Loading summary
Transcript97 lines
- [00:00]
A
Well, the holidays have come and gone once again. But if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift. Well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now, you call it an early present for next year.
- [00:15]
B
What do you have to lose?
- [00:16]
A
Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch limited time.
- [00:20]
B
50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for a 12 month plan. Taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy. See terms.
- [00:32]
A
Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF with your regular anchors, Karen Freeman, Nicknifolo and me, Michael Popak. And we curated a show for you tonight. Actually, Donald Trump curated a show for us tonight. We put him in charge of our programming apparently. And we've got so many things to order and I think this is the right order of operation. Karen, you and I talked about it before we got on. We're going to start off with what a debacle for the Trump administration today. No, not in Davos, not in Europe. We'll get to that next. At the United States Supreme Court. Is Donald Trump about to go on an epic losing streak at the United States Supreme Court about things that matter to his economic and monetary and ultimately foreign policy? Because today he tried to argue with a straight face that he had the right to effectively destroy the independence of the Federal Reserve and because of a social media post, fire a board of governor member and Lisa Cook. And I don't know if it's gonna be just to keep people on the edge of their seat. I don't know if it's gonna be 9081 or 7 to 2, but he is going down. And wait till you hear the clips. We've got the receipts tonight from the oral argument that we had live streaming up on Legal AF YouTube today. And I'll just play most of them are just the Maga 6, just the even Alito. I mean, Trump's probably thinking, I'm glad I'm over in Davos. He might be over in Switzerland, but Jay Powell was in the room. Today. We're going to talk about the United States Supreme Court. Then we've got, as we came on the air, a magistrate judge, but a judge nonetheless who has blocked the Trump administration from going through and doing a fishing expedition on the Washington Post reporter who had her files picked up because they're trying to get to the Bottom of a leak. We're talking about a person who's got a thousand confidential informants, if you will, has dozens and dozens of relationships in the Defense Department and other places. On the Washington Post, you know, this is like Bezos versus Donald Trump. They had a federal judge that said, you know what, I'm going to issue an order here. And that's a good one for First Amendment expression. Lindsey Halligan had a, had a resign in disgrace after back to back orders crushed her yesterday. I also think it's convenient that she resigned when her boss, old, old yellowstain, old Mr. Coward was in Davos, you know, instead of being in America. I'm sure they timed that on purpose. We'll talk about, we'll talk about Lindsey Halligan on that particular, on that particular thing. And then we'll have to talk about Donald Trump's short circuited trip, literally how to change planes like the rest of us. To get to Davos, Switzerland, he went late, which I thought was a tactical and strategic blunder. Gave the Europeans time to have dinner together, have meetings together and give speeches against Donald Trump. By the time he arrived, he went from. It was like, Karen, I felt like I was watching. Remember the old Get Smart TV show.
- [03:43]
B
And where he used to answer the phone in his shoe?
- [03:47]
A
Yeah. But he would always have this running joke where he would say, if you don't let me in, you know, 1,000 agents are going to storm down this and they're like, we don't believe you. Would you believe 25 boy scouts with a pocket knife? Would you believe, you know, with him it's like, I'm going to take over Greenland militarily. And it got reduced down to, oh, you're going to let me have two military bases in Greenland? Oh, okay, I won. Yeah, you didn't win. I know you have this binder of accomplishments that you like to watch. He's like a four year old. You have to give him a binder of accomplishments to take to a podium. This is what his handlers are now doing because they just can't control him and he's completely, completely out of his mind. So we'll talk about global things, you know, as the backdrop to all of this for a very failed already mission for Donald Trump to try to take over the world. All here on Legal AF podcast. How are you, Karen?
- [04:39]
B
I'm really good. I'm really good. How are you?
- [04:41]
A
I'm doing great.
- [04:42]
B
It's zero degrees in New York these days. Yeah, it's pretty terrible when they say, oh, it's 17 degrees, but it feels like zero. And it actually does.
- [04:54]
A
So, yeah, I'm sorry about that. You know, I moved, I moved out of the moved out of that area.
- [05:00]
B
But I think, I think about that and I think now, now I know why Popak went south.
- [05:06]
A
I definitely went south. So let's pick up with the Supreme Court because two and a half hours, I'll just set the stage here. You got John Sauer, the unlistenable solicitor general, arguing for the government department and the U.S. you know, the U.S. position and Abby Lowell representing Lisa Cook. And then you had some friends of the court like Paul Clement, who actually made some very good points today. And then as I said in the pregame show that I did with Adam Klassfeld when we had the live stream this morning, look to Roberts, how if you're going to know and the rest are going to take their lead from Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts about where he's at now. The issue procedurally was whether the Supreme Court was going to continue a stay to keep Lisa or to continue to continue to affirm a decision by the appellate court two to one, to keep Lisa Cook in her chair as a member of the board of Governors, controlling ultimately interest rates, or were they going to take her out and force her through appeal to get her job back. Trump wants her out and wants her to fight to get back in. Cook wants to stay where she's at and have Trump fight to get her out. That's the fight right now. The stay issue about Trump and asking for a stay to block the decision of the DC Appellate court is what was technically up on appeal today. Sometimes the judges referred, the justices referred to that like, well, we're just here on the stay. And otherwise they got down to sort of the merits of the case. Donald Trump tried to fire Lisa Cook because he had his it's all orchestrated like a conspiracy. He had his head of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage, the mortgage regulator, if you will, post some clip art, some cut and paste jobs of mortgage documents that he should never had access to to try to prove that Lisa Cook owned two first residences, two primary residences, one in Michigan and one in Atlanta that she took out from the same bank. She said, I didn't do that. If I did it, I did it through the same bank credit union. So who's being defrauded and how is that grounds to fire me for cause from the position? Because the Supreme Court's already said if you're going to fire the bank, Federal Reserve, that's got to be for cause. And then her other argument, which seemed to take over the hearing today, was what due process was she given and what does that due process look like? Shouldn't there be, for instance, a hearing? Shouldn't there be. Shouldn't there be evidence presented? Shouldn't there be a decision maker and then she can maybe appeal from that process? What is the nature of the due process? And John Sauer, Karen, came right out basically telling the Supreme Court, you have no power to reinstate or put somebody in or out of the position, which didn't sit well with the Chief Justice. He said, you. The due process she was given was sufficient, even though he had to admit that the record was completely not. Not complete from the trial court level. And that pissed off a lot of the judges. And soon as we heard the clips, and we'll play the clips in a moment, you'll see why I think this is 7 to 2, 8 to 1 or maybe 9, 0. Before I play the clips, Karen, what was your overall reaction to the hearing? And what do you. And what do you think is going to happen?
- [08:30]
B
So I flew in and out of it. I was able to listen to parts of it. But the crazy thing is, no matter what, when I tuned in, no matter who was arguing, whether it was the Solicitor General, John Sauer or Paul Clement or Abby Lowell, and no matter who was doing the questioning, whether it was Tanji Brown Jackson or Brett Kavanaugh, whatever it was, they all seem to say the same thing, which is basically, the Fed is different. It's supposed to be above politics. Congress meant what they created and you're not following what they meant. And it really seems like Trump is going to lose in a big way. So I kept waiting, I kept hoping I was going to hear whatever the other argument is, but I never quite heard it. The most I heard was what legal standard should we be applying here? You know, like. And what. You know, like that was more of like a one of these kind of law schooly Supreme Court arguments about, you know, what standard is it? And is it the. Is it. It. Is it inm. You know, inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance? Or is it for cause? Or is it the same thing? And, you know, it's like, it was a lot of that kind of stuff. But.
- [09:44]
A
But I thought there was good.
- [09:46]
B
No, no, I was just gonna say I didn't hear the whole thing. So everything I heard was. Was very much like, yeah, and. And the fact that Jerome Powell was there in the audience.
- [09:58]
A
Oh, yeah.
- [09:59]
B
Basically sending A message. Yeah. So I think, I think this, this felt different than some of the others I would be.
- [10:08]
A
Now here's what I want people to do in the audience tonight. I want you to count on your fingers the votes after you hear each clip and where you think that vote lies in terms of you got to count the five to defeat Donald Trump. And of course the more, the more the merrier. Let's start, let's just start playing clips. Okay. I picked out ones I think sum this up. Let's start with the Maga 6. Right. Which is where Donald Trump has to get his votes from. Let's start with Neil Gorsuch.
- [10:36]
C
General, let's just suppose with me hypothetically for the moment that the court read the act to require notice and a hearing. I assume everybody has notice. Now here we are. What would that hear hearing look like?
- [10:56]
D
I would point to what the court has said in Vermont Yankee which this court is very reluctant to dictate procedures to even federal agencies. And here the court would be dictating or a court would be dictating procedures to the President. I think they rely heavily on louder mail. Obviously we dispute there's a notice in hearing requirement but louder Mill requires only very minimal flexible procedures that be calling.
- [11:20]
C
Ms. Cook into the Roosevelt Room, sitting across a conference table listening for I don't know how long, how much evidence is a lawyer required and then, and then making a decision. Could that suffice, you think? What would, what would be required?
- [11:38]
D
It would probably be entire if, if the court were to conclude that it would be have to be entirely dependent on the executive to decide and that's what the case will indicate. Certainly. I think the question points out a great weakness in their argument which is that the word cause does not include notice in a hearing. On its face, Congress knows how to provide notice in a hearing. It did so in the NLRA one month before it reenacted the four cause restriction here in 1935. And because it's not there, the court has nothing to provide guidance on that point. And if the court were to conclude that it would be a.
- [12:11]
C
So just, just a meeting across a conference table finished with you're fired. I mean.
- [12:17]
A
By the way, I just, just to not leave a cliffhanger. That was the best probably for the Trump administration. Gorsuch saying sarcastically so that's all they got to do, bring her into the Roosevelt Room. And then at the end say you're fired and that's going to be enough. And one thing before I get to the next clip, Karen I want to hear your, your. I'll play another one. I'll get your opinion on it. I said, and you. And I did a lot of this, that when John Sauer became the Solicitor General and we found him to be almost unlistenable, insufferable, to listen to during the immunity oral argument and the Colorado Insurrection oral argument when he was private lawyer for Donald Trump. And I said at the time that this shtick of his, of trying to, to try to filibuster and try to talk over the judges and just shove all of this content that's, you know, just because he's got some sort of photographic memory and just, just talk his way in, in and out of circles was gonna wear thin. When you're the actual Solicitor General regularly arguing at the Supreme Court. For me, we're starting to see that, that, that act of his, of over talking, over explaining, trying to pull every, like every smarmy schoolboy, trying to pull every example out like he's the smartest guy in the room is wearing thin. As an advocate, I think Paul Clement did a much better job as a former Solicitor General than the current Solicitor General. What do you think?
- [13:45]
B
Yeah, I agree with you. I thought Paul Clement was really good and did a better job, I should say, than he did. He's hard to listen to, not just because his voice is like nails on a chalkboard. He's hard to listen to because he also just the way he explains things, the way he, I think, talks to the justices, he kind of interrupts them. And you're right, he acts like he's the smartest person in the room and he advocates to the point where he loses credibility. And that's the part that you have to be careful.
- [14:20]
A
That's right.
- [14:21]
B
You know, you're an advocate, but you also are somebody who has to maintain your credibility.
- [14:25]
A
Yeah, he takes it too far with their examples. And here's, here's a good example. Amy Coney Barrett, again, a vote they need in order to defend Donald Trump's ability to take over the Federal Reserve. She's wondering whether we're going to have a cratering of the economy or whether that should be a consideration. This is to your point, Karen, with, with Jay Powell, the Federal Reserve central banker, sitting in the room. Let's play. Amy Coney Barrett, nothing General sour.
- [14:49]
E
Can I ask you a question that's also related to the stay factors? Justice Sotomayor brought up the public interest here, and we have amicus briefs from economists who tell us that if Governor Cook is, if we grant you your stay that it could trigger a recession. How should we think about the public interest in a case like this?
- [15:09]
D
2. Two things to say about that. One is if you look at what actually happened here, she was removed on August 25 and the stock market went up for the next three days. So we've already had a kind of natural experiment, so to speak, about whether or not the predictions of doom will really be implemented. Surely that if investors are jittery or whatever the argument is, you would have seen that on August 25th and you did not see that. In fact, you have these surprised well.
- [15:30]
E
I'll interrupt you there to say that.
- [15:31]
B
I don't want to be in the.
- [15:32]
E
Business of predicting exactly what the market's going to do.
- [15:35]
D
I agree. And that's why I think the court ought to consider all those amigous briefs and they're sort of, you know, predictions of doom with a fairly jaundiced eye. What the court has to do is weigh essentially you have those amigas briefs, a reflection of very elite opinion, elite opinion that there's a risk.
- [15:50]
E
General SOUR Yes. I don't want to be responsible for quantifying that risk. I'm a judge, not an economist. But if there is a risk, doesn't that counsel in the stay posture when the equities are at stake, caution on our part?
- [16:02]
D
I think the court has to weigh that risk.
- [16:05]
A
See, that's an example of what Karen, you were saying. He just loses credibility because he won't acknowledge the risk and he's bringing things outside the record like, well, we all know what happened to the stock market like three days after that's not in the record. And there was a lot of discussion about what was not in the record. In fact, if he thought he was going to find a safe harbor or a port in the storm with Sam Alito, if he loses Alito, I don't know how he gets any votes. Here's Sam Alito about the record below and the rush for everybody to get to the Supreme Court when they should have left it with Judge Gia Cobb, a Biden appointee at the trial court level. Let's play Sam Alito.
- [16:46]
D
Is there any reason why this whole matter had to be handled by everybody, by the executive branch, by the district court, by the DC Circuit in such a hurried manner? You began by laying out what you.
- [17:01]
F
Claim to be the factual basis for the for cause removal, but no court.
- [17:08]
D
Has ever explored those facts. Are the mortgage applications even in the.
- [17:13]
A
Record in this case?
- [17:16]
D
I know that the text of the social media post that screenshots to the mortgage applications is in the record, but I don't recall the paperwork that self is in the record.
- [17:26]
A
All right, right there, the screenshots of social media posts are the record below. I mean, that's not going to make Alito or others feel like there was a proper process. But look where we're going with this is The Supreme Court 728190 is going to send this back to Judge Gia Cobb, who's the trial court judge below, with instructions about how to conduct a due process hearing, maybe with some guidance about what for clause looks like, and send it back to her and get it out of their hair. And Lisa Cook is going to stay in that. I believe she's going to stay in that position through that level of appeal. What do you think, Karen?
- [18:11]
B
Totally. I completely agree. And you know, and in the meantime, Jerome Powell's tenure is going to expire. Right. I mean, just as the chairman, not as the full on the Federal Reserve Board. But all these things are going to happen while that plays out in the lower court if they send it back. I think that's absolutely right. What will exactly happen? And you know, the whole thing is just bananas. I mean, the Supreme Court signaled in case after case where they did allow Trump to fire people who were, who had these types of positions that were supposed to, you know, be independent and expand, go go across administrations like the fba, FBI director and others who he has successfully been able to fire the Supreme Court, every time they've looked at this, it says, but the Fed is different. And Trump just pushes and pushes and pushes. And even this week it came out that they're saying, well, if we lose in the Supreme Court, there's these five other statutes that allow us to do tariffs. We're gonna do tariffs no matter what. And so they're just saying basically giving the middle finger to the courts and to the Supreme Court and basically saying, we're gonna do what we want. Whether you let us do it this way or some other way, we're gonna do whatever we want. And that's what they keep, that's what they keep signaling to them. And so I think they've kind of had enough just generally. And here I think they're going to put their foot down and say, this one's different, the Fed's different. We told you and you don't want to listen.
- [19:47]
A
And business and business powers are different. While Ketanji Brown, while Amy Coney, Barrett and Kavanaugh regularly vote in the majority, it's Almost like their court right now. You got to get their vote if you're going to get a major decision. And when we're talking about religion and church and state and women's rights, they're on the wrong side. However, when you're talking about presidential power and separation of power when it comes to things like the independence, the Federal Reserve and I think tariffs, when statutes clearly say he doesn't have this power or congressional over, you know, congressional acts, then it's a bridge too far, even for the maga. And I said at the top of the oral argument today when I was on the pregame show, I said, watch John Roberts, who I think will likely end up writing the opinion here. He was the one that the case went to originally. He's the one that referred it to the full nine for consideration on the motion to stay, which is technically what we were here on today. And I don't think you can take any. I think Trump's got to be, if they tell him anything, he has this habit of either they don't brief him about what really happens because they're scared daddy's going to beat them. It's a possibility. Or he just likes to downplay everything. Technicality. It was a technicality. Everything's a technical. Technicality. To Donald Trump, this is not a technicality. Here's Chief Justice Roberts basically saying what you're saying. We don't have the power. This is where, again, John Sauer going too far and losing credibility. Here's Chief Justice Roberts.
- [21:18]
F
General Sauer, if, if you're correct that courts do not have the authority to reinstate a removed officer, why are we wasting our time wondering if there's cause or not? Because even if we say, yes, there is cause, shouldn't have removed her, but we don't have the authority to order her reinstatement. What's the. How is that consistent with, with the time and energy being spent on determining if there's cause? An independent basis, I guess it's not independent in the sense that if that's right, the other one is irrelevant.
- [21:52]
A
Right.
- [21:52]
F
It seems to me that if there is any level of cause and you indicate that there is some level of cause.
- [21:58]
A
Right.
- [21:59]
F
Well, then you can't be right about the idea that courts can't order anybody who's been removed to be reinstated.
- [22:06]
A
See, Roberts is annoyed. So again, if you're counting at home, and I don't want anybody to think because the full two hours is up on legally off YouTube channel, that I'm like shading this and I'm leaving out the ones that are helpful to the trial. There are none. There are no audio clips. That's what Karen, you said. I kept tuning in and I was like, where's the helpful clip? There is no helpful clip. And Roberts is basically saying, from a procedural standpoint, what are you talking about? We don't have the power to reinstate or put somebody in or out of a job. You can't have it both ways. But Kavanaugh, for me, summed it up, which was, this will destroy, effectively, this will destroy the American economy. What you're proposing. Let's play Kavanaugh.
- [22:48]
D
This is not a ironclad. You can never be removed. There is a cause removal authorization.
- [22:54]
C
But on that, your position that there's no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, very low bar for cause that the President alone determines, and that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve that we just discussed.
- [23:17]
A
Right. He went on in that clip. I think I clipped the clip where he talked about the destruction of the economy. And then finally, Ketanji Brown Jackson, for me, is the intellectual heavyweight on the panel. Hopefully one day when there's a Democrat in office, she would be the chief judge, Chief justice of the United States. I think that's definitely something that could happen, should happen. Here's how Ketanji Brown Jackson kind of brought it all together, I guess.
- [23:41]
G
I think you may have to be a little bit more specific with respect to the irreparable harm that you are alleging, because really, as Justice Barrett sort of indicated, we are in a stay posture here. So the question is, to what extent do we believe that the President or the public is harmed by allowing Ms. Cook to remain in. In her position for the pendency of this case? I'm not sure that we have evidence here that Ms. Cook is an immediate threat to the public, that she's been in this position for a long time. The kinds of things that you're pointing to, as Justice Sotomayor indicates, are not related to conduct while in office. So it would seem to me that on the stay factors, you would have to say more about the harm of leaving her there for the next however many months while this case is being litigated.
- [24:44]
A
Yeah, and that's really classic Ketanji Brown Jackson, like, right to the heart of the matter about the issue here.
- [24:52]
B
And so if I remember correctly, Sauer's answer was no, the President's the one who's going to be irreparably harmed.
- [24:57]
A
Because of course, always the Rep. Alarm runs the other way, because he's got to, he's got to have Dr. Cook as a board of governor. He can't get control of the Federal Reserve. Here's my question for you as we round out this segment. Do you think they all say they're just handling one case at a time? However, do you think this has an impact on what we can expect from the tariff decision with the same lineup of people at a very similar commentary that you and I did? It was Kavanaugh against the tariffs in questioning Amy Coney Barrett talking about if we rule in your favor, how quick can you make the refunds, which is never a great place to be if you're on the other side of that argument. It was really the same people, except maybe Alito and Thomas. But is this same are we going to get the band back together again with the tariffs, too, and take down tariffs? And Donald Trump loses two major signature attempts by him, which is to destroy our economy by tariff or by Federal Reserve capture.
- [26:00]
B
So this, I think this one he's going to lose. I don't know what the numbers are the way you said, but I think Trump's going to lose this one. I'm not exactly sure how long the opinion's going to be. Right. Because there's not a full record. This is just a stay motion. It's probably not going to be a very long decision, I would guess because there's not a lot to go on. Right. It's just kind of what the law is. And but tariffs, you know, it's hard to say because of so much has happened since that oral argument. Right. And like I said that there was they were coming out saying, well, if you rule against us, we're going to still do. It's inevitable. We have all these five other statutes that allow us to do tariffs. We have broad tariffs powers. So that one, it's a good question. I'm not exactly sure how that's going to come out because of sort of it's not in a vacuum. It's not happening while he's trying to steal Greenland, you know, so I think they see the ramifications of what he's doing. And I think that one has a fuller record. But I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.
- [27:16]
A
Well, I think on the tariff side, he's threatening to use all these other statues, but frankly, those statues are very, very difficult. He'd never be able to replicate the 200 tariffs, 200 country tariffs on basically every type of good for an indefinite period of time that he's try to do through the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. And yes, there's about five different other statutes, but some of them you have to do public comment and hearing, you have to publish. So he's never going to be. Maybe he can get some sort of what they call sectorial tariffs up and running, but it would be a far cry from what he's doing now. Maybe 20 or 25%. And I don't think that the Supreme Court and the maga, six, or at least four out of the six, I don't think they want to leave planet Earth with giving a president the power under IPA to pass the laws, the tariffs and the taxes, because they kept talking about it as passing taxes on to the American public. I think it's a setback for him. I think they're going to. There, you know, it's a little bit of muscle memory, right. This case that we're talking about here, the Lisa Cook case, will break the ceiling for me about how they can come back together again in a similar combination and defeat tariffs. I think it's Amy Coney Barrett. I think. I think Amy Coney Barrett is my prediction. You can put this in a time capsule and pop it open. I think if you put the two cases next to each other, I think Amy Coni Barrett and Gorsuch are going to be in the majority in both cases and they're going to be against Trump. I think Roberts is going to be in the majority against Trump in both cases. And frankly, that's enough. That's six to three right there. We don't even need Alito. I don't need Kavanaugh. I don't need. I don't need Robert. I don't need Thomas at that point. I just need those three. Katanji, Brown, Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor. And I'm six to three. And I, I think that's how this is going to play out. And when we're, when we. And as we've seen from this past term, when Kavanaugh and Katanji and Amy Coney Barrett rule it, you know, vote in the majority, it's become their court. It becomes the law. And so that's, that's what I think. You know, people can debate with me all day long about whether. Oh, no, they're all, they're all individual cases and one case doesn't lead. I don't think so. I think they, they kind of, they start getting their brain rewired about economics, constitution and the presidential power. And I think that'll help the tariff decision is not done. It's not coming. In January, it was like, oh, my God, it's another drop day for the decisions. Where's. It's not coming. People are writing hundreds and hundreds of pages of analysis and dissents and concurrences in the majority opinion. If we see it in February, I'd be shocked. March, maybe. If you remember the Dobbs decision that you and I covered when it, when it leaked about ripping away a woman's right to choose leaked in March as a draft with nothing else attached to it. Just the, just the majority opinion by Alito. It didn't come out until final until June. And this tariffs is just as important in terms of the economy, in terms of papers as that decision. I'd be shocked if it came out before the spring. And they don't care about. You heard Amy Coney Barrett proved my point. Some people were like, but look at all the money they'll have to refund. The bigger the refund, the less likely. No, they don't care about how big the refund is. You just heard Amy Coney Barrett said, I'm not an economist, I'm a judge. She's not a business person. If she's going to rule that the tariffs were wrong for the beginning, then they don't. They figure out the government will be able to figure out how to pay back hundreds of billions of dollars.
- [30:56]
B
What do you think Trump's just drumbeat of using tariffs as a threat? Oh, I know, but no, of course. What do you think? Do you think that. Because that's, that's clearly what he's been doing, right. He give me, you know, give me, give me Greenland or you're going to have tariffs. You know, like he basically. He uses as a, as a cudgel and a threat he's not supposed to do. Right. I was going to say. But what impact does that have on, on the justice.
- [31:26]
A
I think it seeps in. I know your point. I think it seeps in even though it's not part of the record. It seeps into the water supply. They're human beings. They're reading the paper in the morning. They're getting the apps. They're watching legal af. Hi. I assume. And they're watching him. They're watching exhibit A as to why you don't have a president hold that power and why the founding fathers and framers put it with the legislative branch because it is a tax ultimately on the people. And if the framers and founders wanted to give the president that power or co. Extensive Power like equal. It would have been an Article two. It's not an Article two, it's an Article one. And the only way the president gets any tariff power is if it gets delegated by Congress by an act. And even there you got to like, well, I. E. Is easy. There's no mention of the word tariff. That was the, that's the easiest analysis I've ever heard done by the, by the en banc panel of the DC Circuit Court Appellate court, which is where. Show me where the word tariff is as a power in the statute that you're relying on. So, so that's. But he's proving the point because you see what happens when a power mad, lawless, rogue populist president, while he's got this amazing superpower. It's like giving a 12 year old the keys to a Ferrari. You know, he'll keep running it into the wall until somebody takes the keys away. It's time to take the keys away. Supreme Court.
- [32:53]
B
It's crazy.
- [32:54]
A
Yeah, it's totally crazy. So, speaking of crazy, we'll do, we'll do one more quick segment before we take our break. People know the headline, Lindsey Halligan resigned in disgrace. That's. I mean, they try. By the way, I don't know if you caught Pam Bondi's posting. I don't, I don't know if Chat GBT wrote this. Actually, they would have written it better. It took me four paragraphs to figure out that Lindsay Halligan was fired. It was all this flowery prose about Lindsay, how it was like past tense. So I was like, something's up, you know, and then, but it wasn't like today. I accepted the resignation with a heavy heart of Lindsay Allen. That's how you and I would have wrote it, right? And then we would have. No, it was like Lindsay Allegan with flowers and protecting the people in her six months as a prosecutor. And we'll be, and she'll be missed. I'm like, oh, she'll be missed. She's been fired or she's resigned and then we don't even know where she's going normally.
- [33:47]
B
That's what struck me was the fact that it wasn't like, oh, she's now going to be the special something, whatever, like she's out.
- [33:56]
A
Trump. Trump is a fucking. Trump is a coward. And, and he, he realized she's a loser in his world and he went to Switzerland. He, they obviously did it with his approval. And the he. And she, she got thrown under the bus. He didn't even give her A safe, a safe place to land. Like she will now be the general counsel of the Trump PAC or. No, we don't even know where she's going. I assume she's crawling back to Fox News or somewhere and all of that. But it just. There is one thing that I wanted to raise on this issue. We had two back to back in the same day, hours apart, federal court orders different, but got to the same place, which is vacancy. And Judge Novak went further and said the masquerade. One of my favorite quotes of a judge, I don't know if I have it handy here to read from. The quote was her continued masquerading as a U.S. attorney must come to an end. He wrote that in the afternoon. And then it finally did. When you have a federal judge saying, I'm only taking it easy on you because you're a novice and you don't know what you're doing, but you, Bondi and Blanche, you do. And the rule of law matters in this courtroom and you can't ignore orders that you don't like because then I gotta let everybody do that in my courtroom, including criminal defendants. And then what kind of justice system do we have? So after he wrote this 18 page blast, I mean, I told people on my, one of my hot takes, I needed to wear asbestos gloves to hold this order. I was not shocked that they eventually folded like they did with Alina Haba and the Delaware U.S. attorney. They're going to do with John Sarcone in New York and the one in New Mexico and Nevada. They all quit because they can't win. The writing is on the wall, but I didn't think it would come just hours from a timing standpoint, from a news cycle standpoint, in the middle of the night, I guess, while Donald Trump's in Davos. So you want to, you want to give your comments about the end of your fellow prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan.
- [35:56]
B
Look, Lindsey Halligan was not qualified to begin with. She didn't know what she was doing. She raised her hand and said, pick me, I'll go indict Tish James and Jim Comey. And she miserably failed at every turn. She made rookie mistakes. She was not at all up to the task to do what Trump wanted her to do. And he's not a loyal person. So he kicks people who he perceives as losers to the curb. And the writing was on the wall. You had so many judges say the same thing, which is you're not the U.S. attorney if you write they directed the AUSAs in the Eastern District to not refer to her as the U.S. attorney. And the judge essentially really lambasted her for holding herself out as the United States Attorney because she is not the United States Attorney. And they put out a expression of interest, basically asking people to apply for the job for U.S. attorney for the, for the Eastern District of Virginia, and because they can vote someone into office. So, and that's what I think they're going to plan on doing, is vote someone into the office of U.S. attorney interim until Donald Trump appoints someone who can get confirmed by the Senate, but who knows? He'll probably fire that person and again try to go through the same thing over and over and over again. But in the meantime, I don't know what they're going to do about cases down in Virginia. I mean, the Eastern District used to be this very respected place that people are resigning in droves, and it's turned into this Donald Trump political prosecution machine. So hopefully this will end soon and we can get a real U.S. attorney down there, someone who's actually qualified and will fight normal crime, not just Trump's political enemies. But they clearly dropped this on the day that he was going to Davos so that it would get buried in the news cycle. And luckily, we don't allow these things to get buried in the news cycle.
- [38:02]
A
And.
- [38:02]
B
But I was surprised, like you said, that, that she didn't have a landing spot. He really kicked her to the curb.
- [38:09]
A
Absolutely. And well deserved. I mean, she belongs on the cable news talk shows that Judge Novak said earlier. Her filings should be, should be, would be a proper place for the things that she said in her filings against him. And. Yeah, and that's it. Hopefully she'll crawl back under the rock that she came from under.
- [38:28]
B
He said, this filing is not befitting of litigants in this court, especially the Department of Justice. They're more appropriate for the cable news channel.
- [38:38]
A
Cable talk show. She had.
- [38:41]
B
That's, that's a.
- [38:42]
A
And he's a trouble. And he's a trouble.
- [38:45]
B
Exactly. That's why I was like, holy cow. That's. Yeah, them fighting words.
- [38:50]
A
Those are fighting words. And when we come back, we're going to talk about the reporter for the Washington Post who, who had the greatest quote so far, which is, I need my devices back to do my job. So, you know, it's like, yes, the FBI and Department of justice picked up all of her devices as a reporter to send a chilling message to her First Amendment expression and her right of free press. Could you imagine if Nixon did This to Bernstein and Woodward or the New York Times reporters that were covering his administration. And it has to come to an end. We got a new order there and comments by Ms. Natenson about the raid on her house and what it means. Again, it's not just about her. It's the Trump administration trying to bully media and press from covering them. Pentagon bars them from the room. The only one that goes to Pentagon briefings now are right wing podcasters like Laura Loomer and the rest. No legitimate news organization goes to Pentagon briefings anymore. They have to get their news there some other way. So she's working the hallways and they pass policies so they don't talk to reporters. But like intrepid reporters will figure out a way. And so we appreciate her. We will talk about her story. And then what the heck just happened in Greenland where Donald Trump tried to, I mean in Davos, about Greenland. And you notice there's no mention of Gaza and the peace board. Yeah, a lot of crazy things happen there. None of them in favor of Donald Trump who comes back weaker than when he left, besides the fact it looked like he was stumbling around again with a medical condition up at the podium in Davos. So we'll talk about all that, but we're going to take our first break. Many ways to support what we do here on Legal af. You've got the podcast and the support we get here. The love we get is unmatched, unparalleled and we appreciate it on our audio podcast platforms. Put in legal af comments and 5 star reviews always help. And then we've got the legal AF YouTube channel over well on our way to 2 million eventually. I mean we may hit 2 million subscribers in 2026 with your help. We've got a new paid subscriber level. We got associate counsel and partner and some great new content for those people that support us that way. And then legal, I have the substack. It's another way to support there it is another way to support what we do. I do two lives a day. I did a 40 minute live with Adam Classfeld about many of the things in the, in the news today from All Rise News. And I do that every day. And then we've got, yeah, those are the, we got other podcasts and things that are branded with Legal af, but those are the main ways to support that. All that we do. And then of course we've got our pro democracy sponsors, some of which have been with us forever, some of which are new, all curated by Jordi, me and Karen to support what we do. And so. And here's. Here's our first break. I've been genuinely impressed with the Tushy bidet and the upgrade it's brought to my daily routine. Tushy sent me their bidet and installation took about 10 minutes easier than I expected and fit seamlessly with my existing toilet and bathroom aesthetic. It's a simple modern upgrade that makes your routine cleaner and more comfortable while reducing how much toilet paper you use. Number two is Tushy's thing. Go take care of number one. For a limited time, our listeners get 10% off their first bidet order when you use code legal AF at checkout. That's 10% off with your first bidet order@hellotushy.com with promo code legal AF. Tushy is the everyday luxury that improves your bathroom habits and bottom health backed by a 30 day return policy and a 12 month warranty. And one more time for the people in the back. Get it. Number two is Tushy's thing. Go to take care of number one. For a limited time, our listeners get 10% off their first bidet order when you use code legal AF at checkout. That's 10% off your first bidet order@hellotushy.com with promo code legal A F. Let's be honest, shall we? Modern life is rough on our bodies. Your liver, it's working overtime to filter all of that out. That's why there's dose. Dose for your liver is a clinically backed liver health supplement. It's a daily 2 ounce liquid shot that tastes like fresh squeezed orange juice. Dose cleanses the liver of unwanted stressors, slowing it down and promotes daily liver function. With zero sugar, zero junk and zero calories. Look, your liver, mine too performs more than 500 functions every day. Energy, digestion, metabolism and vitamin storage. And dose is designed to support that work. It's also backed by two double blind placebo controlled studies showing positive impact on liver enzyme levels. Ready to give your liver that support it deserves? Head to DueDaily Co LegalAF or enter LegalAF to get 35% off your first subscription. Your body, it does so much for you. Let's do something for it. That's D o s e D a I L y co legalaf for 35% off your first month subscription. Welcome back and thank you for for the support and the commitment to all that we do on Legal af. We got an Epstein files update. Good news, bad news I guess the bad news is that Judge Engelmeier denied the motion to intervene by the bipartisan team of Representative Massie and Khanna to intervene in the. One of the cases, the Ghislaine Maxwell case, in order to argue for the appointment of a special master or independent monitor to take over the process of producing the millions of documents and pages that the Trump administration continues to bury and disappear. And since the Trump administration ran to Judge Engelmeier to begin with, I think it was fair game and part of his inherent authority to take over that process and protect the victims and give them back dignity and justice the way a federal judge can do. But he disagreed, but. But had an invitation in his order for another mechanism that could be used by the congressperson and survivors. And as a full disclosure, I represented Lisa Phillips, one of the survivors, who filed a declaration to encourage the judge to. To help her reclaim dignity and justice and to appoint the special master and her independent monitor. Although he did not. He did not ultimately do that and seemed a little sanguine about it. He did quote from. Approvingly from the comments made by Lisa Phillips in his order. How about that invitation, though? Karen, tell our audience about that.
- [45:45]
B
I mean, look, the fact that the, The Massie and, and Khanna, the representatives in the House who were the congresspeople who co sponsored the Epstein Files Transparency act, the fact that they ch. Vent their frustration essentially at the Department of Justice, totally understandably, that the time to turn over the files has come and gone. They have missed every deadline. They've only turned over 12,000 and change files, but there's millions, literally millions more. And so it makes sense that they want to push the Department of Justice and try to get the files released. Right? And that's why they. And then what's getting released is heavily redacted, overly redacted, way outside the bounds of what the law that they passed permits. And so that's why they want a special master or an independent monitor appointed. What I thought was weird was the mechanism with which they tried to do it, which is to intervene in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, because that case is close, closed. And so I never quite understood that to begin with as a. As why did they do it that way. But as you said, I think the reason is because Engelmeyer was already involved in the, you know, the Department of Justice went to Engelmeier, right, and said, basically, help us. And, you know, so he was involved in it, but they did it under the United States versus Ghisain Maxwell heading. And the judge said, this case is closed. She's, she's sentenced and so I have no authority to do this over this case in this matter. But he basically said, but bring your own case, you know, bring a different case. And, and, and we can do it that way because it just didn't make sense this way to me. And when I read the opinion, I actually kind of, I mean, at least I'm not saying I agree or disagree. It's kind of how I understood courts to be.
- [48:01]
A
Yeah, I think he's inviting another lawsuit. He wants, and I think the survivors and, or the representatives in violation of the act will file a federal lawsuit and ask that in temporary restraining order that that be a remedy for right now. I mean, I don't know if they'll get it, but certainly somebody's got standing to enforce that act. Trump administration tells everybody, well, it's just a toothless act. If we violate it doesn't matter. They certainly act like it doesn't matter and nobody has standing to challenge it or to sue over a violation of it. I don't think they're right about that. I think we're going to find out sooner rather than later. I don't have anything breaking news to tell you about whether one of my client survivors is willing to do that, but she's pretty courageous. Lisa Phillips and I, I wouldn't be shocked if there's a movement to bring such an action.
- [48:50]
B
I think the Congress could do it. Right. I think Massie and I think they could do it. The members. Right. Like they could say the problem with the efta, the Epstein's Files Transparency act, is that it doesn't really have an enforcement mechanism and it is a civil right, it's a civil action. But why wouldn't it just be enforceable like any other civil, you know, civil law? Like, I don't think it has to have an enforcement mechanism in it. I think they could bring an action and, and I think they have standing or one of the survivors, as you said. And then that would have, I think then the judge would have be able to have jurisdiction over the millions of documents. But, but the particular criminal case that they brought this under is closed and that's what the judge held. And so, but I agree with you, there was an invitation to bring a.
- [49:45]
A
Different case, but I think they will. So let's turn our attention now as we see what happens next. And the wheel turning in Epstein to it originally didn't get a lot of coverage, but of course it's now gotten a lot of coverage in which the government raided the house and, and stole the devices the laptops and the computers of a major Washington Post reporter and of Hannah N. On January 14, they seized a phone, two laptops, a recorder, a portable hard drive, and a Garmin watch because they wanted to know how her cholesterol is or how many steps she's getting in. And in order to try to get to the bottom of an investigation that they're doing about whether a government contractor obtained classified materials or whether she, she was involved, that that's not the good cause to go rummaging around a reporter, a member of the fourth estate, and somebody who's got thousands of people that are cooperating with her about stories listed there. We have privilege in this country. We have a First Amendment right. And it went before a U.S. magistrate judge, William Porter, who has, at least for now, he's holding the ring. He's ruled that the federal law enforcement officials have to return the electronic devices seized and cannot look at what they have seized. And Hannah came out with a, with a comment on social media, which is like, these are my tools. I need my devices back to do my job is what she does for a living. She, you know, is an anti. She is sunshine. To try to shine light on a corrupt administration. These, these are the tools of her trade. Talk about Karen, with our audience. This kind of crossing a threshold that we've never seen an administration do, which is to go after a report. Even Nixon, who used to hear on those secretly recorded tapes, which we now, of course, are able to listen to, where he would bitch about, to, like Haldeman, his attorney general, or, or somebody else in his, in his corrupt administration. He would bitch about, oh, that was rat bastards Bernstein and Woodward, you know, where are they getting their information from? But he didn't say, let's go to their house and take away their typewriters and all of their papers. Even, even, even Nixon had limits. So walk through what you think's going on here. And, and were you shocked at the Washington Post, which is basically captured by Bezos, a buddy of Donald Trump is fighting back here.
- [52:26]
B
You know, I'm not surprised because the independence of the press is sacrosanct. It's in the Constitution. It's the First Amendment right. It's a freedom of the press. And it's, it's almost like the fourth branch of government. It's such an integral part of our society that it is very. Prosecutors, at least prosecutors that I'm familiar with. They really take their job seriously when they, when they're thinking about executing a subpoena or, or a search warrant on a reporter or a reporter's office or reporter's device. You have to get approvals up the ladder. You have to really have the goods. You can't go on a fishing expedition. You can't do that anyway. But you have to really, I mean, it is so you think long and hard before you would ever do anything like that. And frankly, most reporters would refuse to in a subpoena situation to hand over anything. Because I've known reporters who go to jail instead of held in contempt before, they'll give up their sources because, you know, people put their lives on the line and the reputations on the line and everything else to come forward and show transparency, you know, to basically put themselves out there so that reporters can do their job and they depend on that and reporters rely on that. And that's just something that, because it's constitutionally protected like almost no other job, it really is something that you don't do and you don't take lightly. I think here, the fact that they said it was classified information that was being leaked to her, I'm sure that's what they use to justify, oh, national security. We have to do this. But even that once you would, let's say hypothetically, okay, you have some information that she has, classified information that we have to figure out who did this, who leaked it.
- [54:30]
A
But they don't. But they don't, but they don't hear it. It's not a legal information. Right.
- [54:35]
B
So, okay, but if they thought that's what it was, they would have to put like a taint team in place because you have to, you can't just go around and now suddenly dump her devices and look for absolutely everything and know who all her sources are and all the information that you now have. Right. You have to be very, very laser scalpel. You know, you have to go in there and, okay, we're going to look for the one thing that we think we have probable cause for. You can't go fishing around and suddenly these are all the people who go to her. That's just not how it works. So what happened today was the magistrate judge basically did in addition to give her devices back. It's the standstill order. Don't look through it. You can't look through anything until we hash this out. He basically did something that's very unusual and told the prosecutors, you can't look at what you have.
- [55:29]
A
Well, and, and the reporting by the Washington Post, just to kind of round it out, is that the, the leak investigation was about, was about a systems administrator named Aurelio Perez Lagones and that he had information about Venezuela and he was in direct contact with the reporter. There's no allegation in the filings by the government or otherwise that n received classified information in the signal chat at all. The lawyers that she hired at Williams and Connolly or Washington Post hired at Williams and Connolly were in negotiations with the government to make sure they didn't look through any of the materials while the case was being litigated in the court. And they only ran to court after the DOJ took a very hard tact and said, no, we're not going to agree. Our senior officials have said we're not going to agree not to look through this while the case is in court. Meaning they had to run to court and get an emergency restraining order on exactly that and to return it. Now, if she got classified information, sure, they could try to use the Espionage Act. That's ironic since Donald Trump was charged with Espionage act violations in his own Mar? A Lago case. But what she said in the filings about Nathanson is that what they seized contains, quote, years of information about past and current confidential sources and other unpublished news gathering materials, including those she was using for current reporting. It's essentially her entire professional universe. Almost none of the information is relevant to the search warrant. The proverbial the government, the filing said for the Washington Post. Seize this proverbial haystack and attempt to locate a needle. And she covers the federal workforce. She's been one of the most high profile reporters for the Washington Post, covering government firings, national security in depth, articles about Venezuela and Social Security. And according to this reporter here that I'm referring to in the Washington Post right now, she did a first person account about her experience covering the Trump federal workforce. Across all the upheaval. She detailed how she posted her secure phone number to an online forum for government workers. Got 1,000 sources to talk to her and and other tip lines. This is why they're targeting Nathanson, because they don't like her. Her news gathering techniques, which are not illegal, but certainly she's meeting the moment and you got an out of control. You got to use. You got to use whatever you got. You set up a website, you set up a hotline, you set up a tip line. You do whatever you got to do, especially when you're being blocked. You're being forced as a reporter to sit through the insufferable propaganda press secretary briefings in the White House briefing room or the propaganda that's spewing like it's North Korea in the Pentagon briefing room or any. A good reporter today has to assiduously avoid the official White House and Department of War and whatever briefing rooms because it's just unmitigated. And so you got to go around it. And so she found a way. They didn't like it, and so they targeted Nathanson the way they target everybody. And now we're in federal court, and this is a story that we're going to have to follow because we're on her side. We're on the side of independent media and commentary. She's in a weird spot because she's not. She's. She's independent, but her parent company is. Is Amazon, who's close with Bezos. But even Bezos was like, all right, would say they didn't send in, like, the minor leaguers, Williams and Connolly. Karen, you know, this well, is one of the most elite, top flight credentialed law firms in Washington. If I had a problem, W and C would be one of the firms I'd go to in a heartbeat. So the fact that they're not. It's not like they're getting some solo practitioner from outer. Outer Maryland to go, sorry, solo practitioners in outer Maryland. But you're not Williams and Connolly. So that's a good thing. But we got to follow this story because it's not going to end there if we don't draw the line now, a red line now to stop him from doing it. What's next? Knock on your door? Knock on my door?
- [59:42]
B
Yeah. No, it's, it's, it's. I mean, why didn't they subpoena the information? Like the fact that they went straight to a search warrant is really, I think, a very dramatic step. And I'm not surprised that the Washington Post is fighting back, that this, this is a bridge too far for all reporters.
- [59:59]
A
Yeah, yeah. And anybody that's in the media and journalism the way that. In commentary, the way that we are. And we're glad that everybody's here with us. We don't have billionaires and trillionaires and we don't have their dollars to support what we do. I think that does make us better. I think that makes us more honest in terms of our. What you can rely on. But, you know, we punch above our weight and we need your. We're people powered. We need the support of our audience to do what we do. This isn't volunteer work. We have teams of editors and assistants and news gatherers and social media people all in this ecosystem that we create, created on the Midas Touch Network and Legal af, you know, it's, it's a profession and it's a job and you know, some of us, like me, we do it full time and, and all of that. So the way to support and how do you invest and make sure that we're on the air. Legal AF, the YouTube channel. 12 videos a day now. ACLU is now on with us for regular reporting. We're trying to put under one pane of glass, everything at the intersection of law and politics, law politics and global politics, all under one plane. ACLU is there. Democracy forward, Attorneys General. I just interviewed Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania today. It'll be up on legal AF YouTube in a day or so. And so you come over there if you can swing me in a paid membership, we've got some exclusive content for paid members at the Legal AF YouTube, Legal AF substack. A whole nother parallel universe for people that enjoy lots of different things. But law and politics particularly, we're regularly in the top five in rising US politics, top 40 of all sub stacks in that genre. And we bring it all we got, right? You know, we got people writing regularly there. You won't find that writing anywhere but there. My two live reports a day, the videos, commercial free versions of things. We got a whole, it's a whole ecosystem to nerd out on Law and Politics over on Legal AF substack. And then of course we've got support for the podcast itself over on audio versions. Wherever you get your audio podcasts from YouTube, tell friends, continue to build our audience, leave comments and the like and all the other things that are in our world, in our Legal AF world. And then finally we've got our sponsors who are ride or die. They are with us and they have been with us and they, and they fight to get on and address our audience and support our messaging. They know what we do, they know our editorial viewpoint and they are here for it. And we are happy about that. And here's a word from our sponsors. Magic Spoon is basically the grown up version of your favorite childhood cereal. All the fun, nostalgic taste without the sugar bomb. It's a wholesome, high quality, high protein, zero sugar cereal that still hits that Saturday morning vibe. Each serving has 13 grams of protein, 5 grams of net carbs and 0 grams of sugar. So it's super fueling any time of the day and great for anyone who's carb conscious. They've got classic flavors like fruity frosted hot chocolate and cinnamon toast. They're also launching new flavors in January this month that lean hard into childhood nostalgia. Classic marshmallow reminiscent of a certain childhood favorite enjoyed by all. And s', mores, the ultimate campfire and stuff inspired cereal. Both include real marshmallows and just 2 grams of sugar. Plus, Magic Spoon treats are crispy, airy snack bars with 12 grams of protein, and their granola packs 13 grams of protein with zero added sugar. Perfect anytime. Look for Magic Spoon on Amazon or at your nearest grocery store. Or get $5 off your next order at magicspoon.com legal af. That's magicspoon.com legal af for $5 off. You should know by now, I love to cook for my friends. And lately, what's taken my food to that next level is Graza. Graza is my olive oil of choice. Extra virgin, single origin, single varietal, super fresh, clean, pure, vibrant, bright, grassy, punchy and aromatic, all at an affordable, everyday price. Graza picks, presses, and bottles their olives in the same season. And you can see the harvest date on every bottle. You can truly taste the difference in quality. It's like no other olive oil on the planet. The smell, the taste, the texture, a full mouth sensory wow. Graza has two oils, Sizzle for everyday cooking, roasting, sauteing, everything, and Drizzle, a bold, flavorful finishing oil that's perfect for dipping bread, salads, or even ice cream. I'm always hosting dinner parties, so I keep both Sizzle and Drizzle on hand because they're absolutely delicious and look great on the countertop. You'll get 10% off your first order, but I recommend the Graza duo Sizzle for cooking Drizzle for that extra kick of bold flavor. So here you go. Go ahead to Graza Co and use legal AF to get 10% off and get to cooking your next chef quality meal. Welcome back and thank you to our pro democracy sponsors, and more importantly, thank you to our audience, our fervent audience. We're here. They're always here in large numbers. 10, 20,000 to watch and then, you know, 3, 400,000 before the show is all over during the week. We really appreciate everything that you do for us because without it, it would just be me and Karen getting a cup of coffee every day talking about the craziness in the. In the world, which I would certainly do, and I would do it with Ben too, but it's such an honor to do it with our, our audience. And so we move globally, Global, global af, as we like to call it, as whenever Donald Trump gets into a problem at home, which is every day with some scandal and the stench of some scandal. They got it. His handler's got to get him out of the country. So he didn't have to go to Davos, even though it was being sponsored by Blackstone private equity shop in New York, where all the movers and shakers and all plutocrats and billionaires in smoke filled rooms divide up the world's economy. You know, that's, that's what happens at Davos. And my old boss used to go regularly. He's there now as the Commerce Secretary actually. And he, Donald Trump made a major miscalculation as far as I'm concerned. Not surprising to me. He decided to go while, while it was in progress, as if it was like his convention, you know, like in the Republican National Convention or the Democratic one. The candidate doesn't arrive to the. Last night, Donald Trump's like, I'll come in three days in. Yeah, big mistake. Because that just gave the European Union and NATO and Canada and Macron and Germany all the time and take to the podium first and fucking tell off Donald Trump and tell them you're not taking Greenland over our dead body. You'll have to rip it out of our cold, dead hands. That's my paraphrase for the, for the European Union, we don't care about 200% taxes and tariffs on French wine because you'll never. Nobody believes him because you'll never do it. You are the boy that cried tariffs. You were never going to. Don't believe you. And Donald Trump always. When we heard last week he was going to go to Davos triumphantly and force down our allies throats. Two things. Two things, Karen. I don't forget one, the signature on the dotted line on the peace board for Gaza. Yes, the peace board where Vladimir Putin, who's currently at war killing innocents in Ukraine, can be on the peace board for a billion dollars that goes ultimately to Donald Trump and he can sit next to the Canadians and the Belarusians and everybody else who wants to be on the peace board that's going to get signed while I'm there. Hold that thought. Second is while I'm there, we are going to own Greenland. They will bow down before me, the great and powerful Oz, and they will give me all of Greenland. And even when they told them, you don't need all of Greenland, you just need certain military strategic parcels that you can get anyway under a contract that you've had with NATO and Greenland since 1952. No, I want it all I, it's like, well, it's like watching Willy Wonka. It's like the kid. Yeah, I want to. Was it Veruca Salt? I want it now, Daddy. I want Greenland now. And I'm sorry.
- [68:38]
B
So fire tonight.
- [68:41]
A
Sometimes I do things just to make Karen laugh. But, but okay, so that didn't happen because now he's trying to spin, right, Karen, that he's only gonna get these quote unquote strategic pieces of Greenland, which he could always have gotten if he just, he didn't have to ask nice. He just has to invoke the stat, the law and. Which is similar to, for instance, as a comparison, Great Britain has British soil in Cyprus for their military base, for their air force base. Same effing thing, okay? You'll have more military bases, trust me. NATO doesn't want to police Greenland. This frozen wasteland.
- [69:19]
B
We have Guantanamo Bay and Cuba, right?
- [69:22]
A
We got, we got, we own soil in other countries. Just do that. So Donald Trump backed off and said, okay, I'm not doing tariffs. I'm not penalizing the 10 NATO countries with tariffs. I guess France is off the hook too. I don't need the whole thing. I'm not going to buy it. I'm not going to take it militarily. I'm like, who is this guy for him? He thinks if he goes from this negotiating position, this art of the deal, as we said before he got on the air to this, it makes him look strong. It doesn't. Is there any doubt in your mind, Karen, that he's coming home weaker than when he left?
- [69:54]
B
It's insane to me. As you said, he started having the ability through this 70 year old treaty to basically go and use Greenland as we see fit for our national security. You just have to ask, right? So he had the ability and the authority to already have Greenland. But suddenly, even though no one's brought this up in my lifetime about this necessary we have to have Greenland for our national security. That's never been brought up. But suddenly Donald Trump's decided, okay, he absolute to have it. And he has, you know, so he says, I'm going to take it by force if I have to. And that scares everybody, right? Everybody's like, oh my God, the guy might do that because he's so unpredictable. And now we're all going to go to war and we're going to lose our allies and they're going to pull the bonds. Europe has more of our country's debt than I think anywhere else. And if they pull all their bonds and call their loans. What happens to our economy? And the world economy collapses. And everybody starts thinking, these are all the things we can do. How is this going to play out? And suddenly he realizes, okay, a bridge too far. I can't do that. And he ends up basically in the exact same place that he was in before. But now he's going to declare victory, which makes no sense. He was already there. It's like he causes a problem. He solves the problem he created, and the solution is one that already existed. But he claims victory. It's like this complete charade that I think people have to stop falling for. I could tell you right now, the world leaders are laughing at us. We're a laughing stock because of it. They see behind this charade, nobody's really afraid of him, right? The stock market, the taco. Trump always chickens out with tariffs and everything else, I think responds as well. And it's just, this is just a ridiculous problem, a ridiculous situation. The speech he gave at Davos was offensive. The fact that he, as always, puts down our allies who are long term allies, who are not only our trading partners, you know, oh, but, but I love Europe. I'm half Scottish and half German. Full Scottish and full German. Like, you know, it's, it's like bizarre the way he talks and the things he says. It's all about him. It's not about our shared history and our relationships and what we've done for each other. Oh, NATO's never done anything for us. Denmark's never done anything for us, he says, oh, really? Well, how about after 9 11, when 911 happened, guess who came to our aid? Who sent military forces, who was there? Guess who lost lives on our behalf? These are NATO military people, including Denmark. But he just doesn't appreciate or recognize any of these relationships. And he puts down our allies while building up the strong, you know, oh, I like Putin and Xi and everybody else who he thinks are strong and it's just, it's offensive. And I think the more. And Canada stood up for, I mean, the fact that our brother and sister country, Canada, had to give a speech where they were fighting for themselves as if we're not their ally is offensive. This is. Canada is one of our most important relationships. Right? Canadian people are among the most wonderful people and partnership that we have as a country. And the fact that we are at that point with Europe and with Canada and other allies that we are so close to. So it's a really dangerous position in the long run. I'm not worried about today. Necessarily because Trump always chickens out. But they're gonna remember and they're gonna remember. I think when the first Trump happened right in 2016, it was like, what was that? Okay, well, fine, we'll wait it out and then they'll elect a normal president and we'll go back to the way things are. The fact that we reelected him again and by a not tiny margin and the fact that he is in office and 10 times worse than he was, if not more, this is going to have long term impact on our country forever. And the speech today was just, I think, offensive and terrifying and head scratching. And I do think it's really not making us in any way stronger or safer or better. That that's my takeaway from today.
- [74:45]
A
Yeah, totally, totally agree. Donald Trump says crazy things out loud. I mean, two days ago I was reporting on Donald Trump begging Renee Good's parents, who he figured out may be Trump supporters, to continue to love him, love him even though his ICE goons shot their daughter in the head several times. I mean, the fact that he makes everything about him adulation, narcissism, is, is really just disgusting and offensive. And, you know, he'll be coming back from the world platform shrunken, bitter, a fool on a fool's errand to begin with. And now returning back to the United States, we didn't have a time to really touch on Minnesota got a new. I'll just, I'll just do one minute on it. We got a 8th Circuit Court of Appeals that's blocked Judge Menendez's attempts to protect First Amendment freedom of speech in the way that she did it, similar to what the 7th Circuit did with Judge Ellis about Illinois. But this game is not this, this, this is not. Fight is not over. And Donald Trump, however, has backed off the Insurrection act and sending in military troops, although he's investigating, opening up criminal investigations against again elected leaders of the blue states that didn't vote for him, like Tim Walls and Mayor Frey and even Attorney General Keith Ellison. And this is an administration that needs all eyes on it. Some people, I think, misinterpret what our approach is when we talk about here the lower third. You'll see Trump presidency, breaking legal news. We'll cover other things that are at the intersection of law and politics. But there are no other things. Because Donald Trump's erratic behavior and his descent into madness on full display, enabled by the people in his administration, means that we don't just have one news story every day, one news cycle. We have micro news cycles every day. We've got everything hitting all the cylinders, hitting and firing at one time, Federal courts, appellate courts, supreme courts, Donald Trump's executive orders, social media threats and attacks on his political enemies, whether they're governors or former prosecutors or attorneys general or playing old war tapes, his whole hit list of people that he wants to get rid of. And then I haven't even talked about economics, monetary policy, tariff policy, attacks on the allies, trying to break NATO over his knee like it's some sort of baseball bat, and him losing every time he tries to be the strongman, insults our. This administration has spent more time, starting with J.D. vance at the top of the administration beginning of January, when it went in last year, to today, bookending the two of them attacking our allies and shitting on them than any other administration in history. You want to have American first policy, that's fine. You want to completely put a. You want to completely torch and immolate our diplomacy that is used in many, many ways in order to accomplish American interests and American goals. You can't do everything with saber rattling that everybody's ignoring now and social media posts. That's not how world politics works or the world economy works. And if anybody. This is the thing. That's really why we have to keep all eyes trained on him, because he eventually succumbs to political pressure. If he believes he's not being loved, if he believes the polls are not supporting him, if he believes the American public are against him on major issues, he backs off. Maybe not every time, but enough that it is an effective strategy in opposition. That's why we got to file the lawsuits. Sometimes he folds. He folds half the time and doesn't even pursue the appeal. And then the funds that were blocked flow back to the American people. And so the lawyers have got to do their job, the public interest groups. And then we here, in terms of the commentary, we got to do our job. We gotta. We gotta figure out during the day what's important for people to know and understand and talk about on the podcast, and then we gotta activate it, Right? We gotta. We got to turn information into action. And I think that's one of the jobs that you and I have here on the podcast.
- [79:18]
B
Yeah, I agree. I absolutely agree.
- [79:21]
A
Yeah. So with that, I'll turn over what we usually do six years running. Karen, you get the final word for our midweek edition of Legal.
- [79:32]
B
You know, a lot of people got their Social Security checks today, and a lot of people saw that their Social Security checks were less than what they're used to getting I think that is a reflection of this administration's policies, whether it's about health insurance and health care, whether it's Medicare, whether it's all of the various policies that are happening. So my heart goes out to the people who are struggling because we're starting to feel the effects of this administration even tighter. And the more they talk about how, oh, well, prices are going down and gas is going down, stock markets going up, I want people who are feeling the real effects of this, not just the rich people who have stocks in the stock market, to know that. We hear you, we see you, and thank you for sharing your stories with us so that we can give a voice to them. And we'll keep fighting like hell to turn us blue again so that we can make policies that make sense for the everyday person, not just for the billionaires and the hundred millionaires.
- [80:45]
A
Absolutely. And thank you all to our audience for being here until Saturday edition of Legal AF. You know where to find us, Legal AF, YouTube channel, Legal AF substack, and of course, here on the podcast. So until our next show, shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal A efforts.