Karen Freeman (6:44)

Hi, Popa, great to see you. How are you today?

Michael Popok (6:46)

Doing great.

Karen Freeman (6:48)

I can't wait to talk about these things with you. I can't believe what I'm seeing with my, with my eyes these days.

Michael Popok (6:55)

One more turn of events and that TV behind you is going to be tossed out onto whatever street you're on. Broadway, Broadway can't take it anymore. Comey. Let's start with good news. We got the great good news. Great good news for Comey to remind everybody in case they were sleeping like Rip Van Winkle lately. Former FBI director, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, James Comey was indicted. We think it's hard to tell from the indictment for some sort of perjury involving we're not quite sure who, about what and when. These are all problems with an indictment, by the way, problems that were pointed out by Pat Fitzgerald, the former U.S. attorney for Chicago and for people that were in the room, they said, Karen, it looked like the tables were switched because you had the powerhouse team that knew what they were doing, quick on their feet and getting everything they wanted. In James Comey, former U.S. attorney. And in his lawyer, Pat Fitzgerald, former U.S. attorney. And on the other side, you had. I told you we'd want to pay for this. You had Lindsey Halligan, who never said a word, according to reports. I'm not making this up. I'm not being mean more than I need to be rocking back and forth in her chair and doing some nodding. She better get used to. I think she's getting ready to get into the fetal position. She carted in. No one in the Eastern District of Virginia's office will prosecute this case. So they had to import two lawyers from North Carolina, one Mr. Lemons and one Mr. Garcia, who handled trying to get Judge Nachmanoff, a Biden appointee, to slow the case down because there's new reporting. And I want to talk to you about this, about these reports that are going to have to be turned over to the defense that say, don't prosecute this case because the witnesses, like maybe Daniel Richmond, the law professor at Columbia, will provide insurmountable hurdles to a conviction. All there in a leaked report. A lot of leaks coming out to make sure these things are preserved for the defense. Between that and the one we had two days ago, where John Durham, the special counsel, said there's no case to prosecute against Comey. If there was, I would have done it in four years and tens of millions of dollars in my investigation. All that plays into the hands of Pat Fitzgerald and James Comey. It's a win for them today by a lot, not a little. What was your perspective as a former prosecutor about how this arraignment went down? The chief judge, sorry, the judge being selected, the performance of the prosecution, and all these leaks that are coming out about don't prosecute this case because there's no case.

Karen Freeman (9:47)

Yeah, this was a. It was like watching the, like a minor league team play the Yankees. Right. It was just unbelievable to see the matchup in court and what's happening. I mean, so much so that even the order that the prosecution provided to the court about when the court, when the trial date is set, had the wrong year on it. It already passed. It's supposed to happen January 5th, 2026, and it says January 15th. I mean, they're just rookie rushing this thing to court. But look, just putting this into perspective, the Eastern District of Virginia is probably in the top five of the 90 Judicial District or the 90 U.S. attorney's Offices. Across the country, it is the cream of the crop. It's really highly, highly respected. Partly because, look, they deal with matters of the utmost importance in this country because just by jurisdiction, the Pentagon sits in the Eastern district of Virginia, CIA, lots of government offices because it's right by Washington D.C. it's one of the suburbs. So they are very highly respected. They've been around a long time. The fact that they couldn't get a single Eastern District of Virginia prosecutor to prosecute this case, that's issue number one, that they had to bring two guys up from North Carolina. That's telling right there, number one. Number two, you've got this judge who, yes, he's a Biden appointee, but look, judges are picked at random. This was a random appointee. Just like sometimes Trump gets Trump judges, sometimes he gets judges that weren't appointed by Republicans, but also a very respected judge that has a great reputation. And the Eastern District, Virginia is known as the quote, rocket docket. They are known for having cases go at lightning speed. And this case is no different. And the judge was skeptical of the prosecutions, trying to slow this down, saying, oh, there's voluminous discovery. First of all, this is a two count indictment. There can't be that much discovery. And this case has been investigated for years, as you said, although we don't know exactly what the case is about because the indictment is so thin and threadbare that they don't even provide notice to the, to the defense of who person one and person three are, or which, which exact statements are you talking about that you are claiming he lied about? So nobody really knows what this is about. People have surmised, they think it's about certain things. But if it is about the things that people think it is, not only is there evidence to the contrary. Right, there's evidence showing that he's not guilty of that. For example, some people have surmise that one of the people, one of person one or person three is this guy, Daniel Richmond, who's a law professor. And he is somebody that prosecutors have alleged that Comey authorized to leak information to the press. He told investigators that Comey instructed him not to engage with the media on at least two occasions and unequivocally suggested and said Comey never authorized him to provide information to a reporter. Anonymous, anonymously, ahead of the 2016 election. So they have tons of information actually that says Comey didn't do this, that Comey is not guilty. They have prosecution memos that basically were provided to Lindsey Halligan saying all the reasons they can't even meet the low burden of probable cause, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. And they are just in over their skis. I mean, they rushed to the grand jury, they rushed an indictment. The indictment really isn't proper. I think you're going to see a superseding indictment in this case that cures the issues in this indictment because it's pretty bad. And you've got Jim Comey and Pat Fitzgerald, as you said, two prior United States attorneys, not assistant United States attorneys, but they were the head of the offices. One of Southern District of New York, one in Chicago. These are legal powerhouses, houses. These are heavy hitters. These are respected people, which is why Comey was, was appointed to be head of the FBI. And you know, he's, he's a very well respected person. He also has a daughter and a son in law who until recently, until this case.

Michael Popok (14:11)

Frank, they're on the defense team now.

Karen Freeman (14:13)

Exactly. We're, we're, we're very respected federal prosecutors. They're going to be on the defense team. I mean, they don't have a shot. This is not, there's no case here. And on top of that there, he's already signaled, Comey's already signaled that they're going to make a claim for vindictive or malicious prosecution or selective prosecution. And for those of you who want to know the difference between selective prosecution and vindictive prosecution, they are slightly different. Selective prosecution is when the government enforces a neutral law in a discriminatory way. So prosecute some people but not others for things like their political beliefs. Right. So they're going to make that claim. And there, if they get over the hurdle there and make that claim, they're going to get all sorts of discovery from the government that really have nothing to do with the two charges. Has nothing to do with like, what did you say here and what did you say here? But we'll go into all the stuff that went into prosecuting him, all the emails, text messages, memos, all the statements that they have. Just everything from all the lawyers, et cetera, who said don't bring this case or there's not enough to bring this case, or there is no case. So that's what selective prosecution is. Vindictive or malicious prosecution is slightly different. It's when the government retaliates against a defendant for exercising a protected legal right. So like if somebody appeals a conviction or refuses to accept a plea deal or files a motion, and because they did that, the government then brings more serious charges. The Prosecution has to be motivated by a retaliation here. I think here you have that as well. So this is clearly selective and retaliatory. So I think they are going to bring both those motions. I think they have. Those are really hard cases to make. But frankly, if I ever saw a case that had that. I mean, exhibit A is Trump's public tweet to Pam Bondi where he said, pam, basically first he fires the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia who he appointed Mr. Siebert and then told Pam to bring this case. He installs Lindsey Halligan who brings it the next day. So I think they have a great, a great shot at both of those motions. And if they get over that hurdle, I don't see anybody finding Jim Comey guilty of these crimes.

Michael Popok (16:32)

And a great judge you got Michael Neckmanoff, who we've talked about before, former federal public defender, which is where Joe Biden helped change the face of the judiciary. He put on a number of federal public defenders rather than just prosecutors to have a more well balanced because they come at it from different perspectives. You know, your long career as a prosecutor is, is amazing and developed a certain lens for you. I spent the exact same amount of time as a defense lawyer primarily. And you know, now you're a defense lawyer as well because you have the benefit of being a prosecutor. But you, when you have a guy like Nachmanoff who makes really good decisions, is really well respected, it's a compliment to hear Donald Trump call him a dirty. What makes him dirty because he got confirmed by the Senate and Joe Biden appointed him, that makes him dirty. And what makes Immergut. The Trump appointed judge in Oregon, we're gonna talk about next what makes her an insurrectionist. And it's just this. The American people, I'm just gonna say it out loud. The American people are tired of it. The American people are tired of it. They're tired of his whining, they're tired of his unpatriotic approach. They're tired of his attack on the rule of law and attack on judges. And it's showing up in the polls. So I don't think this is helping him. And I think Nakmanoff was like, well, nobody's waving. That's the other thing. Jim Comey, smart as we know, as is Pat Fitzgerald, they're not waiving speedy trial because it puts the burden and the pressure on the prosecution to turn over everything within very short. I mean, we're going to trial in three months in a very short amount of time, like in the next two, three weeks. And I don't think they're right. You think Lindsey Halligan, when she showed up 10 days ago at the Eastern District of Virginia and couldn't find the washroom key, you think she figured out where the big pile of documents are that they have to turn over by law to the defense? Forget it. So that again, advantage a defense ready. You know, usually it's prosecution, they're not ready. And that's. And that plays into the hands. Strengthens the hands of James Comey as he works to file soon. It's coming soon. It may not be as soon as Alex Spiro. Spiro, whatever his name is, filed the motion to dismiss on Mayor Adams right off the indictment. But like the day of. But it's coming soon to a federal judge near you. And everything that happened today or yesterday was to his advantage. And where did that perp walk go, Karen? Oh, you got cash Patel. Oh, the simps over at msnbc. He wrote this in a social media post, whining and crying about James Comey. Where were your tears? For who? Bannon. Bannon wasn't perp walked in the federal side. He wasn't on the state side. I don't even know what happened on the federal side. He wasn't. I don't even know what you're talking about. Get your facts straight. As Pam Bondi liked to say throughout her performance yesterday. But all as we expected, everything really is lining up perfectly. All the planets are lining up perfectly for James Comey. And he went first. This is the one they chose to go first. Not that any of them would have been any better, I think Letitia, James, you know, it would be just as tough, if not tougher. And Adam Schiff and maybe Lisa Cook, they're all represented by the same kind of lawyers. But to start with James Comey, it's just. It's gonna be a major setback for the Trump administration. And people can celebrate in the streets when James Comey's indictment is dismissed.

Karen Freeman (20:15)

Yeah, no, this is atrocious. This is an atrocious abuse of prosecutorial power. And as a former prosecutor, I'm appalled that the Justice Department is being weaponized against for political reasons. Justice is supposed to be blind. It's not supposed to go be used against your enemies or your political opponents. This is appalling. And what really bothers me, in addition to the fact that Jim Comey's being prosecuted in this way, is just what this means for the rule of law, what this means for justice, what this means for The Justice Department. It's just really sad for this country. I think that especially federal prosecutors have always been above the fray. The Department of Justice has always been above the. The fray. You've always seen prosecutors. Doesn't matter who the president is, they'll go after politicians who are corrupt in both parties, including in their own party. Justice has always been meted out that way. And this is the first time the Justice Department, I mean, when you look at the fact that they dismissed the case against Tom Homan, who the borders are right, and Pam Bondi, who we're going to talk about next, won't even answer basic questions about that investigation and about that case that was dismissed because of him, you know, because of who he is. He's, he works now for Donald Trump. He's a Trump loyalist. When he took $50,000 in bribe money and they have it on tape, they dismissed Mayor Adams, the same exact thing, the mayor of New York City. Right. They dismissed that case. Political, you know, he's like an ally of Trump and for political reasons. And now going after his enemies. I mean, it's just really, really sad what's happening.

Michael Popok (21:54)

There's do of indictments that have been dismissed or prosecutions that have been quashed or killed that are all within the inner circle or just outside of it. For Donald Trump, I just had the executive director for Justice Connection, which is the alumni group for the Department of justice, and 280plus people who have the best and the brightest of the Department of Justice at every level that have left since January. Do you know that there's. And she had a number. Did you know there's 5,300 Department of Justice personnel that have been fired or have quit or been forced to resign since Donald Trump's new term. 5300. And they haven't been replaced, of course, which is what we're watching with this. But she was on. We have a great video. I think they're going to do a playlist with us regularly on Legal AF about the letter that they wrote demanding justice for the Department of Justice and demanding and cataloging all the ways the Department of Justice has failed America. Under the leadership is too strong of a word. Under the auspices of Pam Bondi and the chief legal officer of America, Donald Trump. And just to hear her from an insider perspective, she served five presidents and seven attorney generals as a senior attorney in the Department of Justice. She now heads this organization. And it's their third letter. They did a letter to oppose Emil bovey as the 3rd Circuit Court of appeals judge. They did a letter about the dismissal of the indictment against Mayor Adams, as you mentioned in New York, and the decimation of the once proud Southern District of New York prosecutor's office that resulted. And now they step forward here. They also provide legal, like pro bono legal services for DOJ people who are targeted and mental health counseling. I think both those things go hand in glove.

Karen Freeman (23:39)

I wonder how many of those 5,300 were prosecutors, because I think there's about 10,000 prosecutors nationwide who work for the DOJ. And you know, there's many, many more employees of the DOJ. But I wonder how many of the 5,300 are prosecutors.

Michael Popok (23:54)

It's hard to tell. I mean, she gave me a number, the executive director gave me a number for the amount of people who signed the letter about Emil Bovey. And that was like in the 7 and 8 hundreds. But, but again, even here, the letter that they just wrote, which is posted on legal layoff substack, they don't there's a lot of like analysts and senior analysts and paralegals, but there is a fair amount of, you know, division heads. You know, we've watched it. You know, Jay Brat, who was one of the lead prosecutors for counterintelligence in the Mar A Lago prosecution against Donald Trump, is on that list and all of that. Now when we come back from our brief break that we need in order to stay on the air. We've got the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We know who the three judge panel is. We know there's a hearing tomorrow and there's a brand new order. As we came on the air, breaking news about Donald Trump's attempts to federalize and mobilize the National Guard in Oregon and Portland. It's an interesting decision. New order that came out to kind of hold the ring while they make their decision. We'll talk about the three judges, the hearing, what the case is about and what the case is not about. When we come back, we'll talk about Pam Bondi with clips. We got receipts of her performance. That's a great picture before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And not just we just won't show you the Democratic questions because we're equal opportunity. We're going to show you the questions she had to answer to Senator Kennedy, who's a Republican. That didn't go well for her either. And then we'll talk about the opening of the United States Supreme Court with a couple of new oral arguments that have just opened so many ways to support what we do on legal af. The Legal. I call it the Legal AF ecosystem. You've got the podcast, which is rocking five years in the making. Karen, Ben and me, Wednesday, Saturday and all of that on YouTube. You're here. But continue to watch us and send it to friends and help us stay at the top of the YouTube weekly rankings for this podcast. Then go over to the audio version and leave a five star review there and download that and listen to that vice versa. So we stay up the top of the charts on Apple. You know, it's all the hummingbird theory. It all keeps us. We don't know exactly what keeps us at the top of the charts, but we're asking, so we got to do it all. And then we've got the Legal AF substack well on its way to a million subscribers before the new year. 10 new videos a day, amazing interviews and contributors and newsmakers who come on on a regular basis come over to Legal AF the substack. And again, no corporate parenting here. No paywall. This is how we keep this whole thing moving at this time of great pressure on independent commentary and journalism like ours. And then we've got the substack. There it is. And what I love about Substack is the immediacy of it. I can do two lives a day. Today I did one with Adam Klassfeld, all rise news for 40 minutes. We got like 2,800 people together just talking about issues that were happening in real time in a way we can't do in a on a podcast. We can't do it on YouTube, but we can do it on Legalif substack. And that's another way to support what we do with a paid membership on Legalif substack. And then we've got our from the beginning, almost because of Jordi, we've got our pro democracy very supportive sponsors. We vetted these things. If you've got a little bit of disposable income and you think these things are interesting to you, then we encourage you to try them out. And here's a word from our sponsors. This episode is brought to you by IQ Bar, our exclusive snack and hydration sponsor. IQ Bar is the better for you Plant protein based snack made with brain boosting nutrients to refuel, nourish and satisfy hunger without the sugar crash. I've been using IQ Bar in my daily routine. I start my mornings with IQ Joe for a jitter free caffeine boost. I grab an IQ bar like the mint chocolate chip to power through the afternoon. And I hydrate with IQ Mix after a tough workout. Their Ultimate Sampler Pack is a perfect way to try it all. You get nine IQ Bars, eight IQ Mix Sticks and four IQ Joe Sticks. Everything is clean and smart. Gluten free, dairy free, soy free, GMO free and free from artificial sweeteners. They're packed with ingredients like magnesium, lion's mane and Adaptogens to keep your brain and body performing at their best. With over 20,000 5 star reviews and counting, more people than ever are fueling their busy lifestyles with IQ Bars, Bars, Hydration mixes and mushroom coffees. Their Ultimate Sampler Pack includes all three and right now IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQ bar products including the Sampler Pack plus free shipping. To get your 20% off, text legal AF to 64,000 text legal AF to 64,000 that's legal AF to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply and see terms for details. Are you sick of drinking your calories or waking up hungover? Having some drinks can be fun, but I'm glad I found an alternative that lets me feel great in the moment and the next morning. Out of Office Gummies from Seoul. They give you that light social buzz without the slump or guilt that comes with extra drinks. No hangovers, no missed workouts, just good vibes. Sol is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Sol specializes in delicious hemp derived THC and CBD products designed to boost your mood and help you unwind. Their best selling out of Office Gummies were designed to provide a mild relaxing buzz, boost your mood and enhance creativity and relaxation. The gummies come in four different strengths so you can find the perfect dose for your vibe. Choose from a gentle microdose, Perfect buzz, a noticeable high or a fully lit experience with wellness at the forefront. All of Sol's products are made from organically farmed USA grown hemp and are vegan, gluten free and low in sugar. And if you like their out of Office Gummies, you gotta try their new out of Office beverage. A refreshing alcohol free alternative perfect for summer sipping. Bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to Seoul today. Right now Seoul is offering my audience 30% off your entire order. Go to getsoul.com and use the code legal AF that's getsoul.com promo code legal AF for 30% off. Welcome back. And now we must return to war ravaged Oregon and Portland where people are apparently dropping their lattes over people dressed in chicken costumes and frog suits who are. I guess the frog represents antifa. I Don't know. In any event, against the backdrop of the Ninth Circuit setting oral argument about Judge Immergut's decision on Last Saturday at 4:30, not to be confused with her decision the Next Sunday at 10pm there's only one temporary restraining order that is at the heart of the appeal and there was a request for an administrative stay. We have our three judge panel, we have the oral argument. The issue that was up for administrative stay was should the three judge panel, which is not a great. I'm going to just preface this. Not a great panel. Judges Graeber, Nelson and Bade. Two Trumpers and a Biden. Oh no. And a Clinton. Sorry. Going back in the time and against that, we're going to get into the procedure about tomorrow's oral argument and the briefing around it and the issues at stake. But you had Kristi Noem and her infinite wisdom, I'm sure in consultation with her other half baked half wits like Pam Bondi and Donald Trump and Todd Blanche decided that's a great time to go to Portland, go check out the ICE detention center. And who better to escort the Secretary of Homeland Security than right wing podcasters like Betty Johnson, who, side note, took money from Russia television and then started spouting Russian propaganda several years ago and was caught up in a scandal related to that. But now Benny Johnson's back, everybody wants to be on his podcast on the right. And I guess you figure a little free media with them doing their little iPhone recording would be great. Except when they went up to the roof to survey all that Kristi Noem could see in downtown Portland. Remember Donald Trump called it war ravaged. This was the justification for sending in the military and the federalization of the National Guard. Do we have the video of. Let's run the video of Kristi Noem conquering Portland.

Karen Freeman (32:57)

Steve.

Michael Popok (33:15)

Come on down. I got a Subway family for you. Yes, that guy will be here right about this time. I'm sorry. I'm glad Salty turned off my mic because I literally burst out laughing. She was probably fine until her social media podcaster decided to pan down and show, you know, the upside down flag and a guy wearing a chicken suit. And this is the reason, ladies and gentlemen, that we are going to take over Portland with federalized troops. They should play that at the 9th Circuit hearing. Then she went inside, Karen, and did a compelled forced prayer meeting. What is going on? We're not. This is the Turning Point Memorial. Again, what is going on and why is she doing that? Because that didn't help their case before they Argue tomorrow at the ninth Circuit. What was your take on all of it?

Karen Freeman (34:13)

It's so bizarre to me. You know, I'm from the west coast originally. I was born and raised in Southern California and my parents actually, when I went to law school moved to Oregon. And so although I've never lived there, I've spent fair amount of time in Oregon. I've gone to Portland many, many times. Beautiful, beautiful city. There is no way they can make a case with a straight face that it is war ravaged in any way, shape or form. And Portland is a very special town. It's absolutely stunningly beautiful. It has a very free thinking culture. You've got people who are very like kind of hippie ish and hip and young and just, it's a beautiful place with amazing people. Yes, they have a little bit of a homeless problem like so many cities do and drug problem. But to call it war ravaged is really, there's nothing you, there's nowhere you can say that place is remotely like that. I mean, if you just look at that video that was just shown, you've got like three protesters and you've got cars commuting, going to work. I mean, and that's exactly what Judge Immerget said when she was making findings of fact, when she was looking at whether or not they can deploy, they can federalize the National Guard and deploy them in Oregon. She essentially said, look, I'm looking, I live here, you know, I'm looking at the facts on the ground. They don't support what you're saying and there's nothing in the record to support it. They're just saying things that just are belied by the facts. So it's just to see her there, to see Kristi Noem there and to see her bringing troops to Sweet Portland, Oregon, which is like I said, it's such a peaceful, you know, there's lots of rainbows and people dressed up and you know, it's just a very free thinking place. It reminds me a little bit of the west coast version of Vermont. You know, it's a little like that, you know, kind of a lot of hiking going on, a lot of outdoors stuff. But it is absolutely not what Trump is trying to say that it is. And I'm glad to see a Trump appointed judge, Judge Immerse saying, sorry, you can't federalize troops and bring the military here. There's no reason for it, there's no need for it. And what you're saying, your justification for it because there are laws, right, that say when you can do it. And it's for things like when there's an insurrection and that sort of thing. She's like, there's no facts in the record that support that.

Michael Popok (36:41)

Chicken suits.

Karen Freeman (36:43)

Exactly. Chicken suits. Exactly. I mean, and that's the thing, like I said, I've spent a lot of time in Portland, so I hear this, and I'm like, this is nuts. This is bananas. This is like. It's like, think like college town, you know that. That's the vibe.

Michael Popok (36:57)

Portlandia. Watch the TV show. Fred Armisen made a whole series, like, lasted five years. It's almost like a documentary of life in Portland. Just watch it and think. Insurrection, military invasion. Are you effing kidding me? So, so now we take this to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. So Judge Immergut, who's great for this case, and earlier I was like, oh, crap. Trump appointed. Then I gotta look at a record. Federal prosecutor, Assistant U.S. attorney in California, Southern Central District, La U.S. attorney for Portland. What's the name of the county the Portland's in? Multi.

Karen Freeman (37:38)

Multanoma.

Michael Popok (37:38)

Multanoma. She's the D.A. from Multanoma. Right. Working closely with law enforcement. Right. Knows the streets, drinks the water. Lived in Vermont for a couple of years and worked in Vermont. She's been, you know, she's been danced. What is it called? Strumming a role, is strolling to her own drum, whatever it's called, Beat of her own drum for a long, long time. She's not your typical federal judge. She's tough as nails. Doesn't give a crap about Donald Trump and Stephen Miller. Calling her an insurrectionist and calling her a terrorist. I guess they want to hang her from the highest tree. Doesn't care about any of that. She issued her first injunction on Saturday at 4:30pm in which she said, no, the grounds under 10 USC section 12406 are not present. You can't federalize the National Guard. State sovereignty is at risk. Martial law. You're moving us towards martial law. Our founding fathers and framers would not like this. And I say no. Donald Trump takes an appeal. That's what's up. On appeal at the 9th Circuit. He then says, effer. I mean, not. Well, he probably said it literally in the halls of the White House, but not. Not in writing. He said instead, he ordered that he had Pete Hegseth order that the California National Guard, which had only been mobilized, federalized and mobilized for, for things related to California, send them on the road like they're, you know, like it's an arena tour for a rock band. Let's send Oregon and send Texas National Guard and all of that. And she was like, let's have a hearing, emergency hearing. And why is this not. Because we had Rob Bonta, the attorney general from California, on the night of that hearing. That's how much he wanted to talk to our legal AF audience. And she said, according to Rob, who was in the hearing, tell me how this is not a violation of my order from Saturday. Well, you only ordered an Oregon National Guard. She said you understood the spirit of my order. Okay, let me make it more clear. I'm issuing a new temporary restraining order. You are not to deploy any National Guard in Portland, Oregon. You're not to deploy them. I don't care where they are right now. Send them back to their bases and their units, and they stay there. So that hasn't been appealed. Now, why that matters is when the three judges set the oral argument, and it's Graeber, Nelson, and Baid. Graeber, Clinton, Nelson, Trump, bade Trump. I mean, most of their decisions, Nelson and Bait have not been good and have been very pro Trump, even though they were in the first wave of the first Trump administration. I've spoken to people on legal AF contributors like Lisa Graves, who's very involved with corruption and voting and judges related to federal courts, and she was like, yeah, they're both not good. Not good for this. Graeber's, Clinton, you know, sort of down the road. But they issued an order as we went on the air. Here's what they decided to do. They decide. I'll read you the highlights of it, Karen. They decided that they were going to grant the administrative stay, meaning they were going to allow Donald Trump to federalize the Oregon National Guard, but not deploy them. So for now, until they make the final ruling after the hearing tomorrow. And what they said, their logic, for lack of a better term, was that since only one of the two temporary restraining orders were up in front of them on appeal, the original one, which was the federalization, and the deployment has been currently blocked by the second, which is not up on appeal. Ha ha. Will thread the needle. We'll say administrative stay for as long as we need on the federalization, the commandeering of the National Guard troops, but you don't get to mobilize them. So it's like you get to hold the ice cream cone, Donald Trump, but you don't get to lick it. So we're gonna see what happens at the hearing. We'll know better. You're laughing at that we'll know better for the oral argument. It's up on Legal AF YouTube right now. You can set a reminder, it's going to be about noon Eastern Time, 9:00am Pacific Time. We're going to run the live feed. It'll be audio only. We'll be there for commentary. And this is what let me just see if there's anything more interesting in the order, which we will post on Legal AF substack. Yeah, this is what they say on page three and four. Karen in the circumstances here, granting an administrative stay, short Taimee stay will best preserve the status quo. The status quo being he already nationalized them. Prior to the October 4th Saturday Temporary Restraining order, the Oregon National Guard members had been federalized but not deployed. And an administrative stay will maintain the federalization of the members because that order prohibited the implementation of the order. But the second temporary restraining order has not been challenged or appealed, and it appealed, prohibits the deployment of the National Guard, thus in granting the administrative state. They're very cute here, aren't they? It preserves the status quo in which the National Guard members have been federalized but not deployed. Administrative state granted. We'll see everybody 9 o' clock tomorrow morning. That's just and you and I are going to know really quickly about who takes the lead and the type of because we knew when a different ninth Circuit, a completely different ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled against the decision of a federal trial judge then in Judge Breyer, Charles Breyer, who ruled that also 12406 had been violated and Donald Trump couldn't federalize the California National Guard under those unique facts. And then another three judge panel was like, nah, we're gonna let him federalize. There's enough. But there at least there were rocks being thrown and a couple of cars burning. You know, it wasn't, it wasn't frog in chicken suits, right? Karen?

Karen Freeman (43:42)

Yeah. Look, I mean honestly, if the, if they are allowed to federalize and deploy it, if I were there, I just say, you know what, don't protest. Just let them, don't, don't give them what they want. Don't give them an opportunity to, to make, you know, make chaos. And because they're going to tear gas people, they're going to, you know, you've seen people thrown to the ground. You've seen people really handle poorly. And then it creates this video of, oh, look, look what's here. I mean, ignore them, you know, let them guard their federal buildings because that's all they're really allowed to do, right? Let them guard the federal buildings and go about your life like it's a joke. It's a total joke. So don't, don't let them. If they, if they are forced to be allowed to have them there. That's. That would be my tactic because they can't really do much. Right. That's not what they're supposed to do. And of course, if they think they're being attacked, then they're going to. And then they're going to just draw, you know, they're going to put out those videos and use those things to justify their existence. I would, you know, see if we could just ignore them because there's really not. They're not worth. It's just not worth it. Right? It's not worth it if all they're doing is guarding the buildings, because that's really all they're really allowed to do.

Michael Popok (44:54)

Yeah, absolutely. Here's what Oregon's Attorney General said last paragraph of his filing to the ninth Circuit. He says the broader public interest supports the district court's order. The traditional and strong resistance of American to a military intrusion into civilian affairs has deep roots in our history. Citing the same case that the judge had cited. As discussed above, defendants have exceeded the scope of their statutory authority and they're acting contrary to the constitutional federal state balance Defendants nearly limitless conception of the statute about commandeering the National Guard. Give the president discretion to repeat this experiment in response to other ordinary nonviolent acts of civil disobedience across our nation. The public interest is served by a judicial order preserving the rule of law in the face of unprecedented and unlawful executive action that threatens grave and irreparable damage to our state and the nation. That's what's at stake. Putting aside all the, all the guffawing I was doing about chicken suits, that is what is at stake. I mean, there's a reason Judge Immer got cited to James Madison at the first, you know, convention, Constitutional Convention, about the problem with having a standing army being used by a quote, unquote, overgrown president. It's great when you're fighting the foreign enemy outside, you know, but that same standing army could be used for tyranny quickly when used by an overgrown president. You could call Donald Trump many things, but overgrown president, I think perfectly spots it, as James Madison said. But, Karen, I was going to move on to Pam Bondi. What do you think about that?

Karen Freeman (46:41)

Talk about it.

Michael Popok (46:42)

Yeah, let's do. We'll split Bondi in half. I don't mean literally, although we'll talk about some of Bondi now. And then we'll pick up with Bondi after another commercial break later. And what happened at the United States Supreme Court. So, bam, Bondi gets called in to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is routine.

Karen Freeman (47:03)

And normal and is done all the time.

Michael Popok (47:05)

Yeah, yeah. This is the same group that confirmed her. This is the same group that she swore that she, as she got sworn in, that she swore would be independent, that she would not take direction from Donald Trump. Like social media posts that say, pam, you're running out of time. Indict all my people that I want indicted. Or whatever he wrote. And which he did. And now, though, in a whole new version of Pam. But you could tell the strain of the office is wearing on her. I've said that we're watching the incredible shrinking Donald Trump because he's just shrinking before our very eyes. Everything he does where he thinks he looks like a strong, tough guy and all that, it just the public is rejecting him and Trumpism. And he's about three and a half. He's like that guy that's four and a half foot tall and he wants to be a starter on the NBA as a center. He just doesn't realize he's tiny. He's a tiny, tiny little man. And we're all seeing it. And you see her, you know, one way to interpret her body language and her fighting and her, as I said during my podcast yesterday, this clutching at pearls and she almost reached for a fan at one point. Oh, I do declare. You're attacking my ethics. Like. Yeah, you're. Sit down, Pam. Yeah, yeah. We're talking about your Department of Justice, which Dick Durbin called effectively the most corrupt Department of Justice we've ever seen that you presided over. And there was several key moments in that about things that are in the press, like the Tom Homan bribery video. It's hard to believe there is. There's that face again. We should use that and put that in our library and constantly use that. For Pam Bundy, the tomo. There's a video. Democracy Forward who works with us on Legal af, just filed a lawsuit to get the video. Finally, there's a video. But, you know, she decides, no, I'm going to tangle with Sheldon Whitehouse because Sheldon Whitehouse might have known Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn at some point, and maybe that's connected to Epstein. It's just the sheer madness of it all. Let's play that clip.

C (49:14)

Senator, as Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche recently stated, the investigation of Mr. Homan was subjected to a former full Review by the FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any wrongdoing.

Michael Popok (49:30)

And that was not my question. My question was what became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI delivered, evidently in a paper bag to Mr. Homan?

C (49:42)

Senator, I'd look at your fact.

Michael Popok (49:48)

Are you saying that they did not deliver $50,000 in cash to Mr. Home?

C (49:52)

Senator, as recently stated, the investigation of Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review question. Five FBI agents, that's five Department of Justice prosecutors, they found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Michael Popok (50:06)

That's a different question. What became of the $50,000? Did the FBI get it back?

C (50:14)

Mr. Whitehouse. Excuse me, Senator Whitehouse, you're welcome to talk to the FBI.

Michael Popok (50:19)

The report to you. Can't you answer this question?

C (50:21)

Senator Whitehouse, you're welcome to discuss this with Director Patel.

Michael Popok (50:26)

Did homan keep the $50,000?

C (50:32)

As Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche recently stated, the investigation of. Mr. Never mind.

Michael Popok (50:39)

I can see I'm not going to get a straight answer from you to.

C (50:41)

A very simple by the FBI agents and the doj, they found no credible evidence of wrongdoing. You know, you're very concerned about money and people taking money and you rail against dark money.

Michael Popok (50:54)

Wait a second, wait.

C (50:54)

You work with dark money groups all the time. Senator, wait a second.

Michael Popok (50:58)

Did you know it's all about the whataboutism. What about that time that you stood with CASA Incorporated? She accused one of the senators, they know, antifa. I'm not accusing you of being antifa. Somebody thought this was an effective strategy for responding to US Senators providing their oversight duties. How do you think it went, Karen?

Karen Freeman (51:20)

I mean, I was appalled. You should be able to answer basic questions. But she had some pre written answers that she was going to give no matter what the questions were. And that's all she gave. But she was totally evasive and did not provide. Look, the Senate has an oversight function. That is what they do. And the Judiciary Committee has always had, whether it's director of the FBI or the head of the Attorney general, whoever it is, they have them to come in for hearings. And these are basic questions, right? $50,000 was given as bait, right? This was a sting operation by the FBI with Tom Homan. So these are marked bills. When you use bills as bait, you literally keep track of the serial numbers because you want to. If you get the same, if you recover the exact same ones, you put them in a bag, but they're real dollars and you put them in a bag and you go and you, you do your, you know, your sting operation, which they filmed or audio taped? I'm not. I've heard both. And they go in and they record it. But these are prose. They rehearse it ahead of time. What are you going to say? What are the elements of bribery? Let's make sure that we use the proper words. And they go in and they, they, they did the things that they were supposed to do. Money was exchanged. Homan accepted the bag of money. And I think it's a fair question to know where are those dollars that the FBI provided? Right. Did FBI get it back? Did it go back into the FBI coffers? Is it taxpayer dollars? I mean, where is that money? It's a fair question. And she went on later saying, also saying that, you know, that investigation was closed before I was confirmed, and so therefore she knows nothing about it. I mean, that is a absurd. Right. That is appalling. This wasn't something that happened 20 years ago. This happened like the day before she was confirmed or the week before she was. This was very recent. And so the fact that I actually don't believe that she doesn't know more about it. And if she doesn't know more about it, I think it's actually she's not doing her job and she's not a very good attorney general. She should know exactly the facts of the most important cases that have been going on and that have been investigated, open or closed, and that are public interest and that are important since Trump took office only a few months ago. Right. It's not like he's been in office for four years and she's a new attorney general and this was three and a half years ago. And so she doesn't know. It's only been in office for, what, eight months, and there haven't been that many huge investigations. She should know all of the details, all of the facts. And I think she's just stonewalling the Senate. And I don't think that's right. I think that the American people have a right to know the Senate is doing their job by checks and balances. Right. This is what the legislative branch is supposed to do if they're doing their job and their oversight over the executive branch. And she wasn't answering and she was frankly obstructing their answers.

Michael Popok (54:18)

Yeah, we got more of Pam Bonding, not less. And it doesn't get any better when she starts fielding some questions from what's supposed to be softballs from senators like Kennedy, not that one, the maga, Republican one. We'll cover we're called. We will cover that. Where am I going with that? We will cover that and the opening of the United states Supreme Court's 25, 26 term. We're already exhausted by the emergency shadow docket. But yes, the term is open for the regular appeals. And to answer the question that's come up in the chat before, that does not stop the emergency docket that goes on parallel with this. So it's 70 cases or so that'll be taken up at the Supreme Court and then another thousand that will be emergency docket applications that you and Karen and I and Ben will have to cover. But let's, let's talk about this ecosystem again. Great news. As I came on the air, our producer told us that this is all a testament to the fervent support of our audience that we adore. Legal AF, the podcast on YouTube rankings for this week is now at. Wait for it. Number 25. And I'm talking, like, all genres, like, we're up against, like who's your daddy? And other podcasts you may or may not have heard of. It's not like, news and like, we would number one, law and politics, no doubt. Because if we're 25 with that August body, you know, the Midas brothers are number two. And then there's a little podcast called the intersection with Michael popak, that's number 96 that came into the top 100 again this week. But that is, it's working. The hummingbird thing is working. Watching us here on YouTube, you're letting your friends know about us. You're going over to the audio version on Apple and Spotify, leaving five star reviews and listening over there, coming over to Legal. I have to substack the YouTube chat. Sorry, legal AF, YouTube, sorry. Been a long day. And subscribing there. That's why we just crossed 270 million views of all the work that we have there. And we can bring on, like, Rob Bonta, Attorney General, California, last minute. And all the alumni from the Department of Justice are now coming over to Legal AF to do a regular playlist along with Democracy Forward. And there are 90 cases at ACLU. We want to be under one roof, one stop shopping for law and politics. And we're rapidly becoming that because of you. Then we got the Legal AF substack and some people. I had a friend of mine write me recently. It was very sweet. The text was, how do I. I want to make an investment. I want to invest in Legal A. And she meant like, literally, like stroking a check. And I was like, that's. I love that. I love what that demonstrates or indicates about you and your commitment. But no, we don't do that. But there is a way to kind of have a piece of the rock and be a full fledged card carrying member of legal. I have come over to Legal, I have the substack where we're live reportings and 10 different postings a day and you can become a paid member. It's relatively inexpensive. It's like seven bucks a month, not a week. And I assure you I'm focused on the quality of the content there, so it far surpasses that price. And then we've got our sponsors and here's another word from our sponsors. If you notice more hair in your brush lately, you're not imagining it. Seasonal shedding and breakage really pick up when the weather turns cooler and drier. I've seen it myself. But OneSkin's OS1 hair can help. This is a scalp serum powered by their patented OS1 peptide and it works by targeting the cells in your hair follicles that contribute to shedding, thinning and slower hair growth. OS1 hair can actually reactivate the hair growth cycle and promote thicker, fuller and denser hair. The clinical studies behind it are impressive. After six months, people saw a 43% increase in hair thickness and a 40% increase in hair density, along with less shedding and more fullness. The science is real and people are seeing results born from over 10 years of longevity research. One Skin's OS1 peptide is proven to target the cells that cause the visible signs of aging. So your scalp and your hair stay healthy now and as you age, go to Oneskin Co Hair. That's Oneskin Co Hair and use code legal AF for 15% off your first order. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please tell them we sent you that's Oneskin Co and use code legal AF for 15% off in this crazy upside down world that we're working to make sense of, I have no better judge of character than my lab border collie, Lily. And having given her her forever home, we take pride in making sure that we feed her healthy fresh dog food while making sure we don't break our back or the bank doing so. And my family is thrilled to have found sundaes for Lily, having tried other freezer box brands and we noticed the improved health of our dog almost right first. She loves the flavor and we love what it's done to her coat, eyes and breath. And with her weight management so much easier to manage her weight with a scoop of sundaes than any other product we tried. And this product is super easy for us to store and serve. It doesn't require refrigeration or the delivery of dozens of pounds of ice packs. Sundaes is fresh dog food made from a short list of human grade Ingredients. Sundaes contains 100% all natural meat and superfoods and 0% synthetic nutrients or artificial ingredients. Dog parents report noticeable health improvements in their pups including softer fur, fresher breath, better poops and more energy after switching to sundaes. Unlike other fresh dog foods, Sundays does not require refrigeration or preparation because of their air drying process. Just pour and serve. Cancel or pause your subscription anytime. With their 14 day money back guarantee, every order ships right to your door so you'll never worry about running out of dog food again. Did I mention how easy and convenient it is to store the bags? Insert Big Wife smile here. Get 40% off your first order of Sundays. Go to sundaysfordogs.com legal AF or use code legal AF at checkout. Welcome back to Legal AF, the leading law and politics podcast. According to the YouTube rankings. I love saying something like that. Let's continue with Pam Bondi. Not because we want to, but because we have to. It's like a train wreck. You can't look at it. You can't look away whenever she, whenever she is so incompetent, obscenely unqualified for that job. Say what you want about Merrick Garland, you know, he was a little bit slow on the trigger. He was, oh, he's not moving fast enough. But, you know, he was at least an adult. He at least had, he at least had gravitas. We felt like we may not agree with the direction of every aspect of the Department of Justice, but he didn't, he didn't preside over the destruction of the Civil Rights Division, the Public Integrity Unit. Everything about counterintelligence. He didn't fire 5,000 people, the best and the brightest that you could never get back. You know, it's hard to believe we're looking back at the halcyon days, the golden era of Merrick Garland. I said she was going to be this bad. We all said it. And now it's on full display. So she gets the point. Karen. Just to set the stage where it, maybe she wasn't ready. It was one of these softballs that like bounced off her forehead because I don't think Kennedy thought this was going to be a difficult line of questions. Epstein's back, right? And the problem is that somebody I used to work with named Howard Lutnick back in the day decided to go on and give an interview on a. On a podcast. Who in their right mind goes on a podcast? But he decided, and the one he wanted to go on was Pod Force One, that's owned by Rupert Murdoch in the New York Post. I'm like, what could go wrong? So he starts admitting things that, frankly, I. Not that I would ever know it anyway, but I hadn't even heard in the media, which is not only did he live next door, as we knew, and bought the house from Jeffrey Epstein, and they shared a wall because they had adjoining townhouses, but he went into the house in 2005, saw the massage table with his. With his wife Allison, I'm talking about Howard, and was, like, creeped out by what was going, like, suspected wrongdoing, and then didn't say anything about it. It's a guy who had children living next door. He saw. It's like. It's like you live next door to a serial killer, and you see the hitchhikers going in but not coming out, and you don't call the authorities. So that's a problem. Then he all of a sudden turns in the interview, and I have it up in a video on legally, off YouTube. He turns in the interview to start talking about, oh, yeah, everybody that knew Epstein was a participant in Bill Gates. He said Bill Gates, like Donald Trump. I mean, he didn't say Donald Trump. So everybody that knew Jeffrey Epstein, who was his best friend and was socialized with, participated in all the depraved child sex trafficking. Is that what you're trying to say? And then he turns to Jeffrey Epstein was. Is. Was the greatest blackmailer of all time. And then continues. Karen. And says he is sure that because he's a broker, in his mind, there was a trade. He probably traded the videos of important people like his boss having sex with raping girls with the prosecutors in Miami to get that Sweetheart deal of 17 months. How did he get that deal? Howard speculated. Well, that is completely counter to the FBI's position. Kash Patel swore under oath that there's nobody else involved. The only one that was child sex trafficked. It was only to Jeffrey Epstein, or I would prosecute it. That's not what Howard Lutnick says. So. And you've done prosecution related to this type of thing, right?

Karen Freeman (64:30)

Oh, yeah. I mean, I wanted to ask him so many questions of that interview, Right? Like he was saying, oh, he's the greatest blackmailer of all time. Really? How do you know that? Because you just said after that one time that you went in there with your wife and was creeped out. You never talked to him again and never saw him again. So either you saw something or people told you. Right. What was going on. Like he had very specific information that I would just, would love to know more of. Where did he get that and how did he know that? And why didn't he say anything about it?

Michael Popok (65:00)

As you said, why would. Well, you might get your chance because here's a clip of Senator Kennedy asking very similar questions as my podcast partner and friend, Karen freeman. Agniphilo to one Pamela Joe Bondi. Roll it.

D (65:14)

Secretary Howard Lutnick on October 1st gave an interview to the New York Post about Mr. Epstein, and he described Mr. Epstein as, quote, the greatest blackmailer ever, close quote. Have you reviewed that transcript of that interview?

C (65:35)

I have not reviewed the transcript, but.

Michael Popok (65:36)

I saw the clip of it.

D (65:38)

Okay. It, it appears that that Secretary Lutnick was, was Mr. Epstein's next door neighbor. In fact, their, their, their town homes shared a wall. And, and the, the reporter that was asking, talking to Mr. Lutnick, she asked how, how other prominent men could have been associated with Epstein when Mr. Lutnick could immediately sense that he was a, quote, pervert. And then Secretary Lutnick said, or rather the reporter said, did they see it and ignore it? Do you remember that from the interview?

Karen Freeman (66:21)

I do.

D (66:23)

And Commerce Secretary Lutnick said, no, they participated. And then Commerce Secretary goes on to say, quote, that's what his M.O.

Karen Freeman (66:39)

Was.

D (66:40)

You know, get a massage. Get a massage. And what happened in that massage room, I assume was a video. This guy was the greatest blackmailer ever. Blackmailed people. That's how he had money. End quote. Is that true.

C (67:00)

Senator? Is. Our July memo said we did not uncover evidence. This case has gone through three administrations.

Karen Freeman (67:08)

As well as former U.S. attorney.

D (67:12)

I know that, Pam, but have you, have you interviewed Secretary Lutnick?

C (67:16)

No.

D (67:16)

Senator, you plan to.

C (67:19)

If he wants to talk to the FBI or the FBI wants to talk to him, that is more than.

D (67:23)

Don't you think you ought to talk to him after this interview?

C (67:26)

Senator, if Howard Lutnick wants to speak to the FBI and if Director Patel wants to speak to Howard Lutnick, absolutely.

D (67:33)

Okay. Maybe we ought to get Mr. Lutnick in here too, Mr. Chairman.

Michael Popok (67:39)

Maybe we ought to get Mr. Lutnick in here too, Mr. Chairman. That is not what Pam Bondi wanted to hear. But this is an administration that operates with impunity and has a tone deafness about them, that they're in some rarefied world, that they're untouchable because their fearless leader is. If you were to piece. But they don't have immunity. He does. They might have future pardons in their back pocket, but they don't have immunity. See, Howard obviously was trying to spin the narrative about how he lived next door to what would have been a convicted child sex trafficker for so many years and threw in something nobody knew, nobody else knew about. The guy is dead. Nobody knew about the visit between Howard, Alice and his wife and Epstein. But Howard, but Howard had to like, keep talking away there. I was in the house, I saw the massage table. Well, if everybody that knew Epstein participated, like Bill Gates, because he, then why not Donald Trump? So he, he, he, he threw Trump under the bus. He destroyed Cash Patel's under oath statement that they found no credible evidence of anybody being involved other than Jeffrey Epstein. And, and I think Kennedy did his job whether he wanted to or not. And Bondi was left looking like a complete and utter nincompoop. What did you think, Karen?

Karen Freeman (69:10)

I mean, the crazy thing about that hearing and about Pam Bondi is if she had evidence that absolved or exonerated people like Donald Trump, she would be presenting it, she'd be waving it, she'd be have it on big poster boards. But instead she says, oh, I'm just not gonna answer those questions. I'm not gonna tell you whether or not we have this or I didn't see the file or I don't know anything. And so all of the different things that she was asked that she was completely evasive, like the $50,000 for Tom Homan in the bribe or all of the Epstein questions about was, was there a picture with Trump was, you know, all the different things that they were, that they were asking about Levitt about, about all the specifics that she just kept deflecting and refusing to answer and instead attacking them and saying things like, Tom Homan is a, he's a. I forgot what she called him. But, you know, she went on about how great he is and how he's protecting our borders and, you know, how he's this loyal, upstanding American. You know, if she had evidence that he didn't do it, you'd be damned. I would give you any amount of money, I would say, I would bet that she would absolutely be waving that exonerating evidence at the hearing to exonerate all of those people, including Donald Trump. When it comes to Jeffrey Epstein. So the fact that she was deflecting, refusing to answer, giving these canned answers, and then saying things like, no, you're the one taking dark money or you owe Donald Trump an apology for defaming him, doing that kind of stuff, it doesn't help her and it certainly doesn't help Trump or any of the other individuals. It just makes them look more guilty because she is the one who no one believes she hasn't looked in these files. No one believes that she hasn't seen all of the evidence, that she hasn't seen everything that's in all of those files. She's not. That she's not incompetent in that regard. Of course she knows what's in there. And so the fact that she isn't saying that it's not that they're innocent and that there's evidence of innocence in there, I would read into that in a big way because that to me is more telling. She is the person in the note. And so that, that. I just thought it looked so terrible on the administration, her testimony, and I think it really backfired.

Michael Popok (71:35)

I agree with you. And she said, well, Secretary Lutnick wants to talk to the FBI. The FBI wants to. What are you effing talking about? Even Kennedy was like, maybe we need to bring Lutnick in and put him under oath. How about that? And again, the Epstein stain, the stench of the Epstein cover up scandal continues to follow this administration around because Donald Trump, Trump refuses to level with the American people about his relationship, about their financial ties, if there were any. And to release the files because there are embarrassing things in it. You know, if there were nothing in there about him that was embarrassing, they'd already be out. It'd be published in a book by Heritage Foundation Press. Right. They'd be doing a rally about it. But no. So we have to conclude just like we would in court. Look, look, if a party fails to produce documents or information or spoliates them, destroys them, a judge and a jury can conclude through an adverse inference that the documents that are missing are not helpful and are harmful to the position of the party that's withholding the documents. Okay, Nation Trump is withholding the documents. We can therefore make an adverse inference that anything. They're not helpful, they're harmful. And that's. So let's move on. But no, I'd like to also. I'd also like to see the Epstein files. So the Supreme Court opened for business and two oral arguments already in the books. One involving conversion therapy. Why Is it always. It's always Christians that are trying to not. Not bake a cake or not build a wedding website for gays or wanting to do therapy that it's documented by the medical and psychological professions is harmful to people to try to change them back, stop have them stop being gay or whatever it is, or transgender. And the fight was over as First Amendment speech that the patient has the right to hear the conversion therapy and the Christian therapist has the right to offer their opinions and open up the hood of the person's mind and monkey around in there and make it worse. And the question is, is that true or not? Is that right or not? What was your takeaway from the majorities Maga6 and how they handled that oral argument?

Karen Freeman (74:14)

Yeah, so like this. This came about as a therapist in Colorado who, this hadn't happened to her yet. But theoretically, if she wanted to do this conversion therapy or this pray away the gay therapy as, as I like to call it, that there's a law in Colorado, like in 20 other states that says you're not allowed to do this conversion therapy, that it's actually harmful. And the MAGA justices basically are reviewing this from a First Amendment standpoint. They're saying, no, that law banning this conversion therapy is infringing on the First Amendment freedom of religion rights and speech rights of this therapist and the patients who she claims. And by the way, this law only applies to minors. So it's really the parents who would have to consent to this on behalf of their kids. So if it's a First Amendment, if this is a First Amendment right, and that's the analysis they were trying to adopt here, then it's a, then any law that infringes upon First Amendment right has to go through the highest level of strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny. It's a very high standard. And that's where they, I think if they adopt that standard, they're going to say, potentially I think they're going to rule that the law is unconstitutional. But what really bothered me me about this is how is this First Amendment right? This isn't. I just don't see this as a First Amendment issue. This is medical treatment, right? This is not speech. No one's saying she can't go out and speak openly about her religion and her beliefs and that she's anti gay. It's a matter of her administering a medical procedure. And mental health therapy is. It is a medical procedure that you are giving to somebody. And it made me think to myself, it's interesting how they want to give Her a First Amendment right or therapists, a First Amendment right to be able to try and do this. What has been proven to be a harmful medical procedure on somebody, but yet they won't then for transgender care, when a doctor and a patient make a decision that they want to take drugs or have surgery to change their body. Right. Children who want to do that, who make that very difficult decision to undergo that, but it is a decision that is not protected, right. That, no, we're going to regulate that. That's a harmful medical procedure to me. This is no different and should be treated the same. And the fact that they're going to say, oh, no, no, you can do this harmful thing, like, you can't have it both ways. But so it's clear to me what's happening is, look, this is the separation of church and state no longer exists. And the Supreme Court, the MAGA right, is bringing their religious views into and their conservative MAGA religious views into the court. And they are going to make legal arguments to fit what their ideological viewpoint is, because it is inconsistent, in my view, to apply one standard for one and one for another. I mean, therapy isn't speech. It's treatment. It's a medical treatment. And so. But I think, I mean, I don't have a crystal ball, but I think that there's a chance that, you know, that she wins and that the rights of LGBTQ people are really, really put back and it's really harmful. You know, it's. There's been studies that talk about how this conversion therapy can be very harmful and can actually be worse. Right. For people who then could want to consider suicide or other really harmful acts, because you're being told that who you are, there's something wrong with you. And it's really sad. This case makes me sad.

Michael Popok (78:33)

Yeah. And there's a MAGA majority to find on First Amendment grounds that conversion therapy bans in 22 states, including Colorado, violate the First Amendment under strict scrutiny. And I think that's what the ruling is going to be. Just managing expectations here. As we roll into the second case, which was a case on its face, the merits of the case is about whether states like Illinois and other places can extend the time for a post mark ballot postmarked on the day of the election, but received up to 12 or 14 days later because the mail sucks, especially overseas mail, is unconstitutional or not. Does it violate. Does it fundamentally have a state, through its rules, change the essence of the election and the day of the election election, which is set by Constitution. I mean, Donald Trump wants an election day. He doesn't want early voting, he doesn't want mail in voting. He doesn't except when he was using it himself back in the day. Absentee voting, all the things that are he sees as an advantage the Democrats. He wants good old fashioned stand in line like you know, back in the day. Yeah, because like when I first started voting. You too, Karen. There wasn't early voting. There was mail in, but there was absentee and there was mail in. It was strict. But you had to like go down to the firehouse and stand in line. You got to a giant. Okay kids, gather around. It's gonna be his history lesson. You went to this giant gray metal cabinet from like the 1960s or 50s that it was mechanical, not electronic. You went in, you, they, they, they closed the curtain. You pushed, you switched to switch. They closed the curtain and you went down with levers on a, on a paper ballot that was thread through the back of the machine and you hit your switches. Then there was one big giant switch. You sure you're ready to vote at the top? Yes. And then that ballot got dumped into the bottom of this giant machine and locked away until they collected all the ballots. That's, that was voting. And Donald Trump likes to want to go back to a version of that because Democrats always have an advantage of getting souls to the polls and getting ballots and all that. So that's the merits. But that's not what was on full display in the oral argument because there this was a procedural question as to whether a candidate who didn't lose by a little, but lost by a lot could still have standing the legal right to challenge who has the right I guess is a better way to put it. And bring, who can bring a lawsuit to challenge things like a state's election laws, which they're allowed to do by federal constitution about whether it conflicts with another aspect of the constitution or not. Who is the injured party? And you had a couple of people who challenged, you know, MAGA Trumpers, but they didn't suffer any harm on the mail in ballot problem because they didn't lose by the difference of the mail in ballots. And Paul Clement, who's kind of come out and helped a lot of targets of Donald Trump. Trump as a former solicitor general for George Bush, he was on the side of these people. He tried to frame it as the campaign continuing for an additional 12 days. The postmark has to be the day of the election, it has to be in the bag. You're not campaigning to change the hearts and minds of people waiting for their votes to come in. They should have already voted. But what was your impression of how that's gonna go down with the Maga 6?

Karen Freeman (82:18)

I mean, I think that's first of all, I think that's a weird argument, you know, because as the circumstances circuit below said, look, that was your choice to keep campaigning two weeks afterward. You know, no one said you had to do that. As you said it had to be postmarked by the day. I mean, look, there's some interesting questions because on the one hand, you know, you don't want to make the rules harder for bringing election law challenges. But on the other hand, if it make it too easy, you'll flood the courts with a gazillion lawsuits and you'll never have, you'll never have results of any election. So, you know, it's a tricky case. The whole thing about mail in ballots, I mean, that's just going to impact so many people who are in the military, who are overseas. It's going to impact so many people. But this is just, the fight continues on. You know, this is all about Donald Trump's crazy assertion that the election was stolen and he's so anti mail in ballots. So we'll see, we'll see whether the, whether the, you know, whether MAGA is going to try to, whether the maga. Right. Supreme Court majority, which is really what they are at this point, what they're going to do and whether they're going to continue to do Trump's bidding or not. But I could see them, I could see them here. I think the argument that having too many lawsuits and never having elections be finalized, I could see that carrying the day ultimately because, you know, well, I don't know.

Michael Popok (83:45)

I'm not a trust, I'm not as trusting as you are. I think they're going to, they're going to allow, they're going to widen the net of who can, who has standing to bring these types of lawsuits and they're going to, they're going to loosen up the reins of injury and not require that a person show that their, the election outcome for their election would have been different based on the mail in ballot or whatever election rule that we're talking about. I think there's no doubt in my mind that they're going to instruct federal courts below them to be, to loosen up the ropes about standing, even though standing is the most fundamental thing. You see, we've talked about this before, right, Karen, with our audience, when the administration, it's all reverse Engineering. When they don't want to reach something that would be helpful to, like the liberal side or the Democratic side, they say, well, we'd love to help you, but this case we have to dismiss because there's no standing for the people that have brought it. Sorry, it's a nice case. Probably would have helped a lot of people in America, but you don't have standing. And then you gotta go scramble to go find somebody who does have standing. But here they're like, yeah, go ahead.

Karen Freeman (84:59)

No, I was gonna say that. That could be. That's what they should say to the therapist in Colorado. Right. There's no case in controversy there. She wasn't, she wasn't. It wasn't like she was disciplined for providing this therapy.

Michael Popok (85:11)

I mean, how about the website designer? She didn't even have a company. It was a fictitious company that she didn't even have up and running. She never designed a website in her life.

Karen Freeman (85:19)

Yeah, they, they bend the rules when.

Michael Popok (85:23)

Yes, they make them up. And when they can't find one in the toolbox, you know, like when you're in your garage or whatever, you know, and you're looking for something, you're like, God damn it, I wish I had that. They just make it up.

Karen Freeman (85:31)

Up.

Michael Popok (85:32)

They're like, oh, I wish there was a rule that we could. Who could create that? Right? We can. That. Like when you're too close to an election, you can't. Okay, the Purcell Doctrine, people are like, that must have come from, sprung from the head of our framers at the Constitutional Convention. Like, no, originalism, textualism, Right. Oh, we must divine the, the meaning of what our framers said. Oh, that must have been part of the Constitution, right? No, it's made up bullshit that didn't even take root until the 1980s with people like Robert Bork carried forward by Alito until they got enough maga6 to get a majority. It's all made up shit. That's why people have no confidence in the United States Supreme Court. And then as we've talked about in the shadow docket, they don't even bother explaining themselves anymore. They've reached the point where they're just like, just take our word for it.

Karen Freeman (86:29)

It.

Michael Popok (86:30)

This is the, this is the ruling. What is it based on? We're not going to tell you. Where's the logic? Well, that's for another day. Where's the analysis? Where's the precedent being used? Well, you know that, that's just getting in the way. As the Sam Alito once said during an oral argument let's not get bogged down in the facts of this case. I was like, what are you even, are you just admitting out loud that you don't even care to be in appellate court anymore? You're just issuing advisory opinions that try to bind us. I mean, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court all getting aside is a serious, serious matter, which is why the next administration, hopefully with a big D next to its name, needs to address that. We need Supreme Court reform and federal court reform. There is no doubt in my mind now that in order to avoid a future Trump or series of Trumps, we have to, whenever we grab the reins of power, we're going to have to pack the court. To quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we need 15 seats, we need to add six more to balance this out and get a nine to six majority of free thinking people. And then, you know what? Give me and you a shot. We've had generations, three generations of complete Republican control of the United States Supreme Court. You know, the presidency, sometimes we get it, sometimes we don't. The full House, the Senate. We haven't had the Supreme Court led by Democrats in like 75 years. Give us a shot, folks. Let's pack the court, let's get 15 or more on there, and let's return civility to American life. What do you say?

Karen Freeman (88:13)

I mean, it would be nice to just have also judges who just actually interpret the law like, you know, it's just.

Michael Popok (88:21)

You cockeyed optimist, Karen. And not happening in this world. We just got to play by the new rules and, and, and, and beat them at their own, at their own game. I mean, you know, to you, to use a sports metaphor, you know, Florida teams are winning the, the, the Stanley Cup. You know, who would have thought ice hockey in Florida, all right, we've been given the rules. We got to beat them at their own game. Yes. Keep our ethics, keep our morality, but stop with the niceties and stop with the. I'd like to even see sharper questioning in the Supreme Court. I'd like to see a better job being done by the legal counsel that supply a lot of the cross examination questions to the senators and the congresspeople. I mean, some of them are former prosecutors, so they know what they're doing. But I could have seen a stronger cross examination. And the problem with even the senators, Karen, is that they're so like, sort of suffused in the traditions of the Senate and all that, that even when they get a lying sack of, you know what, like Pam Bondi in front of Them, they can't switch gears quick enough. You and I in court, you and I'll come in with our rough outline of how we'd like to do a witness or handle a certain legal issue. And then in the fog of war, you know, it all gets lost, and you've got to quickly. You gotta quickly pivot. You gotta throw away your outline, take your legal pad. I once had a case, Karen, where in the middle of my opening in front of a jury, the judge stopped me, called us all up to the podium and said, you can't make the defense that you're making. I said, excuse me. They said, no, I'm gonna make a ruling now. I'm gonna grant this other motion that had been floating around for years. And you now have to redo your entire opening statement. I'll give you two hours at a lunch break. So I'm there on a yellow pad in a diner in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Like, pages were like flying in the air. It was like a Tasmanian devil. But I pulled it together and I gave an effing opening and we won the case. And I want to see a little bit more of that when the Senate and the House get their mitts and their grips into cabinet members like RFK Jr. And Pete Hegseth and Pam Bondi. We better be learning from what's going on in these rooms just as they are.

Karen Freeman (90:44)

Yeah, I mean, I hope you're right. But what we've seen so far is all the administration, all they do is obstruct. They do not answer questions. So no matter how good the questions are, no matter how strong and sharp they are, the administration just doesn't. Just refuses to comply and refuses to participate and just deflects. And I think we hold it against them.

Michael Popok (91:05)

Them.

Karen Freeman (91:06)

And if I was one of the senators, I would say so. I would basically say so. If you had evidence that this did not happen, I assume you would bring it here. Right. And she's have to answer that. Right. I assume if there's no evidence of Donald Trump in the Epstein files, you would tell us. Right? I mean, you have to bait her into answering some questions. And I agree with you. They have to get better at it, but they have to figure out a way to. To get the questions answered. They just do.

Michael Popok (91:34)

And I think hopefully, you know, a lot of them are fans of Legal af. Sheldon Whitehouse is going to be on Legal AF tomorrow, being interviewed by Adam Klassfeld of All Rise News with us here on Legal af. And, you know, we've had a number of these people on and and Jamie Raskin's been on with us on Legal af. And, and that is I hope Adam.

Karen Freeman (91:55)

Doesn'T say Popak thinks you should ask better questions.

Michael Popok (91:58)

No. But I did write a note to Adam that said that I was disappointed. I want him to tell Senator Whitehouse that I was disappointed when he asked the questions about the photographs that that have been that were in Epstein's house of Donald Trump with girls on his lap. That they didn't also use the Legal AF video that they that Jamie Raskin and Ted Lieu used two weeks earlier in the house. Like, oh, here's our moment. Legal A F is going to be back in the hearing room.

Karen Freeman (92:26)

Room.

Michael Popok (92:26)

No. So no, that was, you know, Adam will do a great job. And Sheldon's a friend of Legal Layoff. He's very close. People may not know this, but one of the great contributors on Legal AF is Court Accountability Action, led by Alex Aronson and Lisa Graves. Lisa Graves has a brand a beautiful new book out. She's been sounding the alarm about John Roberts for like 30 years and finally wrote a book called Without Pressing President about John Roberts being a Trojan horse and what he's doing to destroy America. It's a beautiful book. It's required reading for Legal A offers that she's with Court Accountability Action. But Alex Aronson was Sheldon Whitehouse's chief legal counsel on Capitol Hill, and they have a very close relationship. And he's often with us over on Legal AF as well as we're trying to bring newsmakers and the lawyers that are in the courtroom all together in one place, in one ecosystem system. Karen, we're at the end. What do you what do you got? What do you got for the audience?

Karen Freeman (93:22)

You know, tonight's episode makes me want to go have a glass of Willamette Valley Pinot Noir, because I'm just thinking back to my times in Oregon and there's just no better wine than is from the Willamette Valley.

Michael Popok (93:35)

So I saw your I was going to say earlier, I'm wearing blue, you're wearing red. But it's more like wine. So maybe it's more red where you are are. But if you're around next, a week from Saturday, I'm going to be in San Diego doing a live Legal AF hot take interview of Rob Bond of the attorney general on the stage at a thing called Lottie Gras, which is a bunch of lawyers getting together. And he's one of the keynotes. And I'm going to be doing an interview of him. But the next day, there's a podcast called Bourbon of Proof. Do you drink bourbon?

Karen Freeman (94:14)

I do not.

Michael Popok (94:15)

Okay. Bourbon of Proof. It's run by a lawyer named Robert Simon. And there's gonna. We're gonna do a crossover episode, Bourbon of Proof meets Legal af on a. On a, like a music stage where they're gonna have DJs, house music DJs later in the day. I think it may end up being like a, like, you know, drunk Shakespeare. It could be like drunk Legal af. I think it's really fun.

Karen Freeman (94:35)

I think it sounds fun, right?

Michael Popok (94:37)

So look for that. Look for that. Starting next week, we're actually going to do the Rob Bonta interview and we'll put it up soon as a live so people kind of get used to us doing live feeds like that. And we're so pleased to have people like Rob coming on Legal AF and so supportive of everything that we do here, as I am of you and all of your great work. We've reached the end of another episode of Legal AF, the number 25 ranked podcast on Legal A on YouTube weekly rankings, just out today. And that's all a testament to your support. We really do appreciate all of it. So shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal A effers.