Co-host/Legal Analyst (4:29)

Indefinitely detain the protesters at the church.

Michael Popak (4:33)

And a magistrate judge and federal judge says, no, we're not doing that. Like, you haven't established why these individuals are flight risks and why they shouldn't be returned home. But that just shows you how dastardly this Trump regime is. So we're going to talk about all of that. We'll talk about big oral arguments at the Supreme Court regarding Trump's attempt to try to terminate one of the Board of governors. One of the governors on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Lisa Cook. You'll recall that previously the Supreme Court said that the Trump regime can't fire any board of governor without cause, as Trump was doing with other agencies and departments. So Donald Trump's like, ah, well, I.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (5:14)

Guess I'll just say it's with cause.

Michael Popak (5:16)

So Donald Trump and Bill Topoti and other crooks in that regime cooked up a scheme to basically say Lisa Cook engaged in all this misconduct with mortgage fraud. There's no findings of anything. There's no prosecution of her. There's no anything. But they try to use it as a for cost termination to get rid of her. That was stayed and blocked by lower courts. And the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments. We'll break down what happened there. Special Counsel Jack Smith gave testimony before Congress. We previously covered his deposition testimony and we uploaded the full deposition testimony on the Midas Touch YouTube page. We've also covered Jack Smith's testimony on Congress. What a clown show with these MAGA Republicans. Their questions were so awful and they refused to let Jack Smith talk about volume two. Volume two of the report that he prepared regarding Trump's theft of classified documents that he hid in Mar?

Co-host/Legal Analyst (6:15)

A Lago.

Michael Popak (6:17)

Pam Bondi at the doj, saying, well, Judge Eileen Cannon, the judge who presided over the case, has still kept these records sealed. So if you talk about it, Jack Smith, we're going to go after you.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (6:28)

Jack, we're going to prosecute you. Even though you're being called to testify.

Michael Popak (6:32)

In Congress, you can't. You're not allowed to do it.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (6:35)

And then the DOJ rushed into court.

Michael Popak (6:38)

Afterwards and to Judge Cannon and said.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (6:42)

That Volume two should never be released, ever, that it was a fake investigation.

Michael Popak (6:46)

By Jack Smith and that the communications constitute a deliberative privilege, that they're privileged.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (6:52)

That nobody can ever see volume 2.

Michael Popak (6:54)

So, in other words, we got a lot to discuss. Michael Popak, it's great to see you. And legal af, we'll take these all in order. But, you know, obviously on a show like this, we focus on the law. But there's so much that we could also say about Donald Trump's disastrous trip to Davos in Switzerland. But I think it is related, and I'll pass it to you now because it just shows the recklessness, the carelessness, the maliciousness and embarrassment on the world stage and embarrassment here at home. The opposite of law and order.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (7:27)

Yeah, you can, you can easily tie everything together. And the American people are tying everything together. You've got the new polling that's come out post Venezuela capture of its oil fields that shows that every battleground state that Donald Trump won, he would lose today, but not by a little, but by a lot. That 60% of America believes that this is a failed administration. And on every key issue that Donald Trump is continuing to press, whether it be affordability, the economy, jobs, world peace, national security, immigration policy and the like, he's Underwater by between 20 and up to 44 points underwater when you talk, when you throw in the Epstein files. And that's just the people that call themselves Democrats or Republicans. The independents have abandoned Donald Trump to the tune of 75% believe that he is wrong for America and he has failed America. You know, somebody went to Davos, Switzerland, World Economic Forum and came home a hero to the rest of the world and laid out a blueprint for how to have the global world achieved during the Trump presidency. And its name was not Donald Trump. His name was Mark Carney. He's not the governor of Canada as Donald Trump likes to troll. Even today he is the prime Minister. And he had a standing ovation. What passes for a standing ovation at Davos and foot stomping when he laid out his plan for the middle, the middle countries and middle powers of Europe and Canada to join together to defeat effectively to lick Donald Trump. And Donald Trump came home a shrunken, defeated man, weaker than when he left, trying to declare a victory by again, another phony signing session. You know, and of course the mainstream media eats it up with all these giant, you know, binders with his signature and then somebody smiling next to him. The reality is the trillions of dollars of foreign investment have never come to fruition. That's why you don't see any video or pictures of shovel ready projects because of foreign investment that Donald Trump claims happened because of his art of the deal, because it never happened. He has to claim phony victory because he's now back to a 1952 agreement about what he could always have done in Greenland, a Cold War agreement. And that's the best he has instead. I won. I want the peace board. Look at my p. It's just this phony theatrical set pieces that keep getting moved around. And then whenever Donald Trump and the mainstream media eats it up. And then whenever Donald Trump has a terrible, terrible news cycle and it's just been unrelentingly bad for him, especially in the last six months, the last two weeks since the start of January. We're all on to his trick. We cover it well on Legal, AF and Midas Touch Network. It's time for another distraction. I had a bad news cycle. Jack Smith testifying. Let me sue Jamie Dimon at JPMorgan Chase which will open up an entire ridiculous can of worms about Donald Trump's own fraud. Oh, I had a. Jack Smith's doing something I don't like in terms of his testimony in front of the American people. Oh, let me, you know File something in Mar a Lago with my favorite judge, Judge Cannon, to convince her to bind the future Department of justice in 2028 to prevent the release of the Mar A Lago report. I don't like what's going on in Epstein. I do. You know, it's just this constant refrain of Donald Trump firing out yet another usually disastrous lawsuit or the like. And then he's got finally, I mean, it fell off the shelf of our coverage today because of the timing. But now with, with Lindsey Halligan resigning in disgrace because of two back to back federal court orders against, against the Department of Justice, you've got Pam Bondi, who's on her last legs as the head of the Department of Justice, you know, running, running around, as you said, to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to try to force a magistrate judge to do that, which she could never do by way of an indictment in a grand jury, which is to indict Don Lemon for First Amendment expression. And the first, the thing, the thing that frames our show today is the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment, which for me and probably most of our audience, if you had to just pick out two out of our 10amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. The most important, I think, are the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment about against illegal searches and seizures, especially in your home. These are all under attack right now. And it's the federal judiciary once again, whether it's the district court judge or it's the magistrate judges that are stepping forward to protect our rule of law and reject the lawlessness of the Department of Justice. One last thing I just did, I just did a kind of an essay piece over on legal AF for tomorrow morning. What we are watching since it's almost like a bell or a horn went off January 1st. And it's not Trump derangement syndrome, it's the Trump resistance movement. And we're watching it from Jay Powell, Federal Reserve chairman, coming out with a strong video calling out the Trump administration showing up at the Supreme Court during oral argument about the Federal Reserve. You've got mayors in Minneapolis telling Donald Trump to f off. You've got, you know, Danish diplomats this yesterday telling Donald Trump to go f off. You got Pope Leo and his resistance. You got Mark Carney leading the world, especially Europe and Canada, against Donald Trump. And this is now, I think this is the playbook for 2026 and into the midterms, which is, no, we're not going to appease this demented, deranged, out of control fascist king. We are going to oppose him. And while the Mark Carney's of the world, the Claudia Sheinbaums of the world and Macrons are doing it on the global stage, we then we've got what we're doing in the court system, which is to dilute and delay and to win in the courts against Donald Trump's lurching from one constitutional abuse of power to the next. And I think that's, that's what you and I built here with legal af, which is that we would just drill down and train our sights and be unrelenting in the coverage of what we're observing. And Minnesota, where we're going to kick it off next, is, is, is ground zero right now for the attack. We got a thousand priests being arrested, journalists attempted to be arrested on criminal warrants, people's doors being bashed in in violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the only thing that stops us from complete and utter tyranny besides the attorneys general there, the mayors and the governors, is the federal courts on the ground in these states.

Michael Popak (14:50)

Let's start off talking about what's going on in Minnesota. So earlier in the week, Popak, we learn about these I205 forms being used in lieu of judicial warrants, something called a Fourth Amendment, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures, requiring a judicial warrant and showings of probable cause to be made in order to obtain a warrant. But Donald Trump just rips the Constitution apart there. We've seen and we've been covering here on the Midas Touch Network how these Trump ICE and Border Patrol Gestapo have been breaking into people's homes and they hold up papers, but they're not judicial warrants.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (15:36)

Right.

Michael Popak (15:37)

So lots of people, what are these pieces of paper that they're holding up? They're basically the equivalent of the ICE and Border Patrol signing their own parking tickets and then giving it to you instead of a judicial warrant and saying, look, we signed it. We can come in here. Do you remember on, I think you and I covered it here on a legal AF episode, and we definitely covered it in separate takes. That we did. You know, the DOJ has been putting out ads on X, formerly Twitter, saying if you want to become an administrative law judge, apply.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (16:10)

It's basically, remember the Trump regime fired.

Michael Popak (16:13)

Lots of all these other administrative law judges as well. And they basically have put their own people in to sign off on their own warrants, which are not judicial warrants, and they use that to violate people's.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (16:25)

Let me, let me do it this way. I totally agree with you. Let's just break out our legal AF law school class here for a minute. Because a lot of people, especially around the world, not only around the world, but in our own country, when we talk administrative law judge, do not think that the judicial branch of our government, just because they have the name judge in it, just think they work for the president. Whether they're an administrative law judge in the Environmental Department, securities and Exchange Commission, or here in immigration, they are Trump judges. They work for the Department of Justice. They work for Donald Trump. There is nobody on the other side. It is, there's not, it's not an impartial neutral. It is a Trump or president appointed person who's serving as a judge. So when you and I talk about the chief judge in quotes of the immigration court, I don't want to leave people with the impression that that's an Article 3 Judicial Branch, Separation of powers thing when it's not. So when, when you and I talk about the Fourth Amendment and what the Supreme Court has said about the Fourth Amendment, which means all persons, not citizens, all persons is what? Because, you know, look, the framers of the Constitution knew how to use the word citizens when they wanted to. They use person for a reason in the Fourth Amendment. And an illegal migrant or an undocumented migrant is still a person in their own home, and the home is their castle or their castle keep. And so what the Supreme Court has always said is that unless you're picking up somebody in the public, you know, like, you know, out a church parking lot, a target in Minnesota, apparently even in a courtroom in Milwaukee, if you're going to somebody's home, you gotta have a neutral federal judge, district court judge, Article three judge or magistrate judge reporting to that judge. Take in the evidence and the adversarial. There's really no adversarial process. Have the prosecutor there and the judge and come up, yes or no, thumb up or thumb down with a search warrant, or thumb up and thumb down on a criminal complaint. We'll talk about next with, with, with Don Lemon. That's what's required to burst through somebody's door. Okay? Until apparently In May and 2000, May of this year, ICE, according to two insiders who have blown the whistle and they're currently anonymous, who sent that memo out and now you and I and everybody else has a copy of it in which it says you're allowed to use a Trump judge to issue a Trump warrant and use that to burst through somebody's front door under the Fourth Amendment. And what's the basis for That a Trump lawyer inside the Department of Homeland Security General Counsel's office gave that advice. You may be asking at home, where, where is the neutrality? Where is the other side? Where is a Supreme Court precedent? None. They're just testing to see if the Supreme Court's going to let them get away with it. I just did a hot take. You have done a number of them about this. This poor woman whose husband from Liberia, he's been here since, since he's been a child. He's now in his 30s or 40s, checking in all the time with, with INS because he's, he was part of Biden's parole program, probation program. And they came to her door. She had the presence of mind, the wife, to say, you, I need a warrant. They had no warrant when they first got to her door. They then came back to her door. There were now demonstrators outside who were filming this. They burst through the door, they dragged out her husband and they left her with a photocopy of an i205 form issued by a Trump immigration judge. You know what happened to that person? They got before a federal judge. The lawyers argued that it was a Fourth Amendment violation and that guy was ordered released from jail. So now we're going to have to do this hand to hand combat with federal judges to make sure that our Fourth Amendment rights are preserved. And it's not just the migrants. People that are listening in our audience were thinking, well, I'm not an undocumented migrant, so I got nothing to worry about. This should send a chill down your spine that the Trump judge with Trump counsel advising them with a Trump agent can burst through your door with a battering ram and take somebody out from within it without a neutral federal judge presiding over the proceeding that we're all that family. We're, we're all. Renee Goode. We're all the family with the battering ram at the door, right?

Michael Popak (21:01)

I mean, an American citizen killed today in Minneapolis by Border Patrol. Renee Nicole Good, American citizen killed in cold blood by ICE Gestapo. When we've been seeing a lot of these videos we've been showing here on the Midas Touch Network and shout out to our partners at Status Coup who have boots on the ground, who have been videotaping a lot of what's taking place. We've been, we've been showing you how these ICE and Border Patrol Gestapo go up to American citizens who are peacefully protesting gas em, attack them, beat them, brutalize them. I mean, it's caught on tape. And then we all saw that footage from Portland, Maine, where a lady who was peacefully protesting ICE Gestapo there was approached by an ICE officer wearing a mask. He takes a photo of her, and she's like, why are you taking a photo of me? He goes, you're a domestic terrorist. Now it's like, I'm a domestic terrorist. We just added you to our list, and you are now considered a domestic terrorist. And so the Trump regime is also working with AI companies and big tech, creating a list putting United States citizens who are protesting using facial recognition software and using other databases. They're creating of people. They're creating lists of who they're determining to be domestic terrorists. And for Donald Trump, if you're Jack Smith, domestic terrorist. If you're Don Lemon, domestic terrorist, you're protesting the regime. Domestic terrorist. Midas Touch network.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (22:47)

Other people who oppose Donald Trump.

Michael Popak (22:49)

That is what this regime is doing. That is what they are building. And to your point, Popak, that's why it shouldn't matter if you're a U.S. citizen, if you are an asylum seeker, if you are here as a migrant. The Trump regime lumps anybody who doesn't like Donald Trump into a category as the enemy from within. And Donald Trump's friends, going back to how we started, are on that board of authoritarians that he calls the board of the Board of Peace. And Donald Trump hates people who support democracy, who want peace, who just want to go about their lives. So that's a perfect pivot for us to talk about Don Lemon, the arrests of others who were involved in these protests at the church in St. Paul, and to talk about what went down this morning, where Border Patrol, and sometimes it's hard to distinguish the ICE and the Border Patrol. You have the guy Lyons, who runs ice, and then you have Tom Homan, who's a czar, like a border czar. And at the very top of this, you have Kristi Noem, who runs Department of Homeland Security, which both ICE and Border Patrol report to. And then Border Patrol, you have that Greg Bevino guy, really, that sick guy who wears that trench coat that Gavin Newsom said it's like the SS Trench coat, and that's the guy who just goes there and personally, like, gases the people himself. Wearing that trench coat. I mean, like, literally looks like the manifestation of evil, but the Border Patrol was the one who shot this individual earlier, earlier in the day. So I want to talk all about that. I want to talk about what's happening at the Supreme Court as it relates to the oral arguments by Lisa Cook, one of the governors on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (24:44)

But we should also just be very.

Michael Popak (24:46)

Clear in the Supreme Court granting Donald Trump absolute immunity, which was the ultimate betrayal of our Constitution. The Supreme Court has enabled this. So when we talk about the oral arguments of Lisa Cook, we'll talk about how Justice Kavanaugh, one of the right wing Supreme Court justices appointed by Donald Trump, while he was asking his questions of John Sauer, Donald Trump's Solicitor General, during the oral arguments, Kavanaugh seemed to like, have this epiphany, like this, oopsie. If we allow Donald Trump to do this, then couldn't a Democratic president do this? We'll talk about that and more. But let's take our first quick break of the show. A reminder. Make sure you check out Michael Popo's YouTube channel, Legal AF on YouTube. Wherever you you are right now on.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (25:39)

YouTube, just search Legal AF.

Michael Popak (25:40)

Make sure you subscribe. Subscribe to Popak Substack, the Legal AF substack, which is absolutely crushing it. Great work there on the on building up that thriving substack Popoc.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (25:53)

And then if you or someone you.

Michael Popak (25:55)

Know has been injured in a car accident or a trucking accident, injured by the negligence of others, medical malpractice injuries. If you know someone who's the victim in a wrongful death case and you're speaking with their family or just reach.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (26:08)

Out to the Popoc Firm, call or.

Michael Popak (26:10)

Text 877-POPAKAF, call or text 877 POPOCF.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (26:15)

Or go to thepopoc firm.com thepopocfirm.com let's.

Michael Popak (26:20)

Take our first quick break of the show. We'll be right back to discuss more.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (26:24)

You should know by now.

Sponsor Advertiser (26:25)

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.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (27:31)

So here you go.

Sponsor Advertiser (27:33)

Go ahead to Graza Co and use legal AF to get 10% off and get to cooking your next chef quality meal. Let's talk candidly about something no one wants to talk about what happens when you pass on. Because unfortunately it's going to happen to you and me. But we can be prepared with Trust and Will Online Estate Planning Estate planning is something many people put off even when they know it's important. If you're a parent, a homeowner spouse, or caring for aging parents, it may be time to start thinking about having a plan in place, especially when it comes to decisions like guardianship. Trust and Will makes estate planning easier to approach. Their online platform provides a step by step guided process, so even if you don't know where to start or feel overwhelmed by questions, you can create an estate plan in as little as 30 minutes. They also offer optional one on one support from attorneys in your state. And estate planning isn't just for people with significant assets. Everyone has something to leave behind. Trust and Will believes estate planning should be accessible to everyone, which is why they're committed to making it affordable today and valuable tomorrow. Don't wait until it's too late. Protect your loved ones today, tomorrow and beyond with Trust and Will, the most trusted name in online estate planning. Go to trustandwill.com legalaf and get 20% off. That's trustandwill.com legalaf to get your 20% off. Trustandwill.com legal af welcome back to legal af.

Michael Popak (29:20)

Thank you to our sponsors who make the show possible. The discount codes are in the description below. So this past week, Donald Trump's DOJ gauge in a prosecution of the protesters who were at that St. Paul church. And they prosecuted these protesters under a law called the FACE act, which really is intended for the purpose of prosecuting people who would stand outside of abortion clinics, reproductive health centers and physically attack and physically block women from going into the clinics and seeking reproductive health services. Now in the 90s, in order to get this bill passed on a bipartisan basis, there was a provision that basically said, well, also the same rules apply in churches to get Republican votes. And so the idea would be if you physically assaulted somebody from getting into a church or you went into a church and physically threatened somebody the way people have been doing at reproductive health centers, that the same law applies. So There were people who show up at St. Paul, at this church in St. Paul, because allegedly, one of the leaders of the church, someone connected with the leadership of the church as part of ICE and was inflicting this terror and pain on the community. So a protest was held. And Don Lemon, journalist, independent reporter, friend of mine, was at my wedding. I know Don very well. Great reporter was there. Popak was at my wedding, too. He was hanging out with Don Letman there.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (31:05)

Full disclosure.

Michael Popak (31:06)

Disclosure, Popo. All at my wedding.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (31:10)

And.

Michael Popak (31:11)

And Don Lemon was reporting on it. There was one moment where one of the church leaders touched Don Lemon, and Lemon's like, don't touch me. I'm not. I'm here to ask you questions. I don't want touching. And Lemon streamed the whole thing. So there's no ambiguity in what's taking place. The whole thing was videotaped. Prosecutors wanted to go after all of them.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (31:37)

They didn't go get an indictment.

Michael Popak (31:39)

They got a criminal complaint, but PO PA against the other protesters. They tried against Lemon, but the magistrate wouldn't sign off on it. The leader of the protest is someone by the name of Nekima Armstrong. She is a former leader of the Minneapolis chapter of the naacp. She's a civil rights lawyer in her own right, and she was one of the people who were arrested. And then the Department of Justice manipulated the image of her. Here's the image that Kristi Noem posted, which is still incredibly inappropriate to post this image. There's an image of Kristi Noem posting it. And then the White House account posted an image that they did artificial intelligence on, where they made Nekima have darker skin and made her cry and said. Arrested far left agitator Nekima Levy Armstrong arrested for orchestrating church riots in Minnesota. That's what the White House did, which will obviously now come into play in her prosecution, because she'll talk about vindictive prosecution the same way we've been talking about that with the Abrego Garcia case, where federal courts have found vindictiveness. Popak, why don't you take it all?

Co-host/Legal Analyst (32:53)

Yeah. I mean, as I said at a break, at our commercial break, the impeachment proceedings can't start quick enough for me. After the Democrats hopefully take back the House and the Senate, So many people will. Will be impeached, much like the Nixon administration for what they're doing. And I see, you know, my crystal ball sees Pam Bondi and Todd Blanch, Emil Bovey hiding out at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. But once a Donald Trump Henchman within the Department of Justice and Christy Noemi. The list, the list, you know, the press secretary. No one, no one will be safe from the long arm of a impartial Department of Justice and Congress controlled by the Democrats or the long arm and the long reach of history. So we're using that as a backdrop. You've got peaceful First Amendment protests and sometimes in our, in our society. The. I said this on a video recently. The. Let's just take the 10amendments, the first 10amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. They don't operate in a silo. They're not pistons that are separated and go up and down like an engine. There are times when there's friction between them and there's collisions between them. Sometimes the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, there's collisions sometimes between the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment or First Amendment, there's collisions and it's in frictions. And that was intended. Okay. And it's for federal judges. Again, back to our thematic. On this show and every show, it's back to federal judges and the people that work for them, like magistrate judges, to sort this out. Especially when you have a lawless presidency. So sometimes the right of worship under the First Amendment and freedom of worship up against government intrusion or invasion runs up against people who protest your worshiping or somebody in your congregation or whatever. Whatever was the, the, the, the lead in to a group of activists deciding to, to go into this St. Paul church, the city's church in St. Paul, and protest and led by people who are. Who often get into what we call good trouble, including Nikima Armstrong and William Kelly and Chantille Allen and Don Lemon accompanied them. He does a lot of live streaming. He does it on substack. He does it on his YouTube channel. And he was there as a reporter. In fact, he was interviewing people like parishioners coming out. And one of them in particular, I just used it in my own hot take. One of them said, oh, I was just worshiping. And then you people showed up. And he goes, I'm not you people. I'm just here, I'm reporting on this. You know, I accompanied them and we've got cameras here as a result. Well, for the Trump administration, it was a they. They are for a Trump Department of Justice and Civil rights division that is completely blind to the civil rights violations and deprivations that occurred when Renee Goode was murdered by an ICE agent and then within a minute of it occurring, already declared that the ICE agent was innocent and had committed only self defense. And There would be no investigation. Now. Oh, some sort of protest happens on church grounds. And it's like, whoa, we need to do a civil rights investigation and criminal investigations and arrest all these protesters. So they, as they often do, they went in with what's called a criminal complaint that is prepared by the prosecutor. But they can't. They can't use that to get an arrest warrant. They have to go into a federal judge, as we talked about at the top of the show. This is an immigration court, you know, where they get the benefit of their own judge issuing arrest warrants or pieces of paper that look like arrest warrants. They got to go to a federal judge. Now, a criminal complaint is sort of a placeholder until they can get around to having a grand jury of peers, if they can indict these people and they can arrest off a criminal complaint. But it can't be. It can't only be a criminal complaint. It has to be replaced at some point by a real indictment. So, for instance, when Hannah Dugan, the judge in Milwaukee, was arrested for obstructing the use of an I205 administrative arrest warrant, picking somebody up in her courtroom or near her courtroom, she was first held on a. On a criminal complaint that was eventually endorsed, if you will, by a federal judge. An arrest warrant was issued, then it was replaced by a grand jury indictment. And of course, she got convicted of a couple of things in court here. That's how a criminal complaint works. So they got a criminal complaint against a couple of these people. We just talked about the ones that were arrested, including Nekima Armstrong. And no, the Department of Justice is not supposed. It's supposed to be neutral, as the people's prosecutor. And they're not supposed to be posting AI ginned up photos, racially charged photos of the people who are innocent until proven guilty. And this Department of Justice as a weapon, as a tool of Donald Trump, on full display once again with yet another perp walk photo, which will come up to the judge eventually if this indictment, a future indictment, sticks about, about a jury selection process and prejudice and bias. But so they were arrested. Subsequently, a federal judge found that most of them should not be held without bail and released them to their own recognizance or after a bond or bail hearing. Pam Bondi did not like that the magistrate judge, and then the federal judge would not sign off on the criminal complaint for Don Lemon. Don Lemon, a journalist, a First Amendment chronicler of what was happening during the protest. Not a riot at the church, a protest at the church. Okay, I never. I never saw people come out of a riot and. And Cobbly be interviewed by a reporter, which is what you can see in. In clip after clip after clip of Don Lemon's reporting. So, of course, the mad. The magistrate judge, and ultimately the federal judge was like, no, there's a little thing called the First Amendment. This is journalism. This isn't protest. You may not like it, but this is no different than if a journalist had been on the petit bridge in. In Selma, Alabama, you know, while peaceful protesters were being beaten to within inch of their life, you know, by the Alabama local police who were trying to peacefully march about the civil rights movement. If there had been a. If Don Lemon had been there, you know, with technology at the time, with his. With his pad, he doesn't get arrested because he's chronicling what's happening under the First Amendment and freedom of the press. So Pam Bonney didn't like that. Okay? So rather than put on her big girl pants and go get an indictment, if you think you can get it from a Minnesota grand jury or St. Paul grand jury, she went instead to try to, you know, this theatrical move go to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to try to get a writ of mandamus, which is an order for a federal officer or officer to do something that they're not doing. Except this isn't like, you know, a ministerial act, like, sign the. The document. This is a magistrate judge using their powers to determine under their abusive discretion standard, whether whether the government has met a burden or not on probable cause. And finding that they hadn't. She didn't like it, ran to the 8th Circuit. The 8th Circuit slammed her in a newly released. There it is. The government here. Look at the language from the 8th Circuit chief judge. The government lumps all eight protesters together and say that things that are true of some, but not all of them. Two of the five were not even protesters. They were journalists. That's Don Lemon and his producer. There's no evidence that these two engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so. And so, no, we're not going to force the magistrate judge based on your skimpy sleep, scant evidence in violation of the First Amendment that didn't make it. Now, what can she do? She can go try to impanel, if it's not up, up and running already, with Lord knows who, because the U.S. attorney walked out 10 days ago, along with all the leadership in Minnesota, whoever she can find there, to go and panel another grand jury to get Don Lemon indicted. I'm not, I'm not suggesting that should happen or will happen, but that's what she would have to do next if she doesn't like what's just happened with the criminal complaint process. Don Lemon has great counsel. Somebody that you and I talk about so many times that you think he's part of the show. Abby Lowell. Abby Lowell is representing Lisa Cook, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserves, representing Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, and many other people who have gotten on Donald Trump's vindictive retribution, vindictive prosecution or retribution list. One of the handful of lawyers and law firms that are standing up every day against the Trump administration and making it a their practice area of representing people who are targeted by the Trump administration. So, you know, he's in great hands. I'm sure Abby's ready and local council's ready to whatever happens next as he continues to do his job as a journalist.

Michael Popak (42:55)

Yeah, you know, and then of course, Donald Trump making it so much worse today after the horrific shooting of the individual who by all accounts, and based on all the information we now know had the right to conceal carry, had the right to carry a firearm as a result of the second amendment right. That's what we always have heard in the state of Minnesota. Absolute right to have a gun holstered where the gun was holstered, and by all accounts, what it looks like it happened. These eight border patrol thugs started pepper spraying the guy, kicking him, beating him, took the gun out of the holster, aggressively threw the guy to the ground, started beating him, and then shot him repeatedly, ten times, maybe more. Shot, shot, shot, shot, shot. When that individual had every right to be doing what he was doing. And then you get a statement out from the Trump regime and the statement that Donald Trump posted earlier today is this is the gunman's gun loaded with.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (44:12)

Two additional full magazines and ready to go.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (44:15)

What is that all about?

Co-host/Legal Analyst (44:17)

Where are the local police?

Michael Popak (44:19)

Why aren't they allowed to protect ICE officers?

Co-host/Legal Analyst (44:22)

The mayor and the governor called them off. It is stated that many of these police were not allowed to do their job, that ICE had to protect themselves. Not an easy thing to do. Why does ELON Omar have $34 million in her account? And where are the tens of billions of dollars that have been stolen from.

Michael Popak (44:41)

The 1 scragg state in Minnesota?

Co-host/Legal Analyst (44:44)

We are there because of massive monetary fraud with billions of dollars missing and illegal criminals allowed to infiltrate the state through Democrats open border policies. We want our money back and we want our money back now. Those fraudsters who stole the money, are going to jail. The mayor and the governor are inciting.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (45:06)

And we're going to shoot and kill people who are.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (45:08)

The mayor and the governor are inciting insurrection with their pompous, dangerous and arrogant rhetoric. Let our ICE patriots do their job. 12,000 illegal alien criminals have been arrested and taken out of Minnesota. If they were still there, you would be witnessing much worse than what you're witnessing today.

Michael Popak (45:29)

Then he posts again.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (45:30)

Among other things, this is a cover up for the billions of dollars that have been stolen from the once great state, but soon to be great again in Minnesota. I mean, look, Donald Trump has invaded.

Michael Popak (45:45)

American cities, American towns, American states.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (45:50)

An invasion with a paramilitary force. I would say no different than what.

Michael Popak (45:58)

You see in Putin's Russia or in Iran or in other authoritarian regimes.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (46:03)

But frankly, it may be worse. What you wait, what you're seeing, it's at that level for sure. But America is under attack by a psychotic madman who wakes up and goes, I'm going to tariff Canada today because I don't like Canada today. And I'm going to call Carney the governor and I'm going to go after Greenland and just start posting photographs of me walking with penguins taking over Greenland. Aren't I funny? No, you are a psychotic madman, criminal felon. You were found civilly liable for sexual abuse. You are a disgusting piece of trash. And we all should just be outraged about Trump and this entire regime. And when he goes, what's that all about? It's about the second Amendment. The thing that you've weaponized and used for political tools in ways that actually have led to massive school shootings taking place. Where our children and parents are afraid to send their kids to schools because you say that, you know, anybody can basically have these semi automatic weapons by schools. That's what the second Amendment says. But really, when someone is actually with a concealed carry, has the weapon how they're supposed to have it, then you send your Gestapo to pepper spray him and kill him. That's how, that's how they use it. But that's how they use everything. Right? They use the second Amendment to allow school shootings and prevent the second Amendment, how it's supposed to be used. Right? Think about any topic that they do. Yeah, there's states rights when it comes to violations of the Constitutions. But then they'll send the federal government to trample and tread on states and take it over and totally ignore the, the 10th Amendment. You know, they'll say, oh, we're for the First Amendment, we're absolutist because they want to use the First Amendment to incite insurrections. But then when people invoke the First Amendment to peacefully protest, this regime goes, oh, you are a bunch of domestic terrorists. Their words are not just meaningless. Their words are the words of authoritarians who want absolute power and to rip apart our democracy. Stop using language that these are normal political times. They are not. When we come back, I want to talk about Lisa Cook's oral argument before the Supreme Court, Jack Smith's testimony as.

Michael Popak (48:38)

Well, you know, because when, when you.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (48:40)

Look at what's taking place even at the Supreme Court and what's taking place in Congress and what's actually happening on these streets of our country, I mean, you can see that we're not in a constitutional crisis. We are well past that constitutional crisis. There's an authoritarian regime right now that's ripped apart the Constitution. And the question becomes, what are we going to do about that? How are we going to stand up for our rights?

Michael Popak (49:12)

Reminder, subscribe to the Legal AF substack and Legal AF YouTube channel by Michael Popak. He's got a lot of other great contributors as well. Make sure you subscribe there. In addition, if you or somebody you know has been injured in a car accident, trucking accident, injured by the negligence of a third party or corporation or somebody, if you know someone who's the.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (49:34)

Victim in a wrongful death case and you're speaking with their families, do the same thing. Text 877- POPAK or call 877 popoc or go to the popoc firm.com. they've got lawyers across the country available 24. 7 fighting for you. The consultation is free and we'll put.

Michael Popak (49:51)

That in the description below as well. We'll be right back after a quick break.

Sponsor Advertiser (49:56)

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 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 legalaf that's magicspoon.com legalaf for $5 off. I am so over the whole New Year new me thing. Short term fads don't deliver long term results. Science does, especially when it comes to skin care. That's why I use one skin. Their formulas are powered by the OS1 peptides, a patented peptide built on longevity science proven to target aging at the cellular level. It's not about adding extra steps to your routine, it's about swapping in smarter ones. I've been using OS1 body for a few months now and I've really noticed how much smoother and healthier my skin feels overall. One Skin is known for cult favorite formulas like OS one Body, OS one Face and OS one Eye, all built on a science first approach to aging that's validated in five separate clinical studies born from over 10 years of longevity research. One Skin's OS1 peptide is proven to target the cells that cause the visible signs of aging, helping you unlock your healthiest skin now and as you age and for a limited time, One Skin is making it even easier to stay consistent with up to 30% off your first three subscription orders when you use code LEGAL AF at OneSkin Co Legal AF. That's up to 30% off with code LEGAL AF. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them that we sent you. Again, that's up to 30% off with code legal AF at OneSkin Co legal AF.

Michael Popak (52:48)

Welcome back to Legal aforementioned. Thank you to our Pro Democracy sponsors. You know, as I take a step back and try to cool off a little bit after that commercial break. You know there are so many of these episodes popak where I know we're living in a history that I so hope one day. You know, as I see my little girl and you and I talk about our little girls all the time, I so hope that this is a moment in history that we're able to stop. And we've built this network, we built this show, we've built out other people's platforms, we've inspired other independent journalists to start doing this type of work. When we saw corporate news capitulating to be useful using our legal skills and background and professional experiences, you Know, during. During this time, and just by way of reference in terms of my background here, you know, for a number of years, I was basically living in Bakersfield, in Fresno, at the Truxton Marriott, when Bakersfield Police Department had the highest police shooting deaths per capita anywhere in the country. And they had police officers who were dealing the drugs on the street and killing their own confidential informants, like Jorge Ramirez, whose family I represented, and then blaming the informants and claiming the informants were actually trying to kill the police officers. And, you know, we uncovered that there was a massive drug operation within Bakersfield Police Department. They were selling the drugs on the street, keeping informants off the book, cutting dirty deals, and, you know, you had a very traumatized community. It's not to suggest that it's gotten much better now, but they've had to have massive reforms as a result of a lot of the work we did there. You know, and then having represented Colin Kaepernick, who peacefully protested and who lost his career after peacefully protesting, you know, oftentimes I would hear people say, well.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (54:58)

Why does he have to do that.

Michael Popak (54:59)

Protest at the stadium?

Co-host/Legal Analyst (55:01)

We just want to watch football. Why do these protesters have to do the protests in the church? The whole point of protests is that it makes us feel uncomfortable. It is a protest.

Michael Popak (55:14)

That is the point of protest.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (55:16)

It is about making people feel uncomfortable. Because if you feel uncomfortable during that protest, you should reflect on how the individual who was just killed felt.

Michael Popak (55:30)

They're dead.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (55:31)

You should reflect on what it must feel like to be someone who's black or brown who's being racially profiled and targeted when they leave their house. So, yeah, the protest makes you feel uncomfortable having ICE and Border Patrol Gestapo or terroristic thug feds going after people who are not actually carrying out law and order, who are actually attacking also police from doing good, police from doing good functioning. Yeah, that's what makes people uncomfortable. So that's the nature of our country, the very nature of our country. When we think about Martin Luther King and reflecting on Martin Luther King Jr. Day earlier this week, and we reflect on a history of protest, that's what actually our country is about. So when I watch these videos and I see, you know, ICE and Border Patrol Gestapo throwing gas at people and attacking people for.

Michael Popak (56:30)

For protesting.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (56:31)

And by the way, you could go, well, why do they have to yell at the get out. Ice. Fu. Ice. That's exactly within your First Amendment right. Would I go out there and throw F bombs around? And that's not my style of protest.

Michael Popak (56:44)

I don't like to curse on this show.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (56:47)

I don't, I don't like cursing in general.

Michael Popak (56:49)

It's not my, that's not how.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (56:51)

But we have a First Amendment saying F ice Fu, get out of my town. F U, F U. I understand why people who are being tortured and terrorized.

Michael Popak (57:00)

Would be saying that.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (57:01)

That doesn't give ICE and Border Patrol the right to start gassing and attacking people and beating people and killing people. What are we talking about here? This is our Constitution and I just want us all to reflect on that. Now I want to toss it over to you.

Michael Popak (57:16)

Pope Pocus.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (57:16)

What we should talk about is two things. Number one, Supreme Court oral argument, Lisa Cook. Lisa Cook, Governor, Federal Reserve Board of Governors. You could talk about a little bit of the procedural history of how it got there. Notably to me it was Justice Kavanaugh's questioning, but some other right wing justices.

Michael Popak (57:35)

As well who had this oh moment where they're like, but Donald to Trump.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (57:40)

Solicitor General, if we do this for you, doesn't that mean that everybody else can then do this when there's a Democrat in office? So aren't we opening up the floodgates for the future? And then talk about special counsel Jack Smith's testimony. And I think the Supreme Court was also channeling this. You know, Donald Trump's attempt to unlawfully gerrymander the country and do this mid decade redistricting and he started in Texas. They didn't do it by way of referendum, just have the legislatures give five seats. Well in California they did it by referendum. The people of California voted.

Michael Popak (58:18)

California picked up five seats.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (58:20)

And then when Democrats asserted themselves across the country, based on the latest data, it seems that the Democrats may have won the mid decade redistricting. So Trump's gerrymandering may actually be dummy mandering. And Trump's gerrymandering even in Texas may result in losing seats in Texas, not just in addition to the net gains of Democrats like leaders, courageous Democratic leaders in Virginia's Senate and House. And now the fact that they have the trifecta with Spamberger becoming Governor Spamberger in Virginia, there could be pickups there. And, and it's possible now they lose seats in Texas as well because so, so I think what Kavanaugh's almost channeling there, Popak, as you take these two topics together, Supreme Court and Jack Smith was like, you're not foreseeing the end consequences of all of this as well. The same way I think people were warning Trump about the gerryman. But Trump I guess thought that Democrats would not assert themselves and show their formal and moral authority. What do you make of it?

Co-host/Legal Analyst (59:23)

All right, let's start at the United States Supreme Court. I think I'll gloss over the tit for tat and the tick tock of the oral argument because for me the more important thing was the next decision that the Supreme Court's going to make on tariffs. And I think, think the writing is on the wall that Donald Trump is likely in the throes of a epic, historic set of losses at the Supreme Court. I'm glad we're finally able to do that. He's going to lose on the Lisa Cook lack of due process, lack of for cause, lack of proper record developed by the trial court below issue that was before the United States Supreme Court, as I had predicted before at the time of the election, when John Sauer was chosen to be Donald Trump's Solicitor General, that his well worn shtick would wear out and that he would eventually wear on the nerves of even the ultra right wing on the Supreme Court with his hyperbolic, hyperactive, just, just this valuable constant Prolix, you know, 50 pounds of argument in a 10 and a 10 pound sack approach to everything. He knows and thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. He's got some sort of weird photographic memory about cases. He never, he never capitulates, he never concedes, even when his credibility is at stake. And he's gotten on the wrong side of, of a number of judges in the half a dozen oral arguments that he's made because what once was an interesting advocacy style when he was doing the immunity oral argument and the Colorado Insurrectionist ballot case to help Donald Trump stay on the ballot and get presidential immunity for all the crimes that he committed that Jack Smith was pursuing sort of has grown tiresome. And so what we heard during the oral argument was that he's completely lost, at least for that case, any credibility. They went Sam Alito, if you don't have Sam Alito for Donald Trump, you're about done. When Sam Alito said why did everybody rush here so quickly? Why is there not a properly developed record on this issue about the firing of a board of Governor Dr. Lisa Cook on the, on the Federal Reserve, is there even in the record, her actual mortgage documents that are allegedly the basis for the four cause that Donald Trump used to fire her? And then you heard, you heard John Sauer have to scramble and say, well, I think the snapshot of the, of the, of the picture of the tweet and the social media post from. And I'm like, are you kidding me? The snapshot of the photo of the social media post, that's not evidence, that's not the record. So here's what's going to happen. It's either going to be 8190 or 7 to 2. But Donald Trump's losing. He, he, Kavanaugh is not going to vote with him. Gorsuch isn't. Amy Cody Barrett's not. I'll mention something about Amy Cody Barrett and the tariffs in a moment. Roberts is not going to. I don't think Alito is. And the only one that was sort of couldn't figure out, as always, is Clarence Thomas. But he'll either see the writing on the wall and decide he better go nine zero on this one. Because the only issue really before them was was there is due process, something that has to be given to somebody on the board of governors. And what does that due process look like? What kind of hearing, who decides? See for the Trump administration, it's always you can't review anything the President does. He decides on it. There's four. Cause it can't be chall at one point John Roberts was like, why are we even here? Based on that argument, you're telling me I don't have the power as the Supreme Court on the Supreme Court to reinstate or to take in or out an officer that's fired by the presidency. This is just the ludicrous of John Sauer taken to its extreme. It's another version of the could Seal Team 6 be ordered to take out a political rival by the President and have that be okay under immunity and rather than saying no, that's, that would be. Well, under that scenario, it's never been litigated before. Like oh my God. So they're gonna, they're gonna send it back to Gia Cook who's the sorry, Gia Cobb, who's the Biden appointed federal judge who handled the case below. And they're gonna give her instructions, they're gonna say she gets due process. Lisa Cook, because it's a Fifth Amendment right and she's looking at a 13 more years left on her term and no. So you're going to have to give her due process and you have to figure out what that should look like. Give her a hearing, let there be evidence, let there be, let there be testimony. Figure that out. Then you determine whether there's four costs. Whether the president's assertion that this mortgage fraud, not fraud thing about her having two loans both primary for or both declaring first, that they're. Her primary residence in Michigan and Atlanta are, is, is, is the type of fraud that, that we, that we would expect to lead to her dismissal. Not the president gets to pick anything he wants. Oh, I don't like the color of your tie. Jay Powell, you get to go. So they're going to send it back and she's going to stay in her chair in the meantime, because the issue that was up on the appeal was a narrow one about whether they were going to grant Donald Trump a second stay to block the appellate court. Two to one decision that kept her in her chair. And they're like, they're going to let her be in there. So they're going to let Lisa Cook stay in her seat and Trump fight to get her out as opposed to Lisa Cook out and fighting to get back in, which is good because it'll at least keep the Federal Reserve independent and in the control of non Trump appointees from now until Jay Powell steps off in 2028, not when he steps off in May as the chair. But for me, I was looking for tea leaves about the tariff decision, which would be sort of one of the final nails in Donald Trump's coffin with the American people if he has to, if all the tariffs that he's been using to troll Americans and tax them and troll our allies and enemies and troll the middle powers, as Prime Minister Carney calls them, which is Canada and Europe with, oh, I don't like what you did. You embarrassed me in Davos, Prime Minister Carney. So I'm going to put a 200% tariff on everything Canadian or, or 100% or 200% on French wine because I didn't like Macron. And what he said, and this is the very reason you take this toy away from this toddler, because he doesn't have it constitutionally, nor by statute. So at one point, Amy Coney Barrett said to John Sauer, look, we got a lot of briefs here from economists, former Federal Reserve governors, central bankers. And they're all saying it'll be a disaster, it'll be a recession, it'll be an economic catastrophe if the independence of the Federal Reserve is compromised by Donald Trump firing Lisa Cook. And then, of course, John Sauer said, well, if you look at the record, you know, the stock market went up two days in a row, and all outside the record, by the way. And she stopped him and she says, you know, I'm not an economist, I'm just a judge. And for me, I think, tying that back together again to Amy Coney Barrett in the tariff hearing saying to the lawyer advocating for the. For the defeat of the tariffs, saying, suppose we rule in your favor, how hard would it be to refund? I think Amy Coney Barrett, which with Kavanaugh often is in the majority, it's. It's becoming like this Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett thing in terms of majority opinions, whether we like them or not, I think this is. They're going to get this gang back together. Not 8:1, not 7 to 2. But I see at least now a 6 to 3, maybe 5 to 4 against the tariffs. Now, that may not come out until June. Now, some people are waiting and they're biting their nails every time there's an announcement of a new Supreme Court decision being dropped. Like, oh, is it today? No, it's not going to be anytime soon. They don't do major decision. Occasionally they do major decisions, you know, like TikTok Ban, which we're not talking about today. You know, 27 days after the hearing, they issued their. They issued their decision. But in major decisions, they normally wait because of how complex these decisions are to write and the concurrences and the dissents and everything holds it up. So it's really like a March, April, May, June event. And for people that thought, well, but look at all the money that's piling up, that must weigh on their minds. You can see from Amy Coney Barrett saying, I'm not an economist, I'm just a judge. They don't care whether Donald Trump has to repay $150 billion or $300 billion. They don't care that it's running. If they illegally did it and it has to be paid back, they figure the government can figure out how to pay back $300 billion back to the importers and businesses. But the problem is they're not going to pay that money back to the Americans who have already been taxed along the way. It's not going to them, it's going to the companies. Unless the companies are like, hey, everybody, 20% off all our goods for the next six months because we got our refund. Not happening. So the people that got screwed and crushed once again were the American people. So you have that going on, and it doesn't make up. I don't want people to think, because we're gonna get a couple of rulings probably against the Trump administration on major issues that it makes up for. It doesn't make up for anything. It doesn't make up for all the ways from the immunity decision to the taking away of a woman's right to choose, to constitutional civil rights being destroyed, to the relationship between the presidency and the other two branches being completely upended. Doesn't change any of that. But we're gonn it like we see it about things that will be good for us and that the tariffs will be destroyed, likely before the midterms. And his attempt to take over the, and, and, and take over the independence of the Federal Reserve, which isn't just an esoteric theory like, or an esoteric academic thing. Oh, that's interesting. He took over the Federal Reserve, he takes over the Federal Reserve, he takes over the Open Markets Committee, he takes over interest rates. Then whatever you're paying now at the supermarket, double it. Because when he lowers interest rates to 1% and floods the market with a fire hose of free money, all it's.

Sponsor Advertiser (70:37)

Going to happen, as even his own.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (70:39)

People have said out loud, is hyper, hyper, hyper inflation. Right. It'll be a short term drug that he tries to inject into the arm of the American people before the midterms. Look what I did. You can borrow money now, cheaper. To a long term disaster that'll leave behind the smoking carnage and carcass of America's economy in his wake. And that's what we're trying so hard to avoid. Another, by the way, Abby Lowell special with representing Lisa Cook in that case, then we contrast that. That's why it's been a terrible week for Donald Trump. Comes home a shrunken, defeated, broken man as Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada. And the Europeans take Donald Trump like a baseball bat and break him over their knee. That's what happened. Comes back defeated and deflated to what? To Americans being shot on the streets of Minnesota, to federal judges opposing him on a regular basis. And now you've got his big ballroom, which we're just going to touch on. The ballroom looks like it's in jeopardy because a federal judge is like, no, I'm not going to allow you to continue to build the ballroom without congressional approval. You run Congress, go get the approval. He's got all that going on. But then Jack Smith is back in his and we all saw the reasons that we loved knowing that Jack Smith was the people's prosecutor, dispassionate, independent, impartial, apolitical, just against all odds, against his own, his own, I mean, attacks on him while the hearing was going on from within the White House, calling him deranged, saying he should be in jail, saying, you know, he expects to be prosecuted as a result, but reminding the American people that, that Donald Trump should be a convicted felon and that he committed crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. And that shows the power of our government in the proper hands. In this case, the Democrats doing their thing. And the one takeaway from the Jack Smith presentation that I'll leave, I'll leave this clip, this segment on is that at no time and you can watch all seven hours of it. You got it up on Midas. We have it up on legal layoff. You can watch it cover to cover. And you never hear the Republicans, never hear the Republicans defend Donald Trump prove with evidence that he did not commit the crimes for which he was prosecuted, indicted, ever. It's always about the tactics and strategy that Jack Smith used. It's always about, oh, you wiretapped, oh, why did you do you were. And then just talking points, just, just leading questions that they didn't care about the answer so that it would make the evening news, you know, about, about you're just doing, you know, going after the enemies of, of Joe Biden, weren't you? No. You just ridiculous questions that had no. When he responded, they didn't care about the response. You know, they just wanted the theatrics of the moment. But at no time did they defend Donald Trump or what he did on January 6th and beyond, nor could they. And yet you're left with Jack Smith talking to the American people. At the same time, we've got. Because Donald Trump wants to distract from what's happening poorly for him this week. Got that lawsuit filed against Jamie Dimon. We have a hot take up on that. And Citi and JP Morgan Chase because he got debanked. Got debanked because he's a fraudster, because.

Sponsor Advertiser (74:17)

He was adjudged to be a fraudster.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (74:18)

Because he got 55 or 60 indictments against him because he had his companies get a criminal conviction that was never expunged in New York. That's why he got Deb. And he had an $8 million loan through a Russian connection with a bank offshore into truth social media that nobody knows why or how it happened. That's why you get debanked. But that happened. And then he runs down to Judge Cannon, while he still got Cannon to argue that she should issue an injunction against the future Department of Justice. Not even now's Department of Justice, the future one preliminarily permanently enjoining them from ever releasing the Mar A Lago report. It'll be the first time in history that a special counsel or special prosecutor, independent prosecutor's body of work was not given to the American people either, both through testimony and through the release of the report. It would be the first time in history. And now he's trying to get a judge now because he's got the numbers to try to bind a future Department of Justice from ever releasing that Mar? A Lago report because he doesn't want the American people to know what he did in obstruction of justice, in espionage act at all. And so he, he filed, and I'll just leave it at this, he filed it. Talk about this unethical, unholy revolving door. The woman he used to send a note to, Eileen Aileen Cannon, had just been in his Department of Justice as an assistant deputy Attorney General with working with Todd Blanche. Before that, she was working with Todd Blanche and Emil Bovey as Donald Trump, Trump's Mar? A Lago lawyers down in Florida. She then went into the government as ethics counsel and responsible for things like the inspectors general. Then she came back out and is now back representing Donald Trump criminally. And then you had this pitch and catch where she filed a note to Judge Cannon asking her not to ever release the Mar? A Lago report and make sure no other Department of Justice in history ever does. And two days later, Donald Trump's Department of Justice says, yeah, we agree with that. It should be in the dustbin of history. Nobody should ever see this. And there's nobody on the other side to oppose it because the judge is keeping out the interveners who would be the only ones to have a contrary view, like First Amendment groups like the Knight Institute and American Oversight. This is all heading back to the 11th Circuit about whether, whether she can permanently block the release of an issue that order and have the power. One last thing. We watched Epstein judges with much, with much heartbreak or bittersweet approach, tell the survivors that they don't have the power because in these closed criminal cases to issue orders to force the Epstein files to be released through a special master or, or independent monitor. We just had Judge Berman literally post in his, in his docket a note, a handwritten note on his stationery to one of the survivors saying, I appreciate you writing to me. It was very moving. I don't have the power. The case is closed. Judge Engelmeier did it with an order which he cited to one of my clients, Lisa Phillips. Judge Cannon, she got a closed criminal case. She got no problem. She's open for business. Oh, Donald Trump, why don't you file something? And a Department of justice under Donald Trump, why don't you file something and, no, we can't hear from anybody else, but I'm open for business on these rulings about why aren't you closed? Why isn't your case closed since the defendants have been dismissed and so has Donald Trump? No, because we're in the world, the upside down world of Aileen Cannon. So now you and I have to follow what's going to happen Next at the 11th Circuit. How did I do? Did I tie all that together?

Michael Popak (78:14)

You tied it all together brilliantly. And look, the point you make also is that our system probably needs to be rethought at a completely entire holistic level, because it's built on the fact that the DOJ and the prosecutors and the Department of Justice are the good guys and that the criminal defendants who are presumed innocent until proven guilty, though, are on the other side of it, and that there is an adversarial nature of the relationship. But what happens when that line between prosecutor and criminal defendant is removed and you basically are now playing for the same team? What happens when you have a basketball game, for example, and the teams are not going against each other, but they're.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (79:06)

All shooting at the same hoop?

Michael Popak (79:08)

At some point, the audience is like, why am I watching this? What is this? Aren't you supposed to, like, play against each other? And I'm giving a crude, broader example. But we see this problem now playing out where there's a structural flaw in our system where the prosecution is the criminal bad guy.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (79:25)

When they are the criminals. What do you do?

Michael Popak (79:28)

Because as Judge Berman and as Judge Engelmeier have recognized, we appreciate people trying to intervene, but we kind of depend on the Justice Department and a party.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (79:39)

Making the motion and asking us to do something, and no one from the outside can. Can ask us to do it. So what, what can we do when the only people who have standing is the DOJ and is the criminal, you.

Michael Popak (79:56)

Know, is the criminal defendant in a case? Similarly, when you talk about, you know, when you talk about, you know, with, with Judge Cannon, though, what do you do when you have Trump's doj, the.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (80:11)

Prosecutors, working with Trump, the criminal defendant, and representing those interests against the prose, the former prosecutors, special counsel Jack Smith, and that there's no adversarial voice on the docket. So it now becomes a unanimous request to the judge, like a stipulation, and.

Michael Popak (80:32)

The judge is like, well, I guess.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (80:34)

All I have here is people telling me, here's how I got to do it. So I guess have to follow what the Justice Department's doing. Our Founders didn't think about this and our lawmakers didn't address this situation. And currently our sycophantic supine Congress is uncap. Is incapable of dealing with it. There's. As I've said, we're not in a constitutional crisis. We're past the constitutional crisis. We are in Putin's Russia, Orban's Hungary, MBS's Saudi Arabia, the Ayatollahs Iran, Delsey Rodriguez's Venezuela. That. That's what exists now in the United States. And I'm not being hyperbolic, and I'm sick and tired of people who want to use all this other language to try to normalize sane Wash what's happening right now, okay? There's no. There's no giving ICE better training, okay? They're a terrorist organization. You need to take away their funding. You need to shut them down. Border patrol, border. They're not supposed to be in the interior. The hell are they doing? Stop funding this stuff. Defund them. Abolish them. You want to have them do what they were supposed to do originally, which is actually deal with the border and ICE deals with immigration enforcement. They ain't doing that. That's not what they're doing right now. They're Gestapo. They're ss. They're terrorizing this country. So I'm sick and tired of anyone, regardless of their political party. Well, shut up. It's not what we're dealing with right now. These are existential times. You either meet the moment or get the hell out of the way. That's the times we're living in right now.

Michael Popak (82:14)

Thank you, everybody, for watching.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (82:16)

Hit subscribe. Help us get to 6 million subscribers here. More importantly, help the Legal AF channel.

Michael Popak (82:22)

Get to 2 million subscribers.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (82:24)

Subscribe to Legal AF on YouTube. Subscribe to Legal AF on Substack. Support the growth of Legal AF. Legal AF is, as you know, right now so critical. And its importance is only going to get more critical over the coming days.

Michael Popak (82:40)

Weeks, months and years. Let's get legal AF to 10 million subscribers by 2028.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (82:47)

Also, make sure you. If you or someone you know has.

Michael Popak (82:50)

Been injured in a car accident, trucking accident, injured by the negligence of somebody else. If you know someone who's the victim.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (82:57)

In a wrongful death case or somebody.

Michael Popak (82:58)

Else who may have a legal case.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (83:00)

And they say, you know any lawyers, call popac877 popak AF or text popac877 popak AF or go to the popoc firm.com thepopocfirm.com Consultation is free with the popoc pockburb. He's got lawyers in every state across the country here to help you out. So see if you have a case. Reach out. Don't be shy. Popo's representing hundreds like. Like a huge amount of people who watch and listen are now clients of the Popoc firm who have cases or who have referred a family member, a cousin, a friend, a neighbor. Hey, you have a case. I know. Michael Popak. Give Popox Farm a call. Seriously, don't. Don't be shy about it. This is what the firm was built to do. Thanks, everybody, for watching. We appreciate you. We're grateful for you. I know these are difficult times, but we're gonna keep fighting for you.

Michael Popak (83:50)

Hang in there.

Co-host/Legal Analyst (83:51)

We're in this together, okay? Shout out Midas Mighty Shout out Legal A Effers.

Michael Popak (84:03)

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. What do you have to lose? Give it a try@mintmobile.com switch.

Cookie Advertiser (84:22)

Limited time, 50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required. $45 for three months, $90 for six month or $180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy. See terms.