Loading summary
Transcript107 lines
- [00:01]
A
Take the next 30 seconds to invest in yourself with Vanguard. Breathe in. Center your mind. Recognize the power you have to direct your financial future. Feel the freedom that comes with reaching your goals and building a life you love. Vanguard brings you this meditation because we invest where it matters most in you. Visit vanguard.com investinginyou to learn more. All investing is subject to risk.
- [00:31]
B
This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. It's Cybersecurity Awareness Month and LifeLock has tips to protect your identity. Use strong passwords, set up multi factor authentication, report phishing and update the software on your devices. And for comprehensive identity protection, let LifeLock alert you to suspicious uses of your personal information. Lifelock also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back. Stay smart, safe and protected with a 30 day free trial@lifelock.com Podcasts Terms apply. It is the midweek edition of Legal AF and with Karen Friedman, Agniphilo Got a lot to talk about, Karen. We're watching the implosion of the Department of Justice. This is what happens when a president in Trump takes seriously his threat to be the chief legal officer of America. He's just bypassing all of his leadership and assigning cases to his own hand picked prosecutors. And now there's a war that's broken out within the Department of Justice. I'm not even talking about career prosecutors versus the enablers for Donald Trump. I'm talking about within the MAGA enablers of Donald Trump. There's a war that's broken out. It's Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche on one side, Cash Patel and Ed Martin, who's the shadow attorney general apparently, on the other. And Lindsey Halligan, she took a side. And we're gonna talk about how Comey, the former FBI director has been framed on some perjury charges, how he's already informed the court come out swinging to expect not one but two major motions by October 20 deadline. One of them is he's going after Halligan and going after and he and he's coming heavy. He's going to move to disqualify her for being illegally appointed and he wants the motion heard by a different court than the court in the Eastern District of Virginia. We'll tell you now that you're on the edge of your seat. We'll tell you why. And in that implosion of the Department of Justice, we've got things like Alex Jones and what the Supreme Court did about his $1.5 billion set of judgments brought and obtained by the Sandy Hook families after Alex Jones made a Mint depravedly declaring that the Sandy Hook massacre of children and teachers was an acting job, that there's no dead children. They were actors and the parents are actors. And that's not what juries had to say about that. And then he ran Karen to the United States Supreme Court and tried to argue First Amendment. And you shouldn't take money away from me because I've got 30 million followers. That's by the way, he has 30 million people that somehow watch what he does. He's totally crazy. But that led to another fight between the shadow prosecutor, shadow Attorney General Ed Martin and Todd Blanch. We'll talk about how all that gets wrapped together. We've got, as we came on the air, we've got another ruling coming out of Oregon from Judge Immergut blocking once again extending the block, once again on Donald Trump's deploying of federalized state militia National Guard on the streets of Portland. But there's a twist in there has to do with the appeal up the 9th Circuit. We've got a, on a. It's a threat that's going to be made good, I think by Chris Mays, the Attorney General of Arizona, also today in which she sent a strong letter to MAGA Mike Johnson saying that if he doesn't swear in Representative Grijalva, who represents 800,000 people in the 7th Congressional District in Arizona, like now, she's going to file a writ of mandamus, a petition for writ of mandamus to force him to swear in, get swear in. You know, Congress is closed. It's Democrats. It's shut down. No, there's pro forma sessions with going on within Congress and she can be sworn in. I wonder if it has anything to do, Karen, with the Epstein files. And we'll bring up the Epstein files, we talk about Representative Grijalva and getting her sworn in. Jack Smith, Jack Smeath Smiths. Let's try that again. Jack Smith speaks, stays in the pod. That's harder to say than it looks. Remember him? Remember him? Worked at the Hague for a number of years, came out of retirement from American jurisprudence, decided to become special counsel for Merrick Garland to investigate Donald Trump's interference along with dozens of others in the outcome of the 2020 election. Remember that guy? If it's not ringing a bell, Mar? A Lago espionage, obstruction of justice case in front of Judge Cannon. Or maybe you'll remember Judge Chutkin's case for election interference and the indictment of a president, probably a conviction of a president, had that guy not, not Been reelected or elected again? Well, even though, I mean, I give this guy a lot of credit, Karen, you think this is the time not to pop your head up, you know, like a, like a gopher? Look around. I mean, this is a time of tremendous attacks on any political enemy of Donald Trump. People are getting indicted left and right. They're being, they're being threatened with jail. They're being pepper balled in the face. Stephen Miller has run amok. He thinks he's some sort of Mussolini using the power and the might of the presidency to crush dissent. But maybe that is the time for a person like Jack Smith to put on his cape again and come back and talk to us. And so there is an interview about Jack Smith, and then there was an oral argument today. That's the best I could probably put it at the United States Supreme Court. And I don't think it looks good for, for the Voting Rights Act, Section 2, which was Congress's way starting in the 1960s during the Great Society and Lyndon Johnson, to protect the right of black and brown voters and make sure their 15th amendment rights. Look at that map. Those 15th amendment rights were protected. And ever since John Roberts, not just Clarence Thomas, John Roberts has wanted to get rid of the Voting Rights act. And I think he's got the case to do it with, this Alabama case that was argued today before the United States Supreme Court. We had it up live on legal AF, YouTube as well. That's a lot to talk about, Karen. Come on in. Let's. Let's get to it. Let's get cracking.
- [06:44]
A
Hey, Pope, how's it going? Good to see you.
- [06:46]
B
Doing great. Good to see you. And your new, your new office is there, your new digs?
- [06:50]
A
Yeah.
- [06:52]
B
Before we get to the meat of the order, talking about prosecutor things, the Department of Justice things, let's start off with Judge Immergut, Judge Trump appointee, first time around, former prosecutor like you, state and federal, and has been issuing very stern orders, two from two weeks ago back to back that said that Donald Trump could not nationalize the Oregon Guard because the factors that need to be present in order to commandeer a state militia under a statute we call 12406 were not present. We weren't under attack from a foreign country. There wasn't a rebellion and there wasn't a domestic disturbance or domestic violence that made it impossible for him to execute on law. When Oregon had some, you know, had some issues in June, there was some arson. There was some. There were some cars set on fire. I mean, frankly, if you've seen, if you've seen video of, of some, of some cities after they win the super bowl or the World Series, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. I'll just leave it at that. So, you know, and then months later, after the really got reduced, about 20 people in chicken suits and frog suits protesting in front of ice. That's what he sends the troops in. So she issued her order that said, no, you can't nationalize the Oregon Guard. Then Donald Trump said, fine, I'll send California National Guard in. And she pulled together an emergency hearing two Sundays ago and said, no, you're not doing that either. So she, she stayed the, the, what's called the mo, the mobilization or the commandeering of the Guard. And at the same time, she stopped the deployment, stay in your barracks. Ninth Circuit took a look at that, had an oral argument about a week ago and said, well, for now, stay in your barracks. We'll come back to you. About whether Donald Trump could nationalize the Guard. So there was a hearing today with Judge Imbergut where she had to make a decision about that part of her injunction that was still standing after the ninth Circuit. So what happened from there, Karen?
- [09:02]
A
Didn't she extend it for two weeks, the time period for which that they can, that they have to not be mobilized? Like, isn't this just a kick in the can down the road for another two weeks?
- [09:13]
B
It could even be less. It is. I mean, the headline is federal judge blocks mobilization or deployment of Federal troops again in Oregon. But she also said on the phone during the hearing, she said today, I know the 9th Circuit's about to rule and if they rule against me, I'll lift the stay. But she's trying to line up her order with the administrative stay order of the ninth Circuit. It's all important because it's not only what's going on in Oregon. Right. It's it bleeds over into Illinois because you got Judge May that issued her order very similar to Judge Immergut's order blocking the Illinois deployment of National Guard and mobilization. And the circuit court there, the appellate court there, did the exact same thing as the ninth. Right.
- [10:04]
A
Yeah. I also read that I think Oregon National Guard is being sent to Texas to go guard the border there. I mean, Trump is just dying to utilize the military or military like forces on national, on our citizens. It's unbelievable to me.
- [10:21]
B
Yeah. And you know, it's going to rapidly get eventually to the United States Supreme Court. I expect that 9th Circuit decision to come out in the next Week or two, certainly I don't think it'll go be much beyond that. And based on my review of the oral argument that we had up on legal AF YouTube, it's not looking good for Oregon and Judge Immerse decision. I think they're going to give the President kind of like the 9th Circuit did a pretty broad berth here to exercise whatever he sees fit in terms of a rebellion or, oh, well, if the President says he can't execute the laws, we'll just have to defer to him. You know, sort of this deference to facts thing, which drives me up the wall and. But it is consistent now. The Ninth Circuit case is still going on with Gavin Newsom versus Donald Trump. And I'm going to have the honor and the pleasure of interviewing live in person Rob Bonta, the Attorney General, on Saturday. This Saturday. We already have it up on legal f YouTube. He's going to be up on the stage with me at an event in San Diego and we're going to be talking about how what just happened in Oregon and Illinois help him ultimately in the California argument. Because one of the arguments Trump made is, I've got to mobilize these forces. I gotta, I gotta deploy them in California because the, the state's on fire. It's a shithole. I mean, this is my paraphrase. It's a war ravaged area and yet he took 200 of them and sent them to Oregon. So how bad could it have been in California? So they're gonna, That's a gift, right?
- [11:54]
A
Yeah. And I hope the Oregonians can continue to show how absurd and unnecessary this is with their costumes that they're wearing, their chicken suits, their, you know, their unicorn suits, their frog suits, their emergency naked bike rides that they're calling. I mean, it just shows the absurdity of, and the unnecessary nature of this deployment. And I think it really highlights how, how absurd and ridiculous this is.
- [12:24]
B
You picked the wrong hippie, progressive town to go out.
- [12:27]
A
Exactly.
- [12:28]
B
I mean, just watch Portlandia. It's almost a documentary from the people that I know that live there. And I felt sorry for the frog guy because they shot a pepper ball up his butt inside his suit. I mean, there's video of that. Maybe our producer can find it while I'm talking about it. But all kidding aside, it's going to end up with the United States Supreme Court. We're going to get another terrible ruling that's going to be on the books for generations about what the next president not named Donald Trump can do. You know, related to These things. So the National Guard cases stand for a certain proposition. Now, let me just rip the mask off here because I've seen the numbers. Donald Trump has blown hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars to do these, these cosplay stunts and show of force $200 million alone in D.C. and multiply that by Illinois and California, you're talking about three quarters of a billion do. Thank you very much. I mean, not thank you very much like I wanted that to happen, but thank you that you showed that poor frog guy who got a pepper sprayed.
- [13:31]
A
He shot them from behind. He wasn't a threat. He thought he did it from behind.
- [13:36]
B
By the way, once again, you show why you were such a, an amazing prosecutor. The guy in the frog suit was shot from behind.
- [13:45]
A
True. I mean, he was not threatening these ICE agents couldn't even see them. It was exactly, it was an unnecessary use of force, as all of this is.
- [13:54]
B
Well, we could spend an entire legal AF with salty running clips of people being tackled from behind, running away and being shot. This is a cowardly outof control ICE and National Guard force. I don't completely blame them. But, you know, when you give these yahoos $50,000 and a badge and a gun and you send them out in the streets, you tell them have at it. You know, it becomes, becomes the purge.
- [14:21]
A
That, didn't Trump say, use our citizens as practice for the military training to.
- [14:27]
B
Which the military generals and admirals in the room are like, there's such stone cold no response that, but this is going to end up at the United States Supreme Court. So we're going to have to continue to follow it. If you're not okay with a half a billion dollars of your money being spent to primarily pick up litter and stand guard in front of a building, then, you know, let the, let the Republicans know at the midterms, if not before, like no King's Day marches and, and that types of, that type of thing. And if you're looking, if you're scoring the party, you got to look at what they're doing with Representative Adelita Grijalva. This, she, she's, she runs for her late father's seat. She wins 70% of the vote. Okay, she, she, this is back in September. She represents 813,000 Arizonans who have no representation right now because Mike Johnson won't seat her and swear her in because she's also said she'll be the 218th vote or the 218th signature on the discharge petition that will lead to the Epstein file vote. Happening on the House floor. And he keeps finding ridiculous and nonsensical ways to avoid swearing her in. And so Chris Mays, the Attorney General of Arizona, is going to do something about it. Right, Karen, what you going to do?
- [15:51]
A
Yeah, I mean, look, she'll obviously bring some sort of lawsuit, whether it's a writ of mandamus or something, to force this. Because I think Representative Johnson's excuse that Congress is not in session, I can't possibly swear her in, is belied by the facts. He swore in two federal Republican representatives who won their seats in special elections while the House was in recess earlier this year. So this is a ministerial act that he can do. He's just not doing it because he does desperately is doesn't want the Epstein files released because his boss, President Trump, doesn't want them released.
- [16:28]
B
Yeah. And while we're watching is, I kind of has distilled Donald Trump after nine months down to the following. If you can't figure out why a policy is being passed or a law or an executive order, and it looks warped to you, what's warping it? There's three things. It's either Donald Trump's retribution, Donald Trump trying to make money, or Donald Trump trying to benefit and, or trying to benefit his, his friends, or he's trying to cover up a scandal like the Epstein scandal. So when you're like, wow, that's weird. Why did he just do that? It's one of those three things, or all of those three things in some cases. So it's money, vengeance, Epstein. And here it's, It's a combination of it. And we've said to our audience, Karen, that in our, our corner of the world, when a person hides documents and won't produce them, like the Epstein files, we are allowed, and the judge orders us as a jury, and we're a jury for Donald Trump to infer adversely that those documents are bad for him. So I'm allowed to assume, and so are the American people, that what's missed, that what isn't, the things that aren't being produced are pictures of Donald Trump with young women, proof that he had. He participated in the child sex trafficking, that there's money connections between Jeffrey Epstein and him. I'm allowed to assume all of that as an inference, an adverse inference, because he won't produce the files. And that's what we've asked the American people to do. Think why? Because it's such an easy solution. Just dump it onto a site, put it all out there. He cannot do it because it is lousy with references to Donald Trump and his relationship with Epstein that put a lie to everything he said on the campaign trail and to the American people. And so that's why we don't let up on it, and that's why we don't let up, like on any of. On any of the scandals. Let's just talk about the Tom Holman scandal that they desperately want to go away. Tom Holman takes a bag of cash. I mean, I don't know how else to put this. This was not a complicated. I know people are like, was there a. Was the Grand Cayman Islands and Swiss bank accounts involved? Was there money laundering through cryptocurrency? No, it was a bag of cash. Like you're watching a 1950s black and white movie. And they just took a bag of cash and handed it to the guy and said, will you accept this in return for doing something for us? And he said, yes. And it's on camera and it's on audio. Because the people that he was meeting with before he became the border czar were federal agents who had been referred to him because somebody else they were targeting said, that guy's dirty. And they said, really? Let's find out. And so he took the money and he kept the money. Did he report it on his tax returns? I don't know. Did he structure the deposits in the bank so that nobody. They didn't have to fill out a suspicious transaction report? I don't know. What did he do with the money? And now you got the administration, whether it's Pam Bondi or JD Vance got sucked into it. There you can see, Karen, this involved. I want to get your view on this evolving. First it was get your facts straight, Senator. That was Pam Bondi to whiteout. Get your facts straight, Senator. Is there a video? I don't know if there's a video. You'll have to ask that guy. You know, they're all wearing T shirts. I'm with stupid. Go ask Cash Patel. Okay. Then they decided, well, maybe that's not working since. Since Homan didn't deny taking the money. So they put J.D. vance on. He's like, he always has this unctuous, smarmy. I'm sure he's taken a lot of $50,000 payments. Like, I'm sorry, he's lost track of how many paper bags of money he's taken. Is that what you're trying to say? He's taken. He's very. He's a very successful man. I'm sure there's a lot of $50,000 payments that. But he didn't take it for anything and he didn't do anything wrong by taking it. But I don't know what video you're talking about. George Stephanopoulos. And that's why I'm on the show, because nobody watches it. I'm like, what the f is happening? He literally said to George Stephanopoulos, that's why nobody watches your show, George, because you asked me questions like that instead of the ones I want you to ask me. Why the F are you on the show if nobody watches the show? What do you make of this home? And do you believe. Did you ever run an undercover operation or help run one?
- [21:14]
A
Many, many, many, many, many.
- [21:17]
B
Talk about it. Where's the audio? Where's the video?
- [21:20]
A
Well, let's start with planning and preparation and what goes into an operation like this. To do a sting operation, a public corruption sting operation of somebody who you believe is going to be appointed into a government position is not something that is done every day. It is not something that the FBI does across the board. You have to get permission up the wazoo. You have to have some articulable reason for why you think this is necessary. Because that's a pretty big deal, right? To do a sting operation essentially against somebody who you think is about to be nominated to a high level, cabinet level position. And so they made a decision that there is something fishy about this guy, that we're going to do something. We're going to do. This sting operation had multiple meetings and tack plans. They picked the location. They had to have an undercover officer to get him to even meet there. And to do this exchange. They had to have this whole. They had to have several different communications with him to set up this meeting to get him there. They had to pre. If there's some kind of video, perhaps they pre wired the location. Maybe they were wearing some kind of tiny little buttonhole camera. I have no idea how they did that. But that's another factor that they put into it is how are we going to record it? Video and audio. Okay. Are we going to have the video on this person? Make sure that they can have it in your hat and they can record what he's saying. They go over exactly what words they're going to use, because bribery has very specific words that have to be used in order to make out a crime. There are so many factors that go into it. Another big deal is how much money, how much taxpayer dollars essentially are they going to utilize to do this thing. $50,000. I never used that kind of money in any kind of sting operation. That's a lot of money for law enfor enforcement to use in this kind of operation because you might not ever see it again. Right. That, that money, you know, when you, when you buy drugs or, you know, whatever it is that you do in these operations, you might not catch the perpetrator ultimately, or you might not build a case ultimately. And, you know, you're going to have to lose. You might lose that money. The fact that they chose that amount of money also, to me, signals that this was. They thought that this was a big deal. Right. And that this guy potentially could. That. That he was dirty in some way or vulnerable.
- [23:50]
B
That's a very good observation that nobody's made. I've watched a lot of analysis about this. Yeah, they didn't come at him with 5,000 or 10,000. That's a big number. $50,000. Picture it in a paper bag. Yeah, right. So you think they had. They knew what the going rate was maybe for him, that they had to give him in order to.
- [24:10]
A
A lot of money. That's just a lot of money in an undercover sting. And so then they take the bills out and they log the serial numbers, because if they're going to recover the cash, they have to prove that that was the cash they gave them. Right. And so they photograph it. I mean, hours and hours and hours and hours and hours of work. This is a meticulously planned operation that was conducted by the FBI. And they went in and sure enough, no one's disputing that he took $50,000 of taxpayer dollars from the FBI and why. They won't. Why this administration refuses to answer that question. What happened to that money? Does he still have that money? What did he do with it? Did he deposit it, et cetera? Did he give it back? I mean, I would assume if he gave it back that they would have told everyone that. But the fact that they're deflecting and ask him, I don't know. I don't know where it is. I infer that he kept the money. Now they keep saying, oh, they found no evidence of criminality. I mean, let's just remember two things. Number one, under this FBI and this Justice Department found no criminality. Right? So, you know, and, and so that, that's one thing. And, but, but the other thing in, in fairness is bribery is, you know, the, the. It's a very narrow statute that you have to prove that the person took money in exchange for something that they, you know, for For a tangible thing.
- [25:39]
B
The reporting is they weren't. They. They decided not to arrest because they wanted him to get into office and then make good on the quid pro quo, right? Get a contract their way, and bam, they got it. Now, of course, that was the Biden administration, DOJ and FBI, and then, you know, what happened during the election. But if you didn't have Pam Bondi not only. Not only demonstrating a complete lack of independence, completely compromised, completely captured by the president. At one point when she was fighting with a senator, she, she tried to make it about her to divert attention. Are you. Don't call me a liar. I said I haven't seen the video. And then she defends Tom Homan. She shouldn't be defending Tom Homan. What she should be doing is appointing a special counsel to investigate this. Get it away from her. Let the special. You know, if we were going to have, I could think of about five special counsels in the first 10 months of this administration, but I can't think of a better one than Tom Holman in the bribery scandal. Appoint an effin. A former U.S. attorney. Jack Smith's not doing anything these days and let him go proctologist style and go crawl all over this issue. But don't defend him. I mean, you're the Attorney General of the United States. How do you know?
- [27:03]
A
Yeah, no, instead they're trumping up charges against Jim Comey. Letitia James, she checked the wrong box on her mortgage. Or, you know, like instead they're coming up with these ridiculous. These ridiculous charges. I mean, Letitia James, the entire allegation there is $18,000, right. That she somehow benefited for $18,000. Even if. Even if she checked the wrong box.
- [27:25]
B
Over 30 years.
- [27:26]
A
Yeah, over 30 years, exactly. This is $50,000 of. You know, I think, I think the American people should demand to know, where's our money?
- [27:33]
B
Well, the good news is Democracy Forward, who's with us over on Legal AF? YouTube and Sky Perryman have filed their lawsuit. They started as a foia. You know, it's kind of want to do this easy way or the hard way.
- [27:44]
A
Here's the freeway, the freedom of information. Yeah.
- [27:47]
B
Didn't get the video. Didn't get the audio. So they filed a lawsuit. It's going to be up to a federal judge. So all this namby pamby backpedaling that we're watching on television and in Senate hearings, you know, that doesn't work, as you and I both know. Well, in the brown. In the wood paneling and leather chaired environment of a Courthouse at a courtroom.
- [28:10]
A
But also, you know, look, if Pam Bondi is correct and he didn't commit a crime, then they should say that. Say why he didn't commit a crime. Why was this. Okay, why show us the video?
- [28:21]
B
What was the 54.
- [28:22]
A
Yeah, exactly. Like explain yourself, but by, but by deflecting and not answering the questions, it's almost in some ways making us assume the worst. Right.
- [28:32]
B
Go back to adverse inference.
- [28:34]
A
Right, exactly. Like maybe he didn't, you know, so tell us. And then you go about defending the border and everything else that she wants.
- [28:41]
B
Us to do because he took the money. It's in his bank account. He has some story that Blanche and Emil Bovey before he got on the third and. And cash podcaster Patel. The. Okay. Because the boss told him. Clear homing. So they went in with, okay, Tom, what happened? Well, I took the 50,000. It's supposed to be for I don't know what. And I never made any promises. And I took myself out of the running of the. Of handling federal contracts. We all know that's bullshit. He may not have been in the direct line of sight to make decisions about federal contracts. Neither is Steve Witkoff. That doesn't mean they can't influence. Poke their head in the room and say, hey, who's getting the next ice detention center construction project? What about ABC Contractors? Okay, off to coffee now. That's what happened. That's what was going to happen. But you and I shouldn't have to guess. Neither should the American people. Special counsel should be. And she has. The more she's so blinded by her own ambition, it's blind ambition all over again. The title. I think of John Dean's book about having followed Nixon effectively into jail as his White House counsel. You're watching Blind ambition with her. She's so focused, myopically, with blinders on and blinded by her. Her allegiance to Donald Trump that she. She doesn't even. She can't even hear herself. And, and everything that she said that she thought was in a way to defend Donald Trump and Tom Homan is actually the very reasons she should be stepping back and appointing a special. A special prosecutor. Right. So that's where we are. What I want to talk about is this implosion of the Department of Justice leadership and how Donald Trump is making the people take sides. I think he does it for sport. But what, but what he's doing is he's. He's collapsing his own Department of Justice and destroying it. Of course, we already know its credibility is destroyed in the Courtrooms around, around America. There's an Alex Jones component to it I want to talk about when we come back from a break. Then Jack Smith is back and this is the time that it's a courageous time for him to speak. He's not getting enough credit for it. Many, many people would, would put their heads down and stay out of the line of fire led by people like Stephen Miller and Donald Trump Post Charlie Kirk, but not Jack Smith. I mean, it's consistent with what we knew about him in terms of his values. So he gave an interview and so we'll talk about that. And then the Supreme Court had oral argument about Voting Rights Act Section 2. Voting Rights Act Section 1 already ripped away in the last 10 years. And now we're going to see what happens with Section two. We're at that point of the show where we get to thank our audience, thank them for being here, thank them for helping us be in the top 20 of all YouTube podcasts in America, regardless of the genre. That's amazing. We're regularly in the top 50 to 100 in audio. You can help us there as well by coming over to the audio versions, five star reviews and comments and all of that good stuff. It's all the hummingbird theory. We don't know exactly what works, so we got to do it all. And then there's other ways to support the legal AF community and ecosystem. And we've got the YouTube channel, which we're going to cross 900,000 subscribers probably in the next 30 days and get to our 1 million target number before Christmas New Year's if it kills me. And because the bigger we are as an independent news organization and commentary, the more your voice is heard. And that's really. It's not ego, it's algorithm. It's just. And it steals us against the attacks of MAGA and the right wing and Donald Trump and the rest of it. So that's, that's why. And, and it also allows me to curate and bring on some amazing collaborators there and new collaborators and get some interviews and newsmakers, people that are in the trenches, all on Legal AF, YouTube. And it's all for free. No, no paywall. And then we got this amazing world of legal a app substack. If you don't know anything about substack, any hobby or interest you have, there's somebody doing amazing writing and research and analysis there that you'll want to follow and for long politics. I can't think of a better one not to pat ourselves on the back that what we're doing on Legal af. We're already crossed, we're about to cross the hundred thousand subscriber base there. There's videos, there's commercial free versions of things, there's my lives where I do sort of updates at the minute, all on Legal AF on the you on substack. And there's where you can make a contribution, become a paid member at seven bucks a month. I promise you we'll overwhelm you and wow you with our content on Legal AF substack. And then we've got some sponsors that have been with us, some of them from the beginning, some of them new, but all committed to making sure that our voice, our point of view, our First Amendment expression and speech is protected and stays on the air. They want to talk to our audience and they know what our audience is all about and they're here for it. So here's a word from our sponsors. Delete Me makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. As someone with an active online presence, privacy is really important to me. Every week we're covering stories about data leaks and hacks, people's personal information being exposed, and it really hit home. I've seen how easily your private details can end up all over the Internet and that's why I use DeleteMe. DeleteMe does all the work of wiping your and your family's personal information from hundreds of data broker websites. And it's not just a one time thing. DeleteMe is always working for you, constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the Internet. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your delete Me plan when you go to join DeleteMe.com LegalAF and use promo code LegalAF at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com Legal AF and enter code LegalAF at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com Legal AF code Legal AF the weather it's heating up and your nighttime bedroom temperature has a huge impact on your sleep quality. If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend you check out Miracle Maid's Bed Sheets. Miracle made sheets are inspired by NASA and use silver infused fabrics that are temperature regulating so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long. Using silver infused fabrics inspired by NASA, Miracle Maid sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long no matter the weather so you get better sleep every night. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands and feel as nice, if not nicer than sheets used by some five star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with Miracle. Upgrade your sleep as the weather heats up. Go to trymiracle.com legalaf to try Miracle Made sheets today and whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, if you order today you can save over 40%. And if you use our promo legal AF at checkout, you'll get a free 3 piece towel set and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product it's backed with a 30 day money back guarantee so if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle made. Go to trymiracle.com legalaf and use the code legal AF to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's trymiracle.com legalaf to treat yourself. Thank you Miracle Made for sponsoring this episode. Thank you to our pro democracy sponsors, and thank you to those that turing that break there. Also subscribed to Legal AF, YouTube and Substack Karen Donald Trump has made good on his threat to be the chief legal officer of America. Nothing like having a criminal be your chief legal officer. And if Pam Bondi thought she was going to be some sort of Attorney general, or Todd Blanche was going to be the number two, they've been in for a rude awakening. And what we're watching now is apparently we've got a shadow attorney general named Ed Martin, of all things, who's been leading on all of these political partisan hack prosecutions of Donald Trump's enemies list. And he's got a acolyte in tow named Lindsey Halligan. And the New York Times, for instance, did a whole great report about a battle that's broken out between Todd Blanche, who increasingly can't control Ed Martin, who was a Jan6 criminal defense lawyer, former federal prosecutor, an election denier, a Jan6 denier, and all the rest couldn't get confirmed by the Senate to be a U.S. attorney, but is doing a lot of mischief in his role as pardoned attorney and head of the Weaponization of the Department of Justice Committee. I think that name says it all. Why don't you talk about the Department of Justice. You had a lot of interaction with the Department of Justice when you were the number two in the Manhattan District Attorney's office. Talk about what you're seeing and what impact is on the rule of law and justice in America as a result.
- [38:36]
A
Look, the Department of Justice has always been known to be above the fray. It has always been independent of the White House. It has always been the most respected law enforcement entity, I would argue, probably in the world. The top people from the top law firms covet these jobs at the doj, from the top law schools and law firms. And it's a very, very respected entity. There are tons of Department of Justice policies and procedures. There's a whole manual to make sure that the entire country, because it's obviously a big country with people in all the judicial districts around the country are handling cases in ways that uniform, that are above the fray, like I said, that are that you handle cases without fear or favor and that you don't bring part. You don't bring cases because of someone's political party. You don't target people who are your enemies. You try to enforce the law in a neutral way. And it's just something that's been respected and tradition that's been respected certainly for my entire lifetime. And when I was a prosecutor at the state level, anytime we had to work with the Department of Justice, granted, we had a few times that we would bump into each other because we were investigating a case, they were investigating a case. We wanted the case, they wanted the case. But it was always, there was never any issue like what we're seeing now. And it's really, it's hard to watch. It's hard to watch all of the civil servants who I think more than 5,000 employees of the Department of Justice have been fired since Donald Trump took office. Thousands of civil servants, including career prosecutors, who have institutional knowledge, who know what they're doing and who are, who uphold the law. And it's just hard to watch. It's hard to watch it happen across the board and on top of that, that they're bringing cases that they would have never brought under any administration. Cases like the Letitia James case, the Jim Comey case that career prosecutors told the U.S. attorneys who were sitting. Eric Siebert, who was the Eastern District of Virginia Trump appointed United States attorney awaiting confirmation. He was told by his career prosecutors there's no case here. And he himself reviewed the cases and said there's no case here. And to watch somebody like Ed Martin, who's not the Attorney General. But who is this individual who has been given tremendous authority by Donald Trump to call the shots? It appears to have him be able to install someone like Lindsey Halligan, who may not be a valid appointment of the United States Attorney because of the way it was done, to be able to bring a case the day before the statute of limitations ran, and a case, again, that I don't think would pass muster and will pass muster ultimately. It's hard to watch as a career prosecutor, as someone who has that kind of respect for the rule of law and for the Department of Justice generally, and to watch it all shake out and the news reporting is that the Department of Justice is not necessarily in control of some of these cases, that it appears that Ed Martin is having an outsized role with Donald Trump in directing some of these prosecutions. So, you know, I don't know how the department recovers from this, because, again, you don't walk in on day one and suddenly you know how to try a case or you know how to prosecute a case, or, you know, you don't have the judgment how to do it. It takes years of training and learning from people who are more senior than you and FBI agents who've been doing it for decades to learn how to do these cases. You try smaller cases when you get in, to learn how to try a case. Right. And to have all that institutional knowledge and all that training, frankly, and that judgment, walk out the door, be fired for things. Maureen Comey was, by all accounts, one of the most respected prosecutors at the Southern District of New York. And she was fired by all accounts because of who her father is. I mean, certainly you can't. You wouldn't fire her based on her ability. She's very well respected. She's an excellent lawyer. And I know that from personal knowledge as well as her reputation. And to lose her and people like her is just such a shame. And it's certainly not making us any safer, I can tell you that. And to think that some, that by firing these people and by having them not protecting our country and by bringing national security cases, corruption cases, white collar cases, civil rights cases, it's not making us any safer. It is actually having quite the opposite effect. And so this Department of Justice, to me, is unrecognizable in terms of what I've known it to be and what it looks like now.
- [43:59]
B
Certainly unrecognizable to James Comey, former FBI director. His, his lawyer, Pat Fitzgerald, also a U.S. attorney from Illinois Northern District in Chicago. They've signaled or filed a notice to judge Namikoff, who's the judge in the eastern district of Virginia, that not only are they going to be filing a motion to have Lindsey Halligan declared to be illegally appointed, but they are already getting the judge advance notice before the 20th. It's due in five days. The motion to give him time. Because if they're right under their theory, then the, and I think they are then the only group of people that can appoint a. A U. S. Attorney. Acting U. S. Attorney in the eastern district of Virginia are the judges of the eastern district of Virginia, all of them. So they're telling judge Nebkoff, you can do everything in the case but this motion. You're, you're all going to be disqualified because you know, no, you and you need to vote on the future replacement. So we're going to take you out of that problem. We think you should assign this or have it assigned to another court outside the eastern district of Virginia. And the procedure for that is relatively straightforward. Eastern district of Virginia sits in the fourth circuit court of appeals. You, the judge, the trial judge sends it to the chief judge of the 4th Circuit, who I believe is judge Diaz. Judge Diaz assigns it to a judge that's not in the eastern district of Virginia. Could be another district in Virginia. I think they have a northern district of Virginia. It could be there, it could be North Carolina. It just can't be in the eastern district. And they're giving the, the trial judge time to send that motion off. The other motion they're filing, which is obvious, and they've declared it in court during the arraignment, which is the motion to have the indictment dismissed for prosecutorial abuse, selective prosecution or vindictive prosecution. That'll stay with the trial judge. There's no conflict there the way there is with the other motion. But they're coming out swinging. I think they've got an amazing trial team here. And James, people forget James Comey isn't just the 6 foot 8, strapping former FBI agent. He was the U.S. attorney for the, for Manhattan before he became FBI director.
- [46:23]
A
And his lawyer. And his lawyer, Pat Fitzgerald was the United States attorney for Chicago.
- [46:28]
B
Right. So this is. And they're against Lindsay. I've been a federal prosecutor for two weeks. How am I doing? Halligan now it's obvious to me now that the reporting has come out that, that Ed Martin is guiding Halligan and gave her a script that apparently she didn't deviate from to. To obtain two indictments. I mean, that's pretty heady. Stuff. I mean, she's got zero experience. She walked in. It's like being shown. Okay, Lindsay, you're gonna fly this 7.777jet today. Just follow this cookbook. You'll be fine. Put it on autopilot after you do the takeoff. That was what? Now I know it's Ed Martin because I thought it was Blanche, and originally I thought, well, Blanche and Bondi must be giving her the script on how to do it, even though they're not going down to sit with her. That's odd. They gave her Meg Cleary, who. Which was Pam Bondi's original choice to be the Eastern District of Virginia. At least she. She was young, but at least she had prosecutor experience. And that's where Donald Trump sent that now infamous dm. Not dm. Pam, we're running out of time. Indict all my enemies. And Lindsay Allegan really likes you. I felt like I was in the fourth grade. Lindsay Allegan likes you. She thinks you're pretty. You should make her. I'm barely. I'm barely parodying this. You should. She should be the one. And then she said, no, I'll do Meg cleary. And now McCleary just got fired, and I think that's all Ed Martin. So it wasn't. Because now we know from reporting, it's leaked out that Bondi and Blanche were against the firing of Eric Siebert and was against the indictment against Letitia James and Comey. And so who's. Who is the new shadow attorney general? His name, ladies and gentlemen, is Eagle Ed Martin. And when he's not busy doing whatever he's doing, he's putting on a trench coat in. In August or July and marching around Brooklyn checking out Letitia James's brownstone. I mean, just ridiculous, ridiculous things.
- [48:34]
A
But.
- [48:34]
B
But this is where we are.
- [48:37]
A
You know, it's gonna be. I have a question for you. So there's. There are these procedural or technical questions that are gonna be asked, right? There's the whether or not Lindsey Halligan was validly appointed. You know, there's a hundred. The statute says 120 days, and once it expires, the district court has, you know, can appoint the U.S. attorney. There's this other law, though, that it looks like they're gonna. The Vacancy Reform act, but that doesn't apply either because you have to have worked there for 90 days at the DOJ, et cetera.
- [49:09]
B
So there's been a number two, and.
- [49:11]
A
Yeah, exactly. So. So. So it's. It seems he. So. So he could be. If so if Lindsey Halligan is not validly appointed, any case she brings is, has to be dismissed.
- [49:23]
B
She's the only one that signed the indictment. There wasn't even another person.
- [49:26]
A
Exactly. So, you know, the problem with, with winning in that regard, because that seems pretty clear, is that's a, that that's still a technical violation. And they're going to, Trump's gonna say comey's corrupt. You know, that's just a technicality. Same thing with the vindictive prosecution. You know, it's a risk to go to trial in January, but in some ways that's the only way he's gonna be able to really exonerate himself. To have a jury say this is BS cuz he's not guilty. But, you know, so that's the only.
- [49:57]
B
I think they're gonna, I still want him to win the motion to dismiss.
- [49:59]
A
The indictment, which I think they're going to win. I think they're going to win on one of these technicalities because it's not a technicality. I mean, this is so far beyond the pale of what's lawful and legal. But in some ways I still want him to win substantively too, just to kind of show that Trump is.
- [50:16]
B
For me, it's like, I often devolve into sports analogies or metaphors. It's like the, it's like the weigh in press conference for a boxing match and the two guys are about to go into the ring like the next day, like, you know, Canelo and whoever, you know, they, they, they, they're there and then they, they start posing for photos. But then something happens and somebody in one entourage, there's somebody in the other entourage, suddenly they're about to, they're about to throw down right there. Now part of me is like, yeah, kick his ass right there at the press conference. But the other part of me is like, no, let's wait for the actual event, right, and have them do the fight in the ring. So for me, I'm not sure. I mean, you're right. Maybe I want them to win on the technicality or maybe I want them to get into the ring and kick their ass at trial.
- [51:04]
A
Yeah, I kind of want all of it because it's, it's also bad that you want to point out each one of them like, I don't want to, you know what I mean? Like, I hope, I hope that they rule on, on, on at least both the valid appointment and the vindictive process.
- [51:16]
B
Well, comment on this before we go to our next break. Even I know you did the stateside. But there's infirmities with the indictment and the way the grand jury. Is it a true bill? Isn't it a true bill? What. Which counts are. Why are there two indictments?
- [51:30]
A
Yeah.
- [51:31]
B
Don't they have an argument. She's got. There's been a rumor that she's gonna try to supersede that indictment.
- [51:37]
A
Yeah. I mean, she had. I mean, I think. I think they will because the indictment is just not. It doesn't. It also doesn't give you any indication. Yeah. It gives you no information. It gives. It doesn't.
- [51:47]
B
The.
- [51:47]
A
The. The defendant has no notice as to what he's being charged with. And so I think it's infirm in that regard, too. Aside from the just typos. Right. At one point or. No. Maybe I'm thinking of Leticia.
- [51:57]
B
Oh, no, there. Well, no, there was. They're close. There were two count twos.
- [52:04]
A
Oh, yeah. She filed two indictments.
- [52:06]
B
Two indictments and two count twos.
- [52:08]
A
Yeah.
- [52:09]
B
That. She signed both. That was a problem in the press release. They. She spelled the word principle wrong. She said a bedrock principle of democracy. She had the wrong principle. And. And then you're also thinking, I'm sure. Letitia James living in one of my favorite places on earth. Brooklyn, New Jersey.
- [52:27]
A
Exactly. Which is. Brooklyn's in New York. Those people who are watching us from Australia. Brooklyn is in.
- [52:33]
B
No, they know. Even they. They know, too. So when we're. We're going to talk about what happened at the United States Supreme Court, Jack Smith coming back. And I think the timing of it is it was on purpose. I don't think the more I think about it, I don't think this was a critical moment. Just why we're hearing more from the Obamas of the world and the Jack Smiths of the world. This is the time, you know, we're flashing the bat signal. This is the time for these kind of heroes to come back and talk to us and give us hope. And so we have that. And the Supreme Court then again, takes away, crushes our hope in a oral argument today that I don't think is going to go well for the 22 Democratic seats in a sea of red out there. We might lose 20 seats. And more importantly, black representation may be a thing of the past here in America. And that's a sad commentary. We're going to cover all that, but got to pay the bills. Is that what they used to say the old timey times on television, Got to pay the bills. Now most of what we're talking about doesn't, doesn't pay the bills. It just, just keeps us on the air. It's part of our, a part of our relationship with Midas Touch and all that good stuff. We got the Legal AF ecosystem. You're here. Listen to us on the podcast platforms like Google and, sorry, Spotify and Apple. Google used to have a thing, leave five star reviews. Come over here, watch us. Send the clips to your friends and families, Go back and forth. That all helps keeps us high up in the ratings. I think we're like the number one law and politics show in, in America. I really do think that based on the, on the ratings then we've got this legal AF YouTube channel which is just a year old. I mean, really, we just cry. I mean, I think actually Salty will tell me if I'm wrong. I think we're two days away from really having turned on the lights for legal AF YouTube and we're already at about 850,000 subscribers. Well on our way to 900. And then of course that magical 1 million, that unicorn, all because of you. No paywall, no outside investors. So just enjoy our 10 or 12 videos a day, every day. As people know, I work round the clock to keep that channel, along with my other contributors up and running, along with our editor at our, our editor team. Shout out to Two Rivers, shout out to Salty and Sydney and Nico and all the people that make the magic happen over there on the other side of the camera. And then we've got the substack. Yes, we do. We need it now more than ever. That's a place where I can jump on with others, do lives live reporting in real time. We've got some written product up there, some commentary. All of our contributors contribute there. It's really a fascinating audience to be a part of. And, and there you can help us with a paid subscription. I think it's seven bucks a month. We kept it cheap. And if you like what's up there and you want to support Legal af, that is a way to do it. And of course we've got our sponsors. And now here's a word from them. You know that feeling when your morning coffee is supposed to kickstart your day, but instead your stomach's grumbling, your focus isn't sharp, and by 10am you're like already craving a nap. It's frustrating because the ritual matters, but sometimes traditional coffee just doesn't play nice with your body or your brain. And for anyone juggling a busy, chaotic lifestyle or trying to level up focus and energy. This is a common struggle. You don't have hours to research ingredients, experiment with supplements, or mix up different powders just to get a clean, productive boost. That's where everyday Dose comes in. It's Coffee plus Benefits Coffee with mushrooms and collagen nootropics that fuel your brain, support, focus and provide clean, sustained energy all day long. It tastes just like coffee, but without the crash jitters or stomach issues. With ingredients like lion's mane, chaga and collagen protein, it's a simple ritual that supports your gut, brain and overall wellness without adding any extra time to your morning. Right now you can get 45% off your first subscription order of 30 servings of Coffee Plus. You also receive a starter kit with over $100 in free gifts by going to everydaydose.com legalaf or entering Legal AF at checkout. That's that's everydaydose.com legalaf for 45% off your first order. You know, we live in an environment our biology was never designed for. EMFs, artificial light, seed oils, microplastics, endocrine disruptors, chronic stress. These modern assaults disrupt cellular signaling, negatively impacting gut health and accelerating aging. That's why I've been using armor. Colostrum Amra Colostrum revives cellular signaling, bolstering our health from within to defend against everyday threats. Colostrum is nature's first whole food with over 400 bioactive nutrients that work at the cellular level to reactivate your body's innate capacity to regenerate and thrive. And since I started taking armor, I've noticed a real difference. My gut feels stronger and less bloated, my energy and metabolism are better than ever, and even my skin looks more radiant. Plus, armor helps strengthen immune health without just boosting balances and strengthens your immune barriers across your mouth, sinuses, lungs, gut and more. Ready to reclaim your health, We've worked out a special offer for my audience. Receive 15% off your first order. Go to tryamora.com legalif or enter legalaf to get 15% off your first order. That's T R Y A R M R A.com legalif arbor colostrum it's pure, potent, natural and clean. Not a supplement, but a bioactive whole food. I highly recommend giving it a try. Welcome back and thank you to our sponsors, without which, frankly, we we wouldn't have the lights on. So I really do appreciate them. I appreciate you supporting our sponsors as well. We're in the home stretch. Karen Jack Smith speaks and the Supreme Court. Unfortunately does, too. So why don't we release the Maga 6? Let's kick it off. Why don't you take the prosecutor lead and talk about what just happened, what just went down and what Jack Smith said. We got some clips, too, that we can play for our audience. Okay.
- [58:55]
A
Yeah. So look, Jack Smith, the special prosecutor, has been silent. He was essentially silent throughout the entire prosecutions of Donald Trump. Right. He did exactly what you're supposed to do as a prosecutor is, is not make public comments or statements, not try to influence the case. And he did that because that's how he was trained and that's how he is. And. But he's been noticeably absent from the public discourse in the last. Since he. I guess it's been 10 months now since the cases have been dismissed, but he came out and he was in London. He was interviewed by former prosecutor Andrew Weissman. And, and it was a long interview. It was a long, substantive interview. It was, I think, more than almost two hours. And there was a lot of questions that were asked. And, And Jack was exactly who I know Jack Smith to be. I, I worked with Jack Smith in his early days at the Manhattan DA's office, which he talked about during his interview, which I loved about how he, he and I started around the same time, a couple of years apart. We were in the same small group, small unit. We were trained by the same supervisor, and we learned how to be prosecutors the same way. And he said that was the foundation of his prosecutorial experience. He went on to be a very highly respected federal prosecutor. He also worked at Main Justice. He also became an international prosecutor. So he has experience that runs the gamut. He's done public corruption cases, violent crime cases, I mean, you name it. He has all of the experience and all of the incredible judgment, and I think it's worth watching. It was really interesting what his perspective is and what he. About prosecution. I think we're going to play a clip here that. I think he'll say it better than I. I could. Salty. Do you want to play the. Play the clip of Jack Smith that.
- [60:40]
C
We have the idea that politics would play a role in big cases like this, it's absolutely ludicrous, and it's totally contrary to my experience as a prosecutor. If there's rules in the department about how to bring a case, follow those rules, you can't say, I want this outcome. Let me throw the rules out. That's why, frankly, you see all these conflicts between the career apolitical prosecutors I worked with, because they're being Asked to do things that they think are wrong. And because they're not political people, they're not going to do them. And I think that explains why. You've seen the resignations, you've seen people leave the department. It's not because they're enemies of one administration or the next. They worked through decades for different administrations. It's just they've been doing things apolitically forever. And when they're told no, you gotta get this outcome, no matter what, that is so contrary to how we were all raised as prosecutors.
- [61:38]
A
Yeah. So it's so true. And I think back to my years as a prosecutor. I had no idea what political party anyone I worked with was part of. Never factored into any decision you make as a prosecutor. You follow the facts wherever they lead, without fear or favor. It doesn't matter whether the person is friends with the DA or donated to his campaign. Those lines are, we never knew if somebody donated money to a particular person or not. I mean, those things were so kept separate from line prosecutors. And that's who Jack Smith is. And I thought it was interesting, the timing of this coming out, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Why is he coming out now? Why is he speaking now? Because he's also not someone. Jack Smith is not someone who's ever coveted the spotlight. Never seen him to be that way. He's a very humble guy. And he's not someone who I think goes out and promotes himself in any way. And so for him to come out and speak and to speak about what he talked about, about the rule of law, about the importance of it, about justice being blind, about justice being about process being important as opposed to outcome, and that this administration cares more about, seems to care more about outcome than they do about the process and the process and. And it should apply to no matter who you are, if you are being looked at it with the full force and might of the Department of Justice. And I'd love to hear your thoughts on why you think he's speaking out now. I wondered. I have no idea. And I'd be totally guessing as to why. But I will say that while I was watching it, what I was thinking to myself and what I was wondering was, does he think he's going to be targeted next? Does he think he is? Or does he know. Has he been issued a subpoena? Or has he been. I know that he. That they want him to come speak to Congress behind closed doors, but does he think he's going. Is this an indication to him that he's getting ready, that he is going to be targeted next. And so he's speaking out in his voice now because otherwise there are rules about trying to influence a criminal case and speaking publicly during a criminal case and you could have gag orders, et cetera, if he talks too much. So I wonder if he's speaking, speaking now as sort of a get his story out now. I don't know. What are your thoughts?
- [64:09]
B
I think that's an interesting observation. I think there's a couple of things. First, let's just say something out loud. That's the first time I've ever heard Jack Smith speak in like two and a half years. He took to the podium like twice about his cases right when he, when he issued his reports. And the fact that I even can hear Jack Smith again is comforting. I think the timing of it is interesting. I think one, he understands that we're at a pivotal moment, sort of a hinge moment in our, in our American experiment. It's gotten more critical for opponents of this administration, especially ones that were high up at the Department of Justice, to speak out. Many of them are unwilling to do it. There is an organization of former Department of Justice alum that have come out swinging and issued you know, like three letters already. But you know, you don't see them on mainstream media talking a lot. You don't see them even here on legal af, although I've invited them. They're a cautious bunch as most prosecutors are. They're an apolitical bunch as Jack Smith just laid out. So I think he sees there's a vacuum, there's a void that needs to be filled and his voice joining in the chorus along with people like Barack Obama and elected official governors and state, state attorneys general. I mean he has a unique vantage point having been the prosecutor and investigator for Donald Trump and helping to shape the narrative in his own voice. That's one, two. I mean they've threatened him with the Hatch act violation. I haven't seen reporting nor has it leaked out that he's being seriously considered as a target as a prosecutor. I think that would be almost a dead on arrival indictment if they could even obtain that kind of indictment. Certainly no career prosecutor would ever violate the Department of Justice manual or the principles of federal prosecution to prosecute Jack Smith or, and violate all of their ethical obligations to do that. But we've seen Donald Trump, he'll, he'll find somebody, you know, a first year lawyer, an eighth year lawyer, a lawyer with no scruples. He'll Find a lawyer, insurance lawyer, you know, who's doing fender bender before this. And could he be speaking out? Because there's a, there's a fear. Yeah. And the problem, the problem that you noted is he'll abide by the law and the rules and he'll be silent while the White House pummels him. Dirty cop, dirty prosecutor, wife was a, this supporter, you know, all the things to tear him from limb to limb, although they did all of that already during the, the criminal prosecution. Something stops, I don't know what it is. Something stops Donald Trump from even going after Jack Smith and martyring him. Something stops Donald Trump at the present moment from going after Alvin Bragg.
- [67:12]
A
Yeah, interesting.
- [67:14]
B
You know, I don't know what it is, but something. There's some force field that's apparently still in place. Has he been tipped off and he wanted to get his word out first? Maybe. I just think it's a timing issue. I think he, he is stepping forward when others are stepping back, and we, we need him to speak because I.
- [67:34]
A
Wonder if it's just because Congress, he knows he's going to be subpoenaed to go before Congress and they're going to do it closed doors. And so he's trying to get his voice out publicly just so that people can hear what he has to say.
- [67:46]
B
So I think it's all going into it. I mean, he, it's odd, but you're right to point out that there was a decision that's been made, something, you know, he didn't just, you know, he said now is the time, and somebody asked him to speak or he got placed on that, on that podcast or CNN interview, whatever it is. But he decided with his kitchen cabinet of advisors and family, I'm going to speak against. And it's a politically and personally courageous thing to do in this time, don't you think?
- [68:15]
A
Yeah, totally. What I loved about it, too, though, is he didn't go after anybody in this dramatic, corrupt. You know, it wasn't like calling names and using big adjectives. He was just really methodically explaining exactly what it's supposed to be and why. And I think, you know, he's exactly who you want to be, a prosecutor and a public servant.
- [68:37]
B
I mean. Yeah, I think you can contrast. I mean, we used to see Fonny, Fonny Willis and even Letitia James when they speak. I mean, they're pretty direct about the attacks on them and who they blame. And Fonny did it, you know, from church and a pulpit. And then we see a Lot of videos with Letitia James, who of course we support. But that's not Jack Smith. And, and right. The person that we knew that you knew that you worked with for those that are kind of joining late into the legal AF game, you know, you work with him as a young prosecutor and, and who you see now in his 50s, no different than what you saw in his 20s, right?
- [69:17]
A
Yeah, he's exactly, he's exactly the same. He's just a good guy. Yeah, he's a really good guy. And he's just doesn't get better than Jack Smith.
- [69:26]
B
I'm sure people say that about you and I know and about me. Like if people say like if they knew you and you were fresh out of, fresh new into the prosecutor's office and they, they know you now, it's the same, it's the same person, same values. Right? Same. And me too, you know, hopefully I.
- [69:42]
A
Learned a few skills and I'm a little bit better than I was when I first started.
- [69:45]
B
Well, no, skill wise, you're better.
- [69:46]
A
I'm kidding.
- [69:47]
B
Who you are as a person, right?
- [69:49]
A
Oh, totally. Yeah, exactly.
- [69:51]
B
Same. So let's turn to the. Our final segment here on Legal AF YouTube podcast. I don't know if you know where I am sometimes Legal a podcast. It'll go up on the YouTube eventually and talk about the. I mean I said before and I have a video up on YouTube for legal AF. I said, listen, I, I don't, I don't deal in hyperbolic imagery and. But this case is an existential threat to the Democratic Party, to black and brown representation in Congress for a generation. And it doesn't look good. I said that before the oral argument. Even though Roberts and Kavanaugh in a prior case in 2022, 2023 involving Alabama sided, we were like shocked at the time. Sided with the moderates and the liberals to make a 54 block to approve a voting map that used race to create a new district. I wasn't confident that they were going to join with the moderate wing again when it related to Louisiana. And what was up for grabs in Louisiana was a map that was drawn by the legislature of Louisiana maga, Mike Johnson's home state, in which they went back to the drawing board, literally redrew a map after their first time around. They only came up with one district out of seven. That's like 14 or something. When of that would be a black minority majority district in a state where one third of the state is black. And it's like, no, I know you, you keep saying it's politics. But the law says, even if you're saying it's partisan, not race, look at the results. Now the problem is that in there used to be, you know, blue dog Democrats and Democrats that could get elected in red states. That's like over. We are so polarized that I'm even amazed. There are 22 Democratic seats in the sea of red and most of them are black and brown in states where it matches or comes close to their represent, you know, their, their, their racial composition in the state. And then the second map came out first Louisiana said, all right, we're okay with this map. We defend this map. And then the Supreme Court made a ruling about affirmative action in at Harvard, and it reverberated throughout. It's, it's the, it's the reasons the Stephen Millers of the world and others went after every DEI program, every woke program is because of the Harvard program. The Harvard ruling, which was the way to stop race discrimination is to stop discriminating based on race. Thanks for that tautology, Magus. Scotus. That's. That's it. That's what you're giving me. And so from there, they were like, well, anytime even an ounce of race comes into the decision that it's invalid under the Constitution. Except when it came to the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights act passed in the 1960s as part of the Great Society, sponsored, if you will, by Martin Luther King Jr. Signed by Lyndon Johnson. It was a way to put into practice in action the 14th and 15th amendments about there should be no law abridging the right to vote. And ever since Roberts became the Chief justice over the last 20, 30 years, he's been trying to get rid of the Voting Rights Act. Now he found a way to side with the Alabama map, but I didn't think that was going to happen again. And then Kavanaugh, who sided with Alabama a couple years ago, he even then he said, shouldn't there be a time limit on the Voting Rights Act? Shouldn't it sundown after a certain period? Where does it say that in the statute? Congress spoke? It was a major question. They answered it, and they answered it as there's no expiration date on it on civil rights, on black voting rights. But they keep talking about it like, there's a timer, like you went to the refrigerator and your yogurt expired. I'm like, what are you even talking about? But that became a driver for the conversation today, as did, can race be used at all? Can race be used? But if partisan decision making can partisan decision making always overcome race? What was your takeaway from the two hour was scheduled for an hour, two hour oral argument today about the, the Voting Rights Act Section 2 and lawsuits like it.
- [74:46]
A
So first of all, I think the lawyer who represented Louisiana was excellent. I thought she was great and just was so sharp and made all the right arguments. I found the oral argument very frustrating. It was the biggest gaslighting oral argument, like watching and listening to the Supreme Court justices who lean far right ask questions. It's like they totally gas lit her and threw softballs. To the gentleman who was representing Louisiana and like, isn't there a case called such and such? Tell us about that case. And he's like, oh yeah, well in that case you said this is not you can do this and you can't do that. Right. And what made that happen in that case? Well, there was this map that was wrong, like just throwing him softball after softball to make the points that they clearly want to make. And it was just really, it was depressing honestly, because they basically Look, Louisiana is apparently 57, 58% white yet. And in the census that's what came out, right when the census came out and they said, oh, but we only have one black district in all of Louisiana. And so 85% of the districts are white essentially, but only 57% of the people are. And so they redrew the map to give a voice to the black voters. And look, one of the things that came out of the oral argument is black and white voters both aren't monolithic voters. Right? That's not like you only vote Republican if you're white and you only vote Democrat if you're black. But what the studies have shown is typically is if you're white, you will most likely vote for a white candidate, Republican or Democrat. And same with black. And that was some of the things that came out of this argument. And what they basically were saying, what Louisiana, sorry, what the appellee was saying was essentially the Voting Rights act is supposed to be a remedial statute. It's supposed to be to remedy. It's not like it says, if everything is going swimmingly in your state and you have representation for minority communities, the Voting Rights act doesn't come into play. It only comes into play when you have things like a census and it shows that there is not representation. Then there's this remedial measure that you can come in and redraw and take race into consideration. It's not the only factor, but you take it into consideration. And what was really depressing to me is the fact that the law allows you to make a partisan districting map. So they could do anything they want to make it more Republican or more Democrat, depending. You're not allowed to take race into consideration. And when you look back to the history of the Voting Rights act and why this was passed in the 60s, and you see where we are today and that they are purposely. They're not even. They're just adding one more district. Right. They're not like this is just literally one more district and that they're going to say you're not allowed to even take it into consideration ever. That race can never play a factor, I think is just really sets us back a long time. And it was really depressing. And the questioning, like I said, was very gaslighty. I just thought it was just ridiculous.
- [78:23]
B
And. And Katanji Brown Jackson was very frustrated with how the conversation went, which was all about trying to give cover to the Maga 6 to sleep at night. Well, we're not taking away right race. It's just. It just. It just needs to be overcome. Bipartisan. So it's. It's not that there's seven out of seven districts and that'll result in Louisiana all being white. Is that okay? I mean, let's just take it back. Is that okay? What if I would have been an advocate there, I would have said to whoever was asking me the question, if you take away the Voting Rights act and you find that it's either unconstitutional section 2, or you find that race can never play a part in drawing the map, are you okay as a United States Supreme Court, and can you live with yourself if the result is there are 00 districts in Louisiana despite 1/3 of the state being black being black, Minority, majority district. Are you okay with that? If you're okay with that, because that's where you're going with this line of questioning. No, see, that's one of my problems with the. The stuffy air and protocol of Supreme Court advocacy is that. Is that while I agree with you, she did a beautiful job, as did the NAACP counsel who also argued. But they never, like you and I are more like pugilistic trial lawyers. I would stop a trial judge in their tracks on something like that said, I see you're going down a certain road, your honor. Are you okay then with there being zero representation for black and brown people in the red, Southern, pardon me, southern states. And if you are, then I guess you'll rule that way. But I'm not. And I think that violates the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. But you never see an advocate do that. Why is that?
- [80:15]
A
Well, there's a certain decorum, I guess, in the Supreme Court and there's a certain. I remember I went to go watch the. Watch a friend argue in the Supreme Court. And the friend. And then they said, oh, do you want to become a member of the bar of the Supreme Court? It's, it's like an honorary thing. Obviously, I don't have the experience, the appellate experience, that's a very particular type of experience to, to argue in the Supreme Court. I said, sure, I'd love to, to do that. And they, they said to me, okay, well, you have to wear a skirt suit. I was like, what do you mean I have to wear a skirt suit? Because they know I only wear pantsuits, you know, and I, for no reason, I didn't even realize it. I just was more, I am more comfortable in court wearing pantsuits. I always have been. I, it's just a personal preference. I don't know why I have it, it just is. And I was like, like, you know, I'm not trying to make a statement or anything. It's just, it's just a personal preference. And I said, I don't even own a skirt suit, so I'm gonna wear a pantsuit because that's what I wear every day when I go to court. And she's like, you can't. You have to wear a skirt. And then suddenly, now I'm offended. I'm like, excuse me, I have to wear a skirt suit. Anyway, I found one, I borrowed one. But I was really, I was irked by this. But I say this because there's this whole, there are all these like, like old timey traditions when you go to the Supreme Court, you know, hear ye, hear ye.
- [81:35]
B
I Whatever they stand o.
- [81:38]
A
Whatever it is. Yeah, they like all these weird stuff.
- [81:40]
B
That just, they were wearing powdered wigs.
- [81:43]
A
Like, I know, like not too long.
- [81:45]
B
Ago, not too long ago.
- [81:47]
A
Anyway, so I guess there's, there, there are ways you're supposed to argue in front of the Supreme Court that that's the ramifications.
- [81:52]
B
And, and the answer to my question is that the Maga 6 and Clarence Thomas are willing to have 22 seats primarily held by black and brown people eliminated from the map. And now the Democrat. There you go. And now the Democrats are going to have to fight hard to if this ruling comes out. The other question is. I'll leave it on this. The other question is timing. We'll know if they're really trying to help Donald Trump more than usual based on when they release this decision. Decision. A major decision like this generally comes out in June or July so they can get out of town and go on vacation when they drop like a bomb on us. The only reason the Dobbs decision came out earlier is because it leaked. And then in March of that year, we were like, oh, crap. So we had several months and then it finally came out a few months later. But if they released it in June or July, it's really too close to the November midterm election. Election. That's only like three months. And that's borderline in terms of what they call the Purcell Doctrine, where they wouldn't make the map change for this coming election, they would do it for 2028. But if they issue it early, that's the big telltale sign. When you said gas lighting, we see this thing come flying out in like March. Right. And you and I report on it. That means they wanted to help Donald Trump at the midterms because March is plenty of time before November for the new maps for everything to be redistrict because that's what they're going to try to do. Donald Trump has been pushing the states to use the census and use whatever comes out of the Supreme Court to redo all the maps to eliminate Democratic seats. That was the fight that broke out between Texas and California over five seats down in Texas, five seats up in California, depending upon a referendum in November. And. But I don't know how we, I don't know how we as party find 20 new seats.
- [83:51]
A
Well, maybe what happens is Sotomayor Kagan and Katanji Brown Jackson. Maybe what they do is they take a really long time to write their dissents. So it's not going to get out in March that it's gonna that closer to.
- [84:04]
B
Yeah, yeah. At least that's a short term solution, which I, which I appreciate. So I'm going to talk, I think just a little bit of a promo here. I'm going to have Rob Bonta, the Attorney General, one of the leading the leaders of the battalion, the brigade to protect our democracy in the courtroom. Since the Department of Justice has abdicated all its responsibility to help people from his perch of being the California Attorney General, I'm gonna have him live in person for an interview up on a stage at an event I'm going to be at in San Diego on Saturday. It'll be live streamed on the Legal AF YouTube channel. Yet another reason to come over and subscribe and set the reminder for that.
- [84:40]
A
That.
- [84:40]
B
And I'll talk to him about the maps because he's got a referendum that's up on his his goes to the voters in California about whether they want to change the maps. And I will talk to him a little bit more about that campaign. But these are important issues. I didn't mean to leave it for like the last segment, as it indicates, doesn't indicate anything. If you had a, if you had a rank, though, the number one thing that you and I were going to talk about today, it would be this particular case and its impact on our American experiment.
- [85:11]
A
Saving the best for last.
- [85:13]
B
Saving the best for last. And speaking of saving the best for last, what do you got? What do you got for our audience?
- [85:19]
A
Say hi to my dad, who called me right before to say he's so excited to watch tonight. And so I just want to say hi, dad.
- [85:27]
B
Yeah, that's great. We're all, we're, you and I are so close to our families that we appreciate it. And we got our Legal laugh and Midas Touch family. Take a minute. Hit the subscribe button here on Midas Touch. Come over to Legal AF YouTube channel. Do the exact same thing. Come over to Legal AF substack. Hit the subscribe button there. See if you can swing a paid subscription. Really help us keep the lights on and pay our editors and tool that to help us do the content that we do. And of course can continue your fervent support, as only you can, of our podcast, Legal AF the podcast, Wednesdays and Saturdays at 8pm Eastern Time up on all audio podcast platforms of your choice. We still need help there and audio downloads and listens and here of course, on the Midas Touch network. So until Saturday, I'll be in the same state as as Ben. I don't think we'll be in the same room maybe. And I'm gonna be getting for those that are want to get autographs signed. I'm kidding. Salty's gonna come to San Diego. Alan, my assistant's coming to San Diego. Who who's friends with Salty and gonna we're kind of working together on that event that we just talked about. So I get to have a nice dinner and a drink with those two.
- [86:37]
A
Enjoy San Diego's lovely. Great weather.
- [86:39]
B
Yeah, yeah. Can't wait. So shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal A efforts. Did you see the game last night? Of course you did because you used Instacart to do your grocery restock. Plus you got snacks for the game. All without missing a single play. And that's on multitasking. So we're not saying that Instacart is a hack for game day, but it might be the ultimate play this football season. Enjoy. $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees apply for three orders in 14 days. Excludes restaurants. Hey, Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now I don't know if you've heard, but Mint's Premium Wireless is $15 a month. But I'd like to offer for one other perk. We have no stores. That means no small talk. Crazy weather we're having. No, it's not. It's just weather. It is an introvert's dream. Give it a try@minmobile.com Switch up front.
- [87:41]
A
Payment of 45 for three month plan. $15 per month equivalent required. New customer offer first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. Cmnobile.com.