Loading summary
Transcript74 lines
- [00:01]
Michael Popok
This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. During tax season, your personal info travels to a lot of places between payroll, your tax consultant and the IRS. If your W2 gets exposed, that's just the ticket for identity thieves. That's why Lifelock monitors millions of data points every second. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Don't let identity thieves take you for a ride. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply. This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliate. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.
- [00:59]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Hey, prime members, are you tired of.
- [01:01]
Michael Popok
Ads interfering with your favorite podcasts?
- [01:03]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Good news.
- [01:04]
Michael Popok
With Amazon Music, you have access to the largest catalog of ad free top podcasts included with your prime membership.
- [01:11]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
To start listening, download the Amazon Music app for free or go to Amazon.com.
- [01:16]
Michael Popok
ADFreePodcasts that's Amazon.com ADFreeP Podcasts to catch up on the latest episodes without the ads. After five weeks, we've entered the Supreme Court chapter of Donald Trump's losing and lawsuits in court. 92 lawsuits, 34 preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders. And we've got two efforts by the Trump administration to take a matter to the United States Supreme Court, one involving US Aid, the other involving the Office of Special Counsel, who defends federal workers. He's the ultimate federal worker, federal worker number one, if you will. And now the Trump administration, without a, without a permanent Solicitor general in place, with an acting Solicitor General in place, is filing letters and petitions and all sorts of things to try to take these cases that, that's inevitably where things are going to go. The other inevitability is that Elon Musk is not going away until a federal judge ultimately bars him from the government as an unconfirmed, power hungry madman. We're going to be seeing a lot of Elon Musk. Donald Trump has effectively delegated a lot of his domestic policy to Elon Musk. Trotted him out today in a cabinet. It looked very strange. It looked like a hostage video with the cabinet, the, the actual cabinet, which are, you know, state, Defense, Department of Justice sitting around and Donald Trump trotting out his pet or vice versa, pointing to the person and saying, what do you think about Elon Musk and the job that he's doing? Oh, My God. I mean, this is not only the shadow president, this is the actual president. Now it makes more sense where that AI Deepfake video came with Donald Trump sucking the toes of Elon Musk. And Musk is just making a mess of all the positions that the Department of Justice is forced to take in front of federal judges. And we're going to talk more about that. Trump is now considering, according to new reporting, something we talked about, Karen, before the election and during the campaign, that he was going to try to invoke the Alien Enemies act or the Alien sedition Act from 1798, which requires a declaration of war, where we have an opposing country on the other side which we declare to be our enemy, and that country has its agents within our country. We've only done it three times. It's always been a time of war. The War of 1812, World War I, World War II. Donald Trump wants to use it to deport people, claiming that the drug cartels have somehow been sent here from Mexico and Venezuela. This peacetime use of the Alien Enemies act is another example of this abuse of power by Donald Trump. We'll talk about what federal courts and the Supreme Court can do about it. And then the Supreme Court hears oral argument on a white person's reverse discrimination case claiming that they were discriminated against. We'll get some feedback on that and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. She short intro Got a lot to talk about. Let's bring Karen and. Hi, Karen.
- [04:38]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Hello, Popak, how are you? So good to see you midweek.
- [04:42]
Michael Popok
Thank you very much. Now that I've moved in to my new office, podcast studio in an undisclosed location, new microphone, you know, that's a celebrate and you know, you're busy running around being a lawyer. I'm, I'm running around being a lawyer. But our primary focus every week is to bring our best, bring our best analysis and commentary that we can to these matters because it, it matters. We're part of the resistance. We're watching just to kick it off here, Karen. We're watching mainstream corporate media just totally bend over for Donald Trump. You know, MSNBC just fired friends of the show and friend of mine Katie Fang and Jonathan Capehart and Joy Reed, all diversity anchors are now wiped clean, just whitewashed off of MSNBC because they think that's okay, because they want to curry favor with Donald Trump. CBS is considering now settling a ridiculous meritless $20 billion case that Donald Trump brought, following in the footsteps of ABC news that paid $15 million for no reason as the social media platforms all do the same. Examples of Donald Trump using his bowling pulpit and his public presidential power to benefit his private lawsuits. Another method of lining his pocket. So, you know, I have a, I have a belief that he has a goal of collecting a billion dollars for himself and his family before he leaves office. And he's well on his way there after only five weeks. Carol, what are you observing about you're kind of in it with, with both Midas and are you still doing work on, on any of the other place like cnn? You're still doing that work?
- [06:27]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Yeah, no, I got a little much when I started practicing law full time, so yeah, I had to, I had to let that go, so.
- [06:36]
Michael Popok
Yeah, but you didn't let us go.
- [06:38]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
No. Well, I can't. This is my home. This is my family. You know, I could never leave the Midas community ever.
- [06:43]
Michael Popok
Yeah. Yeah. So what, what are, what, what do you make? What do you. Let's kick that off. What did you make of the msnbc? I don't want to ignore it. Of, of the heads rolling there, people they decided that they didn't want or they're on their network. As we try to all figure out what the shape and contours of the resistance to the Trump's inhumane administration looks like.
- [07:06]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Look, I mean it, it definitely feels and seems like decisions I don't quite understand. I, I don't understand why mainstream media is settling merit, you know, merit based cases that I think they could win against Trump. Is it because they're afraid he will use his bully pulpit to punish them? I mean he's already banning certain reporters and certain agents, you know, certain reporting agencies from the White House press room. And that's access. Right? That, that's important. He's. At the end of the day, it's only going to be the Fox News and his right wing reporters who are going to be allowed into the press briefings if he's allowed to continue on this way. I know AP was, was banned and, and I just think what's happening with Mainstre. Sad. It's sad. I don't know if they think they have to do it because of him or it's because of ratings or because of investors or what it is. But one thing I love about Midas is, and the thing that we always celebrate is we don't have editors, investors, we don't have anyone telling us what to do. We've always just been, I mean you and I don't talk about other than a list of Topics that we're going to talk about. That's all we do. It's not like to prep for this show. We are given materials by somebody who's telling us all the information. You give me or I give you a list of the things I want to talk about, and it's half a sentence long. And you and I don't practice ahead of time. We don't talk ahead of time about what we're going to say. Our sponsors don't say, oh, make sure you do this or don't do that. There's no outside investor that we have to worry about, that we have to make them happy in some way. We don't do anything for the ratings one way or another. I mean, it's nice to get lots of views, obviously, but we do things because this is what we do. And we are beholden to ourselves and to our community. And that's it. That I love. And I think a lot of people are following suit, right? A lot of people are trying to replicate this successful model. Midas has what, 4.1 or 4.2 million subscribers out See out dethroned Joe Rogan as the number one podcast. I mean, it's incredible, right? It's amazing. And it's because we stay true to our beliefs. We're not, we're not chasing ratings, we're not chasing demographics the way these networks seem to be doing. I mean, they're firing some of their best people. Why? Who knows? But they're chasing something other than the truth and other than just trying to tell people what's going on, just unfiltered. And that's what I love about Midas. That's why I'll never leave Midas. And that's why I'm just honored to be here with you every week, Popak. And to have the people here who are, who are chatting with us, who are chatting with, with us live in the comments that I'm trying not to be distracted by while I'm. While I'm talking and reading them. Because as Katherine just said, truth is golden, which it is. So, anyway, I, I love being here. I love being here live with you and I love the legal AF community. So.
- [10:14]
Michael Popok
Yeah, agreed. I reached out to Katie Fang. She is a personal friend of mine and gave her my support personally and that of the show. I'd love to get. I'd love to get Katie Fang to come over to the Midas Touch Network in any way, shape or form, but have coffee with her soon in Miami and see if I can make something like that happen. And she's not the only one. But, you know, you're right. People are. There's two things that we're watching. People are surging to this type of independent platform. Midas Brothers number one. And you know, legally apps no slouch either. We're top 10 in the world in all genres, which is crazy. This is like the garage band that is now playing sold out arenas. But it's, it's a little bit of us and it's a lot of our audience and they want to fight. And the resistance, as I said, takes many formats. I mean, some of it is pages out of the civil rights movement during the 1960s. We had a group of 20 protesters lie down today in a die in, in the Capitol rotunda to protest US Aid being put out of business. And they were all summarily arrested and I'm sure will be prosecuted by this Trump administration who sees absolutely no irony in the fact that they opened the jails and let out convicted insurrectionists that tried to burn down our Capitol on a murderous riot. And they're going to put these poor people who are just doing what Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Said to do, which is to quiet. I mean, there's nothing more quieter than a die in. They're supposed to be dead. So a quiet civil protest and they get hauled off by the Capitol Police. I mean, that's not the America that I want to wake up in every morning. There's a disconnect between the values of, of America. What makes us American? When you ask somebody you know overseas, what is it American? What are the values that you think we exhibit that, that is our part of our DNA, the fiber of our being, and what we think about ourselves as Americans since we were little kids. And there's just a total disconnect between this administration. I don't recognize American values at all. And it's that depravity and that moral bank bankruptness that will ultimately be the undoing of the Trump administration. It's already a failed administration by any, by any measure. The more the Carolyn Levette, the press secretary says they're winning, the more I know they are not doing that. They're doing the opposite of winning. They're actually losing. And the federal courts, as we had hoped and we predicted, and now the Supreme Court is going to have to be the firewall to protect our democracy against it. Out of control. There's another way to put it out of control. President who is rogue, who is not respectful of constitutional institutional norms and just as he wasn't when he was the criminal defendant. No surprise there. And, you know, no, there's no better example of all of that than, you know, what he's now doing at the trial court level that's now rose up to the United States Supreme Court level. We have two different filings an hour apart before we went on the air. One of them a letter like please help me letter from Donald Trump to the Supreme Court about the Office of Special Counsel and the other one about US Aid. First, why don't you give us an overview, Karen, of what you're seeing in terms of the 92 cases and the 34 or more preliminary junctions, temporary restraining orders and administrative stays. What's the takeaway that our audience should make from that? Just that overall. We can talk about individual ones as the podcast continues, but just the overall body of work so far the first five weeks. What's your takeaway?
- [14:11]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Look, my takeaway is that in Trump versus United States, that essentially made the Trump king, made presidents king because they are above the law. Yes, that's criminal. He has absolutely nothing to fear. He has nothing to fear. But to go all out, do whatever he wants. There's no question he is doing things without any regard. There's no deterrent effect because nothing can happen to him. Congress won't impeach him because Congress is maga. Senate obviously won't convict him because he won't be impeached. But he owns Congress. Right. Both houses and the courts have basically said you can do whatever you want and there's no real consequence because what happens civilly? Nothing's going to happen civilly. Right. He controls everything. He controls all of the agencies. And so rather than taking so he has no fear, he's just going to go in and do whatever he wants to do. It was really interesting that Elon Musk was on stage at that conservative CPAC conference with the visual of the chainsaw. Right? They're taking a chainsaw to government, not a scalpel. Right. They're not taking a scalpel to remove the bits of cancer. They're literally amputating parts of the body off, just hacking away and then trying to put it back together after the fact. And the fact that there are 90 plus lawsuits already from good government organizations, whether it's State Democracy Defenders or the ACLU or just any people. There are people out there who are saying, wait, there are real people here. You can't. First of all, Congress appropriates funding for certain programs, for certain jobs for certain agencies, for people to give aid to People in the United States who need it. Congress passes these laws signed by the President. It is appropriated. The president can't just, quote, impound that money and say, we're not going to spend it or just fire the civil servants. These are civil servants, public servants. I was one for 30 years. You can't just fire them without cause. These are positions that have protections, and frankly, they're really important positions and they do incredible, important work. I was listening to somebody, I can't remember who it was, who was like, oh, gee, I'm sorry, the guy testing the feces. I think it was Jon Stewart who said something like, you know, the guy testing the feces in the water, you know, tell him his job's not important. I mean, this just what civil servants do is such important work. And you can't just go in and take a chainsaw and hack it all off. And that's what we're seeing with these 90 plus lawsuits. People are going in and frankly, they're winning, almost every one of them. And not only are they. And they're not winning because they haven't finished, they haven't been finalized, but they're winning. What they're asking for, which is stop, stop, press pause. And they're getting these injunctions from the court, these court orders saying, you can't do that. You have to do the status quo. And the court's seeing that they're lying to the court. It's like you have a duty of candor. I want to remind the lawyers that you have a duty of candor to the court. That's code for don't lie. Right? I don't believe what you're saying, don't lie. Or they're saying things like, you have until midnight tonight. I want to see that you did it. And then you've got Carolyn Levitt, the press secretary, go up and say, oh, no, we didn't rescind. We just rescinded the memo. We didn't rescind the money. The money's not going back. And the courts hear that and they call them back in and they say, you're lying to us. You're not doing, you're disobeying these court orders. And so the courts see what's happening. But what we're seeing, though, is that the Trump administration does not care. In fact, there were confirmation hearings just today of Harmeet Dhillon had to testify and a couple other people who were before Congress who essentially, it was also John Sauer, who's going to be the guy with the gravelly voice who's going to be the solicitor general and one other individual and not one of them would say, oh, that they were trying to get him to say, do you agree that you can't. The executive branch and Trump can't just violate the law. None of them would say that. It's like, well, sometimes you can. Is essentially what their position is. So they basically between that and Donald Trump who basically says, well, if I'm saving the country, then it's okay, then it's not illegal, whatever that quote was that he says that what they've signaled is we are above the law and we don't have to listen to what anyone says. But thankfully, the courts so far have been able to press pause because real people's lives are on the line and people who depend on all of these programs. Okay, great. If you're a billionaire, like if you're a billionaire in California and you can afford a private firefighter to save your home, great. Good for you. But all the normal people who need actual firefighters to come and try to save their home depend on the government. Right. It's like the billionaires and the, and the 100 millionaires and the millionaires of this country, they want to cut because they want to. They, they don't like paying so much in taxes. But what they don't realize is there's real people who, who actually rely on this and who need this. And, and it's the farmers and it's regular people and civil servants. It's what it, what, what make the world go around. And it's what I think makes America great. And they don't realize it and it's really scary. But thankfully, it seems like we're winning in the courts.
- [19:52]
Michael Popok
Yeah. And just a little breakout tutorial. When a judge in federal court or state court makes a determination whether you call it a temporary restraining order, the only difference between a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is the timing at which it happens. Temporary restrain. Let's back it up. Let's give a more complete legal AF Law school breakout session. An administrative stay is usually for hours, maybe a day or two. It's for the judge to be able to get the full briefing in, get everybody together. Logistically, get them into a courtroom room either on zoom or live and hold a hearing and keep the status quo in place until that time. Next level up. Temporary restraining order. Temporary restraining order is almost identical to what you have to prove to get the preliminary injunction. The difference is it is temporal. It's the time usually a temporary restraining order will Last maybe a few days, a week, maybe a month at the most, depending upon the court's calendar. And the type of harm that's being. That's being is at the basis of the motion. The four elements of a temporary restraining order are the same as the four elements for a preliminary injunction. It's just that a preliminary injunction, if granted, stays in place all the way till the end of the trial of the case. And from that point, from the preliminary injunction generally, you could take an appeal. You can't take an appeal generally from a temporary restraining order, although the Trump administration has and is trying to do that. Generally, appellate courts find that they don't have jurisdiction until we get. We kind of turn the wheel and get to preliminary injunction. The four elements are likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm are probably the two of the four that the courts focus on. The most likelihood of success on the merits is what it sounds like. You, the party that's brought the motion is likely to win at trial. The judge looks under the hood, takes a look at the evidence to date, some affidavits, some sworn statements, the law, the facts, whatever that person, the judge has in front of them and says, yeah, you're more likely than not on the stand, on the, on the scale to win. You have to have that as a threshold. Second threshold is that in order to get injunctive relief with the court's inherent or equitable power, you have to have a harm that is, that can't be compensated by money. It's irreparable. It's like literally, the toothpaste is out of the tube and the egg is scrambled and it can't be unscrambled and it can't be put back in the tube. It's something that if this doesn't get blocked or stopped right now, people are going to die, people are going to lose their homes, people are going to be in harm's way in a way they wouldn't be if the judge issued the injunction. So they have to find irreparable harm. We've talked a lot about on the podcast in Hot Takes about judges questioning whether irreparable harm was present for an injunction. This has nothing to do with the merits of the case. Your argument as a, as a plaintiff against Donald Trump generally takes the format of constitutional violation of some aspect of the Constitution, separation of powers, the Spending Clause, the appointment clause, something like that. Usually a First Amendment violation of some sort, an Administrative Procedures act violation of some sort, because these agencies can't act Arbitrarily and capriciously. That's what the law says. So there's, so we see all of that in one judge takes a look at all that says, all right, you're going to win. Okay, irreparable harm. The third is inadequate remedy at law, which is very similar to irreparable harm. Usually means money is not going to help you at this moment in terms of we can't wait till the end of the trial. And the last is that the public interest tips in your favor. And so when you hear that a judge has issued an injunction or a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration, it means they have made a decision at this moment that Trump's on the losing side of the case, that it is more likely than not a preponderance of evidence after a full trial will show that he has violated the Constitution, that he's violated the apa, that he's violated the First Amendment and due process clauses and the rest. And so we give it, not us, but the media gives it short shrift. Oh, another preliminary injunction today. Oh, another temporary restraining order. It is extraordinary. It's extraordinarily hard to get one. I've gotten maybe, I don't know, 35 years. I've maybe gotten less than 10 in my entire, you know, between temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, maybe a dozen. They're hard to get. You have to make all those showings out and, and showing that you're more likely than not to win or preponderance of evidence is really, really hard. So it's not just that he's, he's losing kind of provisionally or temporarily, you know, sure could on the merits, after more facts develop, the judge reverse course and go, I gave you the tro, but I'm not giving you the preliminary injunction. Happens rarely. Or I gave you the preliminary injunction, but I was wrong, and I'm going to undo it and give the other side the win at the trial. Could happen. But these cases aren't going to go all the way to trial. These cases are going to kind of end at the preliminary injunction, get brought up to appeal in the various appellate courts, and then to the United States Supreme Court. So when we come back from our break where we talk about how to support the show and all that, Karen and I will talk about the Supreme Court, which already, out of these 92 cases, there's two in particular that have sort of burst through and are now up with the highest level of court, at least at this, at this moment in time, many ways to support the show that Karen and I love. Dearly subscribe to the Midas Touch Network. Get it? Keep turning the odometer there of support. We have Legal AF, the YouTube channel that I curate. Legal AFMTN. We're dangerously close to 500,000 subscribers, probably two weeks away. Turn that odometer there as well. And then we've got our sponsors. Our sponsors are so important. Some people are like, oh, it's the commercials. No, oh, it is the commercials. Because this is the way that we can stay independent. They don't tell us what to say. Quite the opposite. They don't tell us what to do. They don't say this person can be on the show or can't be on the show. Don't do that interview. Don't get rid of that anchor. No, first of all, we'd fire them before they fired us. That's the reality. But it's the opposite. They know our content, they know effectively our position on things and yet they're here to support us and to support you. So we're going to take a, we're going to take a short break for our sponsors and when we get back, we're going to pick up with where we left off, which is the Supreme Court. Talk about Elon Musk and how he's making it very hard for the Department of Justice under Trump to tell the truth in courtrooms and what judges are doing about it. And then we're going to talk about this reverse discrimination where a white straight woman is claiming that she was discriminated against because a gay person was hired for the job that she wanted and the Supreme Court decided that was interesting and we should have oral argument about it and we'll talk about that as well. Let's take our first break. Long work weeks and busy weekends, month after month, they can leave you feeling and looking depleted. Prolon's program takes the guest workout and equips you with a science backed plan, making it a key tool for your health journey. Prolon's Fasting Mimicking diet is a revolutionary plant based nutrition program that nourishes the body while making cells believe their fasting. Researched and developed for decades at USC's Longevity Institute and backed by leading US medical centers, Prolon helps support healthy blood sugar, enhanced skin appearance, fat loss and improved energy and focus. Post fast. It all starts with their five day program. Snacks, soups and beverages designed to keep your body in a fasting state. No guesswork or planning required. Three consecutive cycles of Prolon have been shown to reduce your biological age score by an average of 2 1/2 years and your waist circumference by 1 1/2 inches. Look when I'm craving a real reset. Prolon is the only nutrition program that works for me. It's convenient, backed by Nobel winning science and it works. To help you kickstart a health plan that truly works, Prolon is offering Legal AF by Midas Touch listeners 15% off site wide plus a $40 bonus gift. When you subscribe to their 5 day nutrition program, just visit prolonlife.com legalaf that's P R-O-L-O-N-L-I F E.com legalif to claim your 15 discount and your bonus gift. Prolonlife.com legalaf how would you define your relationship with sleep? Are there challenges like trouble falling asleep or staying asleep? Would you say the quality of your sleep negatively impacts your life? Have you tried other sleep supplements but feel like nothing has worked? And here's the thing about sleep, it's the foundation of whole body health. When we sleep well, our minds and our bodies perform at their best. Good sleep is both mental and physical and our daily performance depends on it. Proper sleep can also increase focus, boost energy and improve your mood. That's why we're so excited to talk about Beam's Dream Powder, a science backed healthy hot cocoa for sleep. This product has single handedly changed the way I sleep for the better. This bedtime essential is so decadent, totally guilt free and available in delicious flavors like sea salt caramel brownie batter, Vanilla Chai and the Bean Dream Powder Original Flavor Cinnamon Cocoa. Each serving is only 15 calories and 0 grams of sugar. We can say this with confidence. Better sleep has never tasted better. Other sleep aids can cause next day grogginess, but Dream contains a powerful all natural blend of Reishi, magnesium, L theanine, Apigenin and Melatonin to help you fall asleep, stay asleep and wake up. Refresh. Refreshed Beam Dream is easy to add to your nighttime routine. Just mix Dream into hot water or milk froth and enjoy before bed. If you want to try Beam's best selling Dream Powder, get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com legal af and use code legalif at checkout that shop B-E-A-M.com legal af and use code Legal AF for up to 40% off. Let me tell you if there's a sure fire way to wake up feeling fresh after a night of drinking, it's with pre alcohol zbiotics Pre Alcohol Probiotic Drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. And here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for your rough next day. Pre alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow. So I first gave pre alcohol a try when I was visiting Miami for a conference. And let's just say they put the open in open bar. I drank it before my first scotch and soda and you wouldn't believe how on top of my game I felt the very next morning. With pre alcohol I can stay on track and not let winter travel and celebrations like Valentine's Day, the Super bowl and Mardi Gras throw me off course. Go to ZBiotics.com LegalAF to learn more and get 15% off your first order. When you use Legal AF at checkout, ZBiotics is back with 100% money back guarantee. So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to ZBiotics.com legal AF and use the code legal AF at checkout for 15% off. See, that round of commercials welcome back was personally funny for me because it had we had an interesting combination. We had this room with all the boxes in after a move last week that looked like a hostage video. We had my old house because I had a record before I got with got with the movers. But now I'm here and we're back and it's time to talk about the United States Supreme Court. As we entered the show and the recording, we had a couple things that happened. Judge Ali in the District of Columbia, not to be confused with Judge Ali Khan, who's a different judge. Judge Ali is pissed off and fed up and her hand is up to her chin with the Trump administration. She ordered them to unfreeze aid several billion dollars worth of aid through an organization now shuttered, called usaid, which help people, downtrodden people in what we used to refer to as the third world all around the world from famine relief, aids, other medical conditions that require medevax and things like that. I mean, this is just inhumane to have shut off that spigot or as one judge referred to it, Cut off the fuel supply to this like a plane Wal was flying, which is ironic given what's happening with the FAA and this Trump administration. And Judge Ali Khan said, no, I now have to do a mandatory injunction. See, another legal. A breakout, the Injun. An injunction is generally prohibitive. It tells somebody to stop doing something in order to return to the status quo. But because she ordered them to stop the stop freezing the money, they didn't thaw out the money quick enough. And now she's ordered them to pay the money. That's a mandatory aspect of an injunction. You pay the money by midnight tonight, one minute before midnight tonight. I mean it. Or else. They didn't like that. So the supreme, so the, the Trumpers, with their acting solicitor General, because they're soon to be solicitor General, as Karen, you pointed out, is in confirmation process right now. She filed a petition to take it up to the United States Supreme Court about this issue. So now we've got front and center. Can Donald Trump, as the president of the United States, unilaterally cut off funding appropriated by Congress, who alone controls the purse strings, and do what's called an illegal impoundment of that money? And rather than execute on money already allocated, can he cut it off completely, regardless of its ramifications and impact around the world? Does a president, through an executive order, have the ability to cut the legs out from under a congressional spend order or allocation that is at the basis of all of this Doge Cutting, must cutting. And I assume, I guess they want to use this case as the test case to take it to the Supreme Court. Karen, why don't you jump in with either what Ali, Judge Ali said and why she made this mandatory injunction from midnight tonight? Well, we won't be on the air at that moment, but we will report on it quickly. And what do you think the United States Supreme Court, you know the makeup of the Supreme Court, what do you think they do with this fundamental issue about the separation of powers?
- [35:24]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
And what I don't understand is they control Congress. I don't understand. Okay, if you no longer want to fund these programs, then just go pass a law, have Congress do it properly. I mean, there's a way to get this done. If this really is a mandate that they think they have, have, then just get Congress to pass a law, change their mind. Okay? We're no longer going to appropriate funds to help all the people around the world that we've been helping all this time. And then what can happen is Congress passes a law and then programs can wind down in an orderly fashion. But unfortunately, instead, they're just trying to just stop it before it goes out. While there's food waiting in ports that is going bad and medication waiting in warehouses. I mean, there's like, real life things waiting to continue on the journey of what was already allocated. It's just being done in such a haphazard, crazy way. And the judges are basically saying, look, this is arbitrary and capricious. Right? Those are legal words that, that, that no, no lawyer on the losing side ever wants to hear, right? That. That you acted arbitrary and capricious. I mean, because it just means it's the opposite of being legal, it's the opposite of being deliberate, it's the opposite of being surgical. Right. It's just. You're just doing it without any consideration whatsoever of the law, of the rules, et cetera. So, look, it's clear to me that. That they're going to lose all the way up to the Supreme Court. What will the Supreme Court do? Your guess is as good as mine. I think the Supreme Court will ultimately not rule in Trump's favor. I don't think they can do this. Look, I'm really glad, Popak, you reminded everyone and you explained that. You explained that getting an injunction is not. It's not like handing out candy, right? It's not easy. Getting a judge to order an injunction is such a high hurdle. It's such an extraordinary thing. It is a very, very big deal and hard to get. The fact that there's already over 40 injunctions against the Trump administration really is. All these judges, all these court cases are saying, you're going to lose. You don't even have a chance of winning. And by the way, the harm you're causing is irreparable and the damage is terrible. And so I think by the time they get to the Supreme Court, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to allow them to just violate the law and run roughshod around all of the various, all of the various controls and checks and balances, etcetera, that exist. So that's what I think is going to happen. But the district court judges are all signaling and giving the Supreme Court exactly what they need to rule that way. I mean, do you. I mean, you follow the Supreme Court much closer on the legal A channel, and you have the show with Dina Dahl. So what are you seeing? I mean, I'd love to hear, really, your. Your take on that, but I think this even is a bridge too far for the Supreme Court, even though they have the Conservative majority.
- [38:35]
Michael Popok
I think the reason, to answer a question you asked at the start of your analysis, I think the reason that they're not going through the court, I mean, through Congress, is because even though they have the quote, unquote majority, you can see it's a do nothing Congress. They can't get anything done. They have a very slim majority. Hakeem Jeffries is effectively the speaker of the House for the, the on the Democratic side. And Trump knew that coming in, he knew he was going to have to rule by fiat, have to rule by executive order, and then take his chances where the chips may fall. They figured, you know, let's listen the, the Democrats and the moderate groups and the public interest groups, attorneys general, we're playing the portfolio method also. We'll, we're filing multiple cases on the same issue in different courts, not to get a different result, but just to make sure that we have the right judge, the right, the right facts, the right ruling to take up on an ultimate appeal in the right appellate court to get to the United States Supreme Court. Ultimately, as we try to line up our best foot forward in all of these cases, of the 60 or so executive orders that Donald Trump has issued, you know, the, the top 10 that deal with issues that matter to you and me and our audience are all up and like and enjoined. Except for, I think, one. I mean, I think the success rate now is over 98 or 99%. Doesn't mean the Supreme Court can't say. Yeah, I don't, we don't agree with any of you. We saw that before. You know, we know the immunity decision started out as a very good decision by Judge Chutkan, and it was a very good decision by the D.C. court of Appeals. 3, 0. And then when it got to the Supreme Court, they go, you guys are all wrong. That's not how you're supposed to analyze the separation of powers and the powers of the presidency when it comes to criminal conduct. They're like, it isn't. Why isn't it based on all the case law so they can just, you know, you know, it's like an Etch A Sketch for them. It's not supposed to be, you know, and they're like, well, we're just going to start all over again and make our own ruling. A couple days ago, I talked about it on POPOC Live. My show on Tuesday nights a couple days ago was the anniversary of the passage of Marbury vs Madison, which for lawyer geeks like you and me back in 1807, it is the case that set the Supreme Court on its path to be a co, equal branch of government. If it wasn't for John Marshall basically interpreting what the Constitution said and saying, yeah, we're Article 3, this is what we're supposed to do versus Article 2 and Article 1 president in Congress. It wasn't for Marbury versus Madison in which I spent three weeks talking about Marbury versus Madison in my law school class. We wouldn't, there wouldn't be a Supreme Court the way that we know it now. A lot of people will argue, especially on the show, we don't have a Supreme Court the way it was envisioned by John Marshall. And I don't, I don't totally disagree with that. Let me segue. Oh, so Congress was there. I think the Supreme Court, I think if they had to take one case up and there's going to be many cases up on the same point, I feel pretty good about this particular case being on US Aid. I think it is, it is a violation of the separation of powers, the spending clause, the role of Congress. Even this Supreme Court doesn't like executive orders making law. And it's the weakest way for a president. It's the easiest way for a president. You know, what is it? It's a, it's a Sharpie, you know, a blue folder, you know, and a press, you know, in a press conference in the Oval Office. Look what I did, you know, like a two year old with a, with a paint set, you know, that's the easiest thing to do, but it's the weakest in terms of legal justification or bases. And that's why they often are found to be invalid. I think this one is going to be there too. Speaking of supreme, how I Learned about Marbury vs Madison. My constitutional law teacher and scholar was Walt, the late, great Walter Dellinger, Solicitor General under Clinton Office of White House Counsel. And he had a son. His son is named Hampton Dellinger, who I used to play pickup basketball with Duke Law School. When he used to come over, he was at unc, but he came over and played pickup basketball with the, his, one of his father's class. We used to go over a little home week here. We used to go over to this place called the Bubble at Duke Law School which was next to a parking lot. It was like in the woods and we had a parking one basketball court. We all played there. But Hampton Dellinger is a boy Scout. He is, he's devoted his life like his father and his mother. And Dellinger was the head of government Studies at University of North Carolina. He's dedicated his life to public service, being a lawyer in, in the, in the furtherance of public service and was a perfect pick by Joe Biden and any president to be the head of the Office of, of Special Counsel. Which is not what it sounds like. The Office of Special Counsel is not Jack Smith's of the world. The Office of Special Counsel is a little bit of a misnomer. It is the office within the executive branch that is responsible, almost like an ombuds person, to defend the interest and prosecutes the interest of federal workers at places like the Merit Protection Service Board to make sure that their rights are upheld, to make sure that their civil service servants rights and labor union rights or whatever the are upheld. It's a very important position. It's usually a five year term so that it kind of overlaps and isn't politicized. But Donald Trump makes everything political. You know, the only one so far he hasn't gone after that he threatened was Jay Powell, the head of the Federal Reserve. Only because the Wall street people around him told him don't f with Jay Powell because he's the only thing that'll keep the economy spinning in the right direction and don't f with him and the market won't like it. Short of that, he's decided to fire the FBI director on a 10 year term. And Hampton Dellinger, Hampton Dellinger wasn't going to take it lying down. He was like three weeks in or a month into the five year term. So he filed his motion for temporary restraining order and he got it granted. And the judge said, we're going to do a preliminary injunction in a few days, maybe eight or nine days, but I'm going to give you a temporary restraining order right now. He is not to be fired. He is reinstated as the head of the Office of Special Counsel. He's appearing in court through his office in places like the Merit Protection Service Board and all that. It's driving Donald Trump batty because he doesn't want Hampton Dellinger. He wants some lackey of his own choosing in that position. And so he's trying to remove him. And he, they filed all sorts of papers of with the, the court to try to convince her not to put him back into that office. And, and they then took an appeal that we reported on last week to the United States Supreme Court. First stop, John Roberts and John Roberts and even the others took a look at it and said, this is a little premature. You're on a temporary restraining order. She's going, the judge is going to hold a hearing on the preliminary injunction in about five days. I don't know what your rush is. We're going to not deal with this. We're going to let the judge do her job, the trial court judge. We'll see you all back here in about eight days. Only eight days went by. The judge held a hearing today and she's not ready. She said, I need three more days. It's just three more days. She or she needs till Monday, March 1st. You know, it's a short month to finish the briefing, finish the reading, finish the writing. Doing a 30, 40, 50 page preliminary injunction order. She's not ready. So she extended the temporary restraining order. And it drove Donald Trump batty. He wrote a letter through his acting Solicitor General to the clerk of the United States Supreme Court, asking the letter to be circulated to all the rest of the justices, saying, see, we gotta wait three more days. And now he's appearing at hearings and he's asking for extensions on the probationary workers being fired. So he's, he's, he's a fired, A fired special counsel that's exercising executive power. Oh, my God. I, I really. What did you make of the letter and the whining? And what do you think the Supreme Court's going to do when they get that letter? She's only asking. You think they're going to intervene before March 1st?
- [46:49]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
No. No way. No, not without a doubt. I mean, look, I don't know that Hampton Dellinger is going to win, but I'm really happy that he's pushing this. And of course they're not. They're going to let him have three more days. I mean, that's just an absurd thing. But you know what offends me is all the taxpayer dollars that are going to have to, that he's using the, the, all of the Solicitor General and all of the people, those are people all going to be paid by taxpayer dollars who have to go and defend Donald Trump's illegal actions in court. It's just such a waste there. That's where the fraud and waste is. Why does he keep doing all these things and firing people illegally and then utilizing government employees who are paid by tax dollars? I'm going to say that over and over again because it's just, that's what the, that is what the absolute waste is here, not the money that's going to others. And one more thing, I just want to this, which is, you know, the thing, the irony that as you, as I listen to you say this, Popak, and as I listen to you talk about this, all I could think about is how much money does Elon Musk get from the government as a subsidy, Right. Or as contracts or as whatever you want to call it. How much taxpayer dollars does Elon Musk continue to get and has gotten since Donald Trump has taken office? Where's the cutting there? Why is he only taking money from poor people? That's exactly what he's doing. He's taking money from the hard working men and women around this country. Who are the civil servants and the people who are working hard, middle class Americans and people who need it. People who are either down on their luck or for whatever reason aren't making ends meet. Really. The people who really need the money are the ones who are getting cut, not him. Who is the biggest. He's probably one of the biggest government subsidized people in this country.
- [48:47]
Michael Popok
Yeah, he is. He's made billions and billions of dollars every year. I think he's got contracts totaling over $4 billion before he even took office. That's why he could stroke a check to Donald Trump for 10 million to pay off. Because X deplatformed Donald Trump taxpayer dollar is a very good point, Karen, because we're watching a president use, use our taxpayer dollars to prosecute his private lawsuits. You know, the CBS lawsuit that we opened, the podcast with, the ABC lawsuit that he brought against George Stephanopoulos, the case against Ann Selzer, the Iowa pollster. Those are all private. Donald Trump as private individual. I, I don't really get why the Supreme Court thought it was okay to let him off the hook of criminal prosecution, but think it's okay for a sitting president to prosecute private matters in a courtroom if he's, if he's not tied up and distracted by these lawsuits and collecting all the money which they're only paying him because he happens to be the President of the United States. That's how he's lining his pocket and he's using, as you said, the Department of Justice and he's using taxpayer dollars for all these crazy lawyers that are going to have to go in crazy lawsuits that he has to try to defend, which is, you know, he was the first one to say, oh, Jack Smith spent $15 million of American taxpayer hard earned dollars on a trumped up whatever. Like it's going to be $100 million of Department of Justice money that he's going to waste. You know, I just saw, I don't know if you caught this when he Went to Miami. Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars. When he went to Miami to address an economic summit last week, he took his, he took Air Force One from West Palm beach to Miami. It's 63 miles. And he flew Air Force One or whatever it costs per, per hour of taxpayer dollars to go there instead of taking like, you know, driving a car for like an hour.
- [50:45]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
How much, how much did it cost for Trump to go to the super.
- [50:47]
Michael Popok
Bowl or any of them.
- [50:49]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
No, seriously, for Trump to go to the Super Bowl.
- [50:52]
Michael Popok
Right.
- [50:52]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
With all the Secret Service agents. Right.
- [50:55]
Michael Popok
Millions.
- [50:56]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
All the, every one of them has to be put up in a hotel. Every one of them has to be paid. You know, it's like the amount of money it cost for Donald Trump to attend the super bowl. You're millions of dollars. Probably. Yeah, at least. At least. And that is all taxpayer dollars. That is. And you know, when he settles the CBS case, where's that money going to go him? Exactly. Exactly.
- [51:24]
Michael Popok
Right.
- [51:24]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
It's the biggest scam of waste, fraud and abuse there is. And we are sitting back watching it happen.
- [51:31]
Michael Popok
Yeah, well, we're watching it happen, but we're actively doing our own. Right then I'm glad you're all here. We're many ways to support us. I've been watching the chat. I always love with the chat. Like, like if I go long winded on an issue or you go long winded on an issue and like somebody watches at that moment, they're like, where's the other person? Like, where. What happened to Karen? Where's Michael? Like when I'm on with Ben and Ben goes on a rant and I go out and get a sandwich sometimes. But where's Popak Free Pop Hawk Salty's like, blame me. I'm the producer. I'm the one that's supposed to keep this on, on schedule. Speaking of on schedule, many ways to support us, what we do here, a little giddy. Hit the subscribe button to Midas Touch. Come over to Legal AF, the YouTube channel. Legal AFMTN. Hit the subscribe button there. Help us turn our odometer over to 500,000. We have a patreon patreon.com legal af for some original content as well. I don't know about Karen. I got a substack. It's a Michael Popo substack and we're putting a lot of new content on there and building that audience as well. And then we got our, we've got our advertisers, our sponsors. Really, really important to everything that we do. Frankly, to be frank, if we did not have our sponsors, we would not have a show. I mean, I don't know, you know, and then. And they're the perfect support system, the perfect jet fuel for our network because they don't tell us what to say and they don't require us to do anything other than tell the truth and our best analysis. And that's all we could ever ask for. Jordy's helped us curate these, these sponsors. We've tried all the products and we're not telling you if you don't have the money, but if you have the money and it's something that you find interesting or could be useful in your life, we think it would be something that'd be worthwhile. So here's another break and our word from our sponsors. Have you or someone you know been a victim of identity theft? Harassed, Stalked, doxxed? As people who follow our show know, I and the other hosts on this channel have been harassed and stalked, especially following the election. And that made me want to take control to protect myself and my loved ones. And that led me to our sponsor, Delete me. Ever wonder how much of your personal data is out there on the Internet for anyone to see? More than you think. Your name, contact info, Social Security number and home address, even information about your family members, all being compiled by data brokers and sold online. Data brokers make a profit off of your data. Your data is just a commodity to them. Anyone on the web can buy your private details. This can lead to identity theft, phishing attempts, harassment, and unwanted spam calls. But now you can protect your privacy with Deleteme. As a person who exists publicly, especially as someone who shares my strong opinions, analysis and commentary in online media, I'm hyper aware of safety and security. And it's easier than ever to find personal information about people online. All this data hanging out on the Internet can have actual consequences in the real world. That's why I use Deleteme. Deleteme is a subscription service that removes your personal info from hundreds of data. Brokers sign up and provide Deleteme with exactly what information you want deleted. And their experts take it from there. Deleteme sends you regular personalized privacy reports showing what info they found, where they found it and what they removed. Deleteme isn't just a one time service. Deleteme is always working for you. Constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the Internet. To put it simply, Deleteme does all the hard work of wiping your and your family's personal information from data broker websites. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Deleteme now at a special discount for our listeners today. Get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com LegalIF and use promo code LEGALIF at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com LegalIF and enter code LegalIF at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com LegalAFE code Legal AF this.
- [55:56]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Episode is sponsored by Laundry Sauce, which is an incredible new product that I am obsessed with. In fact, I gave it to everyone I know for the holidays and I know people who are now ordering it and subscribing. It's really fantastic because everybody hates doing laundry. Let's be real, I don't like doing laundry, but doing laundry is something everybody has to do. But laundry detergent hasn't changed over the years. It's been the same, the same options, the same smells. Everything that you have had since you were a child is what laundry detergent is. But Laundry sauce has created a new product and it smells amazing and it washes great. It's just a great replacement that I am now using for all of my laundry. I will say it is the world's best smelling laundry pods so that your clothes don't have to smell like your grandmother's perfume anymore. Imagine stepping into a room and smelling like Australian sandalwood. This rugged, warm, earthy scent is guaranteed to get you compliments with every hug morning. Laundry Sauce will cause you to be known as the woman who always smells amazing or guy. I hope that's okay with you. Don't stress about remembering to put on your perfume or your cologne because everything you run through the wash will now have this incredible scent. Each laundry sauce pod is highly concentrated with four times more cleaning power than the traditional liquid laundry detergents and it's enriched with bioenzymes. They don't just smell incredible, they tackle the toughest stains while also reviving fabric. So for a limited time only, our listeners get 20% off your entire order when you use code legal af20@laundry sauce.com that's 20% off your order@laundry sauce.com with promo code legal af20. It's time to get saucy. But it's really great. Just please go to laundry sauce.com and enter code legal F20. You're not going to regret it. It's really a great new product. I don't know why someone didn't think of this sooner?
- [57:58]
Michael Popok
And we're back.
- [57:59]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
I do love laundry sauce, by the way.
- [58:01]
Michael Popok
It's all my sponsors.
- [58:03]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
It's one of those things my wife does. But you're like, why didn't someone else think of this sooner? You just granted that, that all laundry detergents basically smells the same. Is the same. It was so nice. I gave it to everyone for Christmas. It comes in this beautiful box. It's like, it's incredible.
- [58:18]
Michael Popok
We were packing to move and my wife was in the laundry room and I turned around, she had like five of these boxes that you're talking about of laundry sauce. And she looked at me and says, can we take all these? I'm like, yeah, babe, it's true.
- [58:32]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
It's like this thing, you're, you're like, you don't think about laundry. Like, you're just like, oh, let me grab the detergent, whatever. Yeah. And it's just, it's all the same, whatever. But anyway, laundry sauce is like this really incredible. And that makes me look around and be like, what other things do we take for granted that we should like, make it, you know, incredible? So.
- [58:49]
Michael Popok
Well, you know, who's not using laundry sauce or doing really, apparently any laundry is Elon Musk. Because every time I see him, including in cabinet meetings, he's just, he just, he's just dressed head to toe like some sort of perverse Johnny Cash or Grim Reaper. Just the man in black wearing black on black, black on black T shirt, black on black pants, a ill fitting jacket and a baseball cap while he's addressing what appears to be. I know this looks like the island of Misfit Toys, but this is the cabinet for Donald Trump. This is what they look like when they're all together. Pete Hegseth from Fox and Friends. Marco Rubio, the no show job. Senator Burgum, RFK Jr. How did the heck did he get in that room? Linda McMahon from World Wrestling Federation and Eli. Do we have the video with Elon Musk in the room? Because we're gonna talk about Elon Musk next. So Elon Musk gets brought into the cabinet meeting where Donald Trump that now it looks like a hostage video. Because now at one point Donald Trump, to try to prove that he's in charge, turns to the cabinet and says, how do you. He's doing a great job, right? Is everybody, anybody here dissatisfied with Elon Musk? We already know a rebellion has broken out among the Maga Cabinet. All of them have said, ignore Elon Musk. While at the same time they're doing nothing about Elon Musk undermining their constitutional authority. I just did a hot take about Marco Rubo Rubio ordering that certain funding related to USAID that we talked about earlier go to things like AIDS prevention in Africa and some other aspects of it. And two, Tech Bros. Doge Bros that work for Elon Musk got their hands inside the server and inside the payment portal and countermanded and vetoed Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State's direction. What did he do about it? There's only two things he could have done about it if he had any gravitas. That was my nice way of putting it. One, he would threaten to quit unless it was reversed. Right. Or two, he quits. He's not doing any of those things and that is the problem. And then you've got the split screen of the Department of Justice under Donald Trump looking federal judges in the eye and saying, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, ma'am. Elon who? Elon Musk. He's just a special advisor. He's like Anita Dunn that used to work for Joe Biden. He doesn't have any outsized powers. He doesn't even run Doge. He's not even in Doge really well. All I would do is, if I'm the lawyer for any of these groups, is bring back to Judge Chutkin, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, Judge Ali Khan and the rest that are handling these matters and show them the video of Elon Musk lording over the Cabinet and the stories that are already out there that are all true about, about Elon Musk's team turning off the funding pipeline despite congressional appropriations of it to show the true power that he has. I mean, there's a reason. Karen, did you catch the toe sucking AI Deep fake.
- [61:52]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Yeah, that was really disgusting actually.
- [61:55]
Michael Popok
But it's a great sign of resistance from within of government workers who had that running on a screen. This, this gets obscene and disgusting. But it was funny to see Donald Trump sucking the toes of Elon Musk. Would long live the real king over it as HUD workers returned to work on a loop because we. This, this, as I said at the top, resistance takes many formats. What do you make of many forms. What do you make of the Elon Musk role, true role within the government and how it's being portrayed to federal judges in these hearings?
- [62:27]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Yeah, it's just, look, the, the President gets to nominate his cabinet and his people who are at high level positions and the, the Senate has a role that is provided for in the Constitution that says, yes, the President can nominate someone and they can appoint someone, but with the advice and consent of the Senate. There's a real role there where Senate plays a role in picking the executive branch. And that's really important for people who have big jobs, important jobs, high level officers. And that's what these hearings are for. What they're trying to do is they're trying to be too cute by half by putting making essentially Elon Musk the single most powerful person in government, but saying, oh, he's, he's nothing. He's not. Nothing to see here. He's not. Doesn't have any position. He doesn't have really any power. He doesn't have really any real authority. And they're doing it to try to get around this pesky little requirement in the United States Constitution that does require people to have to answer to the American people and disclose things like conflicts of interest and actually be qualified for the jobs that they hold. That's what the Constitution provides for. Well, like I said, they're trying to get around it and, and I'm trying to think about how to, how to explain it to people so they really understand the gravity of how serious this is. This, this. We joke about the first buddy and he brings his kid around and wears a T shirt as if he's not really in an official position. But let's look analogize to flying an airplane, a commercial airplane. And the reason I'm picking this analogy is because what is up with all of the either airplane crashes or near misses that are happening ever since Donald Trump and Doge has basically essentially done away with a lot of positions at the faa. I mean, it's just shocking to me what's happening. So let's talk about planes, right? So pilots have all sorts of training that they have to go through. They have a rigorous process that they have to go through to become a pilot, right? Not anyone, thankfully. No one's gonna let me just go sit down and fly an air. Well, the pilot will get paid for their job, obviously. They'll have rules that govern everything that they're supposed to do and regulations. They sit down, they do all kinds of checks right before they take off on their airplane. They do all sorts of their own checks of the airplane to make sure that it's safe to take off. They talk to the control tower. There's lots that happen to go and fly this airplane. Well, what they're doing is they don't want Elon Musk to have to go through all of the things that have to be done to keep us safe. The rules to fly the airplane. So what they're doing is they're just letting him sit in the cockpit and the pilot will get up and let him fly every once in a while and maybe fly the whole time, who cares? But when push comes to shove, the pilot will be like, no, but I'm the actual pilot, right? That's my job. I'm the one wearing the uniform. I'm the pilot. But it doesn't matter. Elon Musk is flying the plane. And that's what's happening here with the federal government. And courts are starting to see through it. They are seeing through it perfectly. They're basically saying bullshit. They're calling bullshit. And they're seeing that he is. That this is more than just an advisory role and they're not going to let him get away with it. I think there's going to be some consequences to this and I think the courts are going to start to rein it in. And like you said, this, this Cabinet meeting is exhibit A of really who he is and what he is. Why is he the one who's speaking to the Cabinet? Why is he the one holding press conferences and answering press questions in the Oval Office while Trump sits there at the Resolute desk, basically babysitting Elon Musk's kid? I mean, he's really the one in charge. And I don't know where J.D. vance is other than off flying around the world, you know, supporting extreme, you know, we're talking about right wing governments, etc. But it's just crazy to me, you know, that, that what's going to happen. And I really think that the judges are going to call out the government for frankly lying and, and trying to pull a wool over the court's eyes. Because Elon Musk is, is definitely more than just hanging out.
- [66:48]
Michael Popok
Yeah. Yeah. I think, isn't it Elon Musk kid that wiped something on the Resolute desk and now the Resolute desk is out for repair. Did you hear that?
- [66:59]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Yes.
- [67:00]
Michael Popok
Yes. I mean, the kid put it. Yes. Thank you, Adam. Salty. The kid put a booger on the Resolute desk. I think it was Musk's kid. And they sent it out for cleaning.
- [67:10]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Because Trump's a germaphobe.
- [67:12]
Michael Popok
You're right. Every. He's. Yeah. He's also disgusting too.
- [67:15]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
By the way, though, how much is that going to cost the taxpayer dollars to have it officially cleaned? No, but all these things.
- [67:21]
Michael Popok
Yeah. Of course.
- [67:22]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Exactly. That's where the waste is, right?
- [67:25]
Michael Popok
Yeah, of course. You know, ridiculous. I mean this, this using the, we didn't get a chance to talk about it, but using the Alien Sedition act, which I would touch on it here from 1789, to declare to have a phony war declared in order to take out, you know, drug lords from America. You know, the 1790, sorry, 1798. The 1798 Alien Enemies Act, Al Sedition act, which was passed in advance of, you know, we were about to go to war with France and we were worried about French sympathizers within the government and outside the government. And it's been used just three times. It's only when there's a declaration of war. Although the President can do some things in advance. The declaration of war. If there's a surge across the border or within the country or an invasion, that has to be repelled instantly. That's what we have. The slow walking undocumented that have been here for years. That's the invasion. And it has to be an enemy country where combatant is against us on one side and has sent their agents with, into the country that need to be expelled. We don't have that. Mexico is not at war with us. Venezuela is not at war with us. Sure. I don't know where exactly these, some of these drug gangs come from, but it's not because the, the, the state of, of the, you know, they're not state controlled terrorism. But Donald Trump's going to try to use it. We've used it in the War of 1812, World War I and World War II. We put ash, we put Hungarians, Germans and Japanese in internment camps. Japanese. These are all Americans, including the Japanese Americans because of under it all, all turned out to be a violation, even during wartime, let alone peacetime, of our constitution and the constitutional rights of people. And so Donald Trump apparently is going to do what he threatened to do and what Project 2025 said it was going to do, is to use it to turbocharge his deportation policies. And that's going to end up right at the right on the doorstep of the United States Supreme Court. Look, this is the, this is the Pandora's box, as you said at the top of the show, that John Roberts opened by leading and writing the immunity decision. Because this is the lesson that Donald Trump learned. I'm unstoppable. I'm unbreakable. I'm unstoppable. And I'm gonna, this is gonna be my legacy over the next four years, which is completely destroying the relationship between the U.S. the United States and the U.S. economy, the relationship between the U.S. and the U.S. people. That's his mission now that he's, now that he's in office. And it's going to take an act of, you know, a brave act of a federal judge, maybe like judge to bar and ban Elon Musk from government. You know, and that's where this is heading, is to determine whether a special advisor can wield the powers that Donald Trump has delegated unconstitutionally to Elon Musk. Yes or no? It's a question for federal courts and ultimately for the United States Supreme Court. Supreme Court. What did you make of just to finish off, round off our topic, what did you make of the oral argument on the white straight woman who was suing for a discrimination violation because she didn't get the job and a gay guy got it, and how the Supreme Court oral argument a, that they even took that case? You know, anytime they start lifted under the hood and start tinkering in areas like this gets me very nervous. And then I didn't feel any better after listening to the reports on the oral argument. Webb, how about you?
- [71:08]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
I mean, look, the question here isn't whether she was discriminated against because so this is a woman who I think she's in Ohio and she is heterosexual and a white woman and she got very good reviews, performance reviews, and she at her job and she was up for a promotion and, and she interviewed the person who was interviewing her is gay and chose someone gay and she said she was discriminated against. And the lower courts, essentially what they're arguing about is what's the standard she has to show in order to win. Is it the same standard? Is it different because she's in the majority versus if she were in the minority group, or is it the same standard or is it a different standard? And I think that the court is going to say no, Title 7 of the Employment Acts doesn't allow you to have different standards, that it's the same standard. So they're not going to rule on whether or not she was discriminated against, but they're going to rule on what was the standard. And I think that it seemed like everyone agreed that that's the case. And I think that the Supreme Court's going to rule in her favor. That's what, that's what I took from it. Is that what you took from I.
- [72:33]
Michael Popok
Agree with you, including the the Democratic wing of the Supreme Court, even Kagan, you know, who is I openly I think Kagan's openly gay, right? I'm not sure. Did I just out her? I doubt it. I doubt it. I think she's up. I think she's openly gay. If I'm wrong, I will correct myself on a. I don't know.
- [72:51]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
I just, I don't think about the sex lives of the Supreme Court.
- [72:53]
Michael Popok
No, I don't either, but I'm just saying.
- [72:54]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
I just don't know.
- [72:55]
Michael Popok
Yeah, yeah, I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure she is. But. But. Yeah. So I, yeah, I think this, this is not gonna, we're not gonna like the precedent that's being set here. I don't think ultimately about, about it. It's. And it just, you know, it may not be exactly another attack on the LGBTQ plus community, but it's sort of, it sort of is in its own way. It's in its own shape. We got other reporting that we won't have time to cover tonight. That came out. Pam Bondi has announced that there, I guess there's more Jeffrey Epstein file. Epstein files that are coming out and being released. I guess these are the ones that don't have Donald Trump's name on them. Flight logs and all sorts of things. I mean, I, I hate to say so, but at this point in time, with the lawsuits that are working on the, the compensation to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, Jerry Epstein having hanged himself in jail, I mean, the fact that he is that we are still talking about his files and the. Pam Bondi. Again, back to your, your thematic. Karen. Wasting taxpayer dollars having somebody review the files and release them because it's important to Donald Trump. Because why? Because Bill Clinton's name's on it. Because people went to the island. There's a lot of people that went to that island, I'm sure that didn't all participate in sex crimes. On it. Who Salty just said he's on. Who's the he? Trump.
- [74:22]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Trump's on it. Trump. I was.
- [74:24]
Michael Popok
I've been see on the flight logs that were just released by, By Donald Trump's own Department of Justice. Yes.
- [74:33]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
I don't know.
- [74:34]
Michael Popok
Yeah, not the current. Right. In the past.
- [74:36]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Yeah, right.
- [74:37]
Michael Popok
We got copies of things and we're talking about the BS that Pam Bondi is putting out as a smoke screen is not going to have Donald Trump's name on it. He's going to say, see, Bill Clinton's name was on it or whoever's name was on it. My name wasn't on it. You know, because he's trying to again, Using our taxpayer doll, our time with his retribution campaign. You know, I don't know if you caught this, Karen. You know, he took special delight. I mean, I love the fact this, this, this is what animates him. Every day he gets up in the morning and brushes his teeth about how I can abuse or embarrass lawyers. And Jack Smith, you know, he took away Covington's major law firm in Washington's security clearance. So they can't represent people who have, you know, like whistleblowers who have security issues because to get them back for helping Jack Smith. Smith in his personal matters. Oh, I took. He actually said, I'm lingering on this one. On the signing of this, of this executive order, by the way, that was so performative.
- [75:31]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Okay, if you want to, if you want to like the fact that he signs an executive order that says we're not. We're going to take away the security clearance of, of this law firm. That's not an executive order. That's ridiculous. It's so performative to do that. And then he says, I'm going to give the pen to Jack. Jack Smith. Like, yeah. It's just a ridiculous, vindictive, petty. I feel like I'm talking to a seven year old.
- [75:54]
Michael Popok
I know, I know. Although I was just arguing with somebody that was off camera. I was. Next time I argue with my producer. Salty's gotta come on. It was like I was arguing with the chat, but on camera. Well, we've reached the end. Popo's guest. I've reached the end of another midweek with one of my favorite people.
- [76:17]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
We gotta get Salty on here. What? Like Salty is this like mystery, you know, man behind.
- [76:23]
Michael Popok
We make him up that he doesn't exist. There's a guy Salty just wrote. I'm not making this up. He just wrote in the chat, AI of AI. He's like, how from 2001 Space Odyssey. I'm clo. I'm turning off the oxygen now, Popak. All right, well, I'm giddy. So let's.
- [76:44]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
We're like punchy. We are.
- [76:45]
Michael Popok
We are a little punchy. But you are one of my favorite people on planet Earth. So I'm really glad that we get together every week week here on the midweek edition of Legal af. You know, all the ways to help us hit this. Somebody wrote in the chat you don't really need some sponsors. I'm sorry, I don't understand that business model. I don't get it. But in any event, we do. We did. We support you. They support Us. It's a great ecosystem here. Hitting the subscribe button, which is free, is really helpful. Going over to Legal af, helping us continue to grow that pro democracy channel is really, really helpful. We still got T shirts, I think on the store. Store dot. So there it is. Store dot, Midas touch, whatever it is, dot com. There it is. All those T shirts that Karen did. We got Legal lay up the YouTube channel. There it is. Look at that. That looks great. All my different haircuts over time all memorialized on that ad.
- [77:38]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
I love watching the ad and I'm like, oh, I needed to do my roots, you know, notice it's like you see all the little like things.
- [77:45]
Michael Popok
You're like, I was showing my hair stylist. I got my haircut today. I was showing the guy that cuts my hair. I was like, hey, look, see this one from two days ago, Three days ago. I really like that one. Let's see if we can get back there. But any event, all kidding aside, we really do appreciate everybody. I think we, we hit Legal Midas Touch hit 4.2 million subs tonight. Odometer turn during Legal layoff. As always, as always, 2 minutes, 2 million was hit during our show. And I forget about 3 million, 4 million. And we're about to hit 500,000. My goal is 1 million for legal AF before our one year anniversary. I think we can get there at the rate that we're going, but only because of our tremendous audience. So until our next Saturday edition of Legal AF with Ben Mysalas and me, all the hot takes that we do over here on the Midas Touch network and over on Legal af, shout out to the Midas mighty of illegal afores.
- [78:43]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
You're pretty smart when people talk about you. Too smart comes up a lot. So why are you trying to prove them wrong? Why aren't you pushing the limits of science and powering the nuclear engines of.
- [78:55]
Michael Popok
The world's most powerful Navy? If you were born for it, isn't it time to make a smart, smart choice? You can be smart or you can be nuke smart. Become a nuclear engineer@navy.com nukesmart America's Navy.
- [79:10]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Forged by the sea.