Karen Friedman Agnifolo (5:33)

I know, I know. I feel so bad I had to miss last week, but I'm in the middle of what's turning out to be. It was supposed to be a several day hearing, is now a several week hearing. It's about three weeks long. So it's good to be back in court, though. It's going to be back in the well and fighting the good fight.

Michael Popak (5:48)

Yeah. Tell us more. I'm sorry. So let's, let's talk about Epstein.

Michael Popak (5:56)

So a month or so ago or less than that, the Donald Trump, seeing the writing on the wall, finally got behind the Epstein Transparency act, which requires everything that's in the possession of the Department of Justice, like the trial files for the indictment and prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell that just happened a couple of years ago. And whatever they had left over in Epstein to have it released. And they have all of it. They must have all of it. But they've been running around to courts, Karen, trying to get grand jury transcripts and they tried that in the summer and to try to get files and protective orders that were in place to have them modified so they can make releases and all that. So in the last week, they went in front of Judge Rodney Smith in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, about the original prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein down in the Southern District of Florida. They went before Judge Engelmeier, who's presiding over all things Ghislaine Maxwell, and they went to Judge Berman, who's presiding over all things Jeffrey Epstein in New York. And this is the same, well, two out of the three are the same group they went to in July. And at the time, without the Epstein law being signed by Trump, the judges were like, no, we're bound by Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We can't give you the grand jury transcripts. And by the way, there's nothing really in the grand jury transcripts. Go release the files that are with the executive branch. But now there's been a change because of that act. So why don't you update our audience as to what happened with Judge Engelmeier and now with Judge Berman today and why this is a another step towards.

Michael Popak (7:38)

Dignity for the survivors and the victims of the child sex trafficking ring run by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and covered up by Donald Trump.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (7:50)

Well, I think what's great is we're finally going to get to see the grand jury minutes from the two grand jury presentations that happened. The one in Florida, the original one where Jeffrey Epstein was indicted and prosecute, was supposed to be prosecuted for sex trafficking, but then was given this sweetheart deal and barely served any time at all. And I think he was like a misdemeanor, even that he, that he was able to plead to. It was just this ridiculous deal.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (8:20)

And I think we're going to finally get to see what was in that as well as I think was going to be a much more sweeping grand jury presentation of Ghislaine Maxwell that happened many years later. The case where she was ultimately prosecuted and convicted and where she's serving time. Interestingly, though, in federal grand juries, hearsay is allowed, which means you don't have to hear from the original speaker of the witness. You don't have to have the victims don't testify. Like in state court in New York, you would have to have the actual victims would have to testify. And you get a lot more information in that type of grand jury presentation. But in federal court, hearsay is allowed. And so typically they only have one witness come in and testify. It's just the case agent who comes in and describes and summarizes the whole thing. So the grand jury minutes, I think being released is a big step forward because we will see what the prosecutors relied on, what their theory was, what the evidence was, what the nature of everything that happened was. Now, with Ghislaine Maxwell, I think it's going to be a lot less of a surprise because as I said, she was ultimately tried, there was a trial, and so we know what all that evidence is. So this is just going to be the transcripts of the agent that indicted her originally. But the Jeffrey Epstein case, I think will be interesting and the two together, I think, will paint a picture of what the investigation was. The prosecutors, though, are going to have a lot more information than just what are in those two grand jury presentations, because as I said, those are just one witness, the case agent that comes in and summarizes it. What they don't do is give you all of the investigatory steps that they took and they don't talk about the cases, for example, or the, the victims, where they couldn't, where they decided not to bring charges against Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell or the other individuals that they investigated that were also predators who were also sexually assaulting these young girls. That's all going to be in the files of the prosecutors as well as the backup material, any emails that they have, phone records, anything that they recovered in search warrants, the computers belonging to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, icloud warrants. If they backed anything up into icloud, everything they've ever written, texted about, all of that, that's all going to be in these case files. Things like anything recovered in a search warrant. So if there was any evidence that they were covered in the search warrant, again, all that stuff is going to be in the case files. The grand jury, by its definition is a bare bones presentation that just gives you enough to get an indictment. It is certainly not the full evidence that is going to be used at trial. And the full evidence used at trial is again, only the tip of the iceberg of the investigation. And so the investigation that all the things that they did do, and frankly, the things they didn't do, the people they talked to, the people they gave deals to, the people that they chose not to prosecute, etcetera, all of that is going to be in the files that the Justice Department has, the prosecutor's files. So although we're going to see grand jury materials, yes, that's definitely a good thing. It's really not the, it's not the, it's not the big thing. What we really need to see is the full investigatory case file and Department of Justice hopefully will release it. But the problem is this Epstein law gives them a huge, a huge yes, but if there's an investigation, we can hold some stuff back. And then they suddenly, they announced these investigations. You know, first, first Pam Bondi says, I've looked at the list. Well, first she says, there's a list, it's sitting on my desk. And that's all referring to all the, the people who were on Epstein's list. Right, the other predators. Then she says, oh, there's no list. And then she says, well, I've looked at all of, I've studied the files and there's no one else to prosecute. And now sud, before they pass this Epstein's Law, they announce investigations into certain Democrats only who they say, oh, we have to investigate them because they might be guilty in the Epstein scandal. And I fear they're going to use that as an excuse to withhold certain documents saying, well, there's a pending criminal investigation. We can't possibly release this without hurting the investigation. So they really talk about they really are not consistent, putting it mildly. And they're going to look for any excuse to withhold certain information. It's just a matter of how they're going to do it or what they're going to call it. But for anyone, if anyone says, well, they released the grand jury minutes, oh, so Trump is transparent. He's released all this information. The grand jury minutes are really not that much. And so that's not going to be really what people want to see or what's going to give transparency to this case and put this to bed, finally.

Michael Popak (13:35)

Yeah, I agree with you. I think I like to see the trial file that was used by Maureen Comey to prosecute Ghislaine Maxwell. They've always had it at the Department of Justice. They didn't need, maybe they needed a modification of the protective order that Judge Nathan had put in place. But most of what we're going to see we've, we've seen publicly already. It was very, the, the trial was reported on, including by Legal AF every day. Anything that came out of it that was interesting, we talked about. So if anybody's thinking there's, there's going to be some, some secret trove of information that we've never seen before, that's not going to happen. And I do appreciate Judge Engelmeier, who spent a considerable amount of time, unlike Judge Smith and even Judge Berman, and said, you know what? I want to do a couple things with my order. Yes, I'm going to release the files because I do believe that the act.

Michael Popak (14:29)

Sort of takes precedent over Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. But let's remind everybody how we got here with Ghislaine Maxwell, shall we? And he walked through the five counts. What they were when the trial was the dozens of witnesses, the types of evidence that were used against her, the conviction, the sentencing, her appeal to the Second Circuit, her attempt at a rehearing at the Second Circuit, denied. And her attempt at an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, denied. And child sex trafficker all over his recitation of the facts related to Ghislaine Maxwell. He's speaking to many audiences, but one is, if anybody has been buying any of this horseshit, that Ghislaine Maxwell and her, I think, former lawyer, because she filed something in this particular case we're talking about, in which the lawyer said that his client or former client is going to be filing a pro se writ of habeas corpus to get out of jail in Texas, pro se means no lawyer. She's going to be her own jailhouse lawyer. Now, maybe because he watched again the transcript or listened to the transcript of his client testifying to Todd Blanche under oath and realized that she perjured herself. Maybe, maybe that, maybe a little bit of that we'll find out over time. But Judge Engelmeyer also used his order to excoriate and scorn and reprimand the Trump administration about the victims and protecting their identities. He's not concerned about. He doesn't want anything redacted related to Donald Trump. But he said, you know, the, the victims who have written letters to the court through their lawyers have a right to believe that they could be harmed again by a lackadaisical approach to blocking out their names and identifying information by the Department of Justice. So I'm going to make this easy, he said, and he says, and the government is miss and the government has misled in their filings. They filed motions in the summer to get these documents, and they never told the victims or the, the, the, the survivors that they were going to file the motion. And that's wrong. And they, and they told the world that, that the, all the truth about Epstein was going to be revealed in the, in the disclosure of the grand jury materials. And as you pointed out, Karen, that was wrong. So the judge said, here's what we're going to do. I'm going to name a human being to be personally responsible for redacting the names of these victims so I can hold somebody responsible. And he said, that person is Jay Clayton, who's the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. The same guy who may stand at a podium one day and say, well, we have an investigation ongoing, so I can't release any of these documents. But this judge is saying, you're, you signed this motion. You're going to be personally responsible to make sure that it's done correctly and run it past the victims before you release this stuff. And I understand you got to, you know, less 20 days left to get all this stuff out the door. But we'll have to see, just because we haven't heard leaks from the Department of Justice about whether they're going to hold back any documents based on investigations, active investigations or not, doesn't mean that they're not. So we'll have to just get closer in time to the actual date or deadline. And also the date or deadline, like so what, I mean, there was a date or deadline that was set by Congress to sell TikTok Donald Trump kept extending it. Don't be surprised if this, this Trump administration, Department of justice says, oh well, oops, we missed the deadline. Then what are you going to do about it? Then we got to file motions, then we got to file lawsuits, then we got, I mean, you know, this is a Congress isn't going to go after the presidency. They're not Congress isn't going to file a lawsuit to make him comply with their deadline. So somebody in the American people is going to do it, one of the public interest groups. And it's going to be months and more time and more time and more time. So I'm not buying that the Trump administration thinks there's a drop dead deadline and they have to comply because what's the penalty if they don't? So we'll continue to follow all that. We also Karen, I want to touch base on what happened with Judge Breyer when we come back from our break and his new ruling Chief Charles Breyer, the brother of former Supreme Court Justice Breyer, Stephen Breyer, about the not just about the federalization of the California National Guard, but about what he's been talking about in several of his decisions, the attempt by a president to abuse power by creating a standing army out of the state militia in violation of the 10th Amendment. He also ruled, and it has not been overturned, that Donald Trump violated the Posse Comitatus act in the past. And now he's basically said there is no rationale to extend the time by, by new, new order plot proclamation by the secretary of defense, the beleaguered Pete Hegseth, to keep troops on the ground in California. There's nothing going on in California that stops the ability of the president to execute on the laws with regular, with regular forces and support. He doesn't need the backup of the state militia. You know, he can't point to things that happened a year ago. This is what Judge Breyer is saying. So we're going to come back and talk about that new decision and what it means the 9th Circuit and the rest. Jeb Boasberg, chief judge of the D.C. circuit Court, gearing back up this contempt proceeding. And I want to talk with you, Karen, in our audience about what's going on with the attempt to re indict James Comey and and if Judge Kolar can tell, he is going to block it by denying the prosecution the ability to use the Daniel Richmond files. There's a cliffhanger in their next attempt at indictment and whether they can indict at all based on the statute of limitations but it's time to pay the bills. I guess that's the way to put it. Many ways to support what we do on Legal if.

Michael Popak (20:33)

Here on the Midas Touch Network, where we exclusively are, hit the subscribe button, help Midas, but then come over to Legal AF, the YouTube channel. We are 19,000 subscribers, which in our world is not that. And we should be able to get there in the next week or two, away from a million. And I'll be frank, the bigger we are, the more muscular and robust we are before 2026, the better off we all are going to be. And you can help. You may have forgotten. You think you subscribed. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. It's all free. Go over and check. You'll know right away. Hit the subscribe button there. And then we've got a Legal AF substack where we do live reporting, we do commercial free versions of things, we do a written reporting. We're up to 110,000 or more subscribers there and that and a paid membership which. Which unlocks a whole treasure trove of other material for about seven bucks a month, is a second way to support what we do on Legal af. And then you've got the, you know, just the podcast itself.

Michael Popak (21:38)

Apple, Spotify on the audio side, YouTube on the video side. We're regularly in the top 100 of YouTube podcasts. I think last week we were number 56. We bounce around in the audio side, depending upon how many audio listens we have and some other work that I do for legal AF, but we're usually in the top 200, 100. And that's all a testament to you and your fervent support of what we do. And then the last thing is our sponsors, and we're in the holiday season now and all of that. And we've curated these sponsors in collaboration with the Midas Touch brothers and Jordi and these. What. What's special about the sponsors is that, you know, we're not an easy pill to swallow from a content perspective in the YouTube universe. What I mean by that is we don't. We don't blow smoke or sunshine, and we have a point of view, you know. You know, I don't want to say this the wrong way. We're opinionated in a good way. We get into good trouble on an hourly basis on Legal af and here on the podcast. And that's not for everybody, that's not for every sponsor, you know, the free exercise of the First Amendment, but it is for this group. And so if you can spare some extra coin. And I know it's difficult in this economy. These are products that we liked, that we try, that we're, that we, that we take for a spin and that we, and that we appreciate. And we appreciate our sponsors because they help pay the bills to keep the lights on. People say, how do you. Who does this work? The editing of this lower third cry Cairo here and this thing, I'm sure I'm butchering everything and this thing over. How do we. Who what I'm saying, yeah, there's people behind the scenes, you know, there's. I roll off. As we get closer to Christmas and holidays, we'll roll off all their names. We'll do like a thing like at the end of a movie about all the people that help us here on Legal, AF and Midas Touch. But that's it. So here now is our first break with a word from our sponsors. I got a secret. I'm genuinely obsessed with my Lola blanket. I'm a blanket person and this has officially taken over my entire wind down routine. When I sit down at night to relax and put on whatever I'm watching, this is the blanket I reach for. My first reaction, pulling it out of the box was honestly, wow. The ultra soft faux fur and that four way stretch feel totally different from any blanket I've had. The design I chose fits perfectly with my space. And now I'm looking at my old blankets like, why do I still own these? The quality is next level luxury vegan faux fur machine, washable, double hemmed, no pilling or shedding even after repeated washes. It makes your whole space feel cozier instantly. For a limited time, our listeners are getting a huge 35% off their entire order at lolablankets.com by using code legalif at checkout. Just head to lolablankets.com and use code legalif for 35% off. After you purchase, they'll ask you, you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Wrap yourself in luxury with Lola Blankets one last time. Head to Lola Blankets.com and use code legal AF for 35% off. You know that nostalgic feeling of sitting at the breakfast table as a kid and pouring a giant bowl of cereal that just tasted amazing? Well, Magic Spoon has reinvented that feeling with cereal and treats that bring back the flavors you love, but in a way that actually fuels your day. Every serving of Magic Spoons high protein cereal packs 13 grams of protein, 0 sugar and 4 grams of net carbs. And the flavors straight out of your childhood, fruity cocoa and frosted. And then there are the Magic Spoon treats. Crispy, crunchy, airy and ridiculously satisfying. With 12 grams of protein in every bar. They come in mouth watering flavors like marshmallow chocolate, peanut butter and dark chocolate. Perfect on the go pre or post workout or even as late night snack. Here's how you try them. Get $5 off your next order at magicspoon.com legalaf or look for Magic Spoon on Amazon or in your nearest grocery store. That's magicspoon.com legalaf for $5 off. Welcome back and thank you to our audience. First for supporting all that we do on legal af for over five years and to support our pro democracy sponsors, let's dive in to Judge Charles Breyer. Breyer, the lesser known who sits in San Francisco senior status, probably on the edge of retirement. I think he's 81, but he's been cranking out some orders. It's the revenge of the senior status judges, as I like to joke, protecting our democracy, protecting our rule of law. He was the first one that ruled that Donald Trump had unconstitutionally and illegally under a delicate, a narrow delegation statute from Congress, who has the power to the president under unique circumstances to take over the National Guard. It's a congressional power. It's a war power. It's not a war power under the commander in chief. It's a power of Congress delegated to the president by statute we call 12406. And they have to be certain circumstances, rebellion, invasion. And I can't execute the laws like that. You know, and by the I can't execute the laws. That means I'm trying my hardest to execute the laws Congress has created because remember, Congress creates laws, but I can't do it using regular forces. Now we can have a debate about regular forces. What are they? Are they the local security forces? Are they law enforcement? Are they both? Are they the armed forces? We're going to get all that resolved soon with the Supreme Court. But he was the first judge that said you can't take over the state militia, cut out the governor and start roaming around with a national standing army in blue states. And you can't keep re upping it and reauthorizing it because our fear, and I think it's legitimate, is that Trump's going to keep troops on the ground in blue states through the midterms to scare the crap out of voters. Not that that's working very well for him. We flipped a seat in Georgia yesterday. We have A, the first female and the first Democrat mayor of the city of Miami, my hometown. Now, Eileen Higgins, we're flipping. You know, we, we flipped 20 seats three weeks ago. We're going to flip another 12 seats yesterday. This is not working for him. And no matter how many rallies in casinos in Pennsylvania he has, when he's supposed to be talking about affordability and Trump starts talking about transgender people again and Somalis and I guess transgender Somalis that are taking over the world. And why don't we let more Swedish and Norwegian people in instead of black people? I mean, he just says such crazy shit out loud that if your grandfather did that, you wouldn't. You be. He'd be kicked out of the home. You'd be like, I just got a call from the assisted living facility, dad, you're gonna have to come live with us because you're saying crazy shit. And yet he's the, he's the. He's the President of the United States. So Breyer was the first one. He had a couple. One of his orders reversed on appeal by the 9th Circuit, one that hasn't been. And now he's issued another preliminary injunction to kick out the National Guard under Donald Trump's control. Shout out to Gavin Newsom, Governor of California. Shout out to AG Rob Bonta, the Attorney General. I'm going to be interviewing him on Friday about this case. Karen, what did you. You got a chance to look at the order, the shock that he has, the quotations, citations to James Madison and the Federalist Papers. What did you make of this order and what he's trying to accomplish?

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (29:28)

Well, I have to say, Popo, when you suggested this topic as something we could talk about today, my first reaction was what the National Guard, they still have the National Guard in California. Nothing's going on in California. I mean, it's ridiculous. I mean, the fact that this is still an issue, that Trump still wants to have them, they're not. That it was ever justified. Cause it wasn't. But if it ever was justified, it's certainly not justified now. Nothing is happening. Nothing. And so this is just a big power play. Trump just wants to know he's going to appeal this order because he just wants to say, I can do it, I can do it if I want to. And I wanna have this up my slee. Whether he keeps them on the ground now or not, he wants to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court so that the Supreme Court can say president can call up the National Guards and federalize it whenever he sees fit. Whenever he thinks he needs it. And you're not allowed to question his judgment. If he says he needs it, then he needs it. And that's what this is about. This is a giant power play. But it can't be that way. You can't just say, oh, I absolutely. Just because I say I want it, then I get to have it. It's like he wants to. They're my toys. I get to keep them. And it's just interesting, because what Judge Breyer basically said was, look, no crisis lasts forever. And so even if it were justified at the time, not saying it was, you no longer can do that. You no longer have the authority. But this is going to be. This is a big power play that's going to play out on who gets to do this and when, and whether Trump can actually continue to keep them federalized for as long as he wants, and that only he gets to say when the crisis is over. But it's just the judges who live in these. I mean, Trump doesn't live in California, obviously, and he doesn't go to California hardly. The judges do. They drive to work every day. They drive to court. They know they can see with their own eyes what's happening, and they also see the record that's in front of them. They can't show any proof or any justification for this. So it'll just be interesting to see where the appellate court is.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (31:48)

Heading in this. But it's great to see judges like Judge Breyer really call out. And I think as they get older, they get a little less. They don't hold their words back. And so they. They say what. How they feel, and they make it very clear exactly how they feel. And so this decision didn't disappoint for sure.

Michael Popak (32:10)

Yeah. In fact, let me read from certain aspects of the order because. Really powerful and eloquent. Here's how it starts. First page. The founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one. Six months after they first federalized the California National Guard, defendants still retain control of approximately 300 guardsmen, despite no evidence that execution of federal law is impeded in any way, let alone significantly. What's more, defendants have sent California Guardsmen into other states, creating a national police force made up of state troops. In response to plaintiff's motion to enjoin this conduct, defendants take the position that after a valid initial federalization, all subsequent refederalizations are completely and forever unreviewable by the courts. It's contrary to the law and therefore the court enjoins the federalization of the California National Guard troops. He cites in the first footnote James Madison in the Federalist paper number 51, talking about how our system of government reflected in the Constitution creates three co equal branches of government that are supposed to grind against each other to ensure that we have the checks and balances that are required. On page 10, he lays it straight out, talking truth. Here's what Judge Breyer says. He says defendants nevertheless attempt to circumvent the scope of this law that I talked about, delegating the authority to the President under certain unique circumstances to take over the National Guard by characterizing the orders as extensions of federalizations which they argue are outside the statute's reach. Indeed, at the motion hearing itself, defendants confirm their position that after an initial federalization, all extensions of orders of the federalization orders are utterly unreviewable forever. And the judge says that is shocking. Adopting defendants interpretation of section 12406 would permit a president to create a perpetual police force comprised of state troops so long as they were first federalized lawfully. Such a scenario would validate the founders, quote, widespread fear of a national standing army which they believed, quote, posed an intolerable threat to individual liberty and to the sovereignty of the separate states. Citing a United States supreme court decision, Perpich versus Department of Defense from 1990. Now he's used that language before, Karen, in his first order and in his order about martial law, about calling out and ripping the mask off of what Donald Trump is trying to do, which is to have at his beck and call a national standing army? I mean, was there any doubt when he addressed the troops, the military brass that they pulled together at Quantico, when he walked around on the stage like he was some sort of demented George C. Scott in a remake of Patton and telling them here's a good idea, you can go practice your craft and go practice on US Citizens when you go into these s hole cities like Detroit and Illinois and blah blah, blah, it's just mind boggling. So what's going to happen? Judge said I'm going to stay my order on my own initiative until Monday. Get to the 9th Circuit. I'll have Rob Bonta on, on Friday, the Attorney General of California to talk about some of the what he can reveal about their strategy and tactics. They're gonna have to wait to see who the three judge panel is that's going to be assigned. One third of the ninth Circuit is comprised of Trump appointees And you know what? You know my old joke, how many, how many Trump appointees on a appellate panel does it take to screw up the Constitution? 2. And you know, we just had in the last 24 hours the, they got the band back together again. Judge Katzis at Judge RAO on the D.C. circuit Court. Two Trumpers got together and said, no, we think it's okay with Pete Hegseth did to drum out of the core and all of the military transgender soldiers and, and chastise the federal judge who had blocked it after finding bias animus in the decision making. That would have not been the case had there been two, you know, normal judges having been appointed. But this is what we're up against now. We got to sit around and wait to see what judges come in and then whether the Ninth Circuit en banc, the entirety of the Ninth Circuit. Well, at least the 11 people that make up the en banc panel, what they're going to do about it as we wait for the United States Supreme Court to get off their ass or whatever they sit on and generate their final order about this particular provision. We're still waiting for the Supreme Court to rule out something that came out of the Illinois court a couple of months ago. Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock. You know, just, and judges. But, but this just shows you the federal judges and appellate judges just have to chop wood and do their job. They can't wait around like, well, we'd love to get guidance from the Supreme Court on this issue. And we know there's a case. There's. But no, they have to do their job. And if they have to change it and modify it after the Supreme Court rules, okay, so be it.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (37:35)

Some people might be wondering, why should we care about this? There's only 100 National Guards left in California. Or they're drawing them down to 100. Right. But still, even so, it's not that many. Some people might say, who cares? Nothing's going on. So there's soldiers there. It matters. And it matters for the reasons you said earlier, Popak. It matters because if he has the ability to federalize them and keep them federalized, he can call them up anytime. And as you said, for the midterm elections, they can do it for election security and scare people off from the ballots from the voting booths. I mean, it's really, there are so many reasons why this is such an important battle to fight at this time. Even if they draw it down to 100, even if they draw it down to zero, the fact of the matter is he shouldn't be allowed to do this whenever he wants and keep it for as long as he wants, because then he can call anything an emergency or he can call anything something that he needs to be done and have this military, frankly, that he can then turn on US Citizens. So it's a really important issue. It's a great fight, and I'm glad that California is fighting it. And, you know, I just, I can't help but think that don't you wish that Trump's cabinet was actually focusing on things that the American people cared about and doing things that people cared about? I mean, when you look at Pete Hegson, Seth, who is complaining about how people in the military are dressing, or you look at the guy in charge of the transportation. Faa. Yeah. Saying people shouldn't wear pajamas on airplanes. Or did you see that Marco Rubio wants to spending time changing the typeface of letters going out because he doesn't like the typeface. He wants to go back to Times New Roman. I mean, it's just the fact the font. We're literally wasting time fonts because he doesn't like the font. He thinks the font that was used, that they use it was made more accessible for people who have dyslexia and things like that. It's just he doesn't like the font, so he's turning it back. And I'm just thinking there's just. They're not substantive. They're not substantive. They're not taking care of the American people and they're not spending our tax dollars doing things that matter.

Michael Popak (39:55)

Yeah. It's like the last season of succession, you know, where they, the patriarch looks at his kids and says, you're just not serious people. I could never turn over this company to you. Yeah, I love you, but you're not serious people. We have a whole series of not serious people that are in charge under this administration. And the electorate has woken up with a vengeance. I just read an article that there is Democratic groups that are going to try to flip 600 seats at state house races come the midterms. And 2028 they're targeting. Now people think that's a huge number. How are they ever going to do that? The Democrats lost 800 seats in the last 15 or 20 years. No, last 15 years in state House races. This is just getting back what we lost and flipping them back. And they think it's worth it now because the momentum and advantage is so in favor of the Democrats. Every time there's a special election, a runoff election, an election night in America in the last month, two months, it's always gone in favor of the Democrat. Even if they don't win, they bring the gap down to single digits in districts or in states or in areas where Donald Trump won by double digits. You know, you have Eileen Higgins, the commissioner Higgins, who's now the mayor elect of the city of Miami. It was a double digit win for Donald Trump, first time ever in Miami Dade county against Kamala Harris and in the city of Miami, you know, and never had a woman, a woman mayor, let alone, and I thought it was very interesting because it shows you how diverse the Democratic Party is. Whereas Jamie Raskin reminded an audience that I, that I co hosted, including Eileen Higgins a couple weeks ago. We got to reclaim the brand of the Democratic Party. We got to do what, what FDR used to call the Democratic Party. We've got to do what, what Andrew Jackson used to call the Democratic Party wasn't the Democratic Party, it was the democracy. We were the democracy and they were the republic or the plutocrats. And instead of saying, well, the Democratic Party believes this, you would say, instead, the democracy demands the following. And that meant the brand, the party and the democracy. Instead of letting the Republicans clip our name, clip the Democrats name and say the Democrat Party, it's the Democrat. It's not the Democrat Party, it's the Democratic Party. Just like we don't call you the Republic Party. And I say skip all that. Let's go back to the vocabulary, as Jamie Raskin pointed out at this rally of what we used to, of what the Democrats used to say. It's like they meaning the soon to be trillionaires like Elon Musk, they want this level of corruption and abuse. But the democracy demands, that's the vocabulary that we need to be using. Forget typefaces, forget fonts. That's the, we have to re, we have to grab that back, claw that back and it's, and it shows. I mean, look at the flip, flip, flipping that's going on in these races because people have a pent up demand to vote. You know, protesting in the street is great, all right. And getting a phone call or Internet, you know, tag about a polling, a poll that's going on, I guess is awesome. But there's nothing, there's nothing like showing up at a poll and pulling a lever, electronic or otherwise. And Donald Trump's, he's out. And where's the safest place I can go? Is there a casino in Pennsylvania? 3,000 people, can I go there? And they wheel him out. And if they think, the Republican Party thinks that's going to help campaigner in chief Donald Trump at midterms rambling on again, another version of Somalis and other black people from other countries eating pets is going to win the midterms as we focus on affordability. I mean, all Eileen Higgins talked about was public transportation and affordable housing and affordability. That was her entire campaign as a technocrat. She's really a technocrat. She's not a Democratic socialist. She's a proficient leader who can get things accomplished. And she didn't want, she didn't want to get sucked into the Trump by proxy debate, you know, that she's some sort of Democrat. She's taking on Donald Trump just wants to help the Miami people with affordability and with transportation, just like she did when she was a county commissioner. And so you have the Democratic socialist in the, in, in New York who won on affordability, affordability, affordability. You have the moderates in Mikey Sherrill in New Jersey, Governor Elect and Governor Elect Spamberger in Virginia who were part of the Mod Squad when they were in the House. And then you've got, you know, taken back the city of Miami in a City that's 70% Hispanic. We just had a white woman, she's known as La Gringa, affectionately in her community. She speaks, she also speaks Spanish. But this is remarkable. And then we just got to have the federal judges continue to hold the line, you know, like they're like the Metro police at the Capitol. Hold the line, hold the line, hold the line. You know, and most justice happens in the trial court level, in the first level, appeal level. Sure, it burns our ass every time we watch something at the Supreme Court. 80% of the time go Donald Trump's way. And they are important things that go Donald Trump's way. But most justice that matters happens at the courts below the Supreme Court. And we just have to keep supporting those people that run into the burning building of our democracy and the rule of law and our, and our, the lawyers and the trial judges and the appellate judges. And I will just leave it on this, Karen, I'll turn it back to you. The one thing that I picked up from doing interviews, like I did an interview today with Senator Whitehouse, did an interview with the all the 11 attorneys general for Democratic, the Democratic attorneys general is that they have told me to express here that they appreciate and need the support of our audience, Midas Touch and Legal af, because it's that crowd funding and sourcing that they need. They need the energy, they need the support, they need them, they need the momentum, they need the mandate that comes from people like our community supporting them, focused on them, wanting to be debriefed by them. And they, they pulled me aside, or some of them said it on the air, they pulled me aside, I said, what we're doing here on Midas and Legal AF is so important to what they're trying to accomplish in the court courtrooms. Keep it up, don't let up. And we're all gas. No brakes here on Legal AF for sure. Right, Karen?

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (46:51)

Yeah, no, it's very, very, very important work. And I think the American people are starting to fight back. You know, they're fighting back by voting and voting a counterweight to Donald Trump. I think that was a big part of why Mondami won in New York City because people see how he's going way too far in the other direction and he's a counterweight to Donald Trump. And I think it's all starting to matter and it's all starting to blow back on him, thankfully. And the more people continue to hit the streets and speak on podcasts like Legal AF.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (47:30)

And on the Midas Touch Network and all the interviews you're doing, Popak, I think it's just a great thing. People have to stay informed and, and don't get discouraged, don't get deflated and vote and vote for the right people because it's just, it's not okay what's happening.

Michael Popak (47:48)

Absolutely. Let's do a brief one on Jeb Boasberg, who's been fighting hard against this administration not because he wants to, but because these are the facts that have been laid at his feet, laid in his courtroom about an out of control rogue lawless, to paraphrase Ketanji Brown, Jackson Department of Justice and presidency. And so he's gonna get to the bottom. This is like, this is like a whodunit, you know, movie that just keeps going on and on. You know, we know who did it. It's just now up to him to go through the process, the due process that's required to figure out what he's gonna do about the fact that Kristi Noem allowed and, and agree, she put it in her own declaration and said, yeah, I don't care what the temporary restraining order was to ground the planes. We're going to continue to fly the planes under the Alien Enemies act because my lawyers told me to, or based on privileged conversations with them, I'm not going to tell you about. So the judge, as expected, said all right, let's do it. Let's do it your way. You want to send in affidavits, which are written statements under oath. I'll read them. Maybe I'll get to the bottom of the facts here based on those, or maybe I won't, but let me take a look. So they sent in three. Go F yourself. My paraphrase, F yourself. Affidavits we may. I made the decision, and I'm not going to tell you why. And the other one's like, I gave her the advice, but I'm not going to tell you why. And the other was like. And then they're all like the three main declarants. Christy Gnome, Todd Blanche, number two in the Department of Justice, and Joe. Joe Bazara, the acting.

Michael Popak (49:24)

Acting general counsel, whatever for the homeless, whatever his title is for Homeland Security. They couldn't even get their facts straight, even though, you know, one guy typed it. One person typed it. It was like, well, there was an oral. There was an oral pronouncement, but then there was an order. But then I only found out about the earlier afternoon in the evening. But then I'm like, are you effing kidding me? So what did the judge do? Exactly what you. And I said he was going to do, Donna. Like, judges went like this, metaphorically. Okay. I don't like any of that. So let's get live witnesses into my courtroom starting next week. Let's start with who I said I wanted to hear from. Erez Ruveni, who famously went on 60 Minutes and said. And declared in a whistleblower statement that Emil Bovey, now on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, got a group of people together on the very Circuit Court.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (50:15)

Of Appeals, but then went to, like, a Trump Trump rally yesterday. Or Trump, like, I mean, judges. Judges are supposed to remain neutral. And he's showing up.

Michael Popak (50:24)

Political rally in Pennsylvania.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (50:26)

It's crazy.

Michael Popak (50:27)

And who. But by the way, I'm sure as. As we're on the air tonight, there's already a bar violation, a judicial. A judicial ethics violation that's been filed against him, and it should be. Why do I want to look up and see a. A judge who's. Where justice is supposed to be blind, at a raw partisan political rally.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (50:46)

I mean, do you remember the shit that Donald Trump gave the judge that was overseeing his criminal trial for the 50 bucks? 20. It was 20 bucks.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (51:01)

Yeah, he donated $20 to some random. Act Blue. Yeah, Act Blue, exactly. It wasn't even a person. It was two. You know, a political party. You know, act not even a party. It's just a, you know, whatever.

Michael Popak (51:14)

It's a democratic fundraising.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (51:16)

Yeah, exactly. $20 he donated. And do you remember the. What we had to hear about. He's. He's political. He's not. He's partisan, he's unethical, he's, you know, biased, all that kind of stuff. And now we have a judge on the third circuit, Emile Beauvais, who. That. That is such a powerful position, and he is at a Trump rally.

Michael Popak (51:37)

I mean, why don't we just go around the roof? And Trump should say, let me first introduce all the judges that are in my pocket. Stand up when I call your name. Emil Bovey, are you here? Marsh? How about John Roberts? Are you here? Kavanaugh?

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (51:51)

I mean, taking it to its extreme, every time you watch the State of the union, right, it happens in Congress. You've got the democrats and on one side, you got the Republicans on another side. And then you've got the supreme court justices sitting there. And then some people applaud, some people don't. You know, depending on who's speaking, the justices sit there and remain neutral.

Michael Popak (52:15)

Some don't go. Some have made a decision that it's too partisan and too political. Usually the Republican not confirmed ones. When there's a Democratic president and they go, alito, I feel I should stay home on this one and then pove his fucking party. Pardon me, is legal afing partying with in Pennsylvania at the casino. I mean, I just. It's just. And on air force One. So if I'm judge Boasberg, he said, look, I want to hear from Amel. I want to hear from Erez Raveni, who said that Abel Bovey told them that if the judges asked, tell him to go f off we're sending these people. Which now explains why the planes continue to fly even after the oral temporary restraining order. So Ariz Raveni's coming in. Okay? He now works for democracy Forward. He's coming in to testify. He wants to hear from. And I've said this from the beginning, that Drew Ensign is in big trouble because Drew Ensign, the lawyer and the boss of a mill error as Raveni lied my. My opinion to judge Boasberg by telling him, I really don't know what's going on with the planes, your honor, but I did tell them about your order, and I think he. And he never showed up again in front of judge Boasberg court courtroom. They sent them out to the. To Judge Zinnis courtroom with Abrego Garcia. They sent them over here he, like, never showed up again. He lied. Erez Rivetti said He lied on 60 Minutes and his. In his whistleblower letter. And the judge is like, I want to hear from Drew Ensign, who is the head of the Immigration Litigation division of the Department of Justice. That's the guy. If you remember, Karen, we reported on that. The judge said, you know, you only have your reputation, you know, and your ethics. That's all you have. Don't sacrifice them by not, you know, not being candid with the tribunal. You know, he warned him early on, and I was, whatever, yeah, well, now he's going to be under oath, and the judge is going to go first. He said, the parties can ask questions. This is my exam about criminal contempt. So he's going to have those people. And then from there, he said in his order, and it should scare the shit out of Kristi Noem, but she's too stupid to realize it. He said, it's too early for me now to determine whether there should be a criminal referral or not. Not that it's not going to happen. I just haven't made the decision yet. And then some people might be thinking, well, who cares, Pop? It's in the comments. It'll just be Department of Justice ignoring the criminal referral.

Michael Popak (54:49)

You'll see Judge, Chief Judge Boasberg appoint his own special counsel because he'll find that the Justice Department is conflicted and they've indicated that there's no contempt here and they're not going to go after it. And that. So now we're going to have a battle about whether Boseberg can appoint his own special prosecutor to go after people like Kristi Noem. I mean, seriously, this. People wonder why I say, help us get to 1 million subscribers on legal layoff before 2026. Look at all of this stuff happening in one generation. I used to sit as a, you know, a person interested in history. I used to read about, you know, the days of Andrew Jackson. Bloody, bloody Andrew Jackson and all, you know, and then senators taking out canes and beating other senators on the floor of the Senate. I'm like, those were the days. We don't have that anymore. We don't have that anymore. We do. We do.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (55:44)

You know what? I would take those days of getting hit with canes compared to what we're doing, blowing up boats and, you know, indiscriminately. And the stuff that's going on here, arresting U.S. citizens and deporting them and putting people in torturous prisons. I mean, I'll take That. I'll take the canes.

Michael Popak (56:02)

Here's a new one. Did you hear that?

Michael Popak (56:05)

Your lovely transportation department, Sean Duffy, Department of Transportation, is taking. Is making.

Michael Popak (56:14)

People who have green cards, who are here legally, who don't speak maybe English, as well as on a snap test, they're pulling them out of trucks.

Michael Popak (56:25)

And grounding the trucks, which is part of our economy and long haul transportation. And they're from Eastern Europe, a lot of them. And like, nope, you don't speak English well enough. Sorry, buddy, you're. And just. The truck just stays there. The cargo just rots, and the companies have to pay for it because Donald Trump is. Is. There's no requirement under the Constitution that you speak English properly to live in America or to drive a truck. But this is what he's doing. This is who voted for this. I said this literally out loud when I was in line to board a plane to come to New York yesterday out of Miami. And of course, we had the regular delay, which is, you know, equipment and your planes late, and then the other delay, which is who the fuck knows? And then the last delay is we got to wait for border patrol, right? And the tattooed border patrol guy to come, you know, scare the shit out of everybody because he's checking IDs or whatever he's doing. And I literally said out loud, who voted for this?

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (57:24)

You ever see those movies where you. They're the futuristic movies and the people are kind of being led somewhere, and there's like a TV screen with this creepy woman on the screen talking with like a fake smile you are about to enter. You know, those types of things. Last time I was at the airport, there was a TV screen and a creepy woman on there speaking like that. It was Kristi Noem, of course, insane. I thought, oh, my God, what are we in? Like. Like some, you know, I can't. I can't even think of one of the movies now.

Michael Popak (57:57)

But, like, are you watching Pluribus on Apple tv?

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (58:00)

No. Is it good?

Michael Popak (58:02)

I'll leave it at that. But yes. And it's. It's right to your point. I'll just leave it at that. So, Bozberg, December 15th, contempt hearing, whole bunch of witnesses starting on the 8th. Or actually, no, not the 8th, starting in on the 12th, and then a hearing on the 15th, and then he's going to issue another ruling. And at the rate he's going, I am telling you, I would be shocked if he doesn't find someone in the Trump administration in criminal contempt. And then we're often running about Judges appointing special counsel.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (58:31)

But isn't Kristi Noem just going to say I was relying on advice of counsel and that's a defense. I'm just saying, will it get to the point of a criminal referral if she says I was relying on advice of counsel, which is a defense? Right.

Michael Popak (58:48)

Then you can't jail the lawyers.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (58:49)

I mean, you can't. I mean they're allowed to give wrong legal advice. I mean that's, I just, I wonder if that's the, if that's the match they're playing.

Michael Popak (58:59)

Yeah, that's definitely, that's definitely the long game. The long game that they're playing. But listen, Jet Boasberg is a very smart judge. Let's see how he plays that out. When we come back, we're going to talk about whether James Comey is going to be re indicted or not. Not. And what's standing in the way right now. A judge named Judge Kolar Catelli, senior judge. Back to the revenge of the senior judges, folks in the District of Columbia standing in the way of a possible re indictment. It looks like that's all they got on James Comey, which is this.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (59:30)

We're cursing a lot tonight and you're very salty today.

Michael Popak (59:33)

I think it's the holidays.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (59:34)

It's the holidays.

Michael Popak (59:35)

Holiday. Had a glass of wine at lunch.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (59:38)

And that's what it is.

Michael Popak (59:39)

That's probably it. So about whether.

Michael Popak (59:43)

They admitted, Karen, the Department of justice, they got nothing else on James Comey other than a one line statement that he stood by in response to a question by Ted Cruz.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (59:55)

I stand by my prior testimony.

Michael Popak (59:56)

I stand by my prior testimony in September of 2020. That's it, folks. And in order to connect all those dots, they need what I call the Richmond files. We're talking about the Epstein files. Daniel Richmond, professor at Columbia, turned over lots of his material under a warrant having nothing to do with this case, having to do with Hillary Clinton in her emails. But it was a box sitting around on the shelf in the FBI. Lindsey Halligan, because you know, she's very, she's very talented and experienced. And she said to the FBI, go rummage around that box. You don't need a warrant. Which we call in the business a warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment and unconstitutional. Go rummage around the Richmond box. Even if it has communication between his client and himself, you just go use that and then go testify to the grand jury. Judge. We're going to talk about Judge Kohler Catelli when we come back. But now it's another time to support what we do here with our, with our sponsors with supporting the podcast as always as you do if you watch us. Some people don't even know we're on YouTube. I have people say, I just found out you're on YouTube. We're on YouTube and you can just send this clip off, you know, or when we're done, send it off to people in your life and ask them to join us. There's audio versions, leave a five star review in comments, continue to grow that audience. That all helps. And then you got legal AF YouTube. Let's do it folks, together. Let's get to the 1 million subscribers. We're about 18,000 short, which in our world we should be able to get there in about two weeks before the holidays if we can do it together. And then Legal AF substack as well. But now a word from our sponsors. Deleteme 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. What do data brokers do? Your name, contact info, Social Security number, home address, even information about your family members could all be compiled by data brokers and sold online. Have you ever been a victim of identity theft, harassment, doxing? I have. If you haven't, you probably know someone who has. Delete Me can help 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 LegalIF and use promo code legalif at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com legalif and enter code legalif at checkout one more time. That's JoinDeleteMe.com legal af code legal a f. Are you feeling sluggish? Bloated? Not like yourself? Life bombards us with silent threats. Processed foods, artificial light, and modern stressors that disrupt your gut, drain your energy and weaken your immune health. Your body isn't broken, it just needs the right inputs. That's where Amra Colostrum comes in. It's nature's original blueprint for health. Packed with over 400 bioactive nutrients that fortify gut health, fuel fitness recovery and strengthen immune health, supporting your best performance every day. I love armor. I've been using it myself. I'm on it right now and I can tell you it's made a real difference. I feel more energized, less bloated, and just sharper throughout the day. It's not just another supplement. It's a bioactive whole food. Pure, potent, natural and clean. Sustainably sourced with a caf? First commitment. Take back control of your health. We've worked out a special offer for my audience. Receive 30% off your first subscription order. Go to armor.com legalif or enter legal af to get 30% off your first subscription order. That's a R M R A.com legal af support your gut. Strengthen your immune health. Feel the difference with with Armra Colostrum. Welcome back. You're on Legal af, the podcast. All right, Karen, let's, let's bring it home. We're in the home stretch. You've got let's turn it over to you from the prosecutor perspective. You've got James Comey, former FBI director. His indictment gets tossed along with Lindsay Halligan by Judge Curry a couple of three weeks ago, finding her to be illegally appointed. I mean, Lindsay Halligan. There's a whole nother sub story which we'll do another time that I've done on hot takes about the government is refusing to acknowledge that Lindsey Halligan's been fired and she still signs pleadings as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Judge Curry's gonna have to do something about that. The judges of the Eastern District of Virginia are gonna have to do something about that. But what's on the agenda right now is the indictment, a re indictment process around James Comey. So.

Michael Popak (64:55)

There was, there was a motion that was filed a day or so before Thanksgiving by Daniel Richmond, who was identified in the who's been identified subsequently in the original indictment as somebody that they're using as as evidence against his client, effectively because he's a lawyer in Comey. But after Judge Fitzpatrick, the magistrate judge in the case, issued a scathing ruling about what he saw in the grand jury transcript and what he saw about the use of the documents and the warrantless search, basically inviting Daniel Richmond to file a motion to vindicate his Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless search or search and seizure and to ask for the return of all of his documents and that they not be used by the government. And we have filings since then. Why don't you catch our audience up on it from your former prosecutor experience?

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (65:58)

Well, this is a major blow to the DOJ's effort to re indict Jim Comey because the judge blocked prosecutors from getting this evidence, right? This email accounts, the computer, all the stuff that they searched without a warrant and granted a temporary restraining order. So the judge basically said the evidence has to be sequestered while she pending her ruling and she's going to decide whether the government illegally retained these emails and the other data. So, you know, look, the judge said the court concludes Richmond is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that the government has violated his fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures by retaining a complete copy of all files of his personal computer and searching it without a warrant. So it's a, it's, it's a huge blow and it's kind of a big deal. Look, when you, when you as a prosecutor, if you execute a search warrant and you get someone's computer, if there's no case, you have to get rid of it or give it back, right? Or if you retain it for some reason, you're not allowed to just go back and search it in another unrelated case later without a warrant. It's not like you have it and therefore you can access it anytime you want. You have to go back in and you have to get a warrant. It can't be stale. You have to show probable, reasonable or probable cause as to why you believe a crime was committed and why you think the evidence of the crime would be located in that location. In this case, the computer. And they didn't do that. And on top of that, a lot of that information is going to be attorney client privileged because Richmond represented Comey during part of this. And so that's another layer of you have to put a filter team in place. If you do execute a search warrant and you do get that stuff, you get a separate team of prosecutors who go through that and separate out the attorney client privileged information from the non privileged information. And you're not allowed to use the attorney client privilege information. So this is kind of a big deal. And the fact that the judge ruled that they think that Richmond's going to likely to succeed on the merits, I think that just deals a huge blow to their effort to re indict the case. And, and frankly now putting on my defense attorney hat, if they do re indict the case, if I were Abby Lowell, who's representing, not Abby Lowell, Pat Fitzgerald, who's representing Jim Comey, the first thing I would do is I would just add another line to my vindictive prosecution claim. Look how vindictive this is. They won't stop. They keep going, keep going. They'll stop at nothing. They're fighting the Richmond thing, they're re indicting me. Hopefully the grand jury will do what they did in the Tish James matter and not vote an indictment because grand jurors read the paper too, and they see what's happening and hopefully they'll smack this down for what it is because he. This is, this is clear, a clear case of vindictive prosecution.

Michael Popak (69:03)

I like that grand juries read the paper too, and now they're standing up and voting against these types of things. One update in a new filing is it looks like the Department of Justice is going to try to block having Jeb Boasberg, the judge take certain testimony next week arguing that it violates the. Oh, now they love the separation of powers, except when it's not in their favor. So they're going to try to block this evidentiary hearing from happening and we'll follow up with that as well. But I agree with you. I think that Judge Kolar Catelli is going to rule to that the Fourth Amendment rights of, of Gerald of Richmond were violated and that the only remedy that she can come up with, it's the appropriate one for that, is that the government has denied the ability to use the Richmond files against James Comey. And if that's the case, their case is dead. Now they're arguing that they can re indict, but they never said they can re indict without the Richmond files. In fact, they said they need the Richmond files in order to re indict. So this is where the battle, the rubber is meeting the road. In addition to that, they've said that they're going to use a statute that gives them an additional six months to fix an infirmed indictment. But that statute's not for that. And Judge Curry even pointed that out in her own order. That statute is for a defective indictment. Technical defect in the indictment. Act like they left. They mis paragraphed it. They did didn't sign it. They left out an element of the crime by accident. Okay, then you get six more months to fix your indictment. That's not the defect. The defect is Lindsey Halligan. The defect is in the process of selecting.

Michael Popak (70:49)

The U.S. attorney. And the Judge Curry ruled, and I think properly so that if you have an illegal. This is based on Supreme Court precedent as well. If you have an improperly appointed officer, federal officer, everything that they've done after that is void ab initio. It is void as it's coming out of their pen. And if that's the case, then there is no indictment. Here there is.

Michael Popak (71:17)

An imposter masquerading as a U.S. attorney in Lindsey Halligan who's writing counterfeit indictments and counterfeit indictments. So to speak can't be used to stop the clock. And that's not the defect that the statute they're trying to use is talking about. I think caller can tell he I don't know if it's going to be Friday after because she's already got the full briefing now. I think soon she's going to be making a ruling and it could be devastating to the Department of Justice. I mean it's of their own making. I'm not empathetic about any of this, but I think it's going to stop the re indictment process in its tracks, require an appeal to the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals because that's where judge which Kolar Catelli is. And then as they run around and try to get a grand jury eventually to indict, maybe on some other grounds. But you can see the Trump administration and its Department of Justice either openly defy federal judges, tell them to go pound sand, don't file when they're supposed to file, file things to block hearings, hoping that they'll get a Trumper on their appellate court to help them out. This is what, this is what a lawless rogue presidency and the most corrupt department of justice in history headed by the chief law enforcement officer in America, Donald Trump, self professed and his, his meat puppet of a do of a attorney general in Pambandi. And that's what we're, that's what that what we can do is what we're doing get together weekly, hourly at the intersection of law and politics and hold them accountable. Some people I see get frustrated in the comments. I read the comments and they're like, oh, but who cares? Nothing will happen. You keep saying something's going to happen, Pop, because he keeps saying it's a collapse of something. When is when, when it will, it has. Things have gone right under our system of justice. There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of orders that we've detailed here on legal AF that have not been overturned, that have not been defied, that have not been appealed. That's where we live. We live there. Sure, we can be upset. Sure we can wring our hands about the handful of ones that didn't go our way, the Trump judges that went a different way. The Supreme Court ruling on a major, major issue. We'll talk about them more next week. Week that on fundamental constitutional issues that did not go our way. And then we got to talk about what to do about that after from an electorate standpoint, from a court standpoint and from a legislative standpoint. But so many things are going our way in, in the federal courts and even in the state courts that we talk about on a daily basis. Just hang in there. We are a line of defense. The federal courts are holding the line. We need them up on that wall. We want them up on that wall and they are up on that wall. And we have to do our level best to understand what's going on. That's what we try to do on Legal af. Understand the complexity of these issues, talk truth to each other so we can be able to take it out to the streets and into the polls and beyond. And things are working in the electorate standpoint. Crowds, courage and courts. I used to attribute that to AG Banta from California, but he told me during a panel discussion that it was really the Attorney General, Chris Mays of Arizona, who came up with that and he stole it and I stole it. So it's crowds, courts and courage and we're demonstrating all of those things right here on Legal af. I'm so glad you're here. I'm so glad Karen Freeman Ignifolo is here, as she is religiously every Wednesday for the last five years. And you know how to support what we do. Legal AF YouTube, Legal AF substack, Legal AF the podcast and of course our pro democracy sponsors. Karen, last word as we, as we roll into the holidays.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (75:20)

Yeah. Just adding picking up to the really, really important message that you were just saying. It's it's all about staying informed. It's all about not putting your head in the sand and just saying oh, it's too hard or it's too depressing. I don't want to know. You have to stay informed because if you stay informed, you'll fight back. And let us read the filings for you, let us study the laws for you and we can translate them and call them out and tell you the boat strikes are illegal. His justification cuz they're bringing drugs in means we're at war and therefore I can do it. We can tell you that that's bs. And how do we know that's bs? Because he's also pardoning the ex president of Honduras who has got 45 years in prison for trafficking 400 tons of cocaine through Honduras to the U.S. so these are he just is lying, he's making stuff up and he's saying he cares about something and at the same time in the same week doing something different. So stay informed, know the facts over the holidays when don't avoid having these conversations with your family members because it gets difficult. Know the facts and talk to people, try to win over their hearts and minds so we can flip seats and bring this country back to something that we can all recognize and be proud of because it's worth fighting for. So those are my last words. I love our people and I love our community. And we have to stay together.

Michael Popak (76:51)

Absolutely. Thank you for being here. Midweek edition of Legal af. Hit the free subscribe button every place you can until our next report on Saturday with Ben Mysalis and then hourly on Midas Touch or Legal af. I'm Michael Popak, joined of course with our co anchor Karen Friedman McNifolo. Shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal Aers.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (77:19)

What do you think makes the perfect snack?

Michael Popak (77:22)

Hmm, it's got to be when I'm really craving it and it's convenient.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (77:25)

Could you be more specific when it's cravenient?

Michael Popak (77:27)

Okay, like a freshly baked cookie made with real butter available right down the street at a.m. p.m. Or a savory breakfast sandwich I can grab in just a second at a.m. pM.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (77:36)

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Michael Popak (77:37)

Well yeah, we're talking about what I.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (77:38)

Crave, which is anything from am pm.

Michael Popak (77:41)

What more could you want? Stop by AMPM where the snacks and drinks are perfectly craveable and convenient. That's cravenience ampm. Too much. Good stuff. Hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half price, not half the service.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (78:03)

Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price.

Michael Popak (78:06)

So that means a half day. Yeah.

Karen Friedman Agnifolo (78:10)

Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Michael Popak (78:13)

Of 45 for 3 month plan equivalent to 15 per month. Required new customer offer for first 3 months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy taxes and fees extra. C mintmobile.com.