Loading summary
Transcript60 lines
- [00:01]
Ben Meisellis
This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. Not everyone is careful with your personal information, which might explain why there's a victim of identity theft every five seconds in the US. Fortunately, there's LifeLock. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity. If your identity is stolen, a US based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year by visiting lifelock.com podcast terms apply. This episode is brought to you by Factor Optimize your nutrition this year with.
- [00:34]
Michael Popak
Factor America's number one ready to eat meal service.
- [00:37]
Ben Meisellis
Factor's Fresh Never Frozen meals are dietitian approved.
- [00:40]
Michael Popak
Ready to eat in just two minutes, choose from 40 weekly options across eight.
- [00:44]
Ben Meisellis
Dietary preferences like calorie smart, protein plus and keto. Eat smarter at FactorMeals.com listen50 and use code listen50 for 50% off plus free shipping on your first box. FactorMeals.com listen50 code listen50 teas and seasons.
- [01:00]
Michael Popak
Apply what makes a great pair of glasses at Warby Parker. It's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95 including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com.
- [01:32]
Ben Meisellis
Let'S just get to the heart of the matter. It's the suspension of habeas corpus, it's the destruction of the Constitution that the Trump regime is after. I think that maybe they thought that they were going to just bulldoze over the Constitution and all of the federal courts were going to embrace them. Michael Popak the way the MAGA Republicans in the House bent the knee. But now as you're having federal judge after federal judge, whether it's a Trump appointed federal judge, a Reagan appointed federal judge, George W. Bush appointed, and yes, Obama, Biden and Clinton. But right now there is this federal judge wall when it comes to the issue of Trump violating due process, we've got some lousy federal court decisions on some other areas. We've got some good federal court decisions on some other areas. But when it comes to Donald Trump's view that he doesn't have to follow due process, we're seeing no matter if it's a Trump judge, Obama, Biden, they're all saying the same thing. And we've been reporting on that on the Legal AF, YouTube channel and the Midas Touch YouTube channel across the other various channels on our networks. So what's the Trump regime seem doing right here? It's why I don't want to even do a big long lead in and talk about all these other topics. But we'll get to other areas as well. Stephen Miller said it out loud. I don't want to bury the lead in this episode. Right. Stephen Miller, Trump's top advisor who's not a lawyer. I want to repeat that again. Not a lawyer. The same way Jim Jordan, maga, Republican Congress member who leads the Judiciary Committee. He at least went to law school, not a licensed lawyer, didn't pass the bar exam. But you have these non lawyers who are basically saying we don't need to follow the Constitution. And Stephen Miller, we know, is the guy who's been telling Donald Trump falsely that The Supreme Court ruled 90 that Trump won the case involving Abrego Garcia, that he doesn't have to facilitate the return. Stephen Miller is probably the most influential person in the Trump regime right now over Donald Trump's authoritarian impulses. And here's what Stephen Miller said at the end of last week. So let's just get to the heart of it. Michael Popak here. Let's play this clip.
- [03:59]
Michael Popak
Well, the Constitution is clear and that of course is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So I would say that's an option.
- [04:10]
Ben Meisellis
We'Re actively looking at.
- [04:12]
Michael Popak
Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not. At the end of the day, I.
- [04:17]
Ben Meisellis
Want everybody to listen to what he said very carefully there before I pass it off to Michael Popak. That was a threat, that was a gangster shakedown of the Supreme Court. If you break down each of the words that Stephen Miller said there, right. First he said like it's very clear that, well, actually you're misrepresenting. It's very clear that you have to follow the Constitution. That's what's clear. Not that you can just suspend habeas corpus whenever you want. I mean, absolutely not. Then the threat was basically we hope the courts do the right thing. That's a threat to the Supreme Court. It's very clear, basically we will start sending tanks in D.C. we will start using the military against American citizens and we will declare martial law and we will start doing these things. If you don't rule in favor of us, if you make us look bad in these rulings. So be careful what you do now, he didn't use all those words that I just said. But I've spoken now to a lot of constitutional scholars who we have on the Legal AF channel and our channel here, they all say the same thing. So Popak, I know we're going to talk about like what happened in Judge Boasberg's court involving the class action where Boasberg wants to have discovery regarding, you know, what's going on in El Salvador. We're going to talk about Judge Zinnis, of course, you know, what's going on there where the Trump regime invoked the state secrets doctrine. Southern District of Texas, Trump appointed judge, you know, ruling the Alien Enemies act unlawful Judge Hellerstein, Southern District of New York, Clinton appointee, Alien Enemies act unlawful judge in Colorado, judge in Maryland. They're all but at the heart of it is this issue, right, Pope, it's due process. And we're here, I think sooner than many people expected that this, this is the showdown. We're here.
- [06:19]
Michael Popak
When we last saw Donald Trump in the White House, before this first 110 days, we know towards the end he was considering the suspension of the Constitution, the declaration of martial law, the seizing of voting equipment. They had an executive order already drafted. It's part of the evidence in the Jan.6th and the interference case against Donald Trump and in the January 6th committee's report that was being pushed the time by Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and Patrick Byrne from Overstock.com and others. So Donald Trump has an allergy, allergic reaction to the Constitution and his requirements. And when he doesn't like what it says, he ignores it. When he doesn't like what the Supreme Court says, he either ignores it or he twists their words out of all recognition. He carries around a very strange version of the Constitution in his back pocket. It only has two provisions. It's got Article 2, which is the power of the presidency and the Second Amendment. Everything else is cut out like one of these paper doll things. And that's and, and when you combine that with having people and I agree with you, Stephen Miller and I, I've been calling it out, you've been calling it out since the administration started. Stephen Miller has become the only one, apparently, according to other reporting, that has walk in rights, meaning he can barge into the White House, the Oval Office anytime he wants and sit down with the president. He's the last word, literally stays in the room till everybody has left. He's, he's Donald Trump's Svengali. He's the puppet master. It's not Elon Musk as the domestic, domestic policy president or even foreign policy president. It is Stephen Miller is Donald Trump's brain at this point. He's not a lawyer, although he was the architect for the original depraved immigration policy the first time around in the first administration. The reason kids were separated from their parents and put in cages. See Stephen Miller. Stephen Miller is also the architect of the whole use of the Alien Enemies Act. Again, a non lawyer playing one on TV or playing one in the White House. He's the reason that the Alien Enemies act was invoked. He's the reason that Donald Trump came up with a phony proclamation that we are at war with Venezuela and we have enemy combatants in our midst in the form of trend. That's all a lie. It's been blown open as a lie in various things that you and I have learned and shared with our audience the last two weeks, including internal memos from the intelligence community of Donald Trump which says that's a lie. And then you have what we always feared. You and I actually talked about it three weeks ago. I said at one point where. And I said it in a hot take about a week ago. And we are dangerously close to Donald Trump declaring the suspension of the Constitution and declaring martial law. And he's effectively done that. This is not even a slippery slope because there's no slope between what Stephen Miller just did just blithefully in the, in the gravel driveway of the White House to reporters and announcing that they're considering suspending the quote unquote privilege of writ of habeas corpus. That is a. It's actually a requirement, even though the word privilege was used. That's really an old timey way of saying it's a due process right of people. As the Supreme Court has interpreted. We're going to suspend it now, the only way you could ever suspend it. And it's only been suspended four times in our history and always during a time of war. And that is if you are, if we have an invasion back to predatory invasion or a warlike event going on. So we have to get rid of the niceties of our constitutional due process. Habeas corpus for those. I don't want to just use these terms of art without explaining them. The writ of habeas corpus is the very foundation of everything that is right in our Constitution about due process rights and the right of somebody to be taken before a federal judge and not left to rot in a dank dark prison like the Count of Monte Cristo or Like Abrego Garcia in a gulag overseas. The reason we keep talking in all these cases about due process and notice about writs of habeas corpus, which is the way that the Supreme Court in their. In their 6 to 3 decision in. Related to. Sorry. In their 6 to 3 decision in the JGG case, as they ruled, they said, you want to send people to a gulag, you can do whatever you want after you give them due process through a writ of habeas corpus and get that person before a federal judge. And then that federal judge can make a decision whether the Alien Enemies act has been properly invoked and whether due process has been properly given to this particular person. They don't want to hear that. They didn't hear it, and they don't want to hear it. And so Stephen Miller's saying, here's an idea, we'll just be consistent and press a losing hand. The losing hand that they're pressing is that they don't have to give constitutional due process and they can summarily remove and deport people. And that could be you and me and everybody else. Two prisons, if they, quote, unquote, have a predatory invasion or incursion or warlike event. And they can also. That's the losing hand. They could also suspend the writ of habeas corpus. And this, I have to tell you, even that staggering comment must have put a chill down the spine of many members of the United States Supreme Court, not even. Not just the moderates or the liberals on the court, including somebody like, like Chief Justice Roberts, because to say that we're going to trump up a wag the dog moment and create a phony war in order to do things like roll up the Constitution and put it away for a period of time. And, and so that's why I said it's. Ben, it's not a slippery slope. Slippery slope implies we got to go. We got to go a certain distance to get to that. We are here, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that they're even considering that, meaning that means the attorneys general, the ACLUs, the Public Interest groups, the Midas Mighty, the legal A efforts, we got to be ready to file in court at the appropriate moment, haven't drafted already the lawsuit and the injunction to stop the suspension of our Constitution and the removal of the writ of habeas corpus. Right. I never thought in my lifetime, in anyone's lifetime, that we'd ever be talking about that. This is not the Civil War. This is not World War II. This is not the Philippines. This is. This is 2025, America a democracy. The only thing that happened in November that should have changed our. That should have changed is who's occupying the White House, not the very government and the bedrock of our constitutional republic.
- [13:09]
Ben Meisellis
So we're seeing Supreme Court justices at various events now vocalizing these things, right? I mean, we've seen, I mean, it's mostly the liberal members, right? We've saw two weeks ago, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at an event in Puerto Rico. Justice Sotomayor spoke this past week, of all places, at an American Bar association event, which I thought was notable as well, because Donald Trump has banned Department of Justice lawyers from acknowledging the existence of the American Bar association, which they've labeled a bad actor. A leftist, radical, liberal group, the American Bar association, which is anything but that, that helps promulgate ethics rules and, you know, has always been viewed as bipartisan as a. I've never been viewed as a political thing at all, simply as an organization that stands for due process. And then they have subject matter areas of expertise. Anyway, just as Sotomayor was speaking at the American Bar Associ association, and she had a message basically to lawyers, like, you can capitulate right now, and if you're weak and you can't handle this, don't become lawyers. We need courageous lawyers, not weak lawyers. And then she talked about the threat that was taking place. And then you also had Chief Justice Roberts speaking in Buffalo, where he mentioned as well, you know, and he said it kind of in this very sheepish way, though, also, like, well, you know, I think that, you know, when it comes to, you know, when it comes to challenges to judges, it shouldn't be impeachment. You know, you come through that, you go through the process. It was like maybe a little bit of a stronger defense right there, right now, Justice Roberts. But, you know, it's still jarring, I guess, that he's even saying anything publicly because you don't really hear Supreme Court justices having, you know, addressing issues, you know, right now. While. While they're not. While. Unless they're actually on the bench.
- [15:09]
Michael Popak
Can I just say one thing? On your Roberts thing? He said, we were all waiting for him to say something. He said there are some excesses and abuses that the court can weigh in on. I'm like, what are you effing talking about? He created you. And I called it. He created this Frankenstein monster, and he's been complaining about it since January. Even before Donald Trump took office, about the abuse on the judiciary. In his State of the Judiciary address on January 1, you did hot takes on it. I did hot takes on it. And so. But he, he released the Kraken. He created an unstoppable. Unless the federal courts don't do their job, which they are, thank God, in the courts that they've been filed in. But he alone is the author. It's not just the Roberts court. He wrote the Colorado Insurrectionists, barring them from the ballot decision in which they said, we're not going to bar Donald Trump as an insurrectionist from a ballot. That wasn't just a majority decision. That was written by Roberts. He wrote the immunity decision. You know, he assigned the, you know, the other, the other major decisions that empowered Donald Trump, he assigned to somebody else. So this is. This is on him. And for him to sit there in his little suit and tie was really galling to me to talk about, you know, as you said, you know, the cheetahs eating your face or Frankenstein's ravaging the countryside. Yeah, you created Frankenstein. And now we're trying to figure out, to mix metaphors, how to shove them back in a bottle.
- [16:33]
Ben Meisellis
Let me just show people the way he sounded, just so everybody can see, like what I thought was just extra weak here. I think we've got this clip. Let's play it.
- [16:42]
Michael Popak
What do you think of these calls for impeachment of judges based on the decisions that they've made? Well, I've already spoken to that. And, you know, impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decision. That's what you're for, right? That's what, that's what you're there for.
- [16:56]
Ben Meisellis
That's what we're there for.
- [16:57]
Michael Popak
Yeah.
- [16:59]
Ben Meisellis
Because I want you to contrast that with Congressmember Menendez Jr. Who was in Newark when Mayor Baraka was arrested by. Maybe it was ice. It was probably more likely these private prison officials who are contracted out by ICE from the GEO Group, arresting mayors from the city who are there in their official capacity as a mayor. The mayor has the right to say, why are you opening up detention centers in my city? Let me take a look at it. I'm the mayor of this. I'm the mayor of this city. I want to make sure you're not torturing people, that there's compliance with health codes. I'm the mayor of the city. He shows up, they arrest him. And, you know, on the one hand, you have, you know, Justice Roberts, you know, well, I just think that maybe we should do this and then contrast it to what went down when you had private security guards. You know, and I've Seen some people saying, how do we know that these people aren't even like the, you know, the same people who were there on January 6th? Like, how do you know these aren't the proud? But yes, you know, who. Who are. Who are these people? Like, beating up, assaulting members of Congress and arresting a mayor from Newark. And then, so contrast what Robert said. Here's Menendez Jr. Let's play it along.
- [18:24]
Michael Popak
With three members of Congress. It was an act of intimidation. It was an act of intimidation, not just to the mayor, not just to us, but to everyone watching. We know what ICE has been doing in our communities. We know that the president lied. And this administration lies every day. When they're saying they're going after criminals, it is not true. They feel no weight of the law. They feel no restraint on what they should be doing. And that was shown in broad daylight today when they not just arrested the mayor of Newark, but when they put their hands on two members of Congress who are standing behind me. How is this acceptable to anyone in this country? How is this acceptable? And that's an Alina Ha. And that's an Alina Haba special because she is the acting interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey, and she said she's going to go after political rivals of Donald Trump. The mayor of Newark has long been touted as a potential presidential candidate. And they were. He was just doing what the other Congress people were doing, which was shining a light on these. These ICE detentions in their community. And as you said, either some rent a cop or somebody else arrested them. And I give a lot of credit to Menendez. He comes through. It's a very difficult place for him to be in because, you know, you know, he's got his father who was going to jail and 17 years for a bribery scandal, who talked about the weaponization of the Department of Justice. But you see it. There's just this complete, utter authentic passion with. With Menendez Jr. About this particular issue. You could see it was raw in the moment, but, you know, that's what we need. We need to bring it now.
- [20:02]
Ben Meisellis
Yeah. So everybody sees the escalation. Right? I mean, what was it three weeks ago? We were reporting on the judge in Wisconsin. State court judge. It was a Milwaukee Circuit Court judge. Yeah. Who was arrested inside of her courtroom. Again, that's something. That's. She's. She's a judge who presides over criminal cases, administering justice, who was arrested in her courtroom.
- [20:32]
Michael Popak
And purple and perp walked with a.
- [20:34]
Ben Meisellis
Photo with the FBI when the feds could easily have arrested this guy right outside the courthouse. If they wanted to, in the hallway, if they wanted to, on the elevator. They want to set up for these moments of escalation to create protectual grounds. They feast off of the Abrego Garcia. They want those decisions to, I think further try to beat us down, we the people. And get to that point where they suspend, you know, habeas corpus. You go from Wisconsin, you have to view these all in context. Wisconsin. Then you go to Newark, they open up this Delaney hall and they're doing this in lots of communities. This flare up in Newark, we're seeing it happen in areas in Massachusetts, we're seeing it happen around the country. You know that they will arrest a mother holding their baby. They will arrest a 16 year old girl. They'll pull over. There's a horrific story of a college student in Georgia who didn't have her citizenship papers. She was pulled over for like speeding, got a simple ticket, thrown in a detention center for months. No one like knows where. So you have all of these touch points. Then the members of Congress question politically.
- [21:55]
Michael Popak
Put on your political hat for a minute. I want to ask you something seriously as a, as a political strategist and, and a person who is keen, attuned to these issues. You're in the White House and we already know there's new reporting that there's people in the White House that feel like it's like the Stockholm syndrome. They feel like we're watching. Salon has an article about insiders to the Trump administration believing they're watching open and blatant criminality. But they don't know how to get out of it, out of the administration. So let's put that aside for a minute. You're, you're, you're watching the polls. 39, 40% people wanting him impeached. If he disobeys the Supreme Court, does the things he's doing, acting out with Abrego Garcia does the arrest. This is losing him support. Why, how does he continue to do this and why? What is the end game? Polling politically?
- [22:44]
Ben Meisellis
You know, I, I think that the, the base that core, you don't want to lose your 34 to 35% magazine. And they like this, like, I think that, I think that unfortunately that they're, whether people want to admit it or not in the polling, why he'll stay always at that 34 to 35% number. You notice on the economy he's in the 20s, but you know, on immigration he's 40. Still underwater, but yeah, 45, 47. And that's how you kind of get at that, you know, that approval rating, somewhere between 35 and 39%, which is historically low. But see, you know, to me, he. He needs the adulation of the 35%. He can't lose them in his own mind. And they like it. You know, and the sad part is, is that there may be, you know, your neighbor. You know, it's not like the Civil War where there was, like, these states, the south and the north, and this thing right? Right now, it could be your neighbor. It could be the person who you think is a great. You may like, like this person, but then it turns out that they actually love the torture and the cruelty part. And you're like, oh, my God, wait a minute. You. I never knew that about you because you love knitting or whatever. You love this hobby. And wait a minute, you also like. So I think that there's a lot of Americans who like this, who want to see people suffer, who like the torture. I think they're so miserable in their lives that they want this. And there's no other way for me to reckon. I hate to admit to that, but when you go through your logic tree, you have to admit that Trump supporters like this stuff. And I don't want to get that morbid on this, because why. But I think that they would go further. I mean, you know, human nature, when you go back and look at the way humans behaved historically, it's an enlightened philosophy with French philosophers leading to, you know, from the Declaration of Independence to enlightened ideas coming into our Constitution, you know, this stuff really emerged, right? Late 17th century, 18th century thought. And we had to create checks and balances on human animalistic nature, you know, to get coarse, to try to stop certain things that we knew were innate in humans that had led to suffering in medieval times and before then. That's why we were a shining example. So it's sad to see that getting kind of ripped apart, which is why when I talk about politics, I try to bring it back to basic humanity and like, reminding ourselves of empathy and love. And the importance of law to me is upholding a civilized society and not one that shocks the conscious. We have a lot to discuss. Let's take our first quick break of the show. When we come back, we'll talk about the. We should talk about. We'll get into some cases, Zinnis and Boasberg's. You know, there was a great grilling by Boasberg of the Trump DOJ lawyer in Zinnis. Trump invoked the state secrets doctrine. Now so that they don't. That's how they're addressing the discovery issue, state secrets, they don't want to turn over any discovery at all. So they're going back into state secrets, classified information. We're in a war. We're not going to share any information with you. Judge and then we got to talk about the Supreme Court. There's big oral arguments this week in the Supreme Court. May 15 is when the birthright citizenship, birthright citizenship case goes before the Supreme Court. Everybody subscribe to Michael Popox YouTube channel. The legal AF YouTube channel is crushing it. Make sure you subscribe on its way to 1 million subscribers. So it'll be make sure you subscribe there. Also, Pop, your law firm is doing incredible. If people have catastrophic injuries, whether it's car accidents, trucking accidents, you know, people who are involved in like a wrongful death situation or sex harassment or sex assault, Popoc, where can they reach you out?
- [27:15]
Michael Popak
Yeah, easy. You got a 1-800-number and a website. Sorry, 1-800-number is 1-877-popoc p o p o k a f I made it easy. And then we got the website, which is www.the popoc firm.com.
- [27:33]
Ben Meisellis
Let'S take our first quick break of the show. We've got a lot to discuss when.
- [27:36]
Michael Popak
We come back, the weather. It's heating up and your nighttime bedroom temperature has a huge impact on your sleep quality. If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend you check out Miracle Maid's bed sheets. Miracle made sheets are inspired by NASA and use silver infused fabrics that are temperature regulating so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night night long. Using silver infused fabrics inspired by NASA, Miracle Mate sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long no matter the weather so you get better sleep every night. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands and feel as nice, if not nicer than sheets used by some five star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with Miracle. Upgrade your sleep as the weather heats up. Go to try Miracle.com LegalAF to try Miracle made sheets today and whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, if you order today, you can save over 40%. And if you use our promo legal AF at checkout, you'll get a free 3 piece towel set and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product. It's backed with a 30 day money back guarantee, so if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle made. Go to try miracle.com legalaf and use the code legal AF to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's trymiracle.com legalaf to treat yourself. Thank you Miracle Maid for sponsoring this episode. Delete Me makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online At a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Look, as someone with an active online presence, to say the least, privacy is more important to me than ever. My name, address, even information about my family ends up on dozens of data broker sites without my consent. That's not just annoying, it's dangerous. It's easier than ever for bad actors to get that info and use it to harass people, especially those of us who speak out, report the truth or just post an online opinion. That's why I signed up for Deleteme. With Delete Me, you can protect your personal privacy or your business from doxing attacks. Before your information can be exploited, they'll go to work removing your data from hundreds of data broker websites. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your delete me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com legalif and use promo code legalaf at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com LegalAF and enter code legalaf one more time. That's JoinDeleteMe.com code legal af welcome back to legal af.
- [30:42]
Ben Meisellis
Ben Meisellis here with Michael Popak. By the way, if you're wondering where I am this week is the Webby Awards and the Midas Touch podcast won the Webby Podcast of the year. So that award ceremony is on Monday. So we are here for that. Thank you all to the Legal afers and the Midas mighty for, you know, for making the show successful because without you it'd be impossible. All right, I want to get into these cases. I want to talk about Boasberg and Zinnis. Judge Boasberg. Judge Zinnis. Boseberg's in D.C. zinnis is in Maryland. Let's talk about those then. We should talk about. There was that ruling from the federal judge in San Francisco as It relates to 20 agencies blocking the doge cuts again in 20 agencies. That was a big ruling this week. And then let's talk about the Supreme Court. But why don't you talk about Zinnis and Bozberg first, Michael?
- [31:47]
Michael Popak
Happy to thank you, Ben, and congratulations to the brothers and to the Midas touch and to the Midas Mighty for rocketing that podcast to the top. It's a twofold thing, right? It's a, the content and have having become go to podcasting for politicians and people, even at the intersection of law and politics is one. But then just that, the audience's support of it and taking it to their heart is the other. And I'm so glad you've been recognized by this, by this award. And so let me turn now to Bozberg and Zinnis. Sounds like it sounds like a law firm somewhere. And they all, they all, both these things that were going on in their courtrooms are all come out of the same place. A tremendous epic losing streak by the Trump administration led by Stephen Miller and Donald Trump and Pam Bondi and the rest in the area of immigration, removal, deportation. And it's just epic. There's no, there's no silver lining to it. It just, it's just one after another. Sometimes on the same day, federal judges are ruling almost in unison, but in separate courthouses and courtrooms in states that Donald Trump has not provided notice in due process, has not abided by the requirements of the writ of habeas corpus, has, has violated his statutory duties under the Alien Enemies act, has improperly invoked the Alien Enemies act because there's no predatory, predatory incursion. And that's going on as you've outlined now in a half a dozen courts, including three over a 72 hour period last week in Texas, Colorado and in New York, which is the exact thing that the supreme, that's the exact path the Supreme Court set us on when Donald Trump was busy celebrating a case that he won that we're gonna, I'm gonna talk about next in Judge Boasberg's courtroom that we call jgg, those are initials that to anonymize and protect these Venezuelans who have been deported or about to be deported to El Salvador without due process. That JGG case, the 6 to 3 case that had Donald Trump and Stephen Miller and others popping champagne corks. And it was nothing. It was a Pyrrhic victory at best. It was a procedural victory about process, not about the substantive ability or the right of, of Trump to use the Alien Enemies act as an emergency power to deport without due process. That's how they interpreted it, but that's not how everybody else interpreted it, including the Supreme Court and judges like Bozberg and Zinnis. So we had, we have the, the spawn, the progeny coming out of the JGG case as cited by every one of these other federal judges I just talked about. And if there was any, any ambiguity about where the Supreme Court stood in the JGG case, which was you got to have writs of habeas corpus, you got to have federal judges involved, you got to do it while they're here in this United States. You got to give them notice and you can challenge the Alien Enemies act before each individual judge. That's the thing, Ben, when we talked last week about the other shocking, staggering moment which I never thought would be topped, which was Donald Trump telling Kristen Welker, I don't know, due process, it's do I have to give due process to everybody? Is that I have good, brilliant judge lawyers? Maybe. Do I. I don't know. Seems like a lot. Seems like that'd be too many things to do. I don't want to do that. And Kristen Walker's like, are you f. I mean, she didn't say it, but she was certainly thinking, are you mad? And then Stephen Miller topped it. It was like, how do I out. Crazy. Crazy. I got it. We'll suspend the writ of habeas corpus. But, but it's, but we can't ignore it. I mean, we can't get Trump fatigue and we can't ignore what they're clearly saying out loud. They have a very good habit of doing exactly what they say they're going to do. The Trump administration, they're very good that way. We're going to play, we're going to run the playbook from Project 2025 page by page. They are doing that, whatever they said on the campaign trail. Alien Enemies act, we're doing it. Writ of habeas corpus. We're looking into it. America for Americans only. STEPHEN miller, SPECIAL yeah, we're doing it. So you got that going on. Then you have two more. If the ambiguity was not was somehow lost on the Trump administration, two more Supreme Court decisions in a row should have solved that problem for them. You know, 9, 0 supporting Judge Zinnis, saying that she's doing everything right to rule that due process, this common theme today, due process is the driver and you are protecting due process rights of Abrego Garcia and others by ordering him and ordering, sorry, ordering the Trump administration to facilitate his release from an El Salvadoran Jail without due process. Keep it up. Good work. You do you. They had one little line in there about just be careful about effectuate, because maybe you get into the area of foreign affairs and then you got the Supreme Commander problem with Article 2 and the presidency. And that's all Stephen Miller heard. Whoa, we won 90 when you lost 9 0. But. But you see Stephen Miller, even in a pitch and catch with Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Stephen, Stephen, what we do in that Supreme Court case, literally, Stephen Miller said out loud, we won, you didn't win. And nobody thinks you, you won, including federal judges and the Supreme Court. So you got the nine zero and then you got the seven to two, which popped out at one o' clock in the morning a month ago. When does the talk about. We're talking about so many firsts, judges speaking out of turn, speaking out of school during the term of the Supreme Court, at conferences where they're obviously talking about the Trump and Trump administration. Roberts, as he alluded to in his interview, issuing a statement from his perch as the head of the judiciary to the head of the executive branch, like, pump the brakes on going after impeaching judges. And now you've got this other first, which is 1:00am we're not trying to commute a sentence like the governor calling to stop somebody from getting the death penalty. They felt they had to get that thing out that day seven to two in which they said, ground the planes, stop flying planes. This is why we don't talk about flying planes to El Salvador or anywhere else right now because of that ruling. So that is the body of work. And now the federal judges, which Boasberg and Zinnis have observed and mentioned in their courtrooms, like Hellerstein, Rodriguez, Sweeney, Trump, Biden, I mean, it's like everything runs the political spectrum have now done what the Supreme Court anticipated that they would do, declare that the use of the Alien Enemies act was unconstitutional and illegal and statutory violation and ultravaris by Donald Trump. So he's got that whole losing streak. And that all ended up in the courtroom of Judge Boasberg. Now, why are we still talking about Boseberg? Because some of you might be saying, isn't that the JGG case you just said that he didn't have. You know, the court said, you don't really have jurisdiction in D.C. we got to place this in individual courts, wherever the prisoner is. Or habeas corpus. Yes, except there's that other 250 people who are Venezuelans that were sent to El Salvador who were not named abrego Garcia. And if you take the natural good faith interpretation of all those Supreme Court cases, they're entitled to due process too. And you can't give them due process while they've already been secreted away and hidden in a prison at sicot. And so the question for Bozberg is, should he certify that class and does he have jurisdiction? Particularly the issue of joint custody is driving his decision making. Does El Salvador and the United States have joint custody over the operation of that jail? So Bozberg starts grilling this, this sock puppet, this, this pinata that the Department of Justice rolled out as their latest lawyer to argue with Judge Boasberg. They're hiding Drew Ensign because he, he did terribly. I don't even know where Drew Ensign is these days. But they trotted out this other person and the judge says, who's a skilled prosecutor. He says, all right, well, I've been watching tv. I've seen statements made by President Trump in which he said he could pick up the phone and make a phone call and get him back. Is that true? Was he telling the truth? Well, that was taken out of context and that was a political, that was really him indicating the, what he, what he feels about his, his powers of persuasion. So the judge cut him off and said, so that was a lie that he doesn't have because he told Kristen Welker and he told Terry Moran in interviews and that terrible. Who? Whoever let Donald Trump go out for his hundred days interviews with all they should be fired for professional malpractice because he was terrible. Great for us, terrible for America. But he did say to Terry Moran, Terry Moran said, there's a phone on your desk. Bukele's got a phone in El Salvador. Pick up the phone. Buck stops with you. Well, I could, Terry, but he is a terrible person and I won't do it. Judge said, was he lying or telling the truth? Well, he said, let's talk about Kristi Noem, your Homeland Security director. She went down to see COT and stood there. I've seen the clip. Boseberg said. And she said that the you by putting these Venezuelans in an El Salvadoran prison, it was a tool in the US's toolbox. Doesn't tool and toolkit or whatever it was, doesn't that imply control and custody, joint custody? Well, that's a. I'm not going to parse words. Okay, let me word to advocates in front of a federal judge. You are there to parse words. I'm not gonna, you know, that's our Political view, and, you know, it's not as nuanced, doesn't mean legal custody and the judge cut him off is okay. So here's what we're going to do. Since I can't get a straight answer out of you, this is, this is now losing patience 101 by Judge Boasberg. Remember, this is the same judge, and I say remember. That's just a rhetorical flourish. If you don't remember, let me tell you, this is the same judge that three weeks ago found probable cause that the Trump administration was in criminal contempt for their failure to return the planes or fly the planes over his order down there. Now, that got suspended for a moment, or at least for now by a court of appeal. But, you know, you can't undo that. I mean, I can't unsee that order. And so that's the same judge. And so he said, all right, okay, we're going to do some discovery. Okay, I'm going to get to the bottom of this. I want sworn statements under oath about the relationship between the United States and El Salvador. I want to see the receipts of, I want to know what the money was paid for, I want to know where it went. I want to see the contract. I want to see whatever it is that tethers the United States to that jail, and I want it by this date. And, you know, they can say what they want about this middle of the road judge. It's very highly respected, leftist, Marxist, whatever these ridiculous is same phrases they were throwing around against Pope Leo, by the way, they love the Marxist activist, whatever phraseology. That'd be a badge of honor if they called me that, frankly. But anyway, with Boasberg, he's going to get to the bottom of this. Now, the question he's trying to figure out, not contempt this time, so whether he has jurisdiction in order to order the Trump administration to do what Zenith ordered him to do, which is to get those 250 back. But he's trying to figure out what the, what the strings are that the Trump administration has retained and that could, and they could pull to bring it back. Because nobody believes in our audience, you Ben me, that they just dump people off without getting a receipt and they don't know how to get them back. And when they asked the lawyer in the, with Boseberg, what was the money for, what was the 6 million for? Well, it was a grant, and they could use the grant over here, but it's not directly to house the prisoners, but it would support like. All right, enough, enough. So we're going to see what gets filed if the state secrets privilege gets invoked again because it was invoked last time in front of Postberg's court. And he was like, I don't, I don't think you have state secrets here. So he, there was a briefing that got delayed there, which will come back because, you know, they're going to assert the state secret privilege again. Then we jump over down the street to Maryland, where Judge Zinnis, you know, time's up on discovery. You got two things going on in the Zenith courtroom. You got the press, including us, getting pissed off with how many sealed and redacted filings are getting made in the case that we can't figure out what's going on. One of the reasons we have difficulty in reporting, it's not because we're not there. It's because we can't read anything. We're getting these blackouts. You know, like you and I were speculating two weeks ago as to why she put a hold on discovery for a week because she read something in two sealed filings we couldn't read that said, all right, I, my gut is the Trump administration said they were working on diplomatic channels to get back Abrego Garcia, and they didn't need the court kind of and public looking at it. And they were, all right, I'll give you a week that failed. And, and every. And another sealed filing. Another sealed filing. And so 16 or 14 news agencies has filed a motion to intervene to get the docket unsealed. And she set a briefing schedule on that for May. And then buried in that same order was a reference to a sealed document that we didn't know what it said, but she revealed it was the Trump administration trying to invoke the state secrets privilege to go tell her to, how do I put this nicely? To go tell her to go f herself and pound sand that they were never going to tell her what they're really doing, if anything, to bring back Abrego Garcia despite the Supreme Court decision. And it all comes back to Stephen Miller and the lawlessness on display that we started off this, this podcast with. This is Stephen Miller worming his way as an earworm into Donald Trump and telling him that he's in the right from, from a legal analysis standpoint. And when Donald Trump. I'll end it on this, Ben. When Donald Trump looks the American people in the eye and says, the best that I can do is Jeanine Pirro to be the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia or Alina Haba to be the U.S. attorney for New Jersey or I have the best and brightest minds working on my legal matters. That is a complete and utter lie. Just Google translate that into I have weak people who are not good at their job, who I don't respect nor will I listen to. And I'm going to remain willfully blind about most of it when I go on network news. And I'm going to get all of my policy making done through being glued to cable news where I'm also going to pull people into my administration like Jeanine Pirro if I get, if I hear one more Fox and Friends, the Five, whatever, going into a top leadership position in that's the best and the brightest Fox. So Bozberg, we're going to see new filings coming up. Zinnis, she's, she's set a briefing schedule about these things as well. And by the end of May, after a hearing, she's going to make a ruling about the secret about these state secrets and about how much you and I are going to be able to see in the future of things. The reason, let me end it on redaction. The reason redaction is important is because in our public justice system, the people have a place at the table. It's the prosecutor, it's the defense and the defendant, it's the judge. But it's the public because we don't do star chambers, despite what Donald Trump and Stephen Miller, what have you believe. We don't do things in the dark. And, and, and you have to bend over backwards. And that's what judges will tell you to make sure that everything ends up on the docket so the public can see. You get charged in the public, you get tried in the public. And things along the way are public now. Sometimes they're temporarily sealed. Eventually all those ceilings come off and then you and I end up reporting about things six months later.
- [48:07]
Ben Meisellis
Let me just briefly break down when we talk about state secrets privilege, just also what that means. So the state's privilege, state secrets privilege was first recognized in a 1953 Supreme Court case called United States vs. Reynolds. And this was a case involving a military plane and top secret plane crashing. And the widows in a lawsuit for the pilots wanted to get discovery and information about what happened to see if they had a lawsuit or a case. The government invoked the state secrets doctrine and basically said we can't give away the military secrets about our bombers so we can turn it over. And the Supreme Court recognized this doctrine. State secrets refers to military secrets that if they were to be disclosed in a litigation would be harmful to the national security interests. You have to establish the predicate that there is a secret here and then that is in the interest of the national security in order to not disclose the information. So here, what would be the state secret? That's the issue if you think about it, because we know about ckot, right? We know where it is. So another time where the state secrets doctrine was actually allowed to be invoked in a Supreme Court case was an area that during kind of Guantanamo Bay, CIA post 9, 11, the black sites that were being kept, the Supreme Court there said, well, you know, the CIA was still able to block the disclosure of where the CIA bases were physically located because if they revealed it, that could at least show where CIA assets are. So they didn't have to actually disclose where certain things were. It was relatively controversial decision. But here we know where CCOT is, number one. Number two, the Trump regime has done what I like to refer to, I don't like to, but I don't know how. Well, you'd call it ISIS style propaganda videos from seacot. The politicians, the MAGA politicians go there with their thumbs up. We see the people Trump posts videos about it. He had Bukele in the, you know, in the Oval Office where they bragged about it. So there's no, there's nothing secret that is there. They've said all of the things and certainly not in the national security interest. But what the Trump regime does in these litigations is they will, and this is, by the way, similar if you remember our reporting on how Trump would litigate his own personal cases. Delay, delay, delay, and then try to create some conflict and then not turn over the documents by just delaying, delaying, delaying. As a private litigant, you have less ability to do that. Although rich people tend to have more resources to delay more than other people. But now that they can declare these privileges that have been based on good faith, that we would actually have presidents who are good and decent individuals, which we don't have one now. They abuse it, they'll drag it out. Then right when the discovery is due, they'll then invoke state secrets. Then they'll try to litigate that. Because the name of the game is delay, delay, delay, not turn over anything and then try to distract with a million other things. So hopefully that explanation is helpful. When we come back, I want to talk about finally the Supreme Court case, the cases next week, May 15th. So it's coming up big oral arguments there. In the birthright citizenship case, I want to draw a distinction what that case is about and not about. So people aren't shocked when they go, but why are they talking so much about national injunctions, although they're going to talk about birthright citizenship? It's possible that the issues will be inextricably intertwined in the oral arguments. But we'll see. I want to remind everybody about the Legal AF YouTube channel. Make sure you subscribe. They're on their way to 1 million subscribers on the Legal F YouTube channel. Pretty, pretty incredible stuff right there. Also, Michael Popo's new law firm is doing great. I'm so proud of Popak for starting his own firm. And a lot of people who listen and watch, who have cases, whether it's them directly or a loved one or a friend, they've been referring you cases and that's pretty cool. So Popak handles wrongful death cases, people who are injured and die. Sad, tragic cases. But you know, you need a great lawyer like Popa. Catastrophic injury like trucking accidents and bad car accidents, sexual harassment cases, negligence malpractice cases. Popak, where can they reach you?
- [53:05]
Michael Popak
Yeah, 1-877-popak a f p o p o k a f. And the popoc firm.com on the website.
- [53:13]
Ben Meisellis
A reminder, everybody, Legal AF has its own sub stack as well. Everybody make sure you check out the Legal A of substack. Pretty great work you're doing there. You're a busy guy, Popak. Check out Legal av. All right, last quick break. Let's talk about the Supreme Court. Big, big stuff to talk about when we come back from our last question. Quick break.
- [53:30]
Michael Popak
You know those little moments in your day that matter more than they seem at the time? You know, the coffee walks, the quick grocery runs, the school drop offs, surprise rainstorms. Yeah, that's where Vessi shines. The weekend sneaker from Vessi is my go to for real life. It's waterproof, ultra comfy, lightweight and easy to slip on. So I can keep moving, rain or shine. What I love is how Vessi keeps up without me even thinking about it. Whether I'm walking the dog, heading into a casual work day or just running errands, they've got me covered, literally. The waterproof tech means no more outfit changes or soggy socks. And the clean, minimal style works with whatever I'm wearing. They're my all day everyday shoe. One pair that takes me from morning to night without missing a step. I can't leave the house without them. Make every day a little easier. Visit vessi.com legalafnow for 15% off your first pair at checkout and start exploring with confidence. Your new everyday favorite, Vessi, is waterproof, comfy, and ready for your life. Grab your pair@vessi.com legalaf to stay comfortable and get an instant 15% off your first purchase at checkout. When it comes to spending, sometimes it's out of sight, out of mind. That daily coffee habit, those streaming subscriptions, they add up fast without you even noticing. Rocket Money helps you spot those patterns so you can do something about them and keep more money in your pocket. Look, I've been using Rocket Money myself and within minutes it found a subscription I had totally forgotten about something I hadn't used in months. It would have been a hassle to track it down and cancel it myself, but Rocket Money handled it in just a few taps. Total game changer. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps you find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings. I love how the dashboard shows all my expenses across every account. I've set up custom budgets and I even got an alert when one of my bills quietly increased. Without Rocket Money, I never would have noticed. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals faster with Rocket Money. Go to RocketMoney.com LegalAF today. That's RocketMoney.com Legal AF RocketMoney.com Legal AF.
- [56:00]
Ben Meisellis
Welcome back to Legal AF. Thank you to our pro Democracy sponsors. The discount codes for each of those pro Democracy sponsors is in the description below. My face is very close to the camera today, but let me be very clear with the audience. The fact that I've even been able to set this camera up, bringing it from everything is just falling here. As I was saying that right as the fact that I was able to even set this up with like a tripod and the microphone is a pretty impressive personal accomplishment, if I may add myself. But we were set up right now in the hotel. We've got the Webby Awards coming up. Thanks to all the Midas mighty and legal efforts, we were named Podcast of the Year. Such an incredible. I almost thought they were punking us, you know, I mean, I, I was like the number one of, of everyone, like every single one in the world. They're like, yeah. I'm like, okay, thank you. I was so grateful for that. And it's great to know that we're having an impact where we're beating Fox News. We're getting more downloads than Rogan. And it's so incredible that the Midas Touch Family of podcast Legal af, the Legal AF substack. You know, Adam Mockler, our Gen Z host, the Tennessee brand owner. I mean, just so great to see all, all these channels thriving. But, you know, I have a soft spot for Legal af. It's the beginning. It's popoc. It's the genesis.
- [57:24]
Michael Popak
I have a soft spot, though. But I have a question and I. You did that all on your own or did your wife, who normally helps you contribute to that rig today?
- [57:35]
Ben Meisellis
No, I mean, she deserves a lot. Be clear, she deserves a lot of credit for dealing with me and putting up with me. So lots of credit. This right here is. This right here is me. Happy Mother's Day, though.
- [57:51]
Michael Popak
Happy Mother's Day.
- [57:54]
Ben Meisellis
Who may or may not be sleeping two feet away. Happy Mother's Day to my mom. And Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there. And I mean, this look, you know, we as brothers, you know, me and Popak, you know, the whole Midas touch family, we as humans are nothing without the mothers in our life and the, and the women in our life. And dare I say, the world would be a much better place if the mothers and the women in our life were probably running the country and other countries as well. So I'll leave it at Happy Mother's Day. All right, Supreme Court.
- [58:29]
Michael Popak
Michael Mother, Supreme Court.
- [58:33]
Ben Meisellis
Big oral arguments coming up. Talk to us about it.
- [58:35]
Michael Popak
Oh, yeah, and great news too, because it's an opportunity, opportunity to come over at Legal AF MTN, our YouTube channel, because we are running the live feed of the oral argument. I'll do some commentary. I think I might try to get Dina Tile to join me as well. Maybe a little pregame show. And then this should be the last oral argument of this term, save for some emergency applications. And we know this administration loves emergency applications. There's been 13 of them. As the Trump administration figured out, there's a loophole to pressure the court to ideologically vote immediately, almost benefiting the Trump administration, although they are on a losing streak, as I outlined earlier, a 3 0, very important losing streak at the United States Supreme Court when it comes to immigration, showing where the boundaries are for the Supreme Court, at least when it comes to immigration, this one harks back. It's hard to believe it's only been 110 or 112 days, whatever it is, of this administration. But the first, speaking of first, the first temporary restraining order and then preliminary injunction under birthright citizenship was Judge Kofenor in Seattle who said in his 40 years of being on the bench it was the most blatantly unconstitutional thing and the easiest case he'd ever have to decide. That's where it started with the first injunction. I don't want to get lost in the sea of 150 other injunctions came out of there and then other courts around the country, and they all issued nationwide injunctions because the injunction has to fit the crime, the injunction has to fit the injury or the remedy. And so the argument that the Trumpers make when they don't like nationwide injunctions, when it's not to their benefit, is they a judge should only deal with the parties that are in front of them. Them. That's what Judge Gorsuch has said in the past. They shouldn't, shouldn't give a remedy that's any broader than the, than the relief that's being sought or the parties that are involved. Maybe. But what do you do when the fundamental issue is about something as constitutionally important as a 14th amendment provision that provides who is and who is not a US Citizen and Donald Trump wants to rip the beating heart of birthright citizenship out of the Constitution by way of an executive order, and there should be no argument, even at the Supreme Court level, even with the way it's stacked to the right, that that can't be done. And, and again, they are misinterpreting some language that's already been interpreted over and over again by the United States Supreme Court going back to 1898 about who is subject to the laws of the United States and who isn't? Well, they're, if they're illegal and they're undocumented, they're not subject to our laws. So therefore a baby born, you know, is not really a citizen. That's not how the interpretation has ever gone. Now, has this Supreme Court shown a penchant for overturning super precedent, precedent that's been around for 50 years, 100 years? Of course. I mean, you, the very foundation of legal AF has to do with calling out their destruction and lying during the confirmation process of Supreme Court justices of precedent like Roe versus Wade. And that's not the only one. The Chevron decision. I mean, you and I could just do a show for a year about the precedent that they've overturned. So that could happen. I just don't see it happening here. But when the injunction is, are you or are you not a citizen? I defy anyone with a straight face. Although we will see it with John Sauer on, on the 15th, argue to the Supreme Court that you can have a non nationwide injunction related to a fundamental constitutional right. Meaning what? That only in Alabama is a person, a birthright citizen. But. Or only in New York, but not in Alabama, because the nationwide injunction doesn't apply to them. So we're just going to have babies born all around America who are going to fall into different categories of citizenship, depending upon which federal judge was able to issue a ruling in time to cover that. This, this is no way to run a baseball team, and this is no way to run a democracy or a constitutional republic. So even if you are against nationwide injunctions, you have to recognize, if you're being honest and intellectually honest, you have to recognize that in certain circumstances that go to the heart of the Constitution, for instance, there's no other way but to have one judge issue a nationwide injunction. Because until now, their argument would be, well, we'll just let these individual injunctions and then it'll eventually get to the Supreme Court, and then we'll make a decision, and then that will be the law of the land. Well, but in the meantime, since you're not issuing stays like that, or at least as regularly as you should, then what do you do with all the babies that are born now? So that's the fight. So it's a procedure. It's a major. It's interesting, though, for. I don't want to get your opinion when you get it back, Ben, as to why the Trump administration chose this particular constitutional challenge as the vehicle to argue to the Supreme Court that judges don't have the right to issue universal or nationwide injunctions. I'm not sure that's the right winning hand for them, because it will, I believe, get intertwined with the merits. Now, technically, we're not there, although the judges could go in a different direction as they've been want to do. We're not there on the substance of the birthright citizenship versus executive order, however, we are. And so there's three cases that are joined together. It's going to be like an hour and a half long. What we've done on Legal AF for the live feed is that we have a trigger mechanism that will actually put up the picture. So people in the chat, I'm usually in the chat, too. People in the chat will be like, who is that talking? You know, sometimes Kagan and Sotomayor are, are a little bit hard to discern. And even among the judges, I mean, but we're good at it. So we'll put up who's up at the right time. We, we participate in the chat at the time, usually get about 5 or 10,000 people at that moment. It's a big one. What do you think about what's gonna. First of all, why do you think they took. The Trump administration decided to challenge nationwide injunctions by way of birthright citizenship?
- [64:55]
Ben Meisellis
Well, it kind of ties this episode nicely and neatly together with a bow. It's like the ending of the Sixth Sense. That's what you get when you watch legal. Hip, riveting. I see dead people, right? Michael Popak. I mean, at the end of the day, is the goal to win, or is the goal to destroy the Supreme Court? Is the goal to have a showdown as quick as possible, no matter what the outcome is? Remember what Stephen Miller said. Remember how they end the Sixth Sense? Popak. And then it's like, oh, that's why. Let's play that clip of. Well, who knows? I don't want to ruin the ending. Let's play. Let's play that clip of Stephen Miller again, and I think it'll answer your question. What's really going on here? Here, play this clip.
- [65:53]
Michael Popak
Well, the Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So that's an option we're actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not. At the end of the day, you.
- [66:11]
Ben Meisellis
See the guy in the back with the red? That was also one of the signs. Remember, that was part of it. Every time the person was actually dead there, remember, from the Sixth Sense, there would actually be, like, the red. So it turns out that Stephen Miller actually was never alive the entire time, and he's actually a ghoul and he sees dead people. That's the. Thank you for watching Legal Aid. No, I mean, look. But there's truth to that in the sense that they better do the right thing. You heard what he said. So you bring a case that's outlandish, that in and of itself would turn the Constitution upside down, because it's very clear what the outcome should be. You frame it as an issue of national and of nationwide injunctions, as the subterfuge for your broader objective here of tearing the Constitution to shreds, and you push that one. That's why I think they're doing this. And by the way, I think they were open to doing other ones. It was just one of the first ones right away that they were able to push, and they were fine with it. To have this showdown with the Supreme Court where I think they will eventually remember their audience. Remember that 35% question you asked me. Also, why are they doing this? Because they want to go to their 35% of Proud Boys, of Oath Keepers, of people who like the cruelty, who no matter what Trump does, will always be there, you know, and they want to go. We tried. We wanted to do all of these brutal things. The Supreme Court wouldn't let us. So we got to take it into our own hands right now. That's what I think is happening here. Popak.
- [68:01]
Michael Popak
Yeah, I agree with you. I think that's a great way to also to tie it all together. I wish I could be with you. Really proud of being a part of Midas Touch the network. And maybe people were shocked who don't know the hard work that you and your brothers have done, informing the channel or the podcast. But those that have been with you from the beginning are not shocked. We're delighted. But. But we're not shocked at it all. And it's certainly hard earned. And to have your peers and those in the community, even outside our universe, our Midas universe, is so rewarding. And I'm just so happy for you, for the brothers, and for us by extension.
- [68:44]
Ben Meisellis
I appreciate that. Oh, just I mentioned it earlier, but just in case people were saying, tell us about that district court case in San Francisco. It was basically a federal judge in San Francisco who said, look, if the Trump administration wants to make these sweeping cuts across the 20 agencies that had filed this lawsuit before her, she goes, great, do it. But go to Congress because Congress has already passed legislation that supports these agencies. If you want to do an rif, a reduction in force, go to Congress, get their permission, and then I'll allow you to do it. I mean, you control the Senate, you control the House. So go to them, let them rubber stamp it, and then come back to me, and then I'm fine with it. But as it relates to these 20 agencies, she's issued probably the most sweeping injunction we've seen this. It's not like this is new. You're probably like, didn't you guys report on this before? This has happened in lots of other courts. But this, this one with 20 and as sweeping as it is, you know, or yeah, was.
- [69:52]
Michael Popak
You know what I liked about it, and I did a hot take on it that's up on Legal AF this morning. I liked the fact that the judge again, San Francisco, you know, if you're looking for the, the base camp of democracy, saving the base camp of firewalls, protecting our Constitutional republic. It's the courts of, of Northern District of California, Washington and Seattle. It's the courts of New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York and D.C. and Maryland. That's why we talk about these courts so often. And then there are appellate courts just above them. What I loved about it is it was, it was so, I mean, I read all 100 and whatever pages, but it was so simple in the analysis, which was handed to her, I thought, well, by the afl, cio, the labor union and some public interest groups, including Democracy Forward in their original complaint where they said, you can do what he wants to reorganize the federal government and the agencies, but you can't do it without congressional approval and authorization because these agencies are creatures of statute. And you can't be the, you can't be the legislator and the executive branch at the same time, citing to James Madison. Otherwise you just have fascism and tyranny. And so you have to. That's the separation of powers argument. And I, I saw a lot of different courts sort of get into it, but she got to it, to the heart of the matter so quickly in her opinion about you can do what you want and I'm not, she literally said, I'm not going to micromanage the, how you operate the federal government, but you are going to do it through the proper method. And nine prior presidents not named Donald Trump, including Donald Trump, actually, once, including Donald Trump went to Congress for a recommendation and authorization to do certain restructuring. Not what he's doing, which is using, you know, if you opened up Donald. I joked earlier that if you looked at Donald Trump's copy of the Constitution, it's just Article 2 and Section 2. If you open up Donald Trump's tool bag, speaking of toolkits, it just has sledgehammers and there's three sledgehammers that he's used to do what he's done. One is the Office of Personnel Management. One is the off the, the Department of Government Efficiency doge. And the third is the Office of the, the Congressional Budget Office, which is run by who? Mr. Vaught. Russ Vaught, who is the architect of Project 2025. See, we're bringing this full circle and those are the three ways he has used the sledgehammer to try to destroy the relationship between America and its government. Meaning services, meaning things that we rely on, meaning things that make our life better. And that is what the judge said. You know What? Let's take 14 days out. You're not doing that anymore. We're going to do full briefing by the end of the month, by the 21st or something. We'll do preliminary injunction briefing. But your TRO, it's more likely than not you are going to win under the standards for an injunction. Now, Trump didn't like that. And so he's already taken an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. And the Ninth Circuit's going to have to decide whether this is the type of order that is appealable. As of right now. I don't think it is. I think they're going to, they should wait in for two weeks or so for the preliminary injunction. But they've rushed in, as they always do, because they're trying to do that two step to get on an emergency application to the United States Supreme Court. And I'm going to say this one more time. This I'm talking to you, Justice Kagan. A lot of these are coming up through you. You don't have to turn these over to the full nine for a decision. When you get an emergency application, you have the right, and we'll support you here on Legal af, to rule against it. If that's your, if that's your decision without consultation to anybody else. So the next time you get an emergency application that is blatantly either without jurisdiction or on the merits is wrong. Just deny it and let them go scramble and try to get to the full panel and all of that. But we have to start taking a stand.
- [73:48]
Ben Meisellis
There you have it, everybody. Thank you for watching this episode of Legal AF. Subscribe right now to our YouTube channel here. We're on our way to 5 million subscribers. Also, if you can subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel, they're on their way to 1 million subscribers. I think that they'll hit that in no time. Just think about if everybody here subscribes there and you tell five people to subscribe, we'll hit a million pretty quickly. Also, Michael Popo's law firm, reach out to him. I mean, a lot of people who watch and listen to this call if they have a case. So if you've been involved in like a catastrophic injury and, and it's I know these are very difficult situations, or if you know someone, friend or family member who has like a bad trucking accident where you were a victim or a car accident where you were injured or a case like that, if you know someone who's been the victim of like a wrongful death case and you know, and they have family members who don't know what to do or anyone involved in like sexual harassment or sexual assault cases from, say like a boss or an employer or from a figure of authority or cases like that. Reach out to the Popoc firm. Where do they reach out to you, Michael?
- [75:02]
Michael Popak
Yeah, 1-877-p-o p o k a f of course. And then the website www.the popoc firm.com.
- [75:13]
Ben Meisellis
Thank you everybody so much for for watching and listening. Make sure you subscribe to the Legal AF sub stack as well. Check that out. And thanks for watching. It's been a good one. Sorry my you know the lighting's usually it's not as good as it usually is, but we got the webby so I'm gonna be here in this hotel at least for the next day or so. So thank you everybody for watching. Have a good one. And shout out Midas Mighty and shout out Legal A effers. Shout out to my in laws who are watching the dogs at the house. Shout out to everybody. Happy Mother's Day everybody.
- [75:47]
Michael Popak
We appreciate you.
- [75:59]
Ben Meisellis
Like your favorite travel guide, T Mobile's network knows all the spots because T.
- [76:03]
Michael Popak
Mobile helps keep you connected from the.
- [76:05]
Ben Meisellis
Heart of Portland to right where you are On America's largest 5G network Switch now keep your phone and T Mobile.
- [76:10]
Michael Popak
Will pay it off up to 800 per line via prepaid card.
- [76:13]
Ben Meisellis
Visit your local T Mobile location or learn more@t mobile.com KeepAndSwitch up to four.
- [76:19]
Michael Popak
Lines via virtual prepaid card.
- [76:20]
Ben Meisellis
Last 15 days qualifying unlock device credit service port in 90 plus days device and eligible carrier and timely redemption required.
- [76:24]
Michael Popak
Card is no cash access. It expires in six months.