Loading summary
Transcript66 lines
- [00:01]
Ben Meiselas
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.
- [00:04]
Michael Popak
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 affiliates.
- [00:21]
Ben Meiselas
Potential savings will vary.
- [00:23]
Michael Popak
Not available in all states or situations.
- [00:29]
Ben Meiselas
This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. It's tax season and we're all a bit tired of numbers, but here's one you need to hear. $16.5 billion. That's how much the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud last year. Now here's a good number. 100 million. That's how many data points Lifelock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it. Guaranteed. Save up to 40% your first year@lifelock.com podcast terms apply. Attention sports enthusiasts. Keep the adrenaline pumping and elevate your game day with Chumba Casino. It's completely free to play, no purchase necessary. Whether you're cheering from the stands, on the move or relaxing at home, Chumba Casino brings the thrill of social casino directly to your fingertips. Experience the ultimate social casino adventure with reels of casino style games offering hundreds of exciting options to choose from and fresh new releases every week. There's always something new and thrilling to explore. From action packed social slots and classic blackjack to engaging bingo and solitaire, the fun never stops. Plus, enjoy generous daily login bonuses and a fantastic free welcome bonus to kickstart your social gaming journey. Dive into the excitement. Discover a world where you can play for your chance to redeem some serious prizes and have a blast along the way. Don't miss out. What are you waiting for? Join now and immerse yourself in non stop fun and adventure with Chumba Casino. Get in on the action today@chumbacasino.com and make every day a Chumba Day. No purchase necessary. VGW Group Void war prohibited by law 18 + DNC supply.
- [02:01]
Michael Popak
Is it only the midweek for legal AF? We had five different court decisions yesterday, all of course against the Trump administration. We have out and out warfare between Donald Trump, like a mobster sending messaging back to John Roberts, the Chief justice through his press secretary, all about what used to be a little known judge named Chief Judge Boasberg, Jeb Boasberg of all things in the D.C. court who was Brett Kavanaugh's roommate, and John Rob, one of John Roberts buddies. And it's all burst out because Donald Trump declared a phony war using phony war powers and got shut down and shot down by a federal judge. Wow. Constitutional crisis, anybody? We're in it. And as Donald Trump and his administration have doubled down on doxing and attacking federal judges by name, including the press secretary, getting confused about which judge was appointed by which president, then we have other cases that we got to talk about besides the attempted or the actual deportation of Venezuelans without due process to put him in some sort of dark hole of a supermax prison in El Salvador to fill beds because the head of El Salvador needs the money from the US this sounds disgusting, and it is. So we've got the decision making and orders to prove it. A judge in San Francisco has looked the Trump administration in the eye and has said, I don't think you're following my injunction. I told you to rehire 25,000 people, not to put them on paid administrative leave. And the judge is trying to, as Judge Boasberg did, he's trying to get to the bottom as to whether there's been open defiance of federal judge orders by the Trump administration, something that Donald Trump, in an interview that he just did with Laura Ingraham on Fox, denied that he's going to do. Oh, we won't. We won't defy orders, but we have these lunatic, crazy, corrupt judges and, you know, we might have to push back a bit. And then at the same time as Judge Allsop questioning whether the Trump administration openly defied his orders, we've got Judge Reyes, who just issued today a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration concerning the attempt to drum out of our armed services transgender Americans who have been serving with pride and giving and offering their ultimate sacrifice to protect us, our liberties, our freedoms. And Judge Reyes said, isn't it a cruel twist of fate that those who are willing to protect our freedoms are having theirs denied by the Trump administration in an order issued by Pete Hegseth, which this judge declared was seeped and dripping in animus and bias against this disadvantaged group of people called Transgender Americans. And we'll look at that as well. And then Judge Chung in Maryland, who we've been talking about ad nauseam, he also issued a ruling yesterday in which he wants to put back together. It's like Humpty Dumpty, usaid, this organization that was responsible for humanitarian and commercial aid around the world. And he doesn't like what Donald Trump has done either. And so he's ordered that the payment systems be turned back on and ordered that workers be brought back to work. And, and this is driving MAGA mad, including Caroline Levett or Levitt. The press Secretary and the rest of MAGA world because they've got this new thematic which Carol, Karen, this, this is their new talking points, which they use their paid, their paid influencers, the rapid response team that's been built inside the White House, the, the MAGA in the House and the Senate to all at the same time create this ecos, this reverberation chamber of one single judge in one single district can't shut down a president who won a mandate in all seven battleground states. What are you effing or legal AF in talking about? Every major constitutional decision that's ever been in the last 200 years plus comes from a single judge in a single federal district. That's how checks and balance works. Let's bring in Karen. Midweek is here. Karen. I'm already exhausted. I'm already exhausted.
- [06:48]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
I know, it's crazy. So much stuff. We say this every week, but this week, really so much is going on. It's unbelievable to me. I can't even believe it. And we are heading towards a constitutional crisis, in my opinion, with the things that are going on right now, again, sounds very alarming. And people say that all the time. This time I think this is where we're headed if we continue down this road, especially with the Boasberg stuff.
- [07:12]
Michael Popak
Well, let's jump in there by choice. Well, let me ask the academic philosophical question, since you went there so quickly, which I appreciate. Why is Donald Trump causing so soon and over this particular issue of deportation, why is he causing this constitutional crisis and how do you think it ends for him?
- [07:33]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
I mean, I think it's a couple of reasons. He ran on this issue of immigration. Congress for decades has just been paralyz in terms of passing a law on immigration. And so the issue has basically gotten out of control and Trump has just had enough. And then you add to that United States versus Trump and the case that the United States Supreme Court essentially anointed King Trump and essentially gave him far more powers than anyone ever thought the president or the executive had. And he's kind of like, look, you tried to bring me down. You prosecuted me four times, and I got reelected anyway as a convicted felon. He's giving everyone the middle finger. He's got US V. Trump and he's saying, I'm gonna do whatever the f I want, and he's doing it. And he's basically saying, I am not going to follow court orders. He has his press secretary saying this. He's got these talking points. How can a single judge in a single district order The President of the United States, the executive branch, to do anything that stay in your lane. And they're saying that over and over and over again. So much so that it prompted the highly, highly unusual comment from the Chief justice of the United States of America, of the Supreme Court, saying, basically, not so fast. It still matters. You can't defy a court order. We'll get to the exact details and what he says, but that's why I think he is, he is pushing it and pushing it and pushing it to see how far he can go. And so far, he's getting away with all of it. Congress is not stopping him. They have ceded all of their legislative and oversight authority, and the courts don't have any inherent authority to enforce what they order people to do. At least they don't have. It's unclear what kind of authority they do have and what they can do if Trump basically says, no, I'm not doing it. So he's pushing this issue to the limit and he's really pushing it here. We'll see where we end up.
- [09:33]
Michael Popak
Well, listen, I think federal courts have to do their job. I think federal courts have to declare things unconstitutional and illegal, and I think they have to find administration officials in contempt when and if they get that far after fact finding. I think it has to go up to the district, to the courts of Appeal, and up to the United States Supreme Court. And if at the end, at the end, if the Supreme Court upholds the single federal judge in a single federal district line of thinking, then we are in a constitutional crisis. If Donald Trump refuses to abide by it because the executive branch holds all the power of enforcement. It's its Department of Justice, but I'll leave that for a minute. It's its marshal service, which would mean in order for John Roberts, not just to issue a statement, which we're going to cover next, in which he rebuked and chastised Donald Trump, if not by name, at least we knew who he was talking about when he said, stop trying to threaten to impeach federal judges, which are my employees, and they report to me. You want to. You got a problem with a, with a decision of a federal judge, then you appeal. You don't impeach. We'll talk about that rationale. But John Roberts is coming off the sidelines and wasting his own political capital. Take on Donald Trump in public, then he's got to be willing to somehow have his orders enforced. They can't just be on a piece of paper. There's a couple ways to do it. Talk about inherent authority. One of them is that the, that the, if the Department of Justice isn't going to take up prosecution of a matter because it's all under the thumb of the chief law enforcement officer of America, which is Donald Trump, according to Donald Trump, then they're going to have to deputize their own prosecutors. It's happened before. The Supreme Court has recognized it. So people come out of private practice where they come out of this, where you came out of state prosecutors, and they get deputized to be federal prosecutors and they go after administrative official administration officials. That's 1, 2. If you need a law enforcement, if you need security personnel and the federal marshals are told to stand down by Pam Bondi, who runs it from the Department of Justice perch, then you deputize law enforcement. There's plenty of democratically controlled police departments in and around D.C. and all the other states we're talking about and National Guardsmen that imagine this, this looks like the Civil War movie that I watched recently on a flight. Who can go and arrest people? And now we gotta battle royale. That is the constitutional crisis that even Donald Trump suggests that he wants to avoid. When he was interviewed by, I don't know if you caught Laura Ingraham last night, but he felt he had to go on this softball interview in order to try to fix the problem that he created with picking a fight with Chief Justice Roberts, which is not gonna help him. He can't win that fight. And he needs every one of those votes on the Supreme Court from Kavanaugh to Roberts to everybody else, in order to ultimately affirm his, his, his policies and his, his decision making. If he doesn't have, if he's lost the Supreme Court, I'm not suggesting we're there yet, but if he's lost the Supreme Court, he's in big, he's in big deep doo doo. Now if Roberts and the court, if they'll try to rein in Donald Trump with these orders, but it's going to be up to federal judges, I'm telling you, they're going to deputize prosecutors to go after Trump. If the Department of Justice says no, there's no other way, we might as well give up as a society if the judges aren't going to be empowered to do that. What do you think, Karen?
- [13:14]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Yeah, I think it's a great point and I think it's something that everybody has to think about and has to really understand how important it is. And the case we're about to talk about the deportation of the Venezuelan, this gang, it's called Trend, Trend Aragua. And they are purposely picking this violent Venezuelan gang to push this issue because when you see what some, not all of the individuals are accused of doing, it's hard to say that you're in favor of keeping them here. And he knows it's one of these, you know, it's one of these things like as a lawyer you say, you know, bad facts make bad law kind of thing. You know, you have to pick when you're, when you're appealing an issue, you want to pick something not just with good legal issues, but you want good facts. Because judges, appellate judges sometimes are loathe to give the benefit of the doubt to really bad, violent, terrible people. And so that's why you try to find the more, the more sympathetic, the more sympathetic or positive case to do it. And he picked this case, he picked kind of the worst of the worst people to push this legal issue, this, I call it a legal issue. But they're truly behaving lawlessly so that they are. They can just basically try to win in the court of public opinion. And I think that's what they're doing here.
- [14:45]
Michael Popak
Yeah. To be clear, nobody on legal af, Karen, me, anybody else. If these bad narco terrorist gang bangers as the Republicans like to call it, have committed the crimes and are as heinous as they have been portrayed, I'm all for a due process system to send them packing. What I'm not all for is 14 year old Venezuelans being swept up in this with, in shackles being sent to El Salvador to the dictator of El Salvador to fill his supermax Arkin prison, Batman jail. I mean I'm waiting for Bane to come out of the mist, you know, from these, from these places in the middle of the night as the White House on its official website or its official social media post plays a closing time like cut out the memes. So thank you very much. We did not vote for this. Okay. Carolyn Caroline Levitt. We voted for a constitutional republic to be maintained and due process to be used for everybody that happens to be on American soil. And that's what Jeb Boasberg. So let me frame the Boasberg part. Then you take over the Roberts part and the reaction and Donald Trump trying to cauterize that wound while still sending a mafioso like message back to Roberts through his press secretary. So this went fast. Over the weekend we were covering Friday hearings, Saturday hearings, Sunday filings, Monday filings all arising out of the same thing. The ACLU knew because of Project 2025 in the campaign that Donald Trump was just itching to invoke the Alien enemies Act of 1798 in order to turbocharge his deportation plan to declare a phony war, a phony incursion, and incursion that TDA has been here for over 10 years. Okay, and if it was so important in such an urgent matter, why didn't they issue it on the first day on January 20th when he took office, not 60 days later? But I digress. So phony war, phony war powers, phony trying to access the Commander in Chief ultimate absolute immunity issues and absolute authority. And he got called out. ACLU filed knowing that Donald Trump was going to exercise that right or that exercise that power with a new proclamation against not just tda, the narco terrorist group, but against everybody who are Venezuelans here, undocumented, regardless of their association with the gangs, including as low as 14 years old. They filed first, they got assigned randomly. Chief Judge Bozberg, D.C. district Court Bozberg issues a temporary restraining order, the first one which applies to the six Venezuelans represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. He then gets word on Saturday, that was Friday, Saturday, that the proclamation using or trying to use the Alien Enemies act was signed by Trump on Friday, published on Saturday. So he, he expands his temporary restraining order. He certifies the class as everybody who could be impacted by the proclamation, and then issues a temporary restraining order on top of that to block deportation based on that and calls for a hearing. They have the hearing on Saturday. It goes from about 5 to about 6:30. During the course of the hearing, the judge issues orally his injunction. The oral part's important here and he says if there's planes in the air, turn them around, you are to stop deporting pursuant to this, while I. Because he's already found it's a likelihood of success on the merits that the ACLU is going to prove a violation of the Constitution by Donald Trump. And so we have this battle between Donald Trump attempting to exercise phony Commander in chief powers and the federal court's ability to restrain it and call it out. So he issues his order. An hour later, he puts on the docket like a two line temporary restraining order for the reasons in the hearing. You and I have been in hearings before, so has been, so has others on legal af. You take copious notes during a hearing and you ask for the transcript at the end if there's an injunction involved. So you know the contours and the parameters of that Injunction, it's not just going to be in whatever the judge puts up on the two lines, it's always for the reasons expressed in the. In the hearing. So what happened is at least one, if not two planes took off and were not turned around after the judge had already issued the injunction. So you have a number of things going on, parallel track. You've got the substantive and the merits of the temporary restraining order already issued, with the judge setting a very fast track this week. Briefing schedule. Monday, you want to file an opposition to the temporary restraining order. Trump, you do it Wednesday. Today, the aclu, you respond Friday, we'll have a hearing. In the meantime, the judge figured out that they might have violated his injunction. That's code word for perhaps there's been contempt of court, open disobedience. So the judge set up a separate track to get to the bottom of the disobedience, setting another hearing and requiring more filings, some of which Trump responded to and some of which he's asking for more time to do it. And their fundamental argument, Karen, is that, oh, we didn't violate because the planes went out after the written order hit the docket. And the judge says, what about my oral order at 6:35? And they said, well, oral orders, Judge, you know, they're not really worth the paper. They're not written on. And the judge says, are you telling me that as a federal judge, the chief judge of my district, that if I tell you something orally and I enjoin you that you're not going to do it until I put it in writing? That seems like a stretch, don't you think? And they cited some totally inapplicable law about oral injunctions. So there's this battle between it. When they figured out they couldn't get out from under Bozberg, they tried multiple attacks on him, starting on Saturday. First, they went to the district, the circuit court, the appellate court, and asked for him to be reassigned because they didn't like the judge. The orders they were getting out of him and the district court, the circuit court said, well, they didn't say anything, which effectively is saying, we're not granting you your request for reassignment. Then they asked for a stay, and the appellate court said nothing, meaning they didn't grant the stay. Then they went to the judge and said, you don't have jurisdiction. And the judge says, I'll see you at 5:00 in my chambers. So they tried all these multi. And when all those failed, now we'll turn to you, Karen. Then they went into attack mode against the judge, starting with Trump Stephen Miller and ending with Carolyn Levette or Levitt and John Roberts got into the mix. So bring everybody up to speed there. Yeah, you know what, I got a great opportunity for you to do all that, but let's take Baldi's probably saying, when are you going to take a breath and a break? Popak, let's do this. Everybody tune back in for Karen to take over this part of the podcast. But first we got a great opportunity to slide in our sponsors who are so important. The lifeblood of Midas Touch and its independence is having sponsors who love what we do, love our audience and want to be here for it. And now we've got our first break. Look, 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 celebrating our relocation and unpacking the last of the 150 moving boxes. 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. This March Madness. Don't let anything sideline your celebrations. Grab Pre Alcohol before you go out and be ready to cheer on your team all day and night long. 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 a 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 legalaf and use the code legal af at checkout for 15% off.
- [23:44]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
This episode of legal af is brought to you by one skin, one of my favorite sponsors and one of my favorite products that I use every single day in my skincare routine. I had no idea how transformative of using something like One Skin can be. And you just, you use it, it's easy and it's just like a cream or lotion that you put on your face. That's where I use it. And, and there's a big difference. People notice, people tell me all the time that I look younger than my age. I'm 58 years old, I'm a grandmother. And I think one of the reasons that people think I look younger is because of my skin. And it's because of the routine that I do every single day. That includes One Skin that has a proprietary os. One peptide is a peptide that switches off the damaged senescent cells that cause lines, wrinkles and that thin crepey skin that you get with age. So it's this amazing product. It is founded by and led by an all woman team of skin longevity scientists. And it's backed by extensive lab and clinical data to validate their efficacy and safety for all skin types. But I like no matter how much much it's proven scientifically, to me, the fact that people notice and notice a difference and comment that is to me the best endorsement of One Skin and this product, it's just fantastic. And it's the world's first skin longevity company focusing on the cellular aspects of aging. So it keeps your skin looking and acting younger for a longer period of time. And so for a limited time, you can try it with 15% off using code legal AF at OneSkin Co CEO, there's M at the end. That's 15% off. OneSkin Co with code legal AF and after your purchase will ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them that we sent you.
- [25:39]
Michael Popak
Welcome back. As promised. Karen, take over. Tell us what they're doing next against Judge Boasberg.
- [25:46]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
When this was, when this was heating up over the weekend and I was watching this happen in real time, I was beyond, I mean, to have a Saturday hearing which is already an emergency. Right. Courts don't usually sit on Saturdays and you have a judge that literally says to the parties in court, if the planes haven't left, I'm ordering them not to leave. If they have left, I'm ordering that they be turned around. That's clear. Okay. That's absolutely clear. And of course, an oral order from a judge has the identical, exact same effect as a written order of a judge. In fact, I can't imagine, I mean, most orders that I've seen in criminal cases happen to be oral that judges give to judges or to defendants. And this isn't even criminal. So I find That a shocking statement and completely not in accordance with what the law actually is. So that's number one. Number two, the plains. The New York Times and other other news sources have put together the timeline. It does seem to suggest that there was an actual violation of the court order. But what was really galling is the president of El Salvador who is receiving these prisoners. Right. That he's getting paid, I think something like $6 million to house these individuals. He tweeted Saturday night, quote, oopsie, too late. I mean, if that's not giving the middle finger to Judge Boasberg, I don't know what is. I can't even believe that's where we are.
- [27:32]
Michael Popak
Can I ask you. So before you move on, did you also see that Bukele, the guy you're talking about, also encourage Donald Trump in social media posts to impeach judges, just like he did. So now we've got the dictator of El Salvador counseling Donald Trump about how to run our American democracy. Yeah.
- [27:51]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
And making a mockery of our judiciary. Oopsie. I mean, you know, oopsie, too late. It's just outrageous. And of course, Trump then starts calling Boasberg a radical left lunatic. And you've got people calling for his impeachment. You've got Carolyn Levitt saying things that are antithetical to what the law actually is. Like, oh, it's an oral order. It's not written. You have people, I think, even lying about when the plane left and when it didn't. And then you've got Chief Justice Roberts who had to come out and actually make a statement again, doesn't happen very often. And it's clearly, even though he didn't name Trump in response to this said quote, for more than two centuries in this statement, he says, for more than two centuries, it's been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to a disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose. And it's just unbelievable. But then you've also got Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, saying, well, we're not stopping. I don't care what judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming. And so it's just set up this thing where they're goading the courts and they're pushing this to the limits. And, you know, Adam Kinzinger said today about this on the big picture, recognize that this is not a battle of beliefs. This, this is not a battle of, you want this tax rate, I want this tax rate. Even the differences on gun policy, abortion, anything like that. This is simply of a battle of do you believe in democracy or don't you? And I think that sums it up perfectly because that's what's going on here is really a fight for the rule of law. As you said hopeoc earlier, this isn't about, do you care about these individuals? And even if they are the worst of the worst, and even if they are what Trump says they are, this is about due process. This is about rights. This is, this is about democracy and the rule of law. And maybe we don't want to live in a democracy anymore. Maybe we want to live in a dictatorship or an autocracy, because that's essentially what they are setting up here and what's happening. And the fact that Chief Justice Roberts had to come out and essentially get it was like a warning shot to the Trump administration. And I think they are chastened by the fact that they gave him all of this power.
- [29:58]
Michael Popak
Have you ever seen, you and I are Pierce, have you ever seen or have studied in the past when we were constitutional scholars in law school, have you ever seen a United States Chief justice of the Supreme Court outside the context of a case, an oral argument or an opinion or, you know, one of those speeches they do on their summer vacations? Have you ever seen them in real time take on the head of the other branch of government, the President of the United States?
- [30:27]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Never. I mean, other than that. Look, Chief Justice Roberts gives an end of year report and this year in particular, it seemed quite poignant to the events that are happening in real time and was a little bit of a warning to people. Look, the democracy's fragile and threats to judges, you shouldn't do that. And the judiciary depends on people essentially following their orders because they don't have inherent authority, things like that. Clearly they are responding to what they see and what we see. And given that this is not a left leaning Supreme Court, this is a heavily weighted right leaning Supreme Court, the fact that they feel the need to come out and essentially rein in their dogs really says something about where we are.
- [31:18]
Michael Popak
I agree with you. Boasberg is the worst person for Donald Trump to have picked the fight with and then send a mafioso style message to Caroline Levitt in which she then doubles down. I mean, this is all coordinated. Nothing is done by accident, especially with the Trump administration. They've got their rapid response team. It's a real thing inside the White House. I mean, other press presidents do too, but they're there. They got their Paid influencers. They got their MAGA legislators, they got Caroline Levette, they got Elon Musk, they got Stephen Miller, and they all immediately launch an attack. And then Donald Trump can go on Fox News and say, it's not just me calling for impeachment of Boasberg. Look at all these other voices, all the other voices that are paid for by the White House payroll. So, you know, he creates his own ecosystem and then he comments on its existence. And we're left as media, you know, as independent media to call it, to call. And so when Donald Trump, instead of apologizing, he goes on, he goes on Ingraham on Fox and says, well, you know, ask me the question about Roberts. So Justice, Chief Justice Roberts issued a, a statement in which he said, In 200 years of precedent, though you be a calling for impeachment, you should be appealing. Well, he didn't mention me. Was my name in there? I don't think it was in there. It was really quick. I didn't really see it. So that's his tap dancing, which is ridiculous. Stammering Humnum. And then rather than try to kind of dial it down and not have this fight in public with the Chief justice who he needs, and it's been a bad two weeks with him and the chief justice, they should go to family counseling. Between the thing at the joint speech, the joint session speech, the little stomach pat. Love you, you know, never forget you. He's like, what? And this, this, they're not doing well. So rather than dial it back, he fires back through his press secretary to attack the guy that Roberts just said, don't attack effectively along with the rest of the federal judiciary. So they, it's, it's like the. I'm coming for you. It's like the fish wrapped in newspaper, you know, in Godfather, you know, like Carol Levitt just. And so I don't understand the strategy here. And strategy is doing a heavy lift in that sentence. You need Kavanaugh. And Boasberg was Kavanaugh's roommate in law school. You need Roberts. And Roberts loves Boasberg and has appointed him to a number of different things. Nobody but Carolyn Levitt and the Trump administration thinks that he's a radical lefty lunatic and corruption or that would have the balls to call him that out loud. He is a moderate Democrat who by bipartisan selection by two presidents, one Republican and one Democrat, ended up advancing his judicial career. Okay. He is the most center of. You think Joe Biden was center. This guy is right down the middle. You may not like the fact that he's a Democrat at all or that he made some sort of donation, but he is a moderate. You want that he hasn't always sided against Donald Trump. They just don't like him because they don't trust him. Because he was involved with the grand juries that indicted Donald Trump. He made some rulings about Vice President Pence testifying against Donald Trump the first time around. And so they used this, this bird whistle, this dog whistle to activate the MAGA base. And now I'm sure Boasberg is going to have to redouble his martial protective service. I'm sure his family's getting attacked online. I don't even want to give it any oxygen. But I don't understand the end game. You need Amy Coney Barrett, who, as you can see is physically moving away from the president, let alone from a jurisprudential standpoint. You need Roberts. I think he just created Donald Trump. More opportunities for Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett to join the Democratic wing of the Supreme Court and pin back and pin down Donald Trump more than even before. I think this will backfire spectacularly. You and I will follow it. We'll follow it on all things Supreme Court as well. But again, I'm going to end this segment with what I started with a question to you, Karen. If he needs the votes, why is he picking the fight with Roberts and why is he doubling down on it?
- [35:47]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
You know, it's a, it's a great question. And I think, because he really does think he is above the law. I think at the end of the day, he thinks he will win. I really do believe that. I mean, do you have a different.
- [36:02]
Michael Popak
No, no. I know. I, it's just, it's just the definition of insanity. He can't win. This is a fight he cannot win. And all he'll do is push votes away from him on the United States Supreme Court. You know, they can't be happy with what they're watching. And, and I think it will galvanize the court. This is my, my prediction. I think it will get, it will send Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch more alt right to try to protect this guy. But I think it's going to peel away Amy Coney Barrett and Roberts where it matters. He got, I think he might have got the one big gift from Roberts he'll ever, he's ever going to get, which is the immunity decision, which is huge. But he's been so overplaying it and so hitting it so hard that he's leaving Roberts with no choice but to publicly rebuke him and not side with him on some of these major issues. That's my theory.
- [36:55]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Yeah, I'm sure you're right.
- [36:57]
Michael Popak
So let's, let's move on to. Since I think we've exhausted that topic, let's talk about things like San Francisco judge, Senior Judge Alsop. He, he. There are two judges, Karen, if you remember, one Brett Bradar in Maryland and the other Alsop in San Francisco, who almost simultaneously issued overlapping injunctions to restore probationary employees in the government, tens of thousands of them, to restore them back to their positions, finding that it was unconstitutional in the case of alsop or a violation of statutory law about how you reduce your. Reduce. Reduce your forces. They got to the same place, which was rehire the 24,000 employees or more. So also did something quite unusual. I've never seen it, and I've been doing federal practice for 35 years. He started to issue a series of requests for information, RIFs, no RFIs, to the Trump administration after seeing media reports about how his injunction was or was not being complied with. They needed to rehire those people by Monday. And the reporting was that the rehiring was on. It was just putting them on paid administrative leave, but not putting them back into the government. So have you ever seen a judge, state or federal issue requests for information to the other side as a pre, as a, as a fact finding method?
- [38:31]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
I mean, I didn't know that was a thing I was actually going to ask you about it, so. Yeah, so.
- [38:37]
Michael Popak
So take it from there. Yeah, yeah. Alsop's. Talk about Alsop's concern. And where do you think it goes from there on this probationary rehiring? And I don't know. Hopefully you've seen the, the Trump response to him, to these requests for information and what I think is going to happen next about at least about the Department of Defense.
- [38:56]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Yeah, I mean, look, this was a San Francisco judge who essentially is calling the Department of Justice and the Trump administration liars. Right. Because they said they fired these probationary employees because of, quote, performance issues. And this judge isn't buying it. And he said he is ordering and issuing the immediate reinstatement. And that's, that's what's going on here. This is again another example of judges ordering people to do something in the administration. And they said, well, no, we don't have to do that because these are probationary employees. Sorry. And they're just on paid administrative leave. They're getting paid. He said, that doesn't matter. This isn't just about the money. This is making sure that services are being delivered to the American people. And so he issued and ordered this immediate reinstatement of, I think it was six or seven agencies that he. That these were probationary employee employees. They called it a sham, that they were trying to say that this was for cause because, you know, look, anyone who has a performance issue can be fired at any time. But so just calling it a performance issue when it was a form letter, which is essentially what they did here, he called them out on it. He said, no, this is not a. This was not substantive. This was not a performance issue. So this involved the Veterans Administration, Agriculture, the Department of Defense, Energy, Interior and Treasury. And he basically said, the American people get to have the services of these employees who have been trained. We spent lots of money on training them to provide services. Yeah, they're probationary because they've only been there one or two years, but they're still essential employees. Some of these agencies, by the way, were woefully understaffed and they're just starting to get staffed. And they did this in the middle of all of that. So he left open the possibility that this could apply to other agencies. And he essentially called them out for lying. And some of my favorite quotes were, you know, the court finds that the Office of Professional Management did direct all agencies to terminate probationary employees with the exception of mission critical employees. He said, rejecting the argument and said guidance to. He said that they merely issued guidance. That's what they tried to say. And he rejected that. And he basically was very highly critical of them and said, you're just doing this to try to get around the law and fire these people illegally, essentially. And look, the White House, of course, freaked out and got upset and called the ruling absurd and unconstitutional. And once again, now remember, this is what they do. They have talking points that they all use over and over and over and over again. It's like a way of getting it into people's vocabulary and just average, normal people who hear it so many times, they just start repeating it. So again, a single judge attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the executive branch. The President has the authority to exercise the power of the entire executive branch. A singular district judge cannot abuse the power of the entire judiciary to thwart the President's agenda. This is what Caroline Levitt said. You know, again, if a federal district judge would like to have executive powers, they can try to run for president themselves. That was her statement. I mean, you know, it's just unbelievable because prior to this, right, they were singing a different song when Biden was president. Remember when we were upset that judges like, like the judge Kaczmarek in Texas who was a single judge who did a nationwide ban on mifeprestone? Right. Like the abortion pill. We were upset about that. But yes, that is what can be done. And the MAGA loved it. They picked that judge on purpose and essentially spoon fed him the ability to do this by giving him the tools and the law to do this because he's a zealot who believes in pro life. And they use this, this to their advantage when they want and then they are outraged and call outrage when it's not what they want. So it's just the typical playbook of maga. There are some other good quotes that I liked from this decision. Like things like, I tend to doubt that you are telling me the truth. And you know, you're. And he said things like. And really this came down to an order. He ordered the acting director of the Office of Personnel Management, Charles Ezell, to testify at a hearing tomorrow actually. But Department of Justice refused to make him available and instead withdrew the declaration that they put in on that. He wrote a declaration and they filed it. And he said, okay, come, I want you to come to court and talk to me and tell me. In his declaration he said that he did not, quote, direct the agencies to terminate the employees. And they said, okay, fine, then come testify. And they withdrew the declaration so that he wouldn't have to testify. And the judge said, you're afraid, you're afraid to testify because you know on cross examination that'll reveal the truth. And I tend to doubt that you're telling me the truth and you're not helping me get to the truth. I mean, I read things like that and I'm like, if a judge ever said that to me, I would go home and start to think about a new career. I mean, you have to tell the truth in court, you have to be honest. You have to have, you have to have. Your credibility matters, obviously. So I don't know. That's where we are. That's where we are with that.
- [44:30]
Michael Popak
Yeah. And then we had those requests for information in which they, the judge said, now it looks like you're violating my injunction because you're hiring them back and you're not putting them back to work for the American people, you just giving them salaries. And they, they fired back with their own response, which actually was undermining, I think, of their whole position, which Is, judge, we're under another injunction just like this one in Maryland and we've rehired 25,000 people. But as you can see from some of these declarations, from some, but not all of the agencies that you've enjoined that, you know, it takes a minute to get new badges issued and, and emails reestablished and, and I'm like, are you effing get me? And the judge saw through that and he did a supplemental request for information and said, I don't see anything about the Department of Defense, which is the largest agency that I've enjoyed and they're not part of the Maryland case. So why don't you supplement and tell me what you've done with the Department of Defense dance instead of giving me this song, this is my version, this song and dance about. It's just temporary. They're just dragging their feet because they're hoping some sort of appellate court is going to reverse them and they're not going to have to put these people back, really back into the government. And the judge said, that's the point. It's not about their paychecks. Yes, it's about their paychecks, but it's about providing government services to the American people and that's why you're supposed to put them back behind their desks. So we got this rolling out. This is the beginning baby steps of potential contempt decision by Alsop if he finds that they violated his federal orders. And we're waiting for the response and we'll do some follow ups and hot takes and all of that.
- [46:07]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
I think the next move is going to be Trump's going to put his own acting people in as head of each of these agencies who are then just going to fire the people instead of OPM and just say, no, it was my decision. Doesn't that get around all of this? I mean, you know, no, it still.
- [46:22]
Michael Popak
Can'T be arbitrary and capricious and it still has to be based on something. And if you believe Bredar, the judge in Maryland, and I do, even if you're going to do that, you got to follow reduction in force, statutory rules, because you're going to dump tens of thousands of people onto the unemployment lines of states and they're not ready for you. So there's different ways to sort of get around this issue. But I mean, ultimately these people are, you know, let's think about the human dimension for a minute. Who wants to go back to the Trump administration at this point? I mean, to rehire suggests that people want their Jobs back. But, you know, if you're unemployed and you're not, you know, this was your life, career, you've been working for the government for a year, it might be hard for you to find new jobs. I mean, Donald Trump's economy is not making new jobs the way the Biden economy did. So up to the private workforce, which they never talk about in the Trump administration, it's. We're firing all of these who Americans, voters, paycheck holders, consumers, people that help drive the economy. Great. What's your plan? This is the same lack of thought or lack of consequence analysis that is endemic of all of their decision making. You know, more babies. Wait, wait. More babies, less abortion. Great. What are your social services in place for people on unwanted pregnancies for adoption, for health care, for insurance, for food and care and education for these unwanted babies? What is your plan? They never have a plan.
- [47:51]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Yeah. And just punctuating your point about Trump's economy, they're taking the stock market and.
- [47:58]
Michael Popak
Driving us into a recession 1,000%. The Federal Reserve came out today and said what we've all been seeing, which is they expect inflation to go up a number of ticks. They expect the job market to contract. And that's what everybody and Donald Trump wonders. And he celebrates. You know, this is. Talk about fiddling while, while, while Rome burns. He, he celebrates his 40% approval rating because it's the highest, lowest approval rating he's ever had.
- [48:27]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
The highest, lowest approval rating.
- [48:29]
Michael Popak
I mean, 60% of America wants to run him out on a rail. Right. And he celebrates that. It's his highest 40%. I'm like, even Biden got 47% at this time in his administration. I mean, it's just mind boggling. We're going to cover what I think. I didn't want to bury the lead, but I think is one of the most important cases and decisions that's come out, which is Judge Reyes's scathing attack and rebuke of Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump about just average Americans who want to serve their country at the highest level and willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in our military, who happen to also be transgender, and they're getting drummed out of the service. Except Judge Reyes is not going to allow it. And just to watch, as she said, to watch this cruel irony of those that want to protect our freedoms, our rights, our Constitution, having their own constitutional rights and freedoms taken away from them when all they want to do is serve our country. They were fine to serve our country under Obama. They were fine to serve our country under Biden, every person in the military operational standpoint says there is no difference between transgender soldiers and other soldiers from the binary sexes. And yet it took Judge Reyes and her critique and her rebuke to finally put a stop to it. With a caveat. We'll talk about that and Judge Cheng in Maryland and what he's done about US Aid as the federal judges fight back here on Legal af. But first, another word from our sponsors. I'm always on the lookout for ways to strengthen immunity and gut health, improve my fitness and metabolism, and enhance my skin and hair radiance. Well, well, I recently discovered Amra Colostrum Amra Colostrum can help optimize your whole body microbiome and strengthen your immune barriers along the mouth, sinuses, lungs, gut, urinary and reproductive tract to guard against unwelcome particles for your strongest immune health. Amra Colostrum can also help combat bloating and help you feel lighter. Probiotics are touted as a gut health solution, but they only address one part of the four part gut wall, and most products on the market are dead before they even reach your gut. Armor of Colostrum naturally fortifies your entire gut wall system, optimizing your microbiome and strengthening the gut wall architecture, which guards against irritants that can trigger symptoms like bloating and constipation. And if you work out regularly, as we all should, Colostrum has been shown in research to help enhance nutrient absorption, promote lean muscle building and improve endurance while fueling cellular repair regeneration for faster recovery. As a husband and a new dad, I want to make sure as I age, my body stays in good health and I've made Armra a daily part of my routine. We've worked out a special offer from my audience. Receive 15% off your first order. Go to tryarmra.com legal AF or enter legal AF to get 15% off your first order. That's t R Y A R m r a.com legalaf billing your best starts with the right products and for me that means Via. And I'm proud to have them sponsoring this episode for me. I just adore their Zen CBD sleep gummies that are THC free. It's just the right way to maximize my sleeping and restful night without knocking me out should my baby daughter need me asap. If you haven't tried them yet, you're seriously missing out. Look, whether you need to unwind, refocus or boost your mood, Via is here to enhance your everyday and night. Trusted by over a half a million happy customers, VIA is changing the game in natural wellness blending powerful high quality hemp derived ingredients to deliver real effect driven benefits. So whether you're looking to sleep better, have better libido, improve focus, recover or simply relax, VIA has a tailored solution just for you. With products ranging from zero to high cannabinoid levels, VIA lets you fully customize your experience to fit your needs. Whether you're looking to support your daily wellness routine, enhance focus and clarity or unwind with deep relaxation, VIA has you covered. From their award winning effect Forward gummies to premium indoor grown THCA flower and calming drops, every VIA product is thoughtfully crafted, made with organic lab tested hemp, sourced from trusted independent American owned farms and the best part VIA legally ships across the usa. Discreet direct to your door, no medical card required and backed by a worry free guarantee. Not sure where to start? Take Viya's Product Finder quiz to get personalized recommendations tailored to your needs. It can take you less than 60 seconds to complete, so if you're 21 or older, treat yourself to 15% off and get a free gift with your first order using our exclusive code legal af@viahemp.com plus enjoy free shipping on orders over $100. That's V I I A H E M P.com please support our show and tell them that we sent you Enhance your everyday with via. Okay, welcome back. Carolyn Carol, why don't you kick off Judge Reyes and what what you took away from her decision which blocks the ban on transgender soldiers with a stay in there to give Donald Trump time to go run off to take his inevitable appeal. But what was your takeaway from her writing? Which was powerful. Very powerful.
- [54:32]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Yeah, it was very powerful. And what was really incredible about this is essentially the Trump administration is leaning into what they are doing and they're not trying to hide it, they're not trying to dress it up in any way. They're coming out and saying calling transgender individuals as essentially mentally ill and unfit for the military. Period. Full stop. They aren't hiding behind it. They aren't trying to say anything about differences in gender, nothing like that. And the judge basically called out the Trump administration and said that their military ban is soaked in animus. And it was so powerfully written, this decision with the preliminary injunction that she issued that attempts to ban trans people from the military and some of her I'm just going to quote from it because what she said is so much more powerful than anything I could paraphrase. So quote Defendants must show that the discriminatory military ban is in some way substantially related to the achievement of the government's stated objectives. And they must do so without relying on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females. Unconstitutionally. Well, she then says the military ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext. Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes trans people as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to facts. And, you know, the executive order that is in question here and that they were litigating about, and this is through an executive order, one of. One of Trump's favorite new ways of issuing his theatrical edicts. This one was called prioritizing military readiness and excellence. And it says, consistent with the military mission and long standing Department of Defense policy, expressing a false quote, gender identity divergent from an individual's sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service. Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle. Even in one's personal life, a man's assertion that he's a woman and his requirement that others honor that falsehood is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member. So it's just kind of awful. And the policy continues. There's a policy section that declares individuals with gender dysphoria have too many medical, surgical, and mental health constraints to meet the high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity. So, I mean, you know, it's just kind of outrageous. And I can't even, I can't even believe that this is something that our government is putting in place. But, you know, her, her. I think her, her words are very powerful and poignant. And we'll go. This will go into effect by the end of the week if they don't appeal.
- [57:49]
Michael Popak
She did a. She did a. They're going to appeal, but the question is, are they going to get a stay from the D.C. right circuit court, which I don't think they're going to get. But look, at the end of the day, she did an amazing job, as she did in the hearing, dismantling all of their. All of their justification and showing that it was just a pretext for hatred against transgender people. She led off with a. A quote from a very well known treatise looking at how the military over time has always found a way to be prejudiced against a certain Group of people claiming that it would undermine military readiness. That's the stock stock excuse for prejudice. And you just. She literally said, it's just fill in the blank. Fill in the blank will undermine our readiness, our lethality, our ability of cohesion. Used to be women in the military. Then it was gays in the military. Now it's transgender in the military. Transgender people in the military. And at the end of the day, the question is, well, how is it okay under the Obama administration? She then goes through a whole thing. Transgender people are allowed to serve Obama. Transgender people are not allowed to serve. Trump won. Transgender people are allowed to serve Biden. Transgender are not allowed to serve Trump, too. What changed besides the fact that it's Trump? And then the plaintiff's lawyers did a great job of putting together evidence as opposed to this. Six days into office, Donald Trump signing another order and 30 days into his position. Hegseth joining it.
- [59:23]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
It.
- [59:23]
Michael Popak
They submitted real evidence. The judges are like real evidence, like other retired or members of the military responsible for military readiness, saying that these people, these transgender Americans, are just as capable as anybody else and do nothing to undermine readiness. To which Donald Trump responded, I don't like them. I mean, that's basically what the judge said, you know, and you not liking them is the very reason that, no, none of your policy can be justified. And it is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, their due process rights, and it's a violation of their equal protection rights. And then she went through the fact that the government hasn't even tried to properly defend their position at all and reminded, you know, she's not immune to all of this stuff. Echo chamber of the Trump rapid response team, about one single judge in one single district. And she says, you know what? One single judge, one single district. That's what James Madison said in his in the Federalist Papers when he said, effectively, judges are here in order to keep presidents in line and vice versa. That's the checks and balance. Whenever you hear Carolyn Levitt talk about separation of powers, you never, you know what, you never heard the Trump side of the equation talk about checks and balance and how you check an out of control president because they don't want that. They think because he's, he's making a commander in chief decision that the judges should just get out of the way and give him a wide berth. And that's not how deference works, especially when it's unsupported by anything she said during her hearing with the D. I felt, I felt slightly bad for the DOJ lawyer But not really, who was not prepared at all, intentionally not prepared to debate with the judge. And the judge was saying, do you know how much money is spent by. By the military on gender dysphoria? No. Okay. I'll tell you. It's $5 million over the last 10 years. He said, okay. Says, do you know how much money is spent every year on Viagra? Every year on Viagra? He said, no, she had $41 million per year. Doesn't seem like this gender dysphoria thing is a problem, does it? I mean, given it's a rounding error, as she referred to it in her order in the national budget, and you have no facts to support it. Then she went through all of the hateful things that Pete Hegseth has said, both in the order that you respond, that you mentioned, Karen, and just in general in his books and his thing that they are dishonest people, that they are liars, that they can't be trusted. Did she said she read off all these things? She said to the lawyer for the department of justice, Would you agree with me that those things are hurtful and demeaning? I really don't have an opinion about that, your honor. And if I read to you with these other things that have been said in conjunction with the policy, you would have the same position. That's true. And is there any study that you can point to that you've brought into this courtroom or in the record of this case that supports Hegseth saying that they are dishonest, disloyal, can't be trusted, have. Have increased suicide risk or anything else? Is there any study that you can point to? Not that I know of, your honor. So she said to him in the paper, in the. In the opinion, you. They basically have conceded that there is no evidential support for anything they have done to try to remove these. These transgender people who are represented by six different people representing 130 years of faith, of faithful service to America, who have commendations up and down their service record, who are. One of them is currently serving in a war zone as a transgender American. And she said, this is, as you said before, this is dripping in animus as pretext. And it is obviously the reason she's saying that is there's a series of supreme court decisions that say even if you had some sort of legitimate justification for it, the fact that the fundamental basis for your going after this group is because of your prejudice, and for political purposes, we are not going to uphold that, and we're going to rip down that policy, by its very nature, it does not deserve to be justified or to be supported. It's going to go now in the next few days up to the D.C. circuit Court, the appellate court, and we'll get a random three judge panel. You and I will know more once we see who the three judges are, but they're going to back Reyes and then it's going to go up to the United States Supreme Court, who has an odd relationship with transgender Americans and not always favorable, but in terms of this policy and drumming them out of the core. Well, what do you think the Supreme Court does? Let's leave it on that, Karen?
- [64:20]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Well, it's a good question because there's a case that was cited in this called Bostock v. Clayton, which was a 6:3 decision by Justice Gorsuch that basically says that sex discrimination ban in Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 includes bans on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. And so it'll be interesting to see that was a military ban, essentially. And so it'll be very interesting. It'll be interesting to see if this military ban excludes from service transgender women and men or if they're going to narrow it and say no. Gorsuch meant that only applies to Title VII of the Civil Rights act, not to the military.
- [65:08]
Michael Popak
Well, let me open up that for a minute, Roberts. In the decisions about diversity, equity and inclusion and affirmative action in higher education, when they tried to try to apply that to the military, about when the Trumpers and Stephen Miller and the rest and Bannon were trying to argue that the military shouldn't be using DEI for some of its hires. It shouldn't be promoting people, you know, in a way to balance, you know, historic discrimination against black and brown people in the military, which we've seen forever since there were separated segregated troops going back to World War I and World War II, it really hasn't changed much, unfortunately, despite the fact that we just had a chairman of the Joint Chiefs who was black, who was fired by Donald Trump there because it was the troops and it was our military. Roberts wrote in his opinion that that type of thing, esprit de corps and having a balanced military, that's different, and he put a ring fence around it and said they could basically use affirmative action there. The question is, how is that going to play out, that kind of ruling with hegsets, you know, 30 days on the job going, I don't like transgender people, whereas every other, every, literally every other administration has said it does nothing to undermine readiness and lethality, as they like to say. So now it's going to be landing right in the lap of Roberts, coming off of a couple of bruising interactions with Donald Trump. You know, this is bad timing for Donald Trump, I think. I think there's going to be enough votes and maybe led by Amy Coney Barrett to continue to block the ban all the way through the Supreme Court. Going to be a busy spring and summer at the Supreme Court, don't you think, Karen?
- [66:57]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Yes, of course. But these are individuals who are truly heroes. These are people who have, we don't have a draft in this country, thank God. These are people who have signed up to put themselves in the line of fire to save our democracy. These are the people we should salute. These are the people who thank God for them because they protect us. And the fact that we're having this discussion, this is kind of the opposite of what we were talking about earlier with the Venezuelan gang members. Bad facts make bad law. These are heroes. There's no way, I think when you look at who these individuals are, how amazing they are, how decorated they are and what a great job they do, and thank God for them that there are people that are willing to sign up and give their life to protect, protect my rights and our rights and everybody's rights. I think we celebrate them and not, not treat them like somehow, you know, whatever. So I think the Supreme Court, I think this one has, has a shot.
- [67:53]
Michael Popak
And, and, and, and also think of the pressure they are under. They join a military that doesn't want them, that every other administration tries to get rid of them, and yet they want to be career soldiers and serve this country and are willing to put up their life, the ultimate sacrifice, to do it. And Pete Hegseth's response is, where's a dress? Can't be trusted. I'm like, sorry. So we're going to continue to follow that. Let's round it out with Judge Chung. I like what he's been doing in Maryland, where a number of these cases against the Trump administration have been filed, and we've got a new order coming out in which he wants to restore funding for US Aid, which had you used to be a very good bipartisan way for America to spread diplomacy and democracy around the world, which was to help disadvantaged people, black and brown primarily, and in war zones, to stop them from going into the arms and the willing embrace of the Chinese and the Russians. But to Donald Trump, it's just a number on a ledger, not a, not a person. And so Judge Chung has had enough, too, and he's made his ruling. What you make of the Chung ruling about turning on the payment systems and trying to get the band back together again if dismissed US Aid personnel.
- [69:17]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
I mean, again, this was one that was sort of, I think it's one of these, like, it's good for now, but what's it going to be ultimately? Right, because this goes back to, again, what's going to happen when the acting head of USAID dismantles it? And I think this is going to be one of those orders that we will see. But for now, it's a good one. Right? This is essentially, this judge said that it's clear that Doge is trying to dismantle USAID and erase the agency, and that violated the Constitution in multiple ways. Right? That essentially the appointments clause that we've talked about before, that you have to be appointed by the president and then confirmed by the Senate. And clearly he ruled that Elon Musk is the head of Doge, which we all know, which they say out loud and lie to courts about. But it's clear, every court keeps saying it's clear that he is the head of Doge and you can't just shut it down. And he ordered them to turn the lights back on, turn the systems back on, even for the employees that are on administrative leave, turn their access back on to computers and access, and that Doge can't have any other involvement in further staff reductions or contract cancellations. So he issued an injunction, a long opinion that basically says that this was unconstitutional because of the, like I said, the appointments clause, and, you know, go back and turn it back on. But, you know, again, I wonder what's going to happen when they figure out how to make it so that Elon Musk and Doge is one step away. And the acting head of USAID instead says, oh, no, this is all my idea, and we're closing it down because we don't need this anymore. I mean, that'll be a different fight. So these are temporary wins, I think, and good wins to have. But see how long lasting they are and what damage the Trump administration will ultimately do because they are willing to lie and mislead court, mislead courts and the American people.
- [71:28]
Michael Popak
So you see, you see the press secretary today, you know, she says these outlandish numbers that sound, I guess they're great sound bites. 67% of all injunctions this century have been against the Trump administration. Okay? That's because 67% of the crazy is coming out of The Trump administration as he continues to try to violate all separations of power, all respect for co equal branches of government, and tries to aggrandize power for himself in the imperial president. And what is a nation to do but to challenge these attempts at usurpation of the people's power. He works for us, remember, and bring it into a federal judge for evaluation up against the United States Constitution and the rules issued by Congress. That's what, what federal judges are supposed to do. That is the friction between the moving plates of the three co equal branches of government that Louis Brandeis wrote about in the 1920s. That's the good thing. That's called checks and balance. You don't want a free spinning plate of just power mad president. So that's not a reflection of anything other than Donald Trump, as we've said over and over again, trying to push the envelope. Forget the envelope. Throw away the envelope. Envelope. He's outside the box. There is no box. That's the problem. So the injunction statistics don't mean shit to me. Don't. You know, don't, don't. You don't want the injunctions that don't violate the Constitution by way of executive order or defiance of federal judge orders.
- [73:06]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
It's so true. It's like, oh, there's been so many. Like he was saying about. There's before. There's so many court cases when he was prosecuted. Yeah. It's because you commit so many crimes.
- [73:15]
Michael Popak
Don't commit a crime times. Yeah, right. To paraphrase the great philosopher Beretta.
- [73:20]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Yeah.
- [73:20]
Michael Popak
Now really dating myself, Robert Blake. Don't do the time if you can't. Don't commit the crime if you don't want to do the time. That's it. Beretta.
- [73:29]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Wasn't he the one who had that cockatoo?
- [73:31]
Michael Popak
Yes. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to end on the Robert Blake cockatoo moment.
- [73:36]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Yeah.
- [73:37]
Michael Popak
And Salty, our producer is thinking, what are these boomers talking about?
- [73:41]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
I know, I know.
- [73:42]
Michael Popak
Okay.
- [73:42]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Boomer.
- [73:45]
Michael Popak
He rode in a chain. No clue. I'll. I'll send you a video. Anyway, he was a detective who lived by himself with a bird.
- [73:54]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Yeah.
- [73:55]
Michael Popak
You know, it's like, it was like Telly Savala. Telly Telly Savalas without. With hair. And he had a bird. All right, in any event, we've reached the end of another episode of Legal af and I'll just, just state the obvious. Everything that you and I just talked about happened in the last 48 hours.
- [74:12]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
That's what's so crazy.
- [74:13]
Michael Popak
Yeah, isn't it?
- [74:15]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
I just can't believe all these things that are happening, and it's just unbelievable. I don't know. Is that a strategy of theirs to just push as hard as you can, knowing that they're not going to get 60% of it, but they'll get 40%, and so that's a win. Whereas if they only did the 40%, they wouldn't get it.
- [74:32]
Michael Popak
I call it the shots on goal approach to government. They're just going to fire the ball or the puck, hundreds at them at a time. Something's going to get through, you know, if they, if they shoot 100 pucks at the goal, you know, and 20 get through is 20 more than they had before.
- [74:52]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Right.
- [74:53]
Michael Popak
So they're pressuring and fire hosing our federal judiciary, which he did in a, in a, In a smaller version. But the tryout for this, the game plan for this was when he was a criminal defender.
- [75:04]
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Yeah.
- [75:05]
Michael Popak
And this is exactly what happens when you send a felon to the White House. This is what you're gonna get. And he's surrounded by his former criminal defense lawyers who now run the Department of Justice. What did people think? And for those out there that are going, who out there? You can put it in comments tonight. Who out there is thinking, this is exactly what I wanted. This is going great. The economy, the social services cuts, the end of jobs and paychecks as we know them, the impact on the economy, the shrinking of jobs. This, you know, the constitutional crisis after constitutional crisis. This is what I voted for. Who is actually saying that? That's what I'd like to know. They might think it's entertaining. Oh, it's fun. Look what he's doing with These guys, these 200 Venezuelans and their shackles. Is that what our. Is that what the. Is that the country you wanted to wake up in? Is that our democracy? Is that who you. When you think of yourself as a patriot and as an American citizen, is this the America that you. That you think of, that you dream about? Oh, it's rhetorical, but I wanted to say it that way. We got a great show here tonight. We got a great show on Saturday, I'm sure, because there'll be a lot more updates to do with Ben Meiselas and me on the Saturday version of Legal af. Catch all of us doing hot takes right here on Legal AI on the Midas Touch Network, of course. And we got that channel. It's not new anymore. Six months old and growing over 500, 000 subscribers. Legal AF, the YouTube channel. I curate the channel. We got some amazing contributors over there and adding more almost by the day. We're doing now seven to eight videos a day at the intersection of law and politics because we have to. So join us, hit the subscribe button, continue to grow that pro democracy channel channel. And remember, our our sponsors are important. They're part of the lifeblood here. You know, the audience is the gas. But in the engine of this, of this independent organization, the sponsors are the oil. And you got to put them together in the right combination. And I think we do. And hats off to Jordy from the brothers who helps curate our sponsors that we have here today. So until our next Legal AF with Karen and me, next Wednesday and Saturday with Ben Mysalas and me, signing off to the Legal A efforts. And shout out to the Midas mighty.