes, I'm not the tenant. I'm the president and I have rights. I have rights as the president. You have the obligation to be a public servant and under the Constitution, Article 2, to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. You are a steward, although you don't behave like that. You are a steward of the Constitution to take care that laws are faithfully executed and Congress passes laws. And the D.C. circuit Court of Appeal very clearly said under the property clause of the Constitution, the funding for construction and for major alterations in the White House lies with Congress. Go do a law and then you can take care that that law be faithfully executed and you can do your renovation. So we'll talk about that. We'll talk about BBC, right? Donald Trump scared of BBC. Unfortunately, it was a Trump appointed judge, though, in the Southern District of Florida after the discovery judge, who's referred to as a magistrate judge, ruled that Donald Trump needs to turn over his financial records because he sued BBC for $10 billion back in was it December of 2025? Saying they defamed him for a documentary that just aired in the UK on Panorama that didn't air in the United States. He said, you defame me $10 billion. My businesses were harmed. So BBC says, okay, your business were harmed. Produce your records. Donald Trump's like, those don't belong to me. Those belong to the trust. That's a third party. The Donald J. Trust isn't me. I'm Donald. That's the trust. They're represented by a different person. Okay? BBC said, well, then have them turn it over because you're demanding $10 billion. So I want to know how you were damaged $10 billion when you made billions and billion. First off, there wasn't defamation. They said. Second off, damaged $10 billion by what? By us splicing together a video. And you believe that it defamed you by showing that you supported the January 6th insurrection. That's your claim of defamation of character right here. Federal magistrate judge said, donald, turn over your records. You're suing for $10 billion. The federal judge supervises the magistrate. So a magistrate judge is not appointed or confirmed. They are hired basically by federal judges, and they handle discovery, and they handle some things in criminal cases, but in civil cases, they handle discovery. So Trump sought an emergency action from the federal judge, who was a judge who Trump appointed in 2019. And the judge was like, okay, Donald, do you want to change your entire lawsuit now? And Trump's like, yes, I do. I want to change my lawsuit. So Trump wants to now, even after he blew all of the deadlines. Because the time to change your lawsuit or amend your complaint would have been back in March was the. You know, when you're a lawyer, you have to follow deadlines, right? And if you miss them, especially in federal court, you don't get to go to judges and go, judge, please, please. You missed the deadline. You missed the deadline. That's life, right? That's not a Democrat or Republican thing. That's being an adult thing and being a professional thing, especially in federal court. And deadlines are very important in the law. They're very important. So Trump misses the deadlines and goes, but now I have an emergency. They're gonna see my confidential business records
[07:03]
B
and all of the money, and I
[07:05]
A
can't let them see that. So, judge, can I change my lawsuit? And a judge who Trump appointed, because Trump's terrified of BBC, right? He's scared of BBC. But the judge who Trump appointed said, okay, Donald, we'll pause your obligation to turn over documents to BBC. Show me how you're going to amend the complaint. How are you going to change? And Trump said, well, I'm just going to say my reputation was harmed by $10 billion. I'm not going to say that my businesses were harmed. My reputation was a $10 billion, right? This fool, this coward, he goes around, he sues everybody for $10 billion. Oh, my reputation, my reputation. Meanwhile. And Popac will cover this. Meanwhile, what was the thing that he wanted most of all when he sued in Another case for $10 billion, the IRS and the Treasury Department, what he want tax immunity. That's the main thing that he wanted. He didn't want to pay his taxes. And those same cowardly MAGA Republican senators gave him that said that they were okay with the DOJ entering into that agreement with him or they were not going to compel Todd Blanche to actually void the settlement agreement, which is what they said they were going to do. There was a May 18 and May 19 settlement agreement in Trump's stupid lawsuit, I mean, frivolous lawsuit against the Treasury Department and the irs, remember? And they said, well, it's okay. He clarified the scope. What do you mean he clarified the scope? The scope. We know what it was. It was tax immunity for him and his family and his trust in all of his entities. He clarified that. We knew that. So what are you even talking about? In any event, you have in the lawsuit that was filed in Virginia in federal court, where the plaintiffs blocked the anti Weaponization fund or whatever the hell Trump calls it for the J6ers, which Trump really doesn't even care about. He just cares about his own tax immunity. In that case, the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to now include allegations to block the tax immunity. And the argument is, if you look at. So there's a case in Virginia, and the argument is, in Trump's initial lawsuit in Florida, the federal judge there, Kathleen Williams, found that the entire settlement agreement is void. It was done by collusion. It's an improper agreement. Using her name on the agreement and acting like that was a settlement in her court. It wasn't. She said that's not something that occurred here. And so in Virginia now in a separate lawsuit, the argument as well, look, in Trump's case against the IRS and Treasury Department, the federal judge there said it's void. So if the anti weaponization fund is void, the whole thing is void because the settlement agreement is voided by the judge because it was done by collusion and fraud. And you can't have a settlement agreement made by collusion and fraud. So they amended their complaints and they want a preliminary injunction there. Popak will break that down. He also is going to talk a little bit about Lisa Cook, what's going on with the Federal Reserve governor, and Trump's attempt to now fire her by creating a kangaroo court that will try to find for cause basis to terminate her with the foregone conclusion type of stuff you see in banana republics and in authoritarian regimes. We'll talk about that. Popak will talk about the Capital One
[10:34]
B
case
[10:37]
A
where they push back against Donald Trump, saying that they didn't debank him because he's Trump. They didn't let him bank there because certain triggers of money laundering were flagged. And when those are flagged, no matter who you are, if you're Trump, if you're Dump, if you're Gump, if you're Stump, whatever your name is, doesn't matter. This criteria is hit the bank has an obligation not to bank you. And they said that's what we were doing. We were following the criteria. All right, so in other words, we've got a lot to discuss. I covered a lot of it. There's a. Let's just go at the outset and talk about Katie Fang's case. So you know, Katie Fang sued under the Epstein Transparency Act. She sought a preliminary injunction. Her preliminary injunction was granted. The court ordered that the DOJ do certain things. The DOJ didn't do it. So then the court said, send me certain documents. I want to look at them immediately. I want to understand why you have certain categories of redactions and why you are redacting people who appear to be co conspirators, the bad guys, Their names appear to be redacted. Show me why you're redacting their names and we should unredact their names. But let me justify those redactions. Then show me the notes regarding FBI 302 reports regarding an underage girl who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault. Trump denies those allegations, but there's an FBI 302 report which says Donald Trump and their allegations against him. Produce the notes. You just produced the 302 report. I want to see those notes. And then the court said, tell me what's going on with the privilege log. I want to know about what's happening with the other 5 million documents that you haven't produced. What's the update there? The DOJ fully violated the court order, didn't do anything. So this past week, Federal Judge Sullivan ordered the DOJ to now show up August 13, 2026. Regarding the redaction log or privilege log, the judge said, I want all of the 5 million documents. I want to know when you're going to have a justification for withholding every single one of the 5 million documents that you have been turned over. I'm not asking you if you're going to. I want a timeline of when that's going to be done. That's a big win for Katie Fitzgerald. The judge said why aren't you producing the notes of the FBI interview about the allegations against Trump? You're saying because it's substantially similar to the FBI report. That's not a, that's not a reason to withhold under the Epstein Transparency Act. And if you're withholding documents by coming up with your own category of exclusion, substantially similar, that's another reason why I want to see your privilege log and your redaction log. And is that how you're withholding lots of other documents inappropriately? And then the court talks about how we want to understand why you're labeling people who appear to be the bad guys, the co conspirators, the powerful men. Why are you redacting their names? Why are you covering them up? In the filing that Blanche previously made, he said, well, it's because their lawyers called up and said they're victims. So you see what Katie Feng uncovered here, and this is amongst many reasons why she's so heroic. Because what we've been able to now identify through Katie Feng's courage, through her pushing this forward, is a really broader sick conspiracy where it appears that Trump's DOJ would go to all of these wealthy men, these powerful men who are implicated in the files and they would say, here's how we're going to help you. Call up with your powerful high paid lawyers and tell the DOJ that you're the victim. If you tell us the DOJ you're the victim, we'll have to acknowledge that you're the victim and we won't show your name and we will hide you and we will basically, that's our way, that's our loophole around the Epstein Transparency act because it's intended to protect the victims. So bad guys, perpetrators, co conspirators, just say you're a victim. And then we'll just say, got it, you're a victim. And we'll acknowledge that. Meanwhile, the real victims and survivors were tormented and tortured one by Epstein and by the co conspirators and by the Trump doj because their information was leaked. Their privacy, their photos, their dignity was not respected. But the bad guys claimed victim protection and Judge Sullivan is on to that. Katie Fang is on to that big hearing happening on August 13th. Great work. Katie Fang. Let's talk about the big ruling as well regarding the ballroom, Donald Trump's Golden Ballroom. My Golden Ballroom, My Golden Ballroom. It was a two to one ruling, two judges to one. And in this ruling you had, and obviously the Trump judge who's trying to, Judge Rao, who's trying to get on the Supreme Court was the one who gave the Trump sycophant bootlicker ruling. But really, in short, the ruling boiled down to the property clause of the United States Constitution, provides that these alterations, these adjustments, these any demolition, obviously it requires Congress. I mean, the Constitution makes it very clear that Congress has to approve it and pay for it. And if you can get Congress's approval, all good. In terms of national security, if you're claiming underneath the ballroom you're building bunkers and hospitals and all of these things, and that there is an actual national security basis for it, you can still do that. As the federal judge, Judge Leon, who, by the way, is a George W. Bush appointee, already ordered saying, look, the ballroom itself, that needs Congress. If you want to improve the bunker underneath or build a hospital or whatever, then you can do that with taxpayer money. But you can't. And this is what the judge said, though, too, in the district court. I'm not stupid. Like, you can't claim the ballroom is the military installation to get around this order. The judge made that very clear. And the D.C. circuit acknowledged the federal court's order, saying there's no loophole just to claim the entire ballroom is a military facility. And Judge leon and the D.C. circuit, in ruling against Donald Trump, also used Trump's words against him. Because Trump's lawyers said that they were independently building the bunker and all of these things, and that was separate and apart from the ballroom. And the reason that they were saying that also is because they wanted to use taxpayer dollars for all of this stuff. And they wanted to make it seem like, well, we were using the money of Trump's billionaire buds to build the ballroom. So that's separate. There's an underground project. That's why we had to do it so quickly. But the ballroom is being paid for over here, and that's why we didn't go to Congress, because it's being funded by the billionaires or whatever, who are obviously in on these quid pro quos. And then that's why we did the hospital and the bunkers and all of these secret military installations or whatever the hell they're trying to come up with. I mean, such a ridiculous, demented regime. So in any event, the Federal Court in D.C. circuit said, your own lawyer said these are separate things. So you can't claim the ballroom is now like a shield for you also to see Trump's paranoia. So Trump's golfing, obviously. He golfed today. He golfs all weekend. He golfs now with an E3, one of those surveillance planes, it's always up in the sky. He's terrified of Iran right now, and he's paranoid that they're always going to try to get him while he's golfing. And it's truly haunting him right now. One of the things that Trump and his sycophants have said was, well, what do we do now? We've already, we have this hole in the ground. What do we do? What do we do? Well, Judge Leon Bush appointee addressed this point. As Dan diamond explains, defendants predictably object, arguing that any delay to construct would imperil national security and expose the White White House to damage. Grasping for straws, defendants call the construction site a coordinated and managed safety hazard that has disrupted existing security protocols. In other words, they broke it, and now they're complaining and saying, well, now it's a security threat to us because we have this hole in the ground and we have all of this material everywhere. So now it's a national security concern to Trump because he destroyed it, and now we have this big hole in the ground, and that's dangerous. Thus, according to defendants Trump, any construction delay will undermine national security. That Donald Trump now caused the problem for himself. Please. The judge goes, please, exclamation point. While I take seriously the government's concern regarding the safety and security of the White House grounds and the President himself, the existence of a large hole besides the White House is, of course, a problem of the President's own making. Bald assertions of national security cannot excuse the government's failure to follow the law and then insulate those failures from judicial review. And that was affirmed by the D.C. circuit. And that's a Bush appointee, man. That's like what a Republican judge once was, where I would see stuff that that judge would do and I'd probably disagree with a lot. Not that I'm just saying in normal times, we may have different, broader perspectives on things, but you would respect the judge. This judge is smart, intelligent, well reasoned. You wouldn't really see their politics drip into the rulings. You would see them apply the law. And they may come out certain ways differently than you'd like, but that's the way it used to be. George W. Bush appointee. This whole new batch of Trump sycophantic judges, though, are unqualified young people, often who. Who don't know the law and who are just MAGA bootlickers. And that's why I've been showing you a lot of their confirmation hearings, where they all show up and they're all just like, you know, they all, they can't even answer the basic, who won the election? Oh, there was a electoral college. Not just who won, who won. You know, you have this whole crop of just like awful, terrible people. But Judge Leon's good judge. So Trump's been posting drone port. This is my drone port. Look, this whole thing is a military asset, sits on top of the ballroom. Why would you want to turn the White House into a military target though? Like just at a common sense level, why would you want, we have military bases. Why would you want. Even at the most logic level? So in an all out war, you want the White House to be saying as a legitimate military target under the rules of war by turning it into a drone port. I mean, and this AI slop on top of it, what the hell is this? Even on top of it? I mean, why are there military trucks? And why do these drones look gigantic? Why is there an entire army? I mean, how dystopian and sick is this, right? Like if you wrote about this scene in some sci fi book with these drone port posts and you describe that scene in a sci fi dystopian alternative history type book, which I used to enjoy growing up, but I can't enjoy them now. I don't enjoy those shows anymore. I don't enjoy those books anymore because it's real life and we're in the trenches fighting it. So I just can't watch that stuff anymore personally. But you'd be like, come on, what are you talking about? Here, I'll leave you with this though, because here is what Donald Trump's been posting. I could show you 40 of these, but I'll just show you one. Two judges, one appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, the other by Sleepy Joe Biden, said in a ruling on the desperately needed secure ballroom military complex, including a major drone port on the roof, that each president is a temporary tenant of the White House. Then Trump says, we are not tenants who pay rent and do all other things that a tenant must do. We are presidents elected by the people of the United States of America and have many rights, including the right to fix, renovate, secure, protect and beautify the White House grounds, which has been built and rebuilt, renovated and re renovated, repaired and simply made better many times since 1792. But as the court order explains, we are aware of no instance in American history in which a president is unilaterally and using privately collected funds, demolished a substantial portion of the White House that Congress authorized to be built and American taxpayers paid for until now, that's the truth. And when you look at the order and you look at Trump's frantic, chaotic, crazy social media posts, you have to ask yourself, which country do you want to live in? And to me, this is never a. Oh, well, Democrats, Republicans, Independent. No, no. It's really much deeper and more profound of bizarre Kim Jong Un, authoritarian. Frankly, Kim Jong Un looks very rational, very well reasoned compared to Donald Trump's behavior. I think his craziness is truly unprecedented, even amongst the authoritarian class, even as you think, through some of the people who we may have conceived as the craziest authoritarians, the most unhinged. Trump is in a authoritarian crazy pantheon to himself. Right? Do we want that? Do we want that? Or do we want logic, rules, evidence, the truth, the reality. And the reality is that the President is a public servant. You serve us, we don't serve you. You work for us, we don't work for you. We're not your employees. We're not your cogs. We're not your data center robots. We the people. We the people. And you work for us. And you're supposed to make our lives better, not inject deranged chaos, unpredictability, pain and suffering every day. And I believe, call me naive, but part of what we're building here at the Midas Touch Network is to do this, that one of the ways out of this hell is through a strengthening of our legal organizations, our legal systems, working hand in hand with what I can control here, building the independent media ecosystem the way we have to get out the truth, to bring in the top experts. All right, I'm going to bring Michael Popak in, I'm sure you're saying, Ben, enough of you. Let's bring in Michael Popak. Okay, Deal. A reminder. If you or someone you know has been injured in a car accident, trucking accident, if you've been injured by the negligence of somebody else, reach out to Popak's firm. We'll put the link in the description below. Subscribe to Michael Popak's YouTube channel, Legal AF and his substack, Legal AF. Let's keep that growing. All right, after this break, I'm going to bring in Michael Popak. Popak's on vacation, but he wants to be here. He wants to make sure he updates you with the legal news. So let's bring in Michael Popak. Let's take a quick break first.
[26:59]
B
Running a business means you're always reachable. Until you're not. And the moment you miss that call, that text, that follow up, a competitor is the one that picks it up. That's why today's episode is brought to you by Quo, spelled Q U O the business phone system built so you never miss an opportunity. I like the Quo keeps all your calls, texts and voicemails in one place so anyone on your team can see the full conversation history and respond quickly. And when you're unavailable, Quo's built in AI agent can answer questions and even book appointments so you're not losing potential customers. After hours, money is on the line. Always say hello with quo. Try quo for free plus 20% off your first six months when you go to quo.com legalayoff that's Q U O I've got to tell you about my Lola blanket because I've become completely obsessed with it. I'm definitely a blanket person and every night when I'm winding down, whether I'm watching TV or I'm just relaxing, this is the one I reach for. The first thing I noticed was how unbelievably soft it is and I love that. The design actually looks great. In my house, it's honestly replaced every blanket I own. I totally get why they call it the world's number one blanket. It's made with ultra soft luxury faux fur and a signature four way stretch. It's machine washable and it doesn't pill or shed even after repeated washes. It also has over 20,000 five star reviews and it makes an amazing gift because it's something people actually use every day. For a limited time, our listeners can get 40% off select Lola Blankets products with code LEGAL AF at checkout. Just head to Lola Blankets.com and use code LEGAL AF to get 40% off your order. Seriously, if you're looking to upgrade your cozy setup, don't miss this. For a limited time, our listeners can get 40% off select Lola Blankets products with code LEGAL AF at checkout. Just head to lolablankets.com and use code LEGAL AF to get 40% off your order. Now look after you purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and let them know we sent you Wrap yourself in Luxury with Lola Blankets. Thanks Ben and welcome back to Legal af. It was worth the fight. Some people are questioning whether the bruising battle to try to block Todd Blanche from being Attorney General because he's unfit, because he's immoral, because he's unethical and illegal and he's promotes and enables the worst instincts of a lawless president. Some people question whether it was worth the fight. Was it worth having a 50 to 49 squeak through for Todd Blanche. And I would argue that he's been left damaged goods as a result, a result of the promises he made that he cannot keep to senators. He's going to be subjected to oversight. He's going to have a unfavorable Congress, Senate and House that he's going to have to respond to after the election in just about three months. Did he lay the framework and the groundwork for his own impeachment and removal as Attorney General? You know, I had the opportunity to interview within a couple of days apart, two members of the Democratic leadership in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Cory Booker, the senior senator from New Jersey, and Senator Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. And both of them said it was worth the fight in their own way. Let me show you a clip I think is important of Senator Cory Booker as to why the fight, even if it was one that we ultimately lost, will pay dividends in the future. Let's play the clip. I would say please don't surrender to that idea because that will lead us into a pretty terrible place. I know from my own history as a black American that people fought hard as hell for every inch of ground we gained. And this idea that if we just acquiesce, if we just give in, maybe it won't be as bad as we imagine it to be. That to me, is inviting disaster and accepting, resigning yourself to injustice. We have to fight. I am telling you right now, when it comes to principled stands, we have to stand up or there'll be the slow erosion of the very principles that are worth fighting for. So I just hope your viewers understand this is one of those moments where even if we lose, the fact that we stood, history will look back and take strength from our resistance. And with, with the Senator Blumenthal, there was a different angle. I asked him about impeachment. Yeah. Todd Blanche may have a pardon in his back pocket. I'm sure he does. Which makes it ironic that his office is now considering whether to indict Dr. Anthony Fauci, who frankly, his sure hand guided us through a very treacherous moment during COVID with an out of control, irrational president. You know the guy that was saying we should drink Clorox and got a pardon by Biden along with everybody in his administration that make key decisions. Now it's landed in the lap of Todd Blanche. Does he really need, based on a 9 to 8 Senate Oversight Committee, Homeland Security and Government Affairs Oversight Committee headed by Rand Paul, does he really need to be prosecuting Anthony Fauci? After he just got done telling senators that he would not do the president's bidding and he would not go after the perceived targets of the president. He is not stronger to date Todd Blanche than he was yesterday or two days ago. And I don't think the first thing on his agenda should be going after an enemy and critic of Donald Trump. So we'll have to see what happens there. When I asked Senator Blumenthal, do you think this is the, the makings of his impeachment, his own impeachment, did he hang himself in the way he conducted himself in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee and in promises that he made in order to secure votes? And here's what Senator Blumenthal had to say. I think that, you know, his failing to acknowledge that the January six rioters
[33:30]
A
committed crimes, his support for pardons, his enabling.
[33:34]
B
Donald Trump's profiting from crypto.
[33:37]
A
$1.4 billion is what Donald Trump made
[33:41]
B
last year from crypto alone, $2 billion plus total. It is absolutely stomach turning, it's jaw dropping, the kind of corruption that Todd
[33:56]
A
Blanche is enabling as we speak.
[33:59]
B
So I think the kind of complicity
[34:02]
A
in that kind of corruption is
[34:09]
C
for
[34:10]
B
me, a very important reason that there could be impeachment. But remember that Donald Trump, under recent Supreme Court opinions, can't be held responsible
[34:22]
A
criminally while he's in office for anything he does while he's in office.
[34:26]
B
But Todd Blanche could be. So it's worth the fight, it's worth the struggle, Right? The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice. We just don't know at any given moment where we are along the ark, if you know what I mean. But we need to be bending it towards justice because history will look back and future, you know, very immediate future generations will not look kindly on us if we don't fight that good fight. And we have. And now it's left to the federal courts. There are only safety valve, circuit breaker, firewall, whatever you want to call it between now and the midterms and the installation of a new Congress, hopefully led by the Democrats come next a year January. Right. And one of the key cases, there's actually two in particular that I'm thinking of. But one of the key cases is before Judge Brinkama, Senior Judge, Eastern District of Virginia. She's the judge that blocked with a injunction the operation, formation and operation of the Jan6Anti weaponization $1.776 billion fund. Now, she didn't reach at that moment a month ago the issue of whether Todd Blanche's next day gift, a obvious quid pro quo to get the nomination from Donald Trump in giving his boss, his client, his friend and his family and 400 companies that Donald Trump controls through a trust and affiliates effectively a free pass to tax evasion, giving him immunity or a release for the last couple of decades of IRS investigations and audits, including some that are ongoing, worth $100 million to Donald Trump and his family. Running with interest, that issue of the next day massacre of our rule of law by Todd Blanche and Donald Trump and the illegality of it, the crime that was committed, a crime on the book since post Watergate and Richard Nixon that has not been front and center with a judge and wasn't considered at the moment by Judge Brinkama. Our friends Democracy Forward, a public interest group and law firm that is prosecuting the case in front of Judge Brinkama on behalf of a series of plaintiffs as diverse as municipalities like New Haven, Connecticut, former federal prosecutors who are drummed out and have been attacked by the Department of Justice protesters and members of the Internal Revenue Service and former members of the Internal Revenue Service. They have now filed their amended complaint to put squarely in front of Judge Brinkama the first and only of its kind lawsuit right now to have a federal Judge declare that May 9, that May 19 unilateral declaration of a pardon by Todd Blanche to be illegal, invalid and unconstitutional. And that just got filed in her court as of right, meaning they didn't have to seek leave or a motion to be filed because the government had not responded to that particular motion. Now the government is going to file another motion to dismiss. But in the meantime, Judge Brinkama, who sided with Democracy Forward a month ago, has this issue front and center even in Judge Williams courtroom in Miami. And I'm going to talk a lot about Miami in the coming segment because of about three or four different cases there. Even Judge Brinkama or Judge Williams, sorry, did not, did not address the issue of the next day settlement. She did it in her own way. She's the one that declared in response to a motion by 35 former federal judges that the entire lawsuit was a illegal, illicit, collusive conduct among Todd Blanche, Donald Trump, the Internal Revenue Service and the treasury department and Donald Trump's private lawyers. And therefore the settlement, the Jan6 fund settlement agreement and the amendment to that settlement agreement giving, giving Donald Trump and his family a free pass to tax evasion was also illegal. It was like a silver bullet, illegal and illicit. But there's still issues that are being resolved in her courtroom. The way that she handled it. Enter Judge Brinkama. Enter Democracy Forward. Now. I had in the last 24 hours, Sky Perryman, who's the CEO and runs Democracy Forward, on to talk about the new filing. And here's a clip.
[39:17]
C
Kudos to our brave clients that have been, you know, in this case from the beginning, the Floyd case. We have amended the complaint and we've continued to add allegations about the slush fund because as we know, every time Donald Trump, Trump opens his mouth, he talks more about how the slush fund needs to exist. And so we are still challenging the slush fund, but we also added new brave plaintiffs, the National Employees Treasury Union or the National Treasury Employees Union, nteu, which has employees as members who work at the irs. And those employees are essentially alleging that what this agreement that the, that Blanche and Trump and the Trump Organization are engaged in to provide Donald Trump and his associates, his family, his organization, IRS immunity conscripts them into the violation of law and is unlawful and is an unconstitutional emolument. It's giving the president a gift that, you know, that, that, that it's an unconstitutional emolument. So, so those are the claims with respect to the IRS immunity provision that the amended complaint. If you, if you, I know your listeners always go to our actual court documents. You guys love to feature the actual court documents. There is tremendous, great history in there about why there are provisions of our tax code that prevent exactly what this agreement did, including, by the way, in a circumstance where in the Watergate era, in the Nixon era, he was seeking to weaponize the IRS against people and to use also the IRS to favor his friends. And Congress took action there to add additional protections, which is one of the many legal bases for, for our, for our case.
[40:59]
B
Exactly. Now what's going to happen? The Department of Justice is going to file another motion to dismiss to argue that none of these people can be plaintiffs. They're going to argue that the case has no merit, which they've already done in Todd Blanche's own filing. Here's what Todd Blanche said on August 2 as he was trying to get the votes on from Senators Cornyn of Texas and Tillis of North Carolina to get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said, for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this order is intended to contradict or otherwise be contrary to the prior representations by the Department of Justice that the fund is not operative. That doesn't answer the question. They're still gonna, they're still going to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to Jan, six defendants who beat up Capitol Police. And they're going to get paid to do it with your taxpayer dollars through Todd Blanche, the Department of justice, through the backdoor, because there's budget allocations in the DOJ budget to pay these things. Even without the fund, the fund would have been easier, but they can do it. They can do it in the back. So here's what they said about the Judge Brinkhama case. Nevertheless, several frivolous lawsuits have been filed challenging the fundamental. I don't think Judge Brinkama thinks it's frivolous. In fact, she said when the lawyer appeared for the Department of Justice in her courtroom alone, she said, you're a very brave man. And it went downhill from there. In the hearing, she ended up blocking the fund and the fund creation. And now, of course, turning to the next day, settlement and unilateral agreement by Todd Blanche to give his boss a pardon just hours after he granted that he was nominated by by Donald Trump after being passed over three prior times. Three prior times Todd Blanche was passed over for Attorney General until he finally hit the magic button. Give my boss the immunity that even the United States Supreme Court would not have provided. We're going to follow that case very, very closely. If you want to read the lawsuit, it's up in legal AF substack for paid members. So we got that going on. Now let me pick up with a series of cases that all have a common theme. Filed by Donald Trump in his alleged personal capacity, even though he keeps referring to himself as the president. And all of the filings in the Southern District of Florida in a Miami courthouse, all in the same courthouse but with different judges. I practice in the Southern District of Florida. I know these judges well. And let me give you my perspective and kind of synthesize what's happening as Trump loses a series of cases already filed, filed for political reasons, filed to save his ass, filed to divert attention away from his failing administration. I mean, let's be frank. We're 550 days into the administration. It's pretty good sample size, don't you think? People in general hate the administration. We just saw the new polling numbers that just came out. He's lost his core MAGA group of non college educated voters. He's lost them favorable to unfavorable by 32 points from where he was when he beat Kamala Harris. Right. People are running away from Donald Trump and his administration and heading for the exits. I know there's new reporting that Donald Trump is about to anoint J.D. vance to be the heir, apparently. Where is J.D. vance. I'm about to put him on the back of a milk carton. I have. I mean, between Melania Trump abdicating her responsibilities as first lady completely, and J.D. vance, who I haven't seen, hide nor hear of in a long, long time, despite a lot of, let's just say, challenges and scandals around this administration. I mean, what do they have him in? They have him in, like, some sort of cryogenic chamber. He's been wrapped in bubble wrap to protect him and his reputation. Not going to work. Okay, so you see the failing polling numbers, you see the failing economic numbers. We're supposed to be in the throes of Donald Trump's grand golden era. Every time I have to go on the White House's website, which I have to do for my job, I have to be. My eyes burn. You know, when I have to look at the golden era of Trump and everything, everything, literally gold, gilded. But when you get past all of that and you look at the job numbers coming out from Donald Trump's own administration, his commerce secretary runs the Labor Department. The labor numbers for the jobs are abysmal, and that's being kind. He didn't make jobs last month. In the month of July, he lost 23,000 jobs. They just revised May and June's number to lose another 125,000 jobs. So he's only been averaging about 50 or 60,000 jobs per month, which I guess sounds like a lot, but not when you have an economy of 330 million people. By contrast, Joe Biden was making jobs at about 3 to 400,000amonth every month of his administration. Donald Trump, I don't know 10% of that. So we feel it. Prices sky high, inflation above the Federal Reserve target percentage of 2% for five years, years in a row, 60 months in a row. And the failing polling numbers. So everything that we talk, many, many of the things that we talk about here on Legal af, we have to also acknowledge that they are a bag of tricks. They are a bag of monkey wrenches that Donald Trump throws out after he's had a terrible week or a terrible day in lawsuit, failure after failure after failure. You would never know, for instance, instance of looking at this administration and its spokespeople, that they have lost 19 cases in a row. They're 0 and 19 about trying to get voter data from states and these judges that voted against it or ruled against it run the gamut from arch conservative Republicans to Democrats and everything in between. You would know in watching them that they've lost about Six or eight cases in the last week worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Americans in funding. You would never look at it if you heard their spokespeople or Donald Trump's ramblings that you know he's going to have to stop the ballroom likely and it's construction. He's going to have to stop screwing around with the reflecting pool. Right. You would never know it because what he tries to do is distract. Right. Bad news cycle. Let's try to indict Anthony, Dr. Anthony Fauci. Bad news cycle. Let me try to fire Lisa Cook again from the Federal Reserve. I'll talk about that at the ending segment. Bad news cycle. Oh, let me, let me try to rewrite the Supreme Court's decision against me in birthright citizenship by issuing a new executive order that's equally as unconscious, unconstitutional. So whenever we talk about these things, you, you, we always have to see it with a jaundiced eye that his actions a social media post that that mainstream media chases a lawsuit that gets filed with no merit by his private lawyers, a prosecution that his Department of Justice led now by his, his right hand man, Todd Blanche, his consulari goes after. Those are all distractors from a completely failing administration which will go down in history as one of the worst ever. And Donald Trump can't live with it. I mean, we just heard him say out loud, basically acknowledging he's going to lose at the midterms in saying they don't hate me. The public hates the Republicans. The public hates the public hates the Republicans. I think you are the leader of the Republican Party. You know, he sticks his big fat nose into controlling the House. So he's effectively his own speaker of the House. Forget Mike Johnson. He's trying to become his own Senate Majority Leader. Forget John Thune. So he's running around in the Capitol in the legislative branch making a mess. He's trying to run the Federal Reserve into the ground. It's not working. His economic numbers are terrible. The only thing that's up is his bank account and he thinks it's the public is, doesn't like the Republicans. I mean, I agree that the unnamed Democrat versus the unnamed Republican, the Democrat is now up about 10 points in the polls without even putting a name to it. I mean, you have to still run the races. So I don't want to say that these are not important because the fight for the soul of America is now with the federal courts because we can't rely on Congress until it changes hands. Yeah. So let me talk now about three Cases, one involving the BBC, one involving the Wall Street Journal and one involving Capital One. What do they have in common? They were all sued by Donald Trump in what I guess is his favorite courthouse, although he keeps losing, which is in Miami, Southern District of Florida. He does. This is, this is interesting. He doesn't file these cases in the, in the northern hinterland of the Southern District of Florida to try to land them in the Aileen Cannon courthouse, which is, she's the sole judge in that courthouse in Fort Pierce. They could, they could file all these in Fort Pierce. I have a working theory why they're not doing that. It's because these are loser cases brought in bad faith as Judge Williams, another judge in the courthouse in the IRS case has ruled. And they're using Alejandro Brito, this local lawyer in Coral Gables, to sort of run interference like, like Chafe, you know, for the media to go follow to get heat off of the White House, to get heat off of Donald Trump with these failing in my personal capacity lawsuits generally for defamation or something else ridiculous. And they don't want to put that in front of Judge Cannon because a, they're saving her for things like the grand conspiracy criminal investigation that allegedly is still going on under Todd Blanche, led by Joe DiGenova, an 81 year old former Reagan appointee and conspiracy theorist who's trying to figure out whether he can indict Barack Obama for something that happened 15 years ago, even though all presidents have immunity for what they did when they were, when they were in office. So they're saving her for the big magilla. Right. And I've got a working theory that even though Sam Alito said he's not retiring this year, you know, and is going to, is going to ride it out maybe to see what happens in November with the midterms and who controls the Senate, they are saving her for a potential seat on the United States Supreme Court. Heaven help us. That's my working theory. Let's get back to what's going on in the courthouses in Miami. In the BBC case, Donald Trump in December of 2025 sued the BBC for what he first said was $5 billion, but then it was $10 billion related to them. Clipping his hour long, how boring. Hour long vomitus speech on the ellipse that led to people attacking the Capitol. And they cut, they used the first part of the first minute, last part of the last minute. They put it together. He's suing for defamation, what's called defamation, by implication saying there it's my words but the way they edited it, it made me look bad, made me look like an insurrectionist, which of course we did now, which we of course he was. But you have to put that in context because in order for there to be damage, a, in order for there to be defamation, it has to be untrue and you have to have a reputation that's capable of being defamed. Think about that as when it comes to January 6th, putting it aside, Donald Trump a sex abuser. Donald Trump as many other fraudster you know, Donald Trump as convicted felon. If you're just looking at Jan6, how can you defame his reputation? His reputation has been set in the public conscience and consciousness by the Jan6 Committee and its 600 page report that I still have at my desk in my office, by the eight days of hearings and testimony of dozens and dozens of witnesses who were Republican against him, by Jack smith's indictment in D.C. in front of Judge Chutkan and the resulting volume one of his special counsel report report. When you look at all of that in Donald Trump's own words in and around January 6th, walk in the park, innocent bystanders, political prisoners, how can you defame that reputation? There is just some reputations that can't be defamed. Like Hitler could not have brought a defamation case. That makes sense, right? Jeffrey Dahmer could not have brought Charlie Manson could not have, you know, brought a defamation case. Trump can't, in my view, given everything that he's done, can't bring a defamation case. They're actually bringing. They're actually raising that same argument in the Wall Street Journal case, which is before a different judge, Judge Gales. This first case is in front of Judge Altman. So in the new reporting that we have, is that in the BBC case about a video clip on a documentary, nobody I'll be, I'm trying to be kind here that nobody watched in America on a channel I never heard of that BBC runs. They Trump's trying to argue that he suffered 10 billion with a B billion dollars worth of damages, but because he didn't want his trust, the Donald J. Trump trust, to have to be compelled to release all of his tax returns and all of his financial reports for the last two years. So he ran into court on an emergency application. But what he did is he killed his case because he had his lawyer tell the judge, oh, you don't have to look at the business numbers of the trust or its assets or its brand because we're not suing on that, we're Going to, we're going to rewrite our complaint to only focus on reputational harm to Donald J. Trump. Let me translate that from the law. That means that Trump's going to have to show that he, for a guy that made $2 billion last year while he was President of the United States, his best, best year ever of revenue, of income, he's going to have to show that he would have made about $10 billion more. He would have made $12 billion, except for that pesky little two minute clip on a documentary nobody watched on a channel that BBC barely distributes in America. Okay, good luck. As the lawyers for the BBC said, if he's changing it to reputational, and that's all, we'll take it because. Because his reputation for gen 6 is terrible. That was the best thing the BBC ever heard. I know mainstream media reported it like, Donald Trump won an emergency motion related to his, his finances. That's a big win. That's because, you know, I don't mean to be. What's the word? I'm kind to fellow commentators, but many of the fellow commentators are not practicing lawyers and they don't understand what happens next. You know, they just rip the headline and they can't explain it to you because they've never tried a case in front of a live jury. And I think that's one of the competitive advantages we have on legal af. I think that's one of the reasons that you come to us and then you've got. So that's what's going on in the BBC case. He killed his own case because he says, I'll stake my reputation on the case. Good for you. You're going to lose on the Wall Street Journal case. That's before Judge Gales down the hall from Judge Altman. And in that case, he's so sided with the Wall Street Journal who got sued for billions of dollars again, because why? Because they published an article about the Epstein birthday book. This scrapbook that Ghislaine Maxwell put together, four volumes for Epstein's 50th birthday filled with disgusting comments and pictures, bringing down most of the men that were listed in there. But for Donald Trump, he said, yeah, it's not me. Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes? That's not my signature. I don't. Somebody must have set me up. Yeah. 30 years ago, before Epstein was arrested and before you ran for president, somebody time traveled and shoved your birthday card into the book with a naked woman and some crazy language. Nobody buys that. In any event, Wall Street Journal got a copy of it. We know where they got a copy of it from. They got a copy of it from the Epstein estate. That same book got published by Congress. Hell, we have it up on Legal AF substack and Midas Touch has it up as well. So how can you continue to maintain a defamation case about. Oh, well, I've denied it. Okay, well, I called Rupert Murdoch. Trump said, no. I told him, I deny it. Okay. And they wrote that in the article. But that's not actual malice to publish reporting about what they've seen and what it implies. I mean, that's not how journalism or the First Amendment works or freedom of the press works. So he filed a couple of laws, a couple of complaints. One got dismissed. He tried it again, and the judge took a look at it. I'm pretty sure he's signaling Judge Gales he's going to dismiss it finally and permanently and put it out of its misery because he's blocked all discovery in the case. He's not allowing Donald Trump to go traipsing around the electronic forms and files and information and emails and depositions, whatever, of the Wall Street Journal to try to find a lawsuit needle in the haystack. My lawsuit's here somewhere. Yeah, you're not going to go finding it in discovery because to unlock the key, to unlock the door of discovery, you've got to have a valid operative complaint. And it looks like you don't. So that's going to be Judge Gale's. Just get ready. When I come back on Legal AF or on substack to tell you the Wall Street Journal case is finally dead and buried. Which brings us to the third case in Miami, all happening this week also before Judge Altman, the BBC judge, in a case brought by Trump against Capital One, Trump and his family. Why? Because Capital One fired the Trump family and 400 or 300 of their bank accounts for 400 of their businesses. So Trump did like it and he said, oh, the reason I got debanked at Capital One and Chase and all these, because they're woke up. They're woke. Yeah, they're diversity, equity, inclusion. They're trying to take advantage of John 6 on me. What capital One did now that we know, because they just made a filing, is that they told the Trump family, we're getting rid of you because activity in your accounts triggered our anti money laundering compliance program and anti terrorism funding program, which is run by a combination of AI software and former law enforcement. And they have the right to fire anybody from the bank. It's in your account opening documents. I assure you in my prior life of being a deputy general counsel in a Wall street firm, financial services firm, I work very closely with the compliance department and I know all about know your customer regulations, AML regulations, anti money laundering, Patriot act and the rest and bank secrecy act. And when you onboard a client or offboard them, the decision making process that goes forward. And so they didn't make it public because they said, you know, listen, just go find other banking. Took them about six months. They gave them an extension go. I think they went to Charles Schwab and some other places. Oh no. They wanted to bring the suit for billions of dollars against Capital One because they got their taste for getting, what's the word? Getting extortive payments, extortion payments from media companies and banks and law firms. They thought they could try it on Capital One. Capital One fired back this week and said, you know the reason we got rid of you and put it in a public filing motion to dismiss, bright red letters blinking because we thought you, you were a potential money launderer along with your companies and a, or and or a terrorist financier. What happens is they look, they scour and audit the accounts and they look at the transactions, the money in, the money out, the wire in, the wire out, the timing of it, the counterparty and stakeholder on the other side, where's the money coming from? Is it consistent with what the bank understands your business to be right? Are you kiting checks? Are you running personal expenses through your accounts? Probably all of it. And bells and whistles go off and people in positions of authority at banks have to fill out suspicious activity reports. Sars. There are probably dozens and dozens of SARS that were filed for the bank to make the decision to fire Donald Trump. By the way, they could have done it for no reason, any reason, even a bad reason. That's what your account opening statements say or documents say in the agreements. They could have done it because he's a persistent fraudster as a judge, by a New York judge. They could have done it because his companies, two of his companies were convicted of tax evasion and books and records fraud. 17 counts and he was convicted of 34 felony counts of books and records fraud and election fraud. Could have been that. Could have been he's a judged a sex abuser. Could have been that he was indicted related to gen 6 picket. They didn't use any of those. They said no. Our own personal AML program flagged him and we fired him and they pushed the bank so hard that he, that they had to disclose it. I mean, I think they did it with special delight. They actually didn't have to put that in the motion to dismiss that they filed, but they have. And that's in front of Judge Altman as well in the Southern District of Florida. So we've got the BBC case, we've got the Capital One case, and we got the Wall Street Journal case, all in the Miami Southern District of Florida, along with Judge Williams, who has the IRS case, all in the same courthouse. He's doing terribly there. But remember what I said at the top of this segment. Why aren't they bringing these matters to Judge Cannon? And I've given you my working theory on that. When I come back, I want to talk about Lisa Cook on the Federal Reserve, them going after her again to try to fire her and get control of interest rates in this country by undermining the Federal Reserve's independence. And I want to talk about birthright citizenship and how Donald Trump once again is trying to deny people the right who were born in America to be U.S. citizens despite the fact that he lost 5 to 4 or 6 to 3 on birthright citizenship just a month and a half ago. Many ways to support what we do here on Legal AF and on the Midas Touch Network. Firstly, Legal AF, the YouTube channel. Come over to Legal AF YouTube channel. This weekend we're going to cross 1.2 million subscribers with your help. It's absolutely free, cost you nothing, but it means the world to us. You may think you're already subscribed. I don't think you are to me as I'm traveling. Do me a personal favor. Check and hit the free subscribe button. That's 1, 2 substack. And because of your generosity, our substack is. What's the word I'm looking for? On fire. We are now in the top two and rising of all US politics substacks. And we're in the top 25 overall for us for all US news substacks. I like to get us to the top 10. It's that important. And we post all of our filings and all of our new content. I do live streams on Legal AF substack for you. So that's two substack three. This podcast, it's been around for six years. We just won the Webby Award for best news podcast in the world. But we still need audio downloads. Hit the audio download for Legal AF the the podcast and leave a five star review. As Ben talked about, I've got a New firm that we set up to service Legal AF and Midas Touch community members. It's called the POPOC Firm. There's the QR code, brand new website, same tireless fighters. If you've been injured in an accident or anybody in your family, God forbid, there's been a death, catastrophic injury through the negligence of others, car accident, trucking accident, uber accident, medical malpractice, you name it. A product's liability. We are the firm for you. We'll evaluate the case for you. I've got lawyers in 50 states recovering billions of dollars and we're representing hundreds and hundreds of Midas touch and legal AF community members. So check out the Popoc firm. 1-877-popocaf or hit the QR code. And then we've got our sponsors, some of which have been with us since the very beginning. Some have been with us just recently, but all want to support what we're doing here. Our First Amendment right to speak, your First Amendment right to hear what we have to say. They know our audience and community and they want to support it. So now let's take a break for our sponsors. Life insurance. We all know we need it, but we keep putting it off because we think it's complicated or expensive or that I don't know, will live forever. Stop telling yourself you'll handle it later and take care of it today. With SELECT quote In 15 minutes, you could have coverage that fits your life and budget. Here's what makes Select Quote different. Their licensed insurance agents work for you, not for one insurance company. They compare options across multiple carriers to find you the right coverage at the lowest price. Even if you have health issues, they can help high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease. Their agents know which carriers will give you the best rate for your specific situation. Other brokers push policies that pay them the most. Select quotes agents actually shop for you get the right life insurance for you for less at selectquote.com legalaf go to selectquote.com legalaf today to get started. Long summer days. They're great until you're trying to keep up with your crew while overheating. And you're checking for sweat spots as summer plants heat up. Stay fresh from sun up to sundown with Mac Weldon's Airknit X fabric. It all started with underwear designed to wick moisture, fight odor and give you maximum airflow. Now they're expanding that bestseller to a full line of essentials, including undershirts, T shirts, polos and socks. I just added Airknit X T shirts and polos to my summer rotation. Their lightest fabric is fused with nylon mesh for maximum air flow. The four way stretch means no bunching or sagging and the barely there feel helps keep you dry and fresh all day. They look like regular clothes but feel like modern performance wear, making them an easy confidence boosting choice. For summer. Browse the full Air Knit x collection@mackweldon.com plus get 20% off your first order of $125 or more with code legal AF don't sweat the heat this summer. Feel as effortlessly cool as you look with Mack weldon. Go to mackweldon.com and get 20% off your first order of $125 or more with promo code legal AF. That's M A C K W E l d o n.com code legal af welcome back. You're on legal af the podcast. I'm Michael Popak along with Ben Mesalis on the Saturday edition and I appreciate we all appreciate our audience, without which their generosity, their devotion, their thirst for law and politics commentary that's unvarnished, that is, without blowing smoke or sunshine, we wouldn't be here. And we never let ourselves forget that. And it motivates everything we do. On Midas Touch and Legal A Athletes coming to the home stretch now two cases that are back. I mean, as I joked recently in a hot take, I feel like I'm watching Jordan Peele's masterpiece. Nope. When I hear that Donald Trump's trying to fire Lisa Cook of the Federal Reserve again and trying to rip birthright citizenship as now redefined by the United States Supreme Court out of the Constitution. I thought we did this already. He just got the rulings in June that he is wrong on both counts. He can't screw with the Federal Reserve and its independence the way that he's decided to do it by taking out Lisa Cook, whose term ends in 2038, in order to gain control of not just the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, but its Open Market Committee that sets interest rates. And no, he can't ignore nor the clear direction of the Supreme Court 5 to 4 decision that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution precludes any attempt to deny people birthright citizenship, no matter who their parents are, no matter what crimes may have been committed, including birth tourism, whatever that's supposed to be. But Donald Trump's issued a new executive order and he sent a letter to Lisa Cook saying he's going to start her firing all over again. Let's I mean, they are conjoined twins, so let's Talk about them that way. Lisa Cook appointed by Joe Biden giving at least through 2028 the Democrats or non Trumpers a four to three advantage on the seven member board of Governors they pick the regional presidents of the border of the Federal Reserve. Five of those rotate on they form a committee once a month called the Federal Open Markets Committee to set interest rates which determines how much you and I pay for mortgages and loans and credit cards, how much people who borrow money for business purposes or otherwise ultimately pay. And it the lower that number, the more free money is in our economy to stimulate it. If you overstimulate it, you get hyperinflation. We're already at inflation. That's five years too long. So Lord knows what would happen if Donald Trump got his hands on the spigot related to cash. He tried to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell, claiming there was criminal construction cost overruns related to the refurbishment of three or four hundred year old buildings that make up the Federal Reserve. Lost there badly. Jay Powell stepped down as chairman when his term was over, but it's still on the Federal Reserve. So he went after Lisa Cook. Lisa Cook is one in a series of half a dozen political targets of Donald Trump that he's tried to claim committed mortgage fraud. Suddenly mortgage fraud is so rampant, everybody in Donald Trump's administration or on the Federal Reserve is doing it, including reporting by the Wall Street Journal that Scott Bessant, the Treasury Secretary has done exactly what Donald Trump claims that Lisa Cook and others did, like Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York or Adam Schiff, which is have multiple homes, okay. And check certain boxes that gave them a slight advantage in an interest rate, maybe 30 or $50 a month by claiming that this was a first home, not a rental home, not a second home, that they wouldn't rent it out or whatever the particular, the particular circumstances were. He tried Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, try to get her indicted three times. Grand jury's rejected it. He hasn't tried since he never got a grand jury to indict Adam Schiff, the senator from California. Mortgage fraud. And then of course he went after Lisa Cook by having Bill Pulte, his political hack, who is a mini Trumper who runs his mortgage unit, the Federal Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to violate the Privacy Act. Pick and choose pieces of paper out of thousands of pieces of paper about Lisa Cook's buying of two homes from her credit union, an Atlanta condominium and a home in Michigan from the same credit union. So how do you defraud the same bank. I mean, isn't that literally impossible to say? Well, she said the Atlanta home was her primary and the Michigan home, it's the same bank. Don't they know what their own branches or their own loan officers are doing? So they take, oh, look at these signatures on the same day. Right? It was a double closing. Right. On the same day. It's not fraud. It's not criminal fraud. It's not criminal fraud to provide a good reason to remove her from the Federal Reserve. But they're trying to rattle her cage and get her off. Fortunately, she's not easily rattled. She's, she, she's won every court case involving this that has she has filed, including up to the United States Supreme Court. And her lawyer, Abby Lowell, is ready for the next round. Why are we in a next round? Because when the Supreme Court in June blocked Donald Trump from firing her, they said they didn't like it because he didn't give her due process. The good reason for firing her wasn't properly developed. They affirm that courts have jurisdiction to provide oversight in this area. There has to be a good reason. There has to be due process. And they also said in one of the footnotes, they also said that she, Trump, can try it again, but they have to develop the facts and show that the thing she's being accused of would undermine her ability to be fair and independent on the Federal Reserve. Unless you're a personal mortgage fraud that was allegedly committed before she became a member of the Federal Reserve. The way this is being alleged constitutes that. But we're going to find out really quickly because they've now sent a new letter to her in which they've said, again, not listing any of the facts, we think there's reasonable cause to believe that you are, you've committed mortgage fraud. I mean, when you have a Supreme Court case that tells you you better be pretty specific, very specific in your case that you're building against the Federal Reserve member before you fire them. Do you think this satisfies that? Here's what the letter reads from those that have seen it. You are hereby provided notice that the President is considering removing you from your position on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve due to there being sufficient reason to believe. Stop right there. Who wrote this? To believe that you made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements signed Dan's Covino for the President? Are you. Are you effing kidding me? That's not going to pass muster. And Abby Lowell, the lawyer for Lisa Cook, ready. Has been ready for this. As soon as the Supreme Court ruled in her favor, Abby Lowell came back and said that the new allegations, whatever they are supposed to be, they're basically, they're not even grammatically correct, as baseless now as they were a year ago. No matter what President Trump tries to do next, Abby Lowell said this much is clear. There is no valid cause for removing Governor Cook as we did before. We will challenge this latest pretext and preserve her position in the historic role of the Fed. Because to get rid of her would give Donald Trump a 4 to 3 advantage on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which would let him pick the five additional members of the Federal Open Markets Committee, and he would gain control of all the votes there. Right now, he just controls the chairperson and maybe one or two other votes. And it's, and it's making him upset. So he's going back after Lisa Cook, we'll update you as this will inevitably land probably back on Judge Gia Cook's bench. She was the judge in the lower court on the original case and then up to the United States Supreme Court. I don't think it's going to be an August event. I think the new term is going to reopen. We're going to have some litigation in the courts below through the month of August, probably into September. And sometime when the new court opens for the Supreme Court the first Monday in October, we'll probably see some action. October, November, December, similar to last year. Related to Lisa Cook again in the the Federal Reserve again, this is just Donald Trump trying to distract from the failings of his economy. When you're not making any jobs and prices are stubbornly high and people continue to suffer and blame you and your administration, you gotta come up with something else. Let's attack Lisa Cook again. Now let's turn briefly to the birthright citizenship case. There we go. Now, when we did the reporting on birthright citizenship, which just got completely affirmed with a final notice by the Supreme Court court in the last few days, we reported it as either a 5 to 4 or 6 to 3 decision led by Chief Just Rob Chief Justice Roberts to reaffirm 100-year-old precedent in a case called Wong King Kim Ark From, I think 19, 1901, that said that if you are born in the United States, except in very rare circumstances, like you're born to an ambassador on, on, you know, like inside the embassy, then you're not going to be a U.S. citizen. But everybody else is that precedent. Five to four, Roberts, Roberts, Katanji Brown, Jackson Sotomayor. And Kagan. Right, that's four. And then you had a couple of more people sort of join, including Kavanaugh. Right. But it was dangerously close. You know, we like to say it was six to three. It was really five to four. On the Constitution, Kavanaugh ruled that the Nationality act, which came out later after the Wong Kim Ark case, effectively was Congress memorializing what the Supreme Court had done in a statute. But in a footnote, Kavanaugh said, but if Congress wants to create new exceptions where people aren't US Citizens, Congress can do it. That was an invitation apparently, to Donald Trump to use the, what we now call the great concurrence, the great concurrer in Kavanaugh. He's always concurring about something to say, aha, Congress can do it. I probably can do it by executive order. No, you can't. In fact, John Roberts said in his decision that this historical precedent of birthright citizenship stretches back before the American revolution into like 15 and 1400, Britain, London, England. And it's a right that has been unchallenged. And it was the, it was the, the purpose or the goal by the framers and by the 14th amendment framers to have as broad birthright citizenship as back in pre colonial times in England. And the only exceptions were very limited. It was like certain Indian tribes, Native American tribes, and ambassadors. Trump heard that and saw Kavanaugh's concurrence and said, aha, I can create an entire new group. So he had a whole thing and an executive order about, well, if you're participating in birthing tourism and you're committing a crime, a child that's born on US Soil, whose parent was involved in birth tourism, that's not going to be a U.S. citizen. That's not what it says. Look, if Trump wants to make illegal birth tourism, people trying to drop, have babies here in America on purpose in order to make them into US Citizens, you can criminalize that. You can criminalize that. You can criminalize the mule, the broker, the service, the person put them in jail. But the baby, if the baby slips through, no pun intended, if the baby comes out in America, it's a US Citizen. So saying, no, no, if it's birthday, if you're not just ambassadors, anybody that works for a foreign country that's in America, anybody, anybody, anybody in the front office, in the back office, clerical, otherwise, yeah, we're going to throw you. Yeah, your kids aren't. Aren't US Citizens either. If you're in certain territories that are American territories, like The Mariana Islands or whatever. No, you're not going to be a US Citizen either. If you work for a government, a foreign government or a foreign corporation, and you have some sort of immunity in this country from suit. Yeah, your kids aren't going to be US Citizens either. What does it say that in the Supreme Court decision? It didn't. In fact, it's the opposite. The Supreme Court was trying to shut down the exemptions, not add to them or let Donald Trump add to them. But you see how hot Donald Trump got about Kavanaugh's observation that Congress can do it. Then let Congress try. And then we'll see if Congress's act is inconsistent with the 14th Amendment and whether there are five votes, five votes, which right now there are, to protect the birthright citizenship as a part of the 14th Amendment, not as part of a statute. So what's going to happen there? You know what's going to happen. Groups are going to join together and file multiple lawsuits like the first, first birthright citizenship case in places like Washington State federal court, Rhode island federal court, Massachusetts federal court, Maryland federal court, the District of Columbia, Louisiana. You know, there's a reason that these, these cases are filed in those federal courts. And then they'll go up to favorable appellate courts like the ninth Circuit, the first Circuit, the fourth Circuit. You know, you know, we sort of avoid the 5th Circuit, the 11th Circuit, and then it'll land on the doorstep of the United States Supreme Court in blocking this executive order. Some judge in the next 30 days based on a lawsuit filed maybe by the Democratic attorneys general next week is going to block this executive order as being inconsistent with the case of Barbara versus the Trump, which is the birthright citizenship case. And then it's going to get up on an appeal and a fast track to the Supreme Court. I don't think, again, it's going to be in August, but maybe in late September or early on October, we're going to be reporting on it. Where do we do that? Right here on Midas Touch and Legal af. I'm so glad you've joined us. You can see that even though Ben was on vacation last week and I'm still on vacation with my family now, this is important to us, the continued cadence and content and speaking to our audience and keeping our audience knitted together in the face of Todd Blanche's confirmation and focusing on the federal courts that are doing God's work right now, the laboring or right now to protect our democracy, whether it's Judge Sullivan in Katie Fang's lawsuit about the Epstein survivors and their dignity and the documents that we all deserve. Or Judge Williams in the Southern District of Florida, who's protecting us about the way she's declaring bad faith and foul in the way that Donald Trump and Todd Blanche created the Jan6 fund. Or judge Brinkama, who's about to decide whether Donald Trump's immunity pass for tax evasion given to him by his now attorney general is constitutional or not. As other federal courts, about mail in balloting, which is now up at the United States Supreme Court court as we speak, and about the weaponization of the post office, whether their decisions are going to be upheld. You know, these, these cases matter. And even the private cases by Donald Trump as president, not president in all of his defamation cases, the cases in front of Judge, in front of Judge Gales, about the Wall Street Journal, in front of Judge Altman, about the BBC or Capital One, these cases matter. And you need and you deserve to get the straight scoop right. Honest commentary, knowledgeable, educated commentary. I'm so tired of reading in mainstream media misinterpretations, getting judges names wrong, getting what the meaning of a phrase means in an order or in the procedure, procedure of something on appeal. And I like slap my forehead. I'm like, I got to hurry up and do a video to educate our audience about what's really going on because this is wrong. I just read something about Judge Altman and the case I just talked to you about related to the BBC. And they, as they, they, even though Judge Altman signed the order, this mainstream media outlet referred to it as the magistrate judge's order. I'm like, oh my God. I mean, they can't even get the basics right. So I'm glad we're all here together. You're generous with your time. We appreciate it. I can't even tell you how many times we talk internally at Midas. Ben, the brothers, me, our team, our producers about our audience and how, I mean, everything we do, the guiding light and principle for what we do is what is good and right and just for our audience. That's it. And that we, because we never waver from that. We don't disappoint because we have our moral compass. You set it for us. You know, we have the sextant, but you are the North Star. We appreciate you being here. So many different ways to support what we do. You've got Legal AF, the YouTube channel, 12 hot new videos every day. I do many of them. But we've got amazing contributors. Come over to legalif YouTube hit that free subscribe button. Another community overlapping community legal AF substack helped get us to the top 10 of US news substacks were dangerously close. With your help, we'll get there. So legal AF substack 10 or 12 pieces of new content there as well. This podcast. We could use some audio downloads. Some people don't even know we're on audio. They just think we're YouTube. Some people in audio don't know, vice versa. Download the audio. That helps us tremendously and keeps us on the air. Keeps the gas in the tank. And then finally, the Popoc firm. I literally founded a law firm to support our Midas Touch and Legal AF community and put together a group of lawyers, top plaintiff's lawyers in all 50 states with billions of dollars in recovery for personal injury cases, high end catastrophic injury cases. So if you or someone you know, like a loved one has been injured or God forbid there's been a death related to the negligence of others in car accidents, auto accidents, truck accidents, medical malpractice, products liability, you name it, then have somebody on my team speak to you about your case. We don't get paid unless you do. And we'll tell you whether you have a case or not. Hit that QR code right? New brand new website. Same tireless fighters. I'm so pleased that you're here. We're keeping the content going until my next podcast, which is going to be on Tuesday on the Intersection, which is on the Midas Dutch network. And of course back with Ben Meiselas next Saturday, you're on Legal AF the podcast. I'm Michael Popo. Shout out to the Midas mighty and the Legal A eff.

Legal AF - 8/8/2026

Legal AF - 8/8/2026

Legal AF – August 8, 2026 Episode Summary

Podcast: Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Hosts: Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok
Date: August 9, 2026

Episode Overview

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Katie Fang’s Lawsuit Under the Epstein Transparency Act

2. Trump’s “Golden Ballroom” at the White House Abandoned

3. Lawsuits: BBC, Wall Street Journal, Capital One

BBC $10 Billion Defamation Case

Wall Street Journal “Epstein Birthday Book” Case

Capital One “Debanking” Lawsuit

4. The Wall of Trump Litigation: Context & Impact

5. The Todd Blanche Dilemma — New Attorney General

Tax Immunity “Settlement” Fallout

6. Attacks on Federal Reserve, Lisa Cook

7. Birthright Citizenship – New Executive Order

Notable Quotes & Moments

Important Timestamps for Segments

Closing Thoughts

Legal AF – August 8, 2026 Episode Summary

Podcast: Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Hosts: Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok
Date: August 9, 2026

Episode Overview

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Katie Fang’s Lawsuit Under the Epstein Transparency Act

2. Trump’s “Golden Ballroom” at the White House Abandoned

3. Lawsuits: BBC, Wall Street Journal, Capital One

BBC $10 Billion Defamation Case

Wall Street Journal “Epstein Birthday Book” Case

Capital One “Debanking” Lawsuit

4. The Wall of Trump Litigation: Context & Impact

5. The Todd Blanche Dilemma — New Attorney General

Tax Immunity “Settlement” Fallout

6. Attacks on Federal Reserve, Lisa Cook

7. Birthright Citizenship – New Executive Order

Notable Quotes & Moments

Important Timestamps for Segments

Closing Thoughts

Legal AF – August 8, 2026 Episode Summary

Podcast: Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Hosts: Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok Date: August 9, 2026

Episode Overview

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Katie Fang’s Lawsuit Under the Epstein Transparency Act

2. Trump’s “Golden Ballroom” at the White House Abandoned

3. Lawsuits: BBC, Wall Street Journal, Capital One

BBC $10 Billion Defamation Case

Wall Street Journal “Epstein Birthday Book” Case

Capital One “Debanking” Lawsuit

4. The Wall of Trump Litigation: Context & Impact

5. The Todd Blanche Dilemma — New Attorney General

Tax Immunity “Settlement” Fallout

6. Attacks on Federal Reserve, Lisa Cook

7. Birthright Citizenship – New Executive Order

Notable Quotes & Moments

Important Timestamps for Segments

Closing Thoughts

Legal AF – August 8, 2026 Episode Summary

Podcast: Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Hosts: Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok Date: August 9, 2026

Episode Overview

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Katie Fang’s Lawsuit Under the Epstein Transparency Act

2. Trump’s “Golden Ballroom” at the White House Abandoned

3. Lawsuits: BBC, Wall Street Journal, Capital One

BBC $10 Billion Defamation Case

Wall Street Journal “Epstein Birthday Book” Case

Capital One “Debanking” Lawsuit

4. The Wall of Trump Litigation: Context & Impact

5. The Todd Blanche Dilemma — New Attorney General

Tax Immunity “Settlement” Fallout

6. Attacks on Federal Reserve, Lisa Cook

7. Birthright Citizenship – New Executive Order

Notable Quotes & Moments

Important Timestamps for Segments

Closing Thoughts

Hosts: Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok
Date: August 9, 2026

Hosts: Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok
Date: August 9, 2026