B (3:44)

I'm okay. So glad to be doing this with you. There's yeah, so many things here we talk about. I just want to also just do a shout out for the Breast Cancer Awareness month screen early, screen young and for those who are living with breast cancer. There's so many, so many great treatments out there. All of us on Legal AF and Midas Touch are with you. So hang in there.

C (4:04)

That's awesome. I love that. So let's, why don't we start out with Melania Trump because it is just this incredible, incredible lawsuit. If you don't mind, can I frame the issue for us because it is just this astounding lawsuit. So Michael Wolf is an author and he's written some books, mostly nonfiction and a few biographies. He's also done some magazine articles and he's gotten some awards, et cetera. And in various podcasts, Instagram posts and writings, he has made statements about Melania Trump and her connection to Jeffrey Epstein. And those statements he talked about fall into a couple of different categories. But the statements are as follows. One is Mrs. Trump could have information about her husband and Mr. Epstein. Number two, Melania was very involved in Epstein's social circle. Number three, she's introduced by a model agent, both of which whom Trump and Epstein are involved with. She's introduced to Trump that way. Epstein knew her well. The next statement, Trump liked to f his friends, wives and first slept with Melania on his Lolita Express, meaning Epstein's famous private jet that many people are accused of having flown in, including Donald Trump, many, many, many times. The flight logs corroborate that. Next, where does Melania fit into the Epstein story? Next, Epstein told you that Trump and Melania got together the first time on Epstein's airplane and that Melania met Trump through the same modeling circles through which Epstein and Trump procured dates. Next, this sham marriage, trophy marriage, hardly any marriage at all, is part of the scam. And another one is the Epstein story in which Melania plays no small part. Where does Melania fit in with Epstein? You stated that Mrs. Trump is sending letters threatening to sue anyone who makes the connection between her and Epstein because they are hiding something they don't want us to know. That last statement is very interesting because she's saying that's defamatory. What he's saying is, you know what? That's actually true. And the defense to defamation is true. Absolute truth. If something is true or opinion or a hypothetical question, those are all. Those all can't be defamatory. Those are statements. And how do we know that that last statement is true, that she's threatening people with lawsuits? Because that is exactly what she's done. She wrote a letter, a demand letter, which is very common for lawyers to do prior to filing a lawsuit, where they basically say, this is my claim and let me know if you want to talk about it before I settle. And she basically said that she threatened in this, in this lawsuit that. I'm sorry, in this demand letter that her legal team threatened Michael Wolf with a billion dollar lawsuit if he didn't immediately retract the statements that I just told you about and apologize for the defamatory remarks linking Melania Trump to Jeffrey Epstein. So what Michael Wolf did was when he got this demand letter, he filed a lawsuit against Melania and he filed something called an anti slap lawsuit, which stands for a strategic lawsuit against public participation. S L A P P. So it's anti slapp. So it's essentially to. You're not allowed to suppress and intimidate speech on an issue of public interest by threatening a lawsuit. And so at least 35 states have these anti slap laws. New York has a very strong one, stronger than Florida, in fact. And so the lawyer was very. Michael Wolf's lawyer was very smart to bring it here in New York. And this lawsuit basically says that, you know, talks about this demand letter where she threatens to sue him for a billion dollars if he doesn't apologize and retract it and basically says, look, these statements are either true or they're my opinion or I made them in hyper. I was talking hypotheticals like what was Melania's involvement with Epstein? That's just a question, right? There's nothing wrong with asking a question that's not defamatory and that they were not made with actual malice, which is the standard to prove defamation against a public figure figure. And of course she's a public figure. So the thing that interests me the most about this lawsuit is it gives Wolf subpoena power. So since the statements to matters that largely occurred here in New York, like I said, this will permit him to subpoena and take depositions and get discovery from many, many witnesses, everyone who frequented or part of Epstein's circle, including Donald Trump. So it's a pretty big deal, this lawsuit. And boy, has Melania Trump opened up a can of worms by sending that demand letter. So what are your thoughts about this, Dina?

B (9:20)

Yeah, I mean, anytime that they are be Trump or Melania have to actually face a court where there was rules of law, it goes badly for them. So, you know, here, this anti slap motion, it brings the issue forward quicker. That's the benefit of it. That's why so many states, California has one as well, have these in place. Because otherwise just the threat of being sued or actually being sued for defamation and all the costs that protected nature of a civil lawsuit can drag things out for years. And it's very expensive. And that in itself is like chilling a free speech. So this brings the matter to a head quicker, sooner. And that benefits, of course, Michael Wolff here. But frankly, anybody who wants to speak out and say something against Trump or Melania and all the others, you know, trigger happy lawsuit folks out there, which there are many, it seems like taking the cue from Trump. So this is good, it's good to get it out front. I mean, is she really going to continue this process? Is she really going to be willing to sit for some sort of deposition? Is she really going to be willing to, you know, have sign an affidavit under perjury of law? It seems unlikely. I mean, frankly, Trump is shutting down the government. It seems to not get the Epstein files released. They're doing like anything but that. I can't imagine she's going to notice, you know, want this to now quietly go away. But if she does, he now can look at all of that. Because as to your point, which you framed it all so well, the fact of the matter is, if something is true, then that is complete defense. If something is an opinion, that is a defense. And they have this very high threshold Melania has to prove, which is even if you said something that's untrue and even if you said it as a fact, you had to have no knowingly said that untrue. And that's very high to prove. This is why a lot of public figures don't bring a defamation, defamation lawsuit to begin with. Here she has, like, we know Trump is very litigious. He's refiling his lawsuit against the New York Times. But this anti slap motion, which some states have, the whole point of it is exactly this situation, to not have people in power, Chill, free speech.

C (11:42)

It's crazy how many lawsuits Trump brings. You know, anything to shut down dissent, right? Calling people on the left, terrorists, domestic terrorists, right? Or bringing lawsuits against his enemies or prosecuting his enemies. Anyone who speaks out or says anything negative about him, he uses the full force and might of the federal government or lawsuits against them. He's like such a bully. And, you know, he has so much more power than everybody else and so much more money because he, you know, he has all these schemes that he's doing, crypto schemes and free airplanes that he's going to keep and real estate deals and all the things that his kids are doing. I mean, it's just unbelievable. And so he just has more money, more access, and obviously more power and immunity. So he can do whatever he wants. And it's just, it's really, it's just astounding to see this. And I think you're right. I mean, the one thing he cares about most is not releasing these Epstein files. That's why, although the federal government is shut down, Mike Johnson is refusing to swear in Representative Grijalva from Arizona, who would be the 218th vote in the House to release the files. And he's saying, basically he's claiming that, oh, well, how's the House? Or, you know, the House is closed and so Congress is closed, so I can't possibly swear her in. Not true. It's a pro forma thing. And they used to do it all, that they've done it many, many times. He's already done it several times, not in session to do it pro forma. He's just trying to do not release those Epstein files. And that's clearly coming from the White House. And it's just unbelievable to me. You Know, I read something recently, someone said it was like a meme when. When Trump released George Santos from jail, which is just also unbelievable to me. This guy, you know, George Santos isn't just a total liar. He stole people's identity. Like, he's an identity thief and then stole money from them. He's a complete thief. And he. The fact that he would let him in. I saw this meme that was like. That basically said, donald Trump will release anything except the Epstein files, which I thought was so funny because it's true. It's the one thing. I mean, George Santos, I just can't. I can't get over the fact that he commuted. That he pardoned him and let him out. I mean, or I should say commuted his sentence and let him out. It's just. It's just unbelievable to me. But you're right, like, more than anything, this is the thing he can't stand, but it's also the thing that he can't stay away from. I mean, even his ardent supporters, like Marjorie Taylor Greene are insisting and breaking away from him when it comes to Epstein.

B (14:28)

Yeah. And Attorney General Kristen Mace filed a lawsuit trying to get the congresswoman from Arizona sworn in. I mean, thankfully, we have some attorney Generals in this country who are willing to stand up to Trump. And so that's going to be an interesting one to follow to see where that goes. It's shocking that that is actually happening. And, hey, folks, like, Arizona is a purple state. I grew up actually in Arizona. I'm not from there, but I grew up in there. And they. The independent streak that got Senator McCain elected. Elected, elected. You disenfranchising 800,000 Arizona voters is a bad. Look. They're not typical Republicans. Above all else, they just like the independence. And it's major government overreach to not swear in their elected official. It's just such a bad political move, I think, for the state of Arizona, and obviously a legal move. And so it'll be interesting to see what Chris Amazes a lawsuit is like.

C (15:30)

Yeah, that's definitely one to watch, because they got to release those files. I mean, they're just. And the fact of the matter is, if there's nothing in there, just release them and people will stop talking about it. But they keep them in the news every single day, every day that they don't release these files. And you gotta wonder, what are they hiding? It's just, you know, unbelievable.

B (15:49)

Well, her book, Virginia Duffrey's book just came out yesterday, which I have bought, but I have not, you know, I haven't finished reading, but I know some of the excerpts have come out in the Guardian and elsewhere and she gives a lot of details in that. And I know Ben interviewed a survivor recently. The, I think the files are so bad, like, so horrible. It was shocking even to see the details that she's been talking about. I definitely know when we, I finish reading that book, I'll talk about it again. But what all the girls went through, the abuse they went through, they, they need justice. This is a really, really tragic situation. And the more that they stall, the more worrisome I think, you know, what is in those files.

C (16:35)

Yeah. Well, I look forward to reading it as well. I mean, that's just, that's going to be great. Why don't we pivot to James Comey and what's going on with James Comey? So, James, just to make everyone catch up to where, where we are, James Comey, the former FBI director, former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He has been on Donald Trump's hit list for quite some time. Donald Trump can't stand him. He's one of his enemies and he has wanted him prosecuted for anything. And there was an investigation into him into the Eastern District of Virginia, which is a U.S. attorney's office, and they were investigating him and told the US Attorney, Eric Siebert, that there's no case. And Eric Siebert agreed. There's no case line. Prosecutors looked at this and several supervisors looked at it. And even the U.S. attorney who Trump appointed as an interim U.S. attorney, so he appointed him and he could serve for 120 days until he was confirmed by the Senate. Because U.S. attorneys, although they are known as inferior officers, there's a statute that says they have to still be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. They're important enough. So the checks and balances of our Constitution, the separation of powers and James Comey, I'm sorry, and Lindsey Halligan was so back up. Eric Siebert, where I was, was appointed. He served out his 120 days. And the statute, which is 28 United States Code, Section 546, specifically says that a president can put someone in interim for 120 days and then when that expires, the courts may appoint somebody. And that's how it's supposed to work. It's like 120 days goes and then the court gets to appoint somebody and that person is appointed again until the Senate confirms somebody. And that's how things go. Well, Eric Siebert was, was named interim. The 120 days expired, and apparently, according to everybody, he's. Even though he's Republican, he's. I don't know him at all, but he's a respected lawyer and a respected career prosecutor, and the judges voted him in. And so he was the interim United States Attorney pursuant to that clause of section 546. And when he told whomever whether it was Pam Bondi or Donald Trump or. Or. God, why am I blanking on his name? The. Pardon? The Eagle. Pop calls him Eagle. It'll come to me. Pardon?

B (19:28)

Todd. Blanche, you talk about.

C (19:29)

No, no, no. Ed Martin. Ed Martin. Eagle. Ed Martin. Sorry. Sometimes I just. I can't. I. I don't know. Does things ever just leave me? I don't know if it was Ed Martin or Pam Bondi or who. And. And they basically. He basically said, look, there's no case. We're not bringing a case. We can't bring a case. There is nothing here. And Trump didn't like. Trump got wind of it, didn't like it, and wrote a message to Pam Bondi. This. That famous message that now everyone is saying was an accident. Right? He publicly tweeted and basically was like, pam, you know, in all caps. And basically, you have to go after Comey, and you have to. And, you know, Lindsey Halligan is great. She likes you. You know, like this. This weird message, but basically telling her what to do and directing her to bring a case against Jim Comey. He fires Siebert and. And appoints Lindsey Halligan. She's never been a prosecutor. She was, I think, an insurance lawyer, has no experience. And within a couple of days, she indicts Jim Comey. And she. It was. Right. The reason that she did it when she did was the statute of limitations was about to run, and people resigned over this career. Prosecutors resigned. Nobody in the office would go into the grand jury with her. Nobody would sign the indictment. She signed it. The indictment has all sorts of errors. It's too thin. It probably isn't facially sufficient. She. She clearly doesn't know what she's doing. And so the case is being prosecuted, by all accounts, by all lawyers who have looked at this indictment. It's confusing. It's not substantive. And from what people can glean, the accusations are. It will never be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is just a crazy case. And so Comey hired one of the great lawyers in this country, Pat Fitzgerald, who was the U.S. attorney in Chicago, and he's just got an impeccable reputation. And I've never met him, but I've known of him forever. I mean, he's brilliant lawyer, great writer and good friend of Comey's. And he brought him on the case. And so he's going to out lawyer Halligan and everybody else in the Eastern District of Virginia. They asked for a quick trial date. They got a date for early January. I think it's January 5th. And you know, it's, that's common in the Eastern District of Virginia. They have a rocket docket. And Comey came out swinging today or this week with a couple of really incredible motions, beautifully written motions. And do you want to talk about, about them? Dina, do you want to, you want to frame the, the motions? Sure.

B (22:19)

So, yeah, there were two motions. One is to disqualify basically his indictment because he' Lindsay Halligan was improperly appointed. So technically she was not a valid DA when she saw and signed that indictment. And then second is just a motion to dismiss the charges outright, saying that it is a violation of his free speech as well as the due process violation, that this is selective prosecution. He has a 60 page attachment of all the communications, all the public communications of Trump and Comey about each other. And just that alone is such strong evidence. I mean, to say the government is selectively prosecuting you or vindictively prosecuting or this is a violation of your due process obviously is super high hurdle. But when you have statement after statement from Trump, who was the president of the United States going back from 2017 to that latest truth social point post, which was like, obviously just go get him because we're becoming unpopular, our credibility is hurting. But it was interesting not only I do think that that was obviously very strong evidence for his case. But on a side note, you could see Trump's cognitive decline there. So, well, his, Trump, his post in 2010, 2017, are sharp. Like, they're not sharp, but they're short and actually seem to have a point. And then you see as it progresses this term, it's these rambling, long posts that make no sense. Anyway, complete side note, I just thought like actually seeing the post from 2017 onward was kind of stunning to see, like how much worse Trump has gotten. But two, you know, you know, Comey concedes in his filing that this is a high hurdle. The, the one dismissing the charges outright. But as we know, you know, Kilmar Garcia, Kilmar Garcia has already gotten a judge, Judge Crenshaw, that they're allowed discovery on the same motion saying that this was a vindictive prosecution, saying that There was a reasonable likelihood that the DOJ indicted him in a, in a vindictive way. So there is precedent already showing that the DOJ is acting in an unequal manner, violating people's criminal defendants constitutional rights. So I think he has enough evidence here to at least have the judge maybe do the same idea and have discovery on this. His motion regarding the fact that Lindsey Halligan wasn't appointed properly, I think is going to be the harder battle because of the fact that the Supreme Court has expanded the view on what a president can and cannot do. He had to file that motion, but. And that will probably ultimately go to the Supreme Court at some point, whether or not they take it up or they affirm a lower court's decision. But that one, to me, in this like, realm that we see where the Supreme Court is allowing Trump to hire and fire agencies that they take, typically wouldn't that one, to me seems a little bit harder. But in terms of just flat out this being selective and vindictive, Trump himself has given the best evidence that could be given in a case like this.

C (25:50)

I love one of the opening lines in Pat Fitzgerald's motion on behalf of Comey. It says the indictment is fatally flawed because it resulted from a para, paradigmatic, paradigmatic violation of the Constitution's Appointments Clause. Core element of separation of powers that defines when and how officers of the United States acquire their authority is to act. It's just so, like, he's so right. It's all about the separation of powers. He says the remedy is, is clear. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held the effect of this is nullity. And because no properly appointed executive branch official sought and obtained the indictment, the indictment is equal, equally nullity. Which basically means he's saying she was not validly appointed. And therefore this indictment is, is invalid. Because, you know, when you think about it, imagine if I, yes, I was a prosecutor, but I'm no longer a prosecutor. I'm just, you know, a normal person. Imagine if I claimed to have indictment power and I indicted someone and I asked, went to court and tried to put them in jail. I mean, I'd be laughed out of court, right? I have no authority. I have no power. It's such a powerful thing that Congress has actually spoken. Congress actually passed a law that says this is how it's done. It's the Appointments Clause. And it's just preposterous to think that, oh, you could just keep pointing new interims. You could just appoint someone for the 120 days and then the 119th day, you remove them and put someone else in, and then that starts the clock again for another 119 days and then another hun. I mean, you could just keep doing that and completely get around the separation of powers that, you know, requires the checks and balances, the advice and consent of the Senate. I mean, it's kind of a preposterous thing that they're saying. Yes, I agree with you. God only knows what the Supreme Court's going to do. But I think it's a really strong argument that this is exactly what the stat, the statute specifically says. You get one shot, 120 days. You can put four people in to make up those 120 days, but you only have 120 days for that interim appointment. Right. You can stack people within it. But once that 120 days is. Is up, the next thing that happens is the court is supposed to appoint someone, and they did here. And so you can't just now start the clock again. I don't know. I think they have a strong.

B (28:09)

I think the problem was, though, is I wish he hadn't resigned Siebert. If he hadn't resigned, but he had been fired. I think that that is a much stronger argument for Comey.

C (28:21)

Trump says he was fired.

B (28:23)

Well, I know, but technically. Yeah. So you're going to take a deposition to see because Seabort said he resigned. I don't. I mean, this is why it's not as perfect of an argument for Comey as it should be. And honestly, this is like what happened with the FBI director. Right. Who stepped down because he knew Trump was going to replace him. Do you remember leading up to the Trump admin. Why do they make it easy? They shouldn't make it easy. He shouldn't have resigned. He should have let Trump fire him because you are allowing Trump to circumvent those exact laws. The FBI director wasn't supposed to be able to be fired by Trump, but by resigning, he created a vacancy to appoint Cash Patel. And the same thing, I think happened with Seibert. It's too bad he decided to step down instead of letting Trump fire him. And then I think Comey's argument would be much stronger.

C (29:20)

Well, I don't know. Trump says he fired him, so we'll see what that turns out to be. What's interesting about the vindictive prosecution, which is the other motion. Right. Not just the one about to disqualify her as U.S. attorney. The interesting thing about that is Fitzgerald did a great job at listing out all the information that led to this. Right. It's just a brilliant kind of story. It told the story of how this is really vindictive. And vindictive prosecution basically means you're prosecuting someone vindictively because they exercise some sort of right. And the right here was his free protected speech. And Comey was a, was a somebody who spoke negatively. He was a. About Trump. And so he's saying that because he exercised his free speech, that that's the vindictiveness, and that's why he's going, you know, going back, going against him. He's also making a selective prosecution argument, which essentially means other people similarly situated aren't prosecuted, you know, and that as well. Look, also, the case itself just substantively really sucks. You know, it's like, it's like, it's, it's. I don't. There's no way it makes out perjury. It just doesn't. And so they have. Either way, they just have a really tough road to hoe in this case. And, you know, Trump, of course, is trying, is also now trying to get Pat Fitzgerald disqualified, saying that he has a conflict of interest because he may have had a part in leaking the information to the media on Comey's behalf, because Pat Fitzgerald was Comey's lawyer. So they're trying to. They want him off the case because he's such a great lawyer. I mean, they had to fly up so all the career prosecutors in Virginia wouldn't take the case. So they brought up two people from, I think North Carolina or South Carolina who are going to prosecute this case. And they're like, oh, look, slow it down. We need more time, you know, and the judge is like, nope, you decided to bring this case. You're doing it. And so they want to get Pat Fitzgerald off the case because I think they know that he will out lawyer, those certainly out lawyer Lindsay Halligan and those others. So, you know, that that's what's going on there. And we'll see if it actually goes on January 5th. I'm not sure, because I think that the judge will dismiss the case before then, and then they'll appeal it. And so I don't know that we're going to have a trial anytime soon.

B (31:40)

But yeah, and them trying to disqualify Comey's lawyer, I mean, all of this, the indictment against Comey, the indictment against Letitia James, the criminal defendants in this country have such strong constitutional rights. It's one of the things our founders got right, like they forgot to put term limits into the presidency. But they knew the power of the government against somebody accused of a crime was so imbalanced, they needed to protect the criminal defendant. And that is coming into play. And a criminal defendant has a very strong right to have the counsel of their choosing. So it's not going to be that easy for the prosecution to, to get Patrick Fitzgerald disqualified. If they can truly show that he would be both a witness and a lawyer in this case, then even our professional legal responsibilities as a lawyer would have Patrick Fitzgerald step down voluntarily or have the judge disqualify him based on, like, an unfair trial. But, you know, that's a stretch. Can they actually say it? You know, we see the DOJ saying a whole bunch of stuff and not being able to, to prove it in court. But Comey, Letitia, James, and all the rest who are going to get indicted by Trump have quite a bit of constitutional protections on their side, and they're going to need every single one of them.

C (33:00)

Yeah, I agree with you. All right, well, I want to keep talking, but we have to take a break. But when we come back, we're going to talk about Jack Smith and all that he's been doing and coming out swinging and the fact that we've heard from him and so many other topics that we're going to talk about. But first, we're going to hear from our amazing sponsors who keep us on the air and have great products and they know who we are, they know what we stand for and they sponsor us and support us. And I'm so proud that we are sponsored by each and every one of them. So we're going to take our first ad break.

A (33:34)

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. Delete Me 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 JoinDeleteMe.com LegalAF and use promo code legalaf at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com and enter code legalaf at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com legalaf code legalaf 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 Mate 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 Mate 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 products and 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 legal af 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.

C (36:29)

We're back and I just want to thank again our amazing sponsors and just really they're so fabulous and if you can help support them. You're helping to support us and you're helping to keep the Midas Touch Network and the Legal AF YouTube channel on the air and we are so happy to be able to do these podcasts and whether it's Michael Popak who has who curates the Legal AF channel, who has his podcast the Intersection and is bringing amazing contact content on the Legal AF channel, it's fast growing. He's got so many subscribers. He also has a Legal AF substack and is working really hard to bring content to everybody so everyone can keep up to date. So please hit subscribe. Please follow us on these various platforms, and of course, always the Midas Touch Network, which is just the number one network in the country right now, and it's just crushing it. I'm so proud to be one of the original podcasters here. We've been around for a little while now, and everything's going great. And it's really because of the people who are listening to this podcast, frankly, this, the community that has built this podcast up and made Legal AF what it is and made the network what it is. And so just, I'm so grateful to be here with all of you tonight, and thank you for listening every Wednesday and every Saturday to Legal af. Let's continue on now with Jack Smith. Jack Smith, the special counsel who I used to work with at the Manhattan DA's office, he's a prosecutor's prosecutor. Great guy. He's prosecuted locally at the Manhattan DA's office early in his career, then he went on to the U.S. attorney's office. He's worked in the main justice he worked in. He was the United States Attorney at one point, I think, in Tennessee, if I remember correctly. And he also was an international prosecutor. I mean, he's a true public servant. He's never worked in the private sector. I have. I would have no idea what political party he is in. We've never talked about politics. He's. He's apolitical. He just is a prosecutor. Right. He does justice and follows the facts wherever they lead without fear or favor. Understandably, he was the perfect person to be chosen by Merrick Garland and Joe Biden to do the investigation into January 6th and the riots and the horrible day that that was. And, and, you know, I always wondered when Trump was going after all his enemies, you know, Letitia James and Jim Comey and Adam Shifty shift and all the stuff he says. I was always wondering, like, why isn't he going after Jack Smith? You know, because you would think just that somebody that would be in his crosshairs.

B (39:18)

And.

C (39:18)

It's been a while, right? We haven't heard from Jack Smith. He hasn't spoken publicly. And then all of a sudden, Jack Smith starts to speak publicly, spoke. He was interviewed by Andrew Weissman. My theory is that Jack Smith must have gotten wind that he was up next. Whether it's somebody contacted his lawyers, whether they're starting to issue subpoenas. Something. And so he decided to come out. And again, this is just a theory. I don't have any inside information, but I don't think it's any coincidence that Jack Smith came out and started talking publicly, and now all of a sudden, he's in the crosshairs of Trump, and now Trump is talking about him, and. And he wants to go after him and Andrew Weissman. And of course, what's going on? The Republicans in the Senate are doing Trump's bidding for him. Right. That's how it works. They will. They. There is no independent Congress right now. It's so unbelievable how they are doing. They're just letting Trump do everything. They have abrogated their duty to have oversight, to provide checks and balances, to be an independent body, independent of the president, there just being an arm of the president. And here, Senator, the Republicans, apparently the Senate Republicans, have accused Jack Smith of wiretapping them. And they said that it was political weaponization. And they said that. Then the FBI disclosed a report in 2023 showing court orders used to obtain phone information belonging to certain, I guess, eight senators and one House member. And they covered calls surrounding the four days around January 6th. And this was a letter by Chuck Grassley. And essentially, or I should say not a letter, this was an accusation by the Senate Republicans. And so Jack Smith wrote a letter to Chuck Grassley and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee through his lawyers and the Democratic, I think one is Dick Durbin. And they basically said that, look, there wasn't any political motive in obtaining these records. They were disclosed in 2024 in the indictment. So there's no secret here. And P.S. there was no wiretap. And, you know, so I want to just explain to people what was done. And what is always done in almost every prosecution is you can subpoena phone records that have no content, like, words in them. There's no communication. There's no content in them. It's just literally like, who does it belong to? Right. Like. Like, you. You. You can get phone. You can get information about phone calls in a certain area. And so you want to. Or you can have information. I guess what they were doing here was there was. Was there were news reports that certain senators and House members were in communication with the president around surrounding January 6th. So they asked for those targeted individuals. Yes, they happen to be eight senators and one House member, their phone records to see is that true? Were they in communication with the President? This was an investigation into the president. And so they issued subpoenas for those phone records. And what you'll get is you'll get the name, you'll get the subscriber information, you'll get the phone number. And he did it for those four days only. So it was very targeted and very narrow. And you will get all the calls, incoming and outgoing, listed just in a list like this number called this number for this amount of time, all for those four days. That's it. It doesn't say what they spoke about. It doesn't say anything about the content. And you can do that with a subpoena you don't need, or a search warrant. You don't need a wire wiretap order. And so he got that information, and that's the information that he got, just a list. And so it was a very short time. It was consistent with this very focused effort to confirm or refute, frankly, these reports from these multiple news outlets. And this letter has pointed out, too, that, look, those same kind of records were also obtained by Robert Herr when he was investigating Joe Biden and his mishandling of classified documents case, or Senator Bob Menendez in his bribery case also. And so it's just crazy. I mean, Grassley saying, oh, you know, this is worse than Watergate, and this is so terrible. They wiretapped senators in Congress, and it's just not true. They did not. Wiretapping means that you're listening in on the calls. It means you get content, means you get to hear what was said. That's what wiretapping is. And this isn't that. This is just who called who or what phone number called what phone number. Somebody else could have had the phone. Right? It's just what phone number called what phone number, at what time, on what date and for how long. And that's what it shows.

B (44:23)

I think we're seeing Jack Smith unleashed from Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland, I believe, truly held back Jack Smith. And I'm so glad that he is standing up for his reputation. And frankly, the fact that, because as you said, that Senate hearing, Cash Patel acting like he's literally wiretapping senators or Representatives would be huge. But that, as you said, isn't what happened. And I'm so glad this whole thing of like, oh, they're lying about us, we're just gonna ignore it is gone. Jack Smith putting in his letter, and now the public telling the public that that is not what happened. And I like too, how he. He put in that letter that this information about the fact that they tried to figure out who Trump was talking to on January 6, because they were Trying to determine if Trump was asking certain senators or congresspeople to not certify the 2020 election. That is what he was investigating. And he was, like you said, it was out in the media about these conversations and they were trying to piece together who he was actually talking to in order for them to investigate and make their case. He said all of this got turned over to Trump in discovery as his indictment, Trump's indictment proceeded. And so people who are now in the high level of the White House and the DOJ know the facts. Todd Blanche, we're looking at you. Who else? Who knows? Because Trump has basically taken all of his personal lawyers and put them into the DOJ and the White House. So they probably. There's a, a bunch of people who actually know the truth. And so I like that he called him out. And he's not going to be willing to allow Republicans to frankly lie about the facts because we're not there anymore. We got to be louder. They're loud. We have to be louder. And I really hope we hear more from Jack Smith because I think there's like a potential in him we haven't fully realized yet. I hope he's just getting started.

C (46:25)

Yeah, look, I have to say, again, I haven't talked to Jack Smith in a very long time, but having worked with him years ago and just knowing how he was trained and how he was brought up, this is the last thing he wants. The last thing he wants is to have to speak publicly about this or to go out and defend himself. He's not like, that's why no one had really ever heard of him before he was appointed. And you never really heard anything about him. He didn't speak publicly. He did everything quietly. I think he gave one or two very short press conferences. And he's just not that guy. He's not this ego driven guy who's gonna go out and talk unless he has to. And so I think that's what's happening. And I think that's, like I said, that's why I think he must have known and gotten wind that he was next. And so he has to defend himself. But I honestly think if Trump had never started this with him, you would not have heard. Jack would have gone. And again, this is just me hypothetically. You know, I'm just thinking, I don't have any inside information. Just knowing him from before, I think he would just be very happy to go about his life. He did his duty, he served the public. You know, when Trump v. Us came down by the United States Supreme Court and basically said it's not a crime. He dismissed the case. That's it. He didn't. And you know, he's a rule follower, he's a law follower. He's not an ego driven, grandstanding narcissist. You know, he's not that guy. And he's truly exemplifies a public servant. And so I'm sure we'll hear more from him because he has to. I don't think this is what he wants or kind of where he wanted to be. He just wanted to do his job and serve the public. So but here we are, it is.

B (48:11)

Serving the public to just combat the lies and information. And they did it in Senate hearings on the record. So even if he's not got an indictment, I'm really glad that he spoke out to correct the record because that is a really big accusation to make and that needed to be answered by the person who knew the person that anybody with any sort of credibility, and that was him. And so I'm glad he spoke.

C (48:38)

I agree. And it's just, you know, what's really kind of offensive is the senator who's saying it is Chuck Grassley. He's the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He knows about what a wiretap is because he provides oversight at that. Right. He, that's what his job does is he oversees the judiciary system. He oversees what happens in criminal cases. He knows what a wiretap is and he knows what a wiretap isn't. And for him to accuse Jack Smith of doing a wiretap when it's clearly not where it is, absolutely not where this is just getting phone records is really misleading the public and kind of offensive. Right. And so it's just, it's just kind of appalling to me that this, that they saying that. And I agree with you. I am glad that they're, that they're correcting the record. It's just, and that's what we have to do here on legal. We have to tell the truth what, what things are and what things aren't. And that's what we're trying to do here is just get facts out and then people can make their own opinions. So we're going to go to a quick second ad break, Dina, and then we're going to come back and we're going to talk the White House demolition, which is just so ridiculous. And also this Lindsey Halligan texting this rookie move to text a reporter and you know, talking about grand jury stuff. So we're going to come back and we're going to talk about about those two issues and let's take our next ad break.

A (50:07)

I'm officially obsessed. This is my Lola blanket and I'm telling you it's not just a blanket, it's a full on experience. The first time I wrapped myself in this thing I audibly said oh my God, it's insanely soft. Like next level soft. And the design, it actually looks good. Thrown over my couch. Total upgrade. I'm a blanket person. No shame in that. After a long day, I wind down with the show and now with this blanket. Mine's the large and it's perfect. But the extra large massive. Like bring a friend massive. Lola blankets are machine washable, vegan and somehow they don't pillar shed. No joke. I've already thought about replacing all my other blankets with Lola. They've seriously ruined other blankets for me. For a limited time, our listeners get 35% off at Lola Blankets.com with code LEGAL AF at checkout. That's Lola Blankets.com code LEGAL AF for 35% off your entire order. And don't forget, after you buy, tell them we sent you. Wrap yourself in luxury with Lola blankets. Did you know the liver is the second largest organ in your body? It's responsible for over 500 functions. But for some reason, liver health doesn't always get the attention it deserves. Over 30% of Americans have a sluggish liver, a problem that often goes undetected until the very last minute. Dose is on a mission to educate us all on why it's so important to maintain your liver health and has created an incredible product to help you do just that. I mean, I found a clinically safe, supported, potent and effective solution and I can't wait to share it with you. Dose for your Liver was formulated to cleanse your liver of unwanted elements, aid digestion. I mean, it acts as your body's filter, flushing out unwanted elements and breaking down what you consume into essential nutrients. The liver produces and regulates cholesterol, stores vitamins and minerals and impacts digestive and metabolic health, among many other things. Dose's science backed formula promotes liver function, aids digestion, eases bloating and even boosts energy levels. In a double blind placebo controlled clinical trial, Dose for your Liver lowered liver enzyme levels by 50% and over 86% of participants. Participants stick with Dose and feel the incredible benefits over time, more energy, better digestion, reduced bloating, healthier liver enzyme function, reduction in brain fog and better sleep. One dose for your liver shot is equivalent to 17 shots of turmeric juice. Dose is gluten free, dairy free, sugar free and vegan. Save 30% on your first month of subscription by going to dosedaily, co legalaya or entering legalif at checkout. That's D O S E D A I L Y co legalif for 30% off your first month subscription.

C (53:03)

We're back. Thanks again to our amazing sponsors and to all of you who are still with us and thank you for listening every single week and all the comments that you leave us. If I'm ever having a bad day, I go and I read the comments and they always make me feel so much better. So just not because I just love the engagement. It doesn't have to be positive comments, even negative comments. It doesn't matter. Just the engagement. Just people who are engaging in the discussion, that people are involved. I love looking at the live comments while we're podcasting and the people who are just so involved in this community. It's just such a beautiful community that's been created on the Midas Touch network and people who watch Legal af. You know, it's just. It's just. I know I. I feel it when I'm out in the community and people come up to me and they always want to hug me and thank me and say, thank you so much for what you guys are doing. And you can tell it's just this heartfelt. I need to feel like I'm part of a community and somebody who's telling me the truth. Because the times we're living in are bonkers. I mean, absolute bonkers. You know, today I was telling somebody about the fact that the President of the United States, okay, our President of the United States. When we had a. This unbelievable protest on Saturday, the. No Kings Day, where 7 to 10 million Americans were out and about. I happened to be in a really small town in the Berkshires that day, and even they had at least 100 people out and cars were driving by and honking trucks, tractor trailers were driving by and honking and in support. It was an amazing thing. And. And what was our President doing? Our president posted this horrible AI generated image of him in an airplane calling himself a king, wearing a king's crown and dropping poop all over the protesters. I mean, it just makes me cringe. He has no respect for the office of the presidency. The office of the presidency has always been this majestic thing where, you know, anytime he walks, he would walk, the president would walk out. It would have so much pomp and circumstance and ceremony surrounding it. If you go to the White House, it's like, it's so inspiring. There's so much history there. You see pictures of just past presidents and portraits of past first ladies and just different dignitaries who have been there and historical events. And it's just, you get this sense of importance and grandeur and just majestic kind of awe, frankly. And you have so much respect for the office of the presidency, even if you don't care for the president, even if you didn't vote for the president. And every president up until now, in my lifetime at least, has respected that. And again, even if you don't like them, they've upheld the dignity of the office. And he is just literally and figuratively tearing it down. He. Again, that video is so upsetting to me. Not because I can't take a joke, not because I'm a snowflake or weak or whatever. I laugh at jokes like anybody. But it's just that the President, it's just so disappointing that that's what he is posting. And it's just gross too, right? It's just disgusting because he's disgusting. And I was so offended that that's what the office of the President is doing. And doing things like that, he's just really torn the office of the presidency, which, you know, frankly leads us to what we're talking about right now, which is he's literally tearing down the White House after telling people that it's going, that the East Wing is going to remain intact. He said that out loud. It's going to remain intact. We're not going to touch it. They have pictures, they have videos of literally these giant like construction equipment just with claws ripping the facade out and the wires out and the like, they're just taking a wrecking ball. They're not even. I've seen people do renovations, even like targeted renovations that add ons. You like take off pieces piece by piece. You don't have to do a total wrecking ball. And frankly, there might be historic value to preserving pieces of that White House. What a waste. Like, I bet some people would love to reuse part of the White House if it was gonna be taken down. Frankly, it's also not his house. Who said he can do that? Right? He doesn't own it. And it's just crazy to me that he would just take a little literal wrecking ball to the entire East Wing of the White House and he's putting up a 90,000 square foot ballroom. I just can't, I just can't get over it. You know, but after putting gold in all the rooms, you know, dripping with gold, I mean, he's just really. And then the rose garden, like. Like making it cement instead of what it's been forever, like, this beautiful garden. It's no longer a garden. It's like a patio or something. I don't even know what it is. And now what he's doing to the White House, I just can't even believe it.

B (58:21)

Yeah, I mean, he's borrowing it, and he's acting as if it's his own. And it's a perfect metaphor for what he is doing to the government and American citizens in general. He is demolishing, you know, free speech, health care, rights of immigrants, frankly, rights of citizens who speak a different language or with an accent. I mean, he is demolished. He is acting like the United States belongs to him, including the White House. And the only thing, honestly, to give me solace, because that was very painful to watch as well. I mean, it's such a historic building. I still hadn't brought my son there for a visit. And you just are like, oh, like, how is this is. I think, okay. You know, things have burned down and been destroyed in the past, and they always can recreate them. And the rebuilding the White House how it was before, I think should be part of rebuilding the country. There is so much we have to clean up, repair, and put back. And frankly, we can tear down the ballroom and we can put back the East Wing how it was. And I think we should. I'm so tired of it being like, well, this happened. We need to accept it and move on. When we get into office, when we get into power, we need to undo so much of what we did. And frankly, I think as a country, we gave too much respect to the office of the President. We had traditions and expectations and culture that the president was going to, you know, act a certain way. And we, frankly, did not have enough laws to put that office in its place as an equal branch of government. We did a lot after Nixon, but we have to, like, quadruple that, if not more. After Trump, we. It's no longer a handshake between gentlemen. That's how our founders made it. We saw how that hurts the rest of us, the oligarchs. It still works for them, that handshake among gentlemen. But the rest of us, like, I don't know if Trump is. Is lawless or is it just our laws are bad. We have so much cleanup we have to do. Some of it is because of how we have treated that office with, frankly, too much deference. And we have to stop it, clean it up, rebuild it. And that includes the White House. That ballroom should be gone, and it should go back how it used to be.

C (60:43)

Who's going to. I want to know who's paying for it? You know, is it taxpayer dollars or is it donors, or is it rich people? Because I know he had some dinner with a bunch of wealthy donors who claim they're gonna pay for it. So now they're buying access to the President. I mean, it's such a dangerous thing that he's doing. He's also trying to build this Arc de Triomphe, like, from France in Washington and call it the Arc Arc of Trump. He is. He's involved in renovating the Kennedy Center. He's apparently doing all kinds of renovations that he's very involved in. I wonder who's paying for all this. You know, it's like he gets. He brings in Doge saying, you know, waste, fraud and abuse. Let's. Let's save the government money. But yet he's spending a frigging fortune on his vanity projects. You know, the free airplane from Qatar, that's not really free because it's going to cost a billion dollars to make it presidential. Right. Make sure that there's no hidden listening devices in there. They're going to have to take. Take it completely apart. They have to make it be able to withstand a nuclear. A nuclear explosion. They're going to have to make it so that he can have access to everything, have a full command center inside. It's going to cost a billion dollars. Like, it's not free. You know, all of these things he's doing is not free. But yet he, you know, yet the government is shut down. People aren't getting the benefits that they need, but he's out spending our taxpayer dollars. I want a gold toilet. You know, I want to. Whatever he's doing is just unbelievable to me.

B (62:18)

And frankly, he's not acting like somebody who's going to leave in three years.

C (62:21)

I agree with you.

B (62:22)

How long is that ballroom gonna last? Why do you care that much about the Kennedy Center? You know, and same with the plane. Okay, how long is it going to take them for retrofitted? I haven't heard one word about how much it's going to cost to take all of that off. Because otherwise, his personal plane is going to be one of the most secure planes in the world. I mean, he is acting like he plans on being in power and we aren't. He says it out Loud enough questions.

C (62:49)

He says it out loud, he gets away. That says Trump 2028. Like he says it out loud. He's not planning on leaving anytime soon.

B (62:56)

Not planning on leaving. And what are we going to do?

C (62:58)

The Constitution does not allow it.

B (62:59)

It does not allow it. But here he's going to have a plane. He could be up in the sky. Nobody can even do anything about it. I mean, I wish people would be asking that question more. Are they planning on take reversing all of those protections when he goes into.

C (63:14)

Private personal rights or give it to the next president? I mean, honestly. Right, like that. It's just so offensive to me that, like I said that, you know, Doge is so hypocritical that they claimed they're, you know, waste, fraud and abuse. Well, the biggest place to look for waste, fraud and abuse is right there in the White House. And the, just the amount of money, taxpayer dollars that pay for his golf games, that pay for him to have a wrestling match on the White House, that pay for him to do these vanity projects, I mean, that, that's where the waste, fraud and abuse is, in my opinion.

B (63:51)

Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think Doge was just a way of getting Musk and their friends access to departments and to, to do their policies without going through the Senate, even though he supposedly had a mandate in the Senate. But they wanted to try to undo a lot of policies with, you know, by cutting the funds, I think for sure. I mean, we have never seen a president as financially corrupt as Trump, whether, you know, even honestly from his pre. Right after he was elected, before the inauguration, his inauguration committee got hundreds of, of millions of dollars of donations from corporate CEOs and companies who all wanted to make a deal for when Trump got into office. He has been making money literally stealing from the American people because he takes money from these companies and then he gives the companies a pass. And it goes on and it goes on and it goes on. We have to win the midterms next year to at least start slowing this down.

C (64:52)

I agree. You know, the thing that just sticks in my craw the most, and maybe it's just because I, this is the thing. I just, I don't like people who lie. Yeah. And it's okay to disagree. I'll talk to anyone who, who might have a different point of view. We can talk about it. But people who lie, it's the one thing I just can't stand, and that's what just drives me crazy, is there's no consequence to his lying. I mean, Just. And he does it constantly, like literally. He just said in July that this, that the demolition wasn't going to impact the existing structure of the White House in any way and said it wouldn't even touch it. And then he goes, I mean, there's video of this demolition where it's taking a literal wrecking ball to the side of the White House. It's just a bold. And he does it every day and there's no consequence. And that's just, that's just what drives me crazy. And that's what the reason I do legal A frankly. And the reason I'm here week after week is because I want to be part of this movement that is trying to bring truth to the American people again. If we disagree on issues, fine, but at least let's tell the truth about the issues. Let's at least tell what's going on and then we can disagree. Right? And that's what a democracy is. And then you go to the polls and you vote and sometimes we win and sometimes the other side wins. But, you know, you try to make your case, you try to win over hearts and minds, but to lie and get where you're going, to get where you are by lying. And that's just what he's been doing all along. It's just really drives me nuts.

B (66:31)

Lying and just common decency, which we have really lost. And that to me is, you know, yeah, the poop plane, the human to human connection that is like the fabric of, of any group organization, foundation, country, you know, his completely tearing that down, you know, is. It's not just a matter of like, are we polite to each other, but if we can't even like connect with each other on some basic decency. Like to your point, that video where he was dropping feces on the crowd, like you can articulate how much you don't like these no Kings protests, which frankly I think is demolition of the White House the very next day was him doing that as well. But that, the feces thing, like, it was just like the lack of common decency of just human to human. You know, if you don't, if we lose that, you know, then do you really have a country? Do you really have a democracy? And so I am glad that here on Legal AF and Midas Touch, you know, we do, I think, always try to talk in ways that are frankly just about the issues and not make it personal because they're really not. Because, because it's, you know, it's, it's not. There's always somebody with that point of view, it's not really about the person.

C (67:51)

Of course. I agree. I agree completely. Let's talk about Lindsay Halligan and the Tish James, the Attorney General of New York, her prosecution. And so just back to the, just to again, briefly tell everybody where we are. Letitia James is the New York Attorney General and she brought a civil fraud case against, against Donald Trump and won. And the case is on appeal. She won a huge verdict against him. And so Trump didn't like that. And so she's one of his enemies. And he basically again had Lindsey Halligan appoint. He appointed Lindsay A. Halligan to prosecute Letitia James. And so there's an indictment claiming that her second home that she bought in, in Virginia is that she lied about it on the mortgage application. And by lying about it, she got a favorable result and has, has benefited to the tune of $18,000. That's the entirety of the claim here, the criminal prosecution, which is just ridiculous because she didn't lie and she didn't. It was her second home and she let a family member live there. And that, that letting a family member live in your home is actually what homes are for. You know, homes are for family. That's not investment property. That's not, you know, rental income. Like that's what makes a home a home is when you have family live with you. And you know, I've had many sisters and nieces and nephews all live with me throughout the years at various points in their life, you know, going to college or, you know, after college, whatever. I mean, that's just what we do, right? Like that, that's called a home. Anyway. But so she's being prosecuted for letting her family live there. And, and so there's a reporter, Anna Bauer, who writes for lawfare, and she was basically, I think she was retweeting some New York Times articles and making comments on them, basically talking about, basically talking about how that the James family did live there and that this is important exculpatory evidence because the indictment accuses her of, you know, seeking a second home mortgage when in reality she intended to use it as an investment home. And I guess Halligan, Lindsay Halligan, this invalidly appointed Eastern District of Virginia prosecutor who's also going after Comey, I guess she some reached out in this like, rookie move, reached out to Anna Bauer and started texting with her. And at first Anna Bauer was like, who is this? And are you sure? You know, making sure it's her. So she tested her and said, where did we first meet? Because they met once, I guess years ago in a restaurant in Florida when Halligan was with Jim Trustee, one of Trump's, somebody who, an advisor or lawyer who worked for Trump. And so she says, where did we first meet? And Halligan says, Florida Trustee. And so she knew it was her. And she also verified the phone number was also her and came back to her on WhatsApp app. The same, the same app that. The Signal Gate. Right. The, the Pete Hegseth where they added the Atlantic reporter to the classified information. You know, they're doing it on Signal somehow thinking this is secure, but she's texting with her and talking to her about the James thing and saying you got it wrong. And like it's so bizarre. And I think Anna Bauer thought it was bizarre. Like why are you saying these things? She's like, okay, if I got it wrong, tell me what I got wrong. Wrong. She was trying to, I guess, court, court her. And, and then when Bauer talked publicly about it, Halligan was upset and said that was off the record. And she's like, you never said it was off the record and you're supposed to, you're not allowed to say that after the fact. Yeah, such a weird, a weird exchange. But you know, she's, she's potentially leaking grand jury information by her.

B (72:08)

Yeah, I mean that is stunning. I mean maybe a rookie move or, you know, I think also Trump Circle think they can do anything and get away with it. I mean I was a journalism major before I went to law school and yeah, I mean obviously talking to a reporter, you're just going to assume everything is on the record. The whole point is they are gathering the news, reporters are gathering the news. But frankly, even if it wasn't a reporter, she's talking to an individual. And these days you can't assume anyone is going to be confidential with the information. So you know, I, but again, I don't know how much of this is just they are in their own little bubble and they think they can control the world and it shocks them because she did practice some law and I would think she would have had a little bit more know how not to talk to reporter. But anyway, it's embarrassing for her. It's embarrassing that she talked to a reporter and then tried to have a retroactive confidentiality around it, which is a non starter.

C (73:13)

Yeah, yeah. She's certainly not the caliber United States Attorney that the Eastern District of Virginia deserves. You know, it's, it's one of the first U.S. attorney's office in the country. Certainly one of the most respected. They handle extremely serious cases because it's where the Pentagon is located and I think the CIA and you know, it's adjacent to Washington, D.C. and there are many government offices there. And so the office has always been one to prosecute really important, sensitive, high level cases. And they have this thing called the rocket docket that other jurisdictions don't have where they make things go much faster. And so they've always been, it's like one of the most respected U.S. attorney's offices. And, and she's just not up to the caliber of what they do there. And I think you're right. It's embarrassing. But this is typical. She also had a typo on the James indictment. Right. She said she lived in Brooklyn, New Jersey. Brooklyn's in New York. And she also, I think submitted in Comey's, I think she submitted two indictments, one with different charges because the grand jury didn't vote on one of the charges. They, they, they elected not to bring one charge. And like she just, it's just all these like sloppy rookie mistakes in, you're not supposed to do that, especially in big cases. But she's just really in over her head, I think. And illegally and unlawfully appointed.

B (74:43)

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, she might have been a good enough insurance attorney, I don't know. But to your point, to be head of one of the most important, you know, top lawyer, one of the most important DOJ districts in the country, she's way over her head for sure.

C (75:01)

Yeah. Really. She really, really is. So. Well, we have reached the end of another midweek edition of Legal af. Dina, it's so, so great to see you and it's so great to have so many people here tonight and listening with us and joining us tonight. Michael Popak will be back on Legal AF on Saturday with Ben Meiselas and next Wednesday with me and of course every day on the Legal AF YouTube channel and on the Midas Touch network. So please stay informed and please keep listening and hit subscribe and listen to us on audio and listen to us in YouTube and all the places you get your podcasts. Subscribe to the Legal AF channel and to the Legal AF substack, which is, is this unbelievable thing that Popak has created that has these live streams that he does. He's been doing incredible interviews lately with various people, including attorneys general of states and just live streaming court appearances and putting court records and filings up on his substack. So it's just a great resource for everybody to go to to learn more and to have the these if you don't want to listen to a full podcast because it's a long time we have these smaller podcasts or that that that we all do that you can listen to issue by issue. So thank you so much everybody for supporting us, the Legal AERS and the Midas Mighty and Dena, thank you as always for being here.

B (76:35)

Thank you for having me.

C (76:36)

Such a pleasure to be with here with you on Wednesday night and shout out to everybody and thank you so much much for listening.

B (76:50)

Morning Zoe Got donuts Jeff Bridges why.

C (76:54)

Are you still living above our garage?

B (76:55)

Well I dig the mattress and I want to be in a T mobile commercial like you teach me so Dana oh no, I'm not really prepared. I couldn't possibly a T mobile get the new iPhone 17 Pro on them. It's designed to be the most powerful iPhone yet and has the ultimate pro camera system. Wow, impressive. Let me try. T Mobile is the best place to.

A (77:18)

Get iPhone 17 Pro because they've got the best network.

B (77:21)

Nice. Jeffrey, you heard them. T Mobile is the best place to.

A (77:25)

Get the new iPhone 17 Pro on us with eligible trade in in any condition.

B (77:30)

So what are we having for lunch? Dude, my work here is done.

A (77:34)

The 24 month build credit is on experience beyond for well qualified customers plus tax and $35 device connection charge Credit send and balance due if you pay off earlier Canceled Finance Agreement iPhone 17 Pro 256 gigs 1099.99 and new line minimum $100 plus a month plan with auto pay plus taxes and fees required. Best mobile network in the US based on analysis by Oaklove Speed Test Intelligence Data 1H 2025 Visit t mobile.com.