Loading summary
Transcript59 lines
- [00:01]
Karen Friedman
Grandpa's here.
- [00:02]
Dina Dahl
Hank's always helping out grandpa style. Now he's treating his prostate cancer with help from Xtandi and zalutamide. Xtandi, 40mg tablets, treats men with prostate cancer that has spread to other parts of the body and responds to a medical or surgical treatment to lower testosterone. Xtandi may cause serious side seizure, a brain condition called press allergic reactions, heart disease that can lead to death, falls and bone fractures, swallowing problems or choking that can lead to death. Stop Xtandi and get medical help at once. If your face, tongue, lip or throat start swelling, tell your doctor at once. If you faint, have a seizure quickly worsening headache, decreased alertness, confusion, vision problems, chest pain or discomfort or shortness of breath. Xtandi can cause harm to an unborn baby or miscarriage. Use birth control during and three months after Xtandi. Common side effects include muscle and joint pain, feeling unusually tired, hot flashes, constipation, less appetite, diarrhea, high blood pressure, bleeding, falls, fractures and headache. Talk to your doctor and visit xtandi.com.
- [01:01]
Karen Friedman
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 U.S. 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 hablas Espanol Spoich com du nos if you've.
- [01:33]
Michael Popak
Heard that sound from Babbel before, I bet you do. Babbel is the science backed language learning app that actually works with quick 10 minute lessons. Handcrafted by over 200 language experts, Babbel gets you on your way to speaking a new language in just a few weeks with over 16 million subscriptions sold and a 20 day money back guarantee. Just start speaking another language with Babbel right now. Up to 55% off your Babbel subscription at babbel.com Spotify podcast spelled B A B-B-E-L.com Spotify podcast rules and Restrictions this.
- [02:00]
Karen Friedman
Episode is brought to you by Factor. Optimize your nutrition this year with Factor America's number one Ready to Eat meal service. Factor's Fresh Never Frozen meals are dietitian approved. Ready to eat in just two minutes, choose from 40 weekly options across eight dietary preferences like calorie smart, protein plus and keto eat smarter@factormeals.com listen50 and use code listen50 for 50% off plus free shipping on your first box factormeals.com listen50 code listen50 T's and C's apply.
- [02:31]
Michael Popak
Ten years from today, Lisa Schneider will trade in her office job to become the leader of a pack of dogs as the owner of her own dog rescue. That is a second act made possible by the reskilling courses Lisa's taking now with AARP to help make sure her income lives as long as she does. And she can finally run with the big dogs and the small dogs who just think they're big dogs. That's why the younger you are, the more you need AARP. Learn more at aarp.org skills.
- [03:02]
Karen Friedman
Welcome to a midweek edition of Legal AF. I am going to be the host this week with Dina Dahl because Michael Popox sadly lost his mother and he is burying her and dealing with his family and spending time. And we send him our love, our condolences. What a wonderful son he is. His, his little daughter, who's not even a year old, got to meet her grandmother, which was such a wonderful blessing. And we just are going to send all sorts of love to Michael Popak. He deserves it and he deserves this break. And Dina, we're so incredibly happy that you are available to step in, which you've done many times whenever one of us can't make it, and to be on the midweek edition of Legal af. How are you doing, Dina?
- [03:54]
Michael Popak
I'm okay. Definitely condolences to Popak, his wife Natasha, his daughter Francesca, the entire family. I know it's not easy for them. And I think he mentioned that his mom had been at a camp with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So maybe he can share that a little bit more at that point. But I'm sure, like, he saw her as such a source of strength and inspiration. She was a huge fan of his. So I'm glad to be able to help out and allow them more time to grieve. And looking forward to talking to you about yet again. I mean, it's a nonstop, nonstop lawlessness and stuff coming out of Trump. There's tons of stuff for us to talk about today.
- [04:32]
Karen Friedman
Yeah, there really is. I mean, the overall theme that we're going to talk about today and it kind of hits every topic we're going to talk about has to do with the politicization of justice. How prior to Donald Trump, I always imagined justice to be meted out evenly, fairly, without fear or favor. It's not about politics. It's not about grievances. And he's politicizing everything, absolutely everything, whether it's his new interim United States Attorney for the state of New Jersey, Alina Haba and her new task force on election integrity. It's funny, they, she, they name things the opposite. It's like the opposite, right? It's, they're doing the very, they name it something to call it something. So like, like the bill they're trying to pass, they call it the big beautiful bill that is very big, that's for sure, because it's not doing any of the things that they said it was going to do. It's like a Trojan horse. It's like, you know, rather than cutting spend, it increases spending. Rather than cutting the deficit, it increases the deficit. And then they have all this fake math that goes into it, but it's just crazy. So back to what our topics are and what we're going to be talking about. But this is what they do. This is how they do it. They name things a certain way and it's the opposite of exactly what it is. So Alina Haba has this new task force on election integrity and it's the absolute opposite. And we know that how from her words. Her words are saying things like, we're going to turn New Jersey red. It's all about politics. It's not about integrity, it's not about justice, which is what prosecution is supposed to be. We're also just along this, this theme, we're going to talk about how they are shipping deportees now to third party countries, right? South Sudan, et cetera, without taking away due process rights. And you've got them absolutely not caring about court orders, about injunctions, about due process. They talk about suspending habeas corpus. Again, the politicization of justice. We're going to talk about that today, Dina. And finally we're going to talk about how he's setting his sights on First, Donald Trump and his administration dismissed a case against Mayor Eric Adams, right, the New York City mayor, so that he can enforce and help enforce the immigration policies here in New York City because we're a sanctuary city. But Trump doesn't like that. And having a criminal bribery and corruption case hanging over his head really stood in the way of him being able to do that. And so they dismissed that case and around the same time, just lo and behold, coincidentally opened up an investigation into the front runner running against Eric Adams for mayor of New York City, who Andrew Cuomo, a familiar name that we know and who was somebody who was in the definitely at odds with Donald Trump during his first term, during COVID especially. So that's what they're doing. They're opening up an investigation into him. Is it a coincidence or is it to help Eric Adams stay in office? Who knows? But we're going to talk about that. And also just new reporting that's coming out in the New York Times talking about how Trump is politicizing the Department of Justice and going after his enemies, just in general. So. So I think it's a good theme for us to talk about today overall, because it kind of, the corruption and the politicization really is a common thread throughout a lot of what his policies are. For example, today they announced that they are accepting this was a $400 million jet from the Qataris. But I saw today, no, it's actually a $200 million jet. I don't know. Somehow they think that must make a difference. It's a gift. At first, it was supposed to be a gift to Donald Trump that he was gonna take with him after having it retrofitted to the tune of a billion dollars of taxpayer dollars to make it something that can be Air Force One worthy, right? It has to be. Has to withstand nuclear radiation and bombing. And, you know, it has to. There's so much that has to be done to it to make it Air Force One. And so that's going to cost a billion dollars. And he was going to keep it. In the end, it was going to be a gift to him. I saw today was announced that it's a gift to the government, it's a gift to the Air Force. I don't know. I want to see the fine print of that deal because I don't really trust it. And, you know, it's funny, when you look at this, first of all, this gift that he's getting that he's receiving is really, it's so strange to me because first of all, it's an old plane. It's like 15 years old. It's not that 14 or 15 years old. It's not like some brand new thing. They took this old plane, they made it shiny in the inside with gold and all the things he likes for the royal family. So it looks good, right? But it's this old clunker of a plane that's been on the market for years. They couldn't sell it. And so now what are they going to do? They're going to offload it to us and make it seem like they're giving us some great gift. But it's really. It's going to cost more to retrofit it. And guess what? What happened to made in America? Like, why don't you buy an American plane and retrofit it and spend the money in America? But instead, here we are, we're accepting a G. That who knows what the. How do you accept a gift from somebody and then say no to them? I mean, that's one of the things that's really hard and why gifts are so disfavored in public office. Right? It's very difficult. And that's why there's all sorts of ethics around if you're a government employee or a politician accepting gifts, because you have to be able to look them in the eye and say no to them and. And other things as well. So that's what's in the news today. I don't know. Dina, what do you think about this airplane, about this lame airplane? I really was like thinking, oh, my God, this must be really great if this is going to be in the next Air Force One, this incredible thing. But I'm like, this is like a used car. It's like a used plane.
- [10:38]
Michael Popak
Yeah. I mean, it is Boeing, Boeing manufactured it. So it was made here initially. But yeah, he liked the interior. The interior is decked out with, like, cashmere and all that kind of stuff, and that's all it took. But there's new reporting that shows that Qatar didn't want to actually even gift it. As you said, they've been trying to sell this for years. They were trying to sell it to the United States, but Trump wanted it to be a gift. And to your point about conflicts, because you have, on the one hand, right, if we get a gift, are we indebted to them? And then on the other hand, how do you say no? If you are a country like Qatar or other many countries around the world that are so dependent on military defense from our country, how do you say no to gifts?
- [11:24]
Karen Friedman
Right?
- [11:24]
Michael Popak
I mean, it's just the difficulty with our alliances. This is why it's just not allowed. It's bad for both parties, frankly. So, of course, it came out that they weren't originally going to gift it because this is Trump. He lies about everything. But one thing I haven't heard discussed, which is, is something I'm almost even most concerned about, is after we deck this out, right, if this becomes a decked out Air Force One, like you said, able to withstand like, literally every missile in the world, if he does end up bringing it back to his library, which, who knows, maybe that's what wouldn't happen. Are we going to take away all of that protection? Because otherwise we are literally giving a man who doesn't believe in our democracy, right. Something that makes him more fortified than anybody else in the world other than our president. Seems like a very bad idea. I would think. Even more important than us decking it out is us taking away all that equipment so his plane can be back to a normal plane. The last thing we want is an authoritarian person being able to fly around and something like that.
- [12:30]
Karen Friedman
Well, talk about waste, fraud and abuse, right? And overspending. I mean, yeah, maybe originally this was made in America. It was Boeing. I didn't know that. So thank you for clarifying that. But you know what it's going to take in order to, to first of all, but by not buying an Air Force One plane, which I know there's one in the works, but, but by taking this and accepting it and retrofitting it, you're not giving the business to an American company again, right? You're not buying a new plane, but what you are doing to retrofit this plane. And the thing that really frustrates me is as a, as a former law enforcement person, the devices that you can put to bug, you know, you can bug the devices to bug something, right? To listen in, to eavesdropped, whatever, are almost microscopic at this point. And they are so they can be hidden, they can be placed in God only knows where. They are hard to find. This is a giant plane. I just can't imagine the work that's going to go into it to have to figure out and make sure that it's completely secure. I mean, that's my issue. This is a gift from a foreign nation. This is not something made by a company in America that has security clearances and government contracts and hopefully has America's interest in mind, right? And they don't want to sabotage this country. I don't know. The whole thing just smells fishy to me. It just seems weird and I just don't understand that why it is that we had to accept a used airplane from 15 years ago, like a used car where we couldn't get a new one. A, give the business to one of our own companies, but B, get something brand new and nice and not have to paid taxpayer dollars to, to, to, you know, just because it's got like cashmere and gold inside of it.
- [14:18]
Michael Popak
But that's all it is, right? I mean, let's just be frank. You know, it's, it goes to his taste. It's the opulent kind of gaudy taste. And that's all it takes. That and he thought it was going to be quicker because those Air Force ones that he commissioned in his first term aren't ready yet. They may not be ready for a while. And that's all he thinks about. He wants to fly around in a nice new shiny plane, period. That's about as far as he gets and hit the thought process.
- [14:41]
Karen Friedman
So it's not going to be ready by the end of his term?
- [14:45]
Michael Popak
Well, no. I mean his insiders thought it could be ready within the year. So who knows? I mean this is all very like, nobody's ever done this before. To your point about spy things, it probably has to get taken apart and re. Put back together, which is going to be long. So nobody's really thought this through. Knowing Trump, he's probably going to be like, who cares about the spy things because he thinks he's above it all. Who even knows? We're going down a lane here that's never been done before. But the end of the day, it is all about the cashmere, point blank. That's all he cares about. Let's be frank.
- [15:17]
Karen Friedman
I don't know. I think it's, it's going to end up costing more money than it would if he just bought a new plane, frankly, and started from the beginning. Right. They've already retrofected.
- [15:27]
Michael Popak
Yeah. And they've already started the other planes. We've already bought those planes. The government has already entered into a contract for two new Air Force ones. That's, that's in the works already. This taking slower than they thought. But we're already paying for that. Because the idea is if he takes it, they're going to use that eventually. The whole thing is a mess.
- [15:44]
Karen Friedman
I mean, the thing is we don't need it. So why, why do this? You know, it just makes no sense. Anyway, that's enough on the, on the, on the used car slash airplane that we're getting to be our Air Force One from, from Qatari. Let's talk about what's going on in the United States and our Justice Department and the weaponization and politics of kind of justice. Right. And I just want to frame it with the overall, the reason I, this, this just the overall theme here and the reason this topic was important to me that we cover is because of the fact that I've spent my entire career in law enforcement and in prosecution, and I did it for three decades and every politician that I've ever worked for or worked with, whether you're elected or appointed. They've all tried to do the right thing and they care about doing the right thing. And this phrase that people have heard me say now for years on legal af, to follow the facts wherever they lead without fear or favor. It's like a mantra. And without fear or favor means without politics, without you're not influenced by money, you're not influenced by, by position, you're not influenced by party. You follow the facts wherever they lead and you bring justice if it's warranted. And that's it. And it's just amazing to me how Donald Trump, who was prosecuted four times, right, two states and two federal cases, accused the biggest accusation and the reason people I think were so frustrated is he convinced people that those were political prosecutions. He convinced people that no, it's okay to have top secret. It's okay to have top secret documents sitting in my house and in the bathroom and in a room where all these people are coming in and out of. I can just have them spilling out onto the floor unsecure. I took them with me. That's not a crime. Yes, I did say lock her up about Hillary because she had emails on a server that went through her house in a private server. And I said lock her up for that. But no documents that I'm waving around my top secret documents. Not a crime. Calling up Brad Raffensperger in Georgia and saying, find me whatever 5,000, whatever that number was, I used to know it. But the number of votes needed to win the state of Georgia, no, that's not a crime. Just let that go. False slates of electors January 6th. Right. Allowing trying to stopped the certification of the election and the falsification of business records here in New York, whatever it is, those are actual crimes. Those are things that were done that were criminal that if anyone else had done would be considered crimes. He of course, has presidential immunity for a lot of that. And although he was convicted in New York of what he did, obviously it didn't really have any effect, but it was. I never saw it as political. Obviously some people did and that's their right. And he ran on cleaning up government, among other issues, and basically saying he's not going to politicize things, that it's going to have election integrity and bring back integrity into elections, yet everything they're doing is politicizing all of their policies. I mean, that's what's going on here. So what does he do? He appoints Alina Haba the interim United States Attorney for the State of New Jersey. Who's Alina Haba? She's his longtime lawyer who represented him in three different cases, civil cases, including the one in New York, the Arthur and Goron, where he was held in contempt several times and she was fined and et cetera. She's his wife, longtime attorney, and he is rewarding her by making her the interim United States Attorney for the state of New Jersey, despite the fact that she's never been a prosecutor and that nobody in either party thinks she will ever not only get Senate confirmation, but she also will not pass the, she'll never, she'll never pass Senate confirmation or that even the district judges in New Jersey will, will have her come in. The, the senators aren't going to appoint her or put her name in. So as a result she has 120 days before she's out and nobody thinks she's going to make it past those 120 days. And what does she do during this 120 day process? She creates this election integrity in New Jersey process and says I'm going to try and turn New Jersey red. That is all about politics and infecting politics in, into prosecution. And that is what you're not supposed to do. And she's using her position as this political bludgeon and she wants to turn New Jersey red. And so as a result she's announcing investigations into the Democratic governor and the Attorney General, Matt Plotkin, who I know was interviewed here on the Midas Touch network and I think Governor Murphy might have been as well. And they are investigating them for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities. Right, because New Jersey is a sanctuary city. And in fact there's a law, there's a law that's been upheld by the Third Circuit in New Jersey. So a federal court has upheld the state law saying it's not preempted, meaning the state was allowed to pass this law, essentially saying that law enforcement, local law enforcement doesn't have to assist immigration authorities. New Jersey as a sanctuary city wants to have immigrants be able to report crimes if they're victims, want to be able to come forward, want to be able to, if you're going to be in a traffic stop, you don't have to worry about if you don't put your blinker on, getting pulled over and then deported and sent to your country that you're a citizen of or some third party country that you have no connection to because that's what they're also doing. And so they are politicizing this and she's going to go after them for. Not for. For enforcing what is a valid law in New Jersey. Did you. I mean, I'm sure. What do you think of all that, Dina?
- [22:29]
Michael Popak
Yeah, I mean, I think you're right on about, you know, I think he also created in the Department of Justice, Ed Martin, the Weaponization Working Group, which ironically, they're saying is supposed to be weeding out weaponization. But as you've said, all they've been doing is creating weaponization. To your point here with the investigations regarding the sanctuary cities, I mean, his borders are promised that they were going to do this. Anybody that still believes that they're not going to do what they say does it to their own peril because they said they were going to go after sanctuary cities. Looks like this is happening. And then also with Alina Haba charging. Right. The Congresswoman LaMonica McIvves, regarding that protest that happened after ICE, when they went in to do oversight, charging her with felony assault, despite, when we all saw the videos, the chaotic nature, like the mob, like chaos that the ICE agents created there when they tried to arrest the mayor of New Newark. So this is them just. I mean, I would. We have thought we were going to talk about this a year ago. Right. DOJ investigations to governor, indictment of a sitting congresswoman with felony assaults. I mean, we're definitely getting into weaponization. I mean, totally.
- [23:47]
Karen Friedman
Sure. Totally. Dina, for people who didn't follow it that closely, why don't you tell them about that, about the. About the mayor of Newark and the congresswoman, what they did.
- [23:55]
Michael Popak
Yeah. So, I mean, this, you know, the, the. For the. So, so what happened was three different Congress people who are representing that area in New Jersey wanted to check out the Delaney Detention Center. They wanted to go inside. They wanted to make sure the conditions were humane. Right. I mean, we're getting no insight to what's happening. People are shipped off here and there, shipped to different states. So they were allowed in. And then evidently the mayor of Newark came later to go inside, and they didn't allow him in. ICE agents didn't allow him in, and they ended up arresting the mayor. And while they were trying to arrest the mayor, I mean, you could imagine the mayor of a major city being arrested. This created, like, chaos, and there's a ton of people pushing and shoving, and it's really chaotic. The indictment says. I mean, speaking about a prosecutor, I definitely want to hear your thoughts on this, because it's one thing to indict, it's another to get a jury to convict, because they put up screenshots of Congresswoman McIV's and what she evidently did that was felony assault. And basically they're saying it was like her forearm was on the ice. Agent this was. They kept referring to the forearm, but you look at the body cam, you look on the video, it's just chaos. I could not imagine actually convincing a jury that this was like any sort of intentional assault and not everybody kind of pushing and shoving each other, but they don't care. Right. Karen, this isn't about proving in court the item. In fact, Ed Martin, who's the head of his weaponization working group, which is just getting started, folks. So this is going to get a lot worse, specifically said that where they can charge, they will charge, and where they cannot charge, they will name and shame, which basically means if you can't charge somebody, you don't even talk about convicting somebody. You're talking about putting charges, like they just said, with this congresswoman, which can be very tenuous. Right. But they're saying they can't even get to the point of charging somebody. It means that there's zero evidence, zero incident, zero an event that occurred, zero law that you can tie somebody's actions to and still name and shame. This is how far they're going to go with this weaponization here.
- [26:20]
Karen Friedman
Yeah, you're absolutely right. That indictment of the. So that started with they arrested the mayor of Newark, correct me if I'm wrong.
- [26:28]
Michael Popak
Yes.
- [26:29]
Karen Friedman
For like trespassing or something. And they quickly realized that that's a bogus misdemeanor, trumped up charge. And I know. And so they dropped that really quick, but they had to have an arrest. So they charged this representative, Lamonica McIver, with felony assaults on law enforcement. And this was. When you look at the video, I watched it over and over again to try to find where is this assault. And I don't think they're going to be able to prove it. I think it's a big scuffle, and those are hard to prove. And I've prosecuted many of them. And you have to be able to show that it's not enough to be part of a big group and well, he must have done something. Right. You have to show that this person did exactly what they are being charged with, someone else did what they're being charged with, and so on and so on. I didn't see it. I don't see it. And I think that's just. That's such a bridge too far. Right. If you can't prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, not only are you going to prosecute, you're not going to bring that case, you shouldn't bring that case, but you shouldn't bring it against somebody who is an elected official, that's for sure. It's very disruptive. And frankly, you have to ask yourself the question, if this representative were a Republican, would they have charged them? And the answer, I'm sure, is no. And that's the opposite of without fear or favor. That is what you're not supposed to do. Right? Again, not to talk about when I was a prosecutor, but this is just where I draw my experience from. You have to be willing to, if you're going to prosecute a case of protesters, for example, for chaining themselves together, blocking traffic, refusing to allow people to, you know, go down, cross the Brooklyn Bridge, whatever it is, you know, the, those types of things, you know, you give them a chance to leave you, all that kind of stuff. But ultimately there's some people that you, you have to prosecute if they absolutely refuse to move, et cetera, you have to be willing to do that and be content neutral. You can't only prosecute if it's the KKK doing that. Right. You have to also be willing to prosecute the grandmothers who are anti, their grandsons getting sent off to fight a war or whatever, whatever you agree with. Right. You have to be willing to prosecute the same conduct that's content neutral and that is the opposite of what this administration's doing. They are looking for people who are they, they consider to be their, their political foes, frankly, and going after them and, and as you said, weaponizing the Department of Justice, it's just, it's just not the way it's ever been done. And it's not the way I think a civil society should, should be. It's, it's really such a shame. And the fact of the matter is they're doing the very thing that they accused the Biden administration of doing and just completely politicizing the office. And Alina Haba is doing it with the U.S. attorney's office and the Department of Justice. And it'll just be interesting to see how far they get with the Department of Justice because the line prosecutors who have to actually implement these policies, it'll be interesting to see if they go along with it or if, if they say and put their foot down. I mean, they'll get fired like we've seen others get fired, or they'll have to resign. But at the end of the day, there's no evidence either you either a judge is going to throw it out or a jury is going to throw it out. Right?
- [30:02]
Michael Popak
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the fact of the matter, as you said, Alina Haba has 120 days. She has 120 days to create a name for herself and audition for whatever next job she wants to do. So buckle up. She's going to be willing to, I think, continue to do this kind of stuff for that time of year has left.
- [30:20]
Karen Friedman
Yeah, I heard she, she's interviewing to take over for Janine Pirro on Fox News.
- [30:27]
Michael Popak
Okay, well, that's better.
- [30:29]
Karen Friedman
Jean Pirro, who is going to be nominated to be the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia because Ed Martin, who you talked about, had to have his name pulled because he would have not gotten confirmed. But instead they put him in another position, as you said, this election. Integrity or whatever, whatever.
- [30:50]
Michael Popak
Weaponization Working Group.
- [30:52]
Karen Friedman
Whatever, whatever it is, yes. Weaponization Working Group. The name, it's actually not the opposite. It's, it's, it's exactly what it is. They're weaponizing the government. So, yeah, I mean, it's, it's labeled. What it is, it is the Weaponization Working Group, not the Anti Weaponization.
- [31:10]
Michael Popak
There you go, There you go. They did not see the irony in that one.
- [31:14]
Karen Friedman
They have named it. All right, so we're going to take our very first break. We have an ad break right now and we love our sponsors, so please stick around. They choose us. They know what our point of view is and they choose to be a part of this show so that we can remain neutral, so we can remain a network that can bring you the truth. And we don't have to worry about corporate sponsors and other people who, they don't edit us. They don't tell us what to say. They know who we are and they support us. Supported them. So we're going to go to our first ad.
- [31:51]
Dina Dahl
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 free 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 legal AF to stay comfortable and get an instant 15% off your first purchase at checkout. 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 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 Delete Me. 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 LegalIF at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com legal AF and enter code legal AF one more time. That's JoinDeleteMe.com legal AF code legal AF four companies control over 80% of the US meat industry, and China now controls the largest portion of US pork. And wait till you hear this. Over 80% of the antibiotics in the US are fed to animals. So what can we do about this? Let me tell you about a company that's coming up swinging on behalf of American family farms and your family's food security. Moink the business is simple. Moink's meat comes from animals raised outdoors, where a pig is free to be a pig. Their farmers are given an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, and they deliver meat straight to your farm doorstep at prices you can actually afford Support American Family farms and join the Moink movement today@moinkbox.com legal af right now and get free Wings for life. They're the best wings you'll ever taste for free, but for a limited time, spelled moi n k box.com legalif that's moinkbox.com legal a f we're back.
- [35:21]
Karen Friedman
And thank you again to our wonderful sponsors who help us keep the lights on and help us remain independent so we can have wonderful producers like Salty and others. So thank you so much for being our sponsors and for sticking with us. So let's continue on this theme of the Department of Justice and the weaponization of the Department of Justice that the Trump administration is engaging in. And let's talk a little bit about what is happening now here in New York. So, so we've talked a lot about how the mayor of New York City, the current mayor, the sitting mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, was indicted on various corruption charges for taking bribes from other governments and others, et cetera. And it was a serious case, serious enough that at the time, he's a Democrat. So at the time, the Democratic. Well, he was a Democrat. Now he's independent. Eric Adams ran as a Democrat, was a Democrat. And Biden, who obviously was a Democrat, his Justice Department brought this case against Eric Adams. And they brought it in a very public way. They arrested him publicly during a very important week here in New York. It's the United Nations General Assembly. There's foreign dignitaries all over from all over the world who are here. And Mayor Adams has to protect them because he's the head of the police department as the mayor, and he's the host, as the host of New York City, where the United nations is located. And the Biden's Justice Department felt that the case was serious enough that they both wanted to send a message to Eric Adams and to all the foreign countries that were here visiting that were not for sale, and arrested him in a very dramatic fashion during that time period. It was a serious case. It was a big case. It's a big deal. He was going to fight the case. And you could just see he started currying favor with Trump, started using similar language as Trump. He started saying things like, they're prosecuting you, not me. All the things that Trump was saying while he was being prosecuted, accusing this of being politicized even though it's the same party. And after a series of clearly successful meetings between Adams and Trump or Adams people and Trump's people, the Justice Department agreed to dismiss the case against Mayor Adams, in order to. So that he can enforce. Help enforce the immigration agenda. I mean, New York is the biggest sanctuary city, and we have a lot of immigrants, and we welcome them here. And immigration, it's obviously a controversial issue and a controversial topic, but this is how New York City has always been. And they dismissed the case. It was a lot of drama and back and forth in the dismissal. Should it be with prejudice, without prejudice? There are people who resigned. In fact, the interim U.S. attorney here in New York who was appointed by Trump was very, very respected. Her name's Danielle Sassoon. She very loudly resigned. She got into it with Emile Beauvais kind of publicly. It was a big deal here in New York, this whole dismissal of the Adams case. But we have learned somebody leaked this, and I'm not really sure who, that the Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation now into Eric Adams political opponent. Because so, so what's happening now is Eric Adams is running for reelection again, but he's running as an independent. He's no longer a Democrat. And so the Democratic primary is coming up June 24, and the person who's leading the Democratic primary is none other than Andrew Cuomo. So everybody thinks he's going to be the Democratic or has a good chance of being the Democratic nominee. And so he's. And really, that's who typically wins in New York City is whoever the Democrat is. So it's likely going to be Eric Adams versus Andrew Cuomo in the next election. And lo and behold, here the Justice Department is announced that they are investigating Andrew Cuomo. And look, Andrew Cuomo was the governor of New York, and he was. He left in kind of a scandal of his own. There was a couple of issues. He had. He had a sexual harassment issue, a pretty big one. And so he left in kind of disgrace, frankly. And there was also always this question about COVID and his handling of COVID Some people loved him. He was, in some ways, the country's mayor. He talked on, you know, my mother in Southern California listened to the news, and there's something about Andrew Cuomo that comforted her, talking her through the COVID you know, the pandemic. And, you know, so there's a lot of people who have a lot of positive feelings about him as well. But he was. He was a governor who was punishing. He was a difficult governor. He was. Didn't have a lot of people who, who loved him from, like, he's not easy to work with, put it this way. And in fact, I've been on the other end of his. One of his rants, it's not fun. He's viewed as someone, though, because he's kind of a strong personality, as someone who could potentially take on Donald Trump and be strong enough to take on Donald Trump, despite his flaws and the sexual harassment stuff, which, frankly, I don't love. But there are people who think. But yet he might be able to be strong enough to take on Trump. And in some ways, I think that's gonna be the fuel that propels him into office. I think there are people who are afraid that Eric Adams is going to kowtow to Trump and Andrew Cuomo will stand up to him because he's mean enough to do it, and that's kind of his reputation. And so what does Trump do? Coincidentally, he opens an investigation into Andrew Cuomo. And here the investigation is about how during COVID Cuomo moved elder patients from the hospitals into nursing homes. The death rate in those nursing homes went up by 50%. This was a death sentence that he lied about. The numbers is what the accusation is. And. And that's what they're looking into. Whether or not this is. You know, they're talking about things like Ed Martin, who you talked about, is talking about things like manslaughter and negligent homicide, and that's what they're looking at him for. And this was a long time ago, but they're looking at the false statements that they say he made to a subcommittee that was investigating the New York Covid response, and they're saying Cuomo lied during this testimony. So that's what's going on here. But it's just more politicization and more weaponization, Dina. I mean, this is what they're doing. Yeah.
- [42:56]
Michael Popak
I mean, the fact that they didn't bring this investigation or announce the investigation until the election is right around the corner is obviously so concerning, because to your point, this has to do with his testimony in 2020 regarding the, you know, the assisted living facilities and whether or not he was involved in the making of those reports. He told the House that he wasn't, and now there's maybe evidence that he was. The House did refer him for criminal prosecution for him potentially lying to them. The Biden DOJ didn't take it up. The Trump DOJ could have taken this up way back in January. Right. This isn't a new development. It's not a new fact. They thought they were going to have Eric Adams at their mercy, because, as you know, they. They didn't just want to dismiss it. They wanted to dismiss it without prejudice, which meant they could refile. And to our kind of earlier conversation, when we talked, you talked about career DOJ people and are they going to follow with these kind of lawless orders or resign? The attorneys that resigned made a difference because the judge then looked, you know, appointed an independent person to advise him on how to handle this, because it had become, obviously, a very disputed issue within the Department of Justice, and he ended up getting that. Eric Adams had it dismissed without prejudice, which meant it wasn't like Trump couldn't hold it over his head, which I think was a win, even though you could still argue that it wasn't really a win because it got dismissed. But at least it got dismissed in a way that it was less of a quid pro quo, like, I'm going to hold this over you and you're going to be the mayor of New York, and I could always refile. And that was a direct result of all those prosecutors quitting. So quitting does make a difference in terms of Cuomo. I mean, you just can't think of, like, the timing of this is huge because, look, we just talked about Alina Haba investigating the sanctuary cities, right? They have said they plan on going after officials in sanctuary cities. Karen Bass in la. It's just a matter of time before they start looking into her. Having somebody like Andrew Cuomo, who people across the country thought he does a very good job at standing up to Trump. Trump knows what foe, how difficult going head to head with Andrew Cuomo would be in this fight that they plan on bringing to sanctuary cities. They know he's going to be a formidable force. So the timing of this, along with. With all the other acts of weaponization. They do, yeah. Certainly seems like they. But you know what? It could be the kind of thing like, you know, Trump said the prosecution of him emboldened his base. I don't know. I mean, you're in New York, Karen. But I could see emboldening actually Democrats, the fact that he's going after him so close to the election, they may want to vote for Cuomo even more because they want somebody to stand up to Trump. So this might actually help him?
- [45:59]
Karen Friedman
Oh, I think so. I think. I think so completely. I think this is the reason people would vote for him. And I think Trump and the Department of Justice knows that, which is why I think they are going after him in order to try to neutralize that. At least they're gonna try. And Cuomo, I guess, is the person to stand up to him. I don't know. Like I said, I struggle with this because he is a flawed individual. And the fact that he was investigated and is fighting. First of all, do you realize that the taxpayers in New York are footing his legal bills to the tune of, I think it's like $60 million in legal fees to fight these sexual harassment suits? There's a lot of women. There's a lot of people, but if he's the only one who can stand up to Trump, then so be it. But it's hard for me as a New Yorker to. Things like. Like integrity used to matter, right? Things like not being a sexual harasser or a rapist used to matter, but now I guess that is something that makes you strong and tough and can be President of the United States or can be mayor of New York City. I don't know. I miss the days when things like ethics and integrity mattered and we cared about those things. And now it just seems like all we care about is. Is showing how tough you are and how you can just flaunt, you know, flout the laws and the rules and the norms and the ethics and just whoever's. You know, you're a sucker if you lose, and I. If you lose and I win. But you followed the rules and I didn't. You're a sucker. You're weak. And that's how they look at it, and they laugh about it, and it's just not my kind of person. I don't like that. I really do care about that of kind things like character and integrity. And I mean, just, you know, they're going Trump just to add to the list, by the way, they're not just going after Andrew Cuomo. They're going after Jim Comey. Right, for the former FBI director, Right? They're going after him and opening an investigation because he assembled or took a picture of some seashells that were on the BEACH that said 8. The numbers 8647. And they're saying, you know, it was a code to call for the assassination of trump, right. To 86 him. Or, you know, they're also. They. I. Did you hear this? They're gonna. They're looking into investigating Bruce Springsteen and Beyonce because they performed at Kamala Harris's and Oprah because they spoke at or performed at her election, you know, at her campaign rallies. He's gonna investigate them. I mean, that's crazy. That's just. That's insane. I mean, he's. He's really just. Democracy doesn't matter anymore. I mean, performers at his. At his rallies and his things. I mean, I just don't understand this.
- [48:57]
Michael Popak
You know what the irony is as he says that these are in kind campaign contributions, which, you know, that's basically what he was convicted of because he had, he paid off Stormy Daniels and then didn't report it. So I, So it's hilarious to me that he's all of a sudden the arbiter on campaign rules and violations of them. So. Yeah, no, I mean, this is just. He wants to go after anybody who doesn't kiss the ring. And unfortunately there are so many people that kiss the ring that, you know, he thinks he's entitled to it. I mean, this is a little bit of a side note, but I don't know if you saw, it went viral. There was a daughter of a slain police officer who went to the White House and accepted a medal. And she was not a Republican. She's not a fan of Trump. And so she did not do any of the usual bowing down to him or whatever. And Trump in these kind of viral photos was like shocked the fact that she's not doing that. He's surrounded by people who are yes men and we love you and you're the best and you're the greatest. And so he thinks he's entitled to go after any celebrity or any known person who doesn't bow down to him. But the irony of him trying to say that there's some sort of campaign violation was the funny part for me.
- [50:12]
Karen Friedman
Yeah, I agree, I agree. You know, just speaking of things that are going viral in the media, etcetera, What I can't get past is I cannot get past the fact that the Democrats and the legacy media are self flagellating and going after Biden for this ridiculous. Whoa. All these people covering up for him. And this is what we're talking about. As if. And then now accusing the cancer diagnosis of being dropped to deflect away from the fact that there's this big expose that he was not mentally there, et cetera. And the Democrats, it's like the reason I think the Democrats have lost this particular election cycle partly is because the Democrats self flagellate. I mean, Democrats eat their young and meanwhile the Republicans circle the wagons around one another. I don't care who you are, Matt Gaetz, we love you. It doesn't matter who it is. Right? Who is that Congressman? Why is names escaping me? The one who lied about literally everything.
- [51:28]
Michael Popak
Oh, yeah.
- [51:28]
Karen Friedman
George Soros Santos. Santos. Santos, yes. George Santos, yes. Sorry, yeah, George Santos. Another one. Like, right. Like he was like a Walking crime spree George Santos. Right? But they circle the wagons around their people and we like, okay, yeah, clearly there was a decline at some point of Biden and we all saw it and then he stepped out and that was it. But somehow this is like, now that's all we talk about is this, this cover up, this crazy whatever. But it's almost like, what about the fact that we're accepting a bribe from Qatar, we're accepting this giant airplane. We are going after people who didn't commit crimes. We are deporting people to third countries and violating what Supreme Court has told us we can do. Not us told Trump what they can do. It's like comparing jaywalking to homicide. Yes, both of them are technically crimes, but they are not equivalent. Right? They aren't. And so, yes, poor Joe Biden clearly declined in the end and then stepped aside and whatever. But to make that somehow equivalent to what is going on and not to be spending our time calling out what is actually happening here, this is. There is no rule of law when it comes to Trump and his people. They literally are doing whatever they want. It doesn't matter what judges say, what courts say, what the law says. They say things say what they want it to say versus what it actually say, and they're just doing what they want and getting away with it. That's what we should be focusing on.
- [53:07]
Michael Popak
I mean, I don't think that this is Democrats saying it, though. The everyday Democrat does not care and is not saying it. This is the consulting class who is trying to keep their jobs. They made a mistake when they pushed Biden out because, you know, I haven't read the book, but all the reporting of the book. There is no, like smoking gun. It's all the aging stuff. We all saw that in real time. Every speech, every shuffle, the fall on the stage. He was aging. He didn't do well. We all knew it. They are trying to cover. This is a CYA move because otherwise the narrative would be, you pushed out somebody too close to an election, but instead they're flipping it and they're making it his fault. He should have turned out before. The fact of the matter is we all knew he was getting old. So this to me is not a Democrat. This is not the voters, this is not the constituents. It's not people who care. This is about a bunch of people trying to save their jobs. And to flip the narrative from you did the wrong thing by pushing somebody out too close to an election to, oh, no, he was wrong for not getting out there is to me, I have not seen any evidence of anything that we didn't all see in real time.
- [54:23]
Karen Friedman
Yeah, look, I agree, whatever. I personally think he should have, he ran on saying I'm a one term president. Right. That's what he said. And a lot of people voted for him for that reason so that Trump wouldn't come back. And I think a lot of people felt that he should have pulled out that earlier, that he should have stepped aside, I should say, and not put himself forward. And that I think is you can criticize him for it. But he was a great president and he's a great man. And now his family's struggling with this cancer diagnosis and I just really. And meanwhile, the country's burning and on fire and so many things are happening. But we, we're focused on that. I just don't understand it. And anyway, so that's, thank you for letting me go down that little non sequitur there. So we're going to, we're going to go to one more ad quickly and then we're going to come back and talk about how we are deporting people to countries that they have no connection to in violation of court orders, which again, what's happening in this country. But we're going to take a quick.
- [55:28]
Dina Dahl
Break before our next sponsor, Laundry Sauce. I thought, well, I don't really have a choice other than Ocean Breeze or Meadows spraying laundry detergent for my clothes. And let's be real, guys, doing laundry, well sucks. But what doesn't have to suck is your laundry detergent. That's why Laundry Sauce has created the world's best smelling laundry pods so your clothes don't have to smell like your grandmother's perfume anymore. Imagine stepping into a room smelling like Australian sandalwood. This rugged, warm, earthy scent is guaranteed to get you compliments with every hug and warning. Using laundry sauce will cause you to be known as the guy who always smells amazing. And I hope that's okay with you. Don't stress about remembering to put on cologne because everything you run through the wash will now have a cologne quality scent. Each laundry sauce pot is highly concentrated with more advanced cleaning power than traditional liquid laundry detergents and is enriched with bioenzymes. They don't just smell incredible, they tackle the toughest stains while also reviving fabrics for a limited time only. Our listeners get 20% off your entire order when you use code legal af20@laundry sauce.com that's 20% off your order@laundry sauce.com with promo code legalaf20 it's time to get saucy Laundry Sauces Jumbo sized laundry pods are ultra concentrated with more cleaning power per ounce than typical watered down laundry detergents. They don't just smell incredible, they also tackle the toughest stains without harsh chemicals that degrade your fabrics. Look. Laundry Sauce just launched their newest, expertly crafted scent, Oregon Mint. The Oregon Mint is sourced ethically, sustainably and transparently through Essex Mint Farms in Oregon, one of the largest mint farms on Earth. Feel transported to an herb garden by the sea and have distinctly clean and refreshing laundry like never before with this one of a kind limited release scent. Put your new luxury laundry obsession on autopilot and save an extra 15 to 20% off every order when you subscribe. Maybe the best best part about Laundry Sauce they offer a full money back guarantee. If you don't get better smelling cleaner laundry, you get a full refund, no questions asked. For a limited time, our listeners get 20% off your entire order when you use code LEGAL AF20@laundry sauce.com that's 20% off your order@laundry sauce.com with promo code LEGALIF20. After you purchase, they're going to ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show, tell them we sent you Smell good, look good, feel good with Laundry Sauce. Physio, chiropractic and massage therapy are all great resources for when you need them, but going to these appointments every few months does not give me the ultimate results I'm looking for when it comes to my well being. It's taking daily, even hourly opportunities to move my body that makes the biggest difference. This has only been made possible for me with this episode. Sponsor Uplift Desk Uplift Desk is at the forefront of ergonomic solutions promoting better posture and health through adjustable standing desks designed to help you live a healthier lifestyle. Plus, they have all kinds of accessories to keep you moving throughout the day even if you work for only a few hours at your desk. For me, I love the Bamboo Motion Export. It makes me feel like snowboarding without waiting for the lift. Standing while I work gives me the room to move and helps me get the creative juices flowing. Moving throughout the day helps me focus and stay productive and I'm way more alert when I'm using my standing desk and I have more energy. A desk should fit the user, which is why Uplift Desk has a lot of customization options so you can build your perfect workspace with more than 200,000 configurations. Uplift Desk allows you to tailor your workspace to perfectly suit your style and needs, empowering you to create an environment that inspires productivity and creativity. For me, I built the custom standing desk of my dreams from Uplift for my Popoc Media offices where I make a lot of my hot takes and content for Legal af. And so I went went all out with a heritage oak top and their advanced angled keypad for the lift part. Make this year yours by going to upliftdesk.com legal AF and use our code legal AF to get four free accessories, free same day shipping, free returns and an industry leading 15 year warranty that covers your entire desk and an extra discount off your entire order. That's U P L I s f t--E-S-K.com legalaf for a special offer and it's only available at our link start 2025 right stand move thrive with uplift desk.
- [60:32]
Karen Friedman
We're back and we are going to talk about our last topic of the evening and the fact that we are shipping people to now it looks like South Sudan in violation of court orders. And this is just bananas what's going on here. In an effort to deport people quickly, Donald Trump is doing lots of different things, right. He is revoking certain visas, he's revoking statuses, he's paying people to self deport. He is speeding up the process, the immigration process, to streamline it so that you're not mired in court process for years and years and years. Frankly, I'm sure there's a lot of people who think that the immigration system was broken. Congress was unable to pass any law that made sense of immigration, made sense of the issue. The immigration courts have huge backlogs. There is a problem and I think it's, we have to be honest about that and call that out. And as a result, lots and lots and lots of people came over to the United States and there are some people who felt frustrated by that because they felt that our cities, some cities can't take it. Right. Some cities love and want to have migrants and it's actually a huge boom to their economy and great workers, great neighbors, great people. But there are some places that I think that it was, it was very difficult for them and there was a lot of frustration there. And so the system has been a problem for a long time. Different people have different ideas on how to fix the problem and have different ideas of what immigration in this country should look like. Regardless of what point of view you have. I happen to absolutely. I live in a sanctuary city. I'm pro Immigration. Every person here, practically in this country that is not a Native American is the product of an immigrant. And it's partly why I love this country. Right. What makes this country beautiful and amazing is just the different cultures and different people. And, you know, we have the Statute of Liberty here in New York. It's all about immigration. We have Ellis Island. I mean, it's just. This is the history of this country. But so regardless of what your point of view is, we are also allegedly a country of laws. We were up until recently a country of laws. And so what does that mean? It means that you follow laws whether you agree with them or not, because we're a democracy. Right? So that's part of being in a democracy is you try to persuade people, you vote people into office, they put laws in place that people that your representatives vote for, and you follow them because that's the law. And some laws I like, and sometimes I don't. But the laws you like and I don't, I'm going to follow. And that's a civil society. Right. And that's where we live. This administration doesn't seem to want to do that because there's a whole set of laws in place that protects immigrants and protect people who are in detention. And you have things like due process rights. In fact, the Constitution even talks about due process rights. What does that mean? It means you have a right to process. You have a right to some kind of court process before certain things are taken away from you. And Donald Trump doesn't seem to really want to follow that. They don't want to respect that. And so they talk about things like suspending habeas corpus. That's something they want to talk about. And what is suspending habeas corpus? Habeas corpus, a writ of habeas corpus essentially means to bring a body to court. It means produce the body to court, something Kristi Noem did not know, by the way. She got it wrong, what that is, which is a little scary. But that's a right in this country, right? That is a right that. That no matter who you are, if you're detained, you have a right to have your body be brought to court through a habeas corpus, to be told to challenge, to challenge your detention. Now, the judge might say, sorry, you're staying in, but you have a right to have process. And that is one of the indelible rights. It's in the Constitution, and it's only been suspended a couple of times, I think less than a handful of times in our nation's history, and certainly not anytime in the recent history. I think the very last time had to do with the bombing of Pearl harbor. But before that, it was even much longer ago in the 17 and 1800s. I mean, that's how rare this is. But Stephen Miller is talked very openly about wanting to do that. So they can deport people and deport migrants and not have to have them be brought to court. They can just take them in the middle of the night and take them away and bring them to a place where either their home country or somewhere, they will be accepted. And if they are not on this soil, then there's nothing we can do to. If you suspend habeas corpus, even if you don't suspend habeas corpus, if they're taken away, how are we going to get them back? So that's what they're trying to do. They're trying to be able to meet this promise to deport a million migrants before the end of the year, because that's what the promise is. They want to be able to just ship first, ask questions later, kind of like they did with Abrego Garcia. Oops, we made a mistake. Doesn't really matter, right? Mistake doesn't really matter. Just get as many people out as possible. Whether it's the Aliens Enemy act that they're invoking to try to streamline things, whether it's to just go and scurry people away in the dark of night, whatever it is, it's even a bridge too far for the Supreme Court of the United States, who has said, who last week in the middle of the night said, you know what? You can't do that. You have to give some process. Telling them the night before, after business hours, and then putting them on a plane the next morning without a meaningful opportunity to consult with a lawyer is not due process. And even the Supreme Court, that was a bridge too far. And what's happening, what's happened today is a Boston federal judge, Brian Murphy is his name, he issued an injunction in March saying that people can't be sent to a third country, meaning a country that you have no connection to. You're not a citizen of that country. It's just a country willing to accept you. Because some people aren't, by the way, some people aren't welcomed by their country. Right? You come here from another country and you commit murder, you commit rape, you're convicted and you're detained. Your home country might not want you back. And so what are you going to do with that person? So these individuals Right. What does Trump do? He picks the worst of the worst. He picks people, eight people from Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico and South Sudan who were eight immigrants who all have been convicted of the worst offenses you can imagine, murder, rape, robbery, etc. And put. And the night before, literally the night before, despite Judge Murphy issuing an injunction in March saying that people can't be sent to a third party without giving them an opportunity to raise concern, like fear of persecution, fear of torture. Right. He said, you can't do that without giving them an opportunity to challenge. It doesn't mean you get to stay here forever. It means you get process. It means you have a right to go to court and have. Trump gets to. And his administration gets to say the reasons you shouldn't be here and you should be able to go to this other country, and you get to say the reasons why you don't want to or you can't or shouldn't, and that should be. And then the court rules, and then if you lose, then you. You get sent wherever you get sent. I mean, there's a way of doing what he wants to do and do it the right way. He just doesn't want to. And that's what, that's what I'm. What bothers me is do it the right way, because due process matters, process matters, laws matter. And so these eight individuals, these immigrants, who, I accept that they aren't great citizens and people that we necessarily want here, they were told less than 24 hours before, the night before, literally, and the next day they were put on a plane. And Judge Murphy said that is an insufficient amount of time. And he's thinking of bringing a criminal contempt finding, and he wants to hold hearings, he wants names to know who's doing this. Now there's flight trackers for this plane that took them, and they're not sure where the flight is going. And because it didn't stop in South Sudan, who knows? I mean, there's all this question now about. And confusion because that's also the chaos. That's also what they kind of do, right? It's. They don't answer questions, they don't tell you anything. And they so kind of this chaos, and it's like, oops, well, they're gone, can't do anything about it. I don't have control over them anyway. And Judge Murphy basically said, no, that's not okay. You can't do it. And, you know, Trump's. Their spokespeople are smart. They're like, well, these are bad people. Nobody wants them and nobody wants to accept them. But this is, I think, at least the fourth time the Trump administration has been accused by attorneys of violating this order by Judge Murphy. And it's this. And they, and the problem is there's not a lot of repercussions for this because they're gone. And what is a judge going to do to the Trump administration? What are their actual powers?
- [70:34]
Michael Popak
Well, it's interesting because I think they're the evidently, like you said, this is kind of just, you know, developing. The story is developing. And evidently these men are. The plane landed, it went take off from Texas, went through Ireland, as you said, there's flight trackers on it and landed in an East African nation. Jibotin, I believe I'm pronouncing that right. And that's evidently where it is. The notice that was given was that it was heading to South Sudan. Now the Trump administration is backing off from that, saying that's not the ultimate destination. They're not giving the ultimate destination. But the Judge Murphy said that they cannot leave the airplane until he figures this out. He might hold hearings. He said the lawyers for the deportees wanted him to order the plane to come back. He did not do that, but he might have some sort of hearings while they're still in custody. This is very much a developing story. The fact that we have been here more than once before where there's a clear order. This is how you handle sending somebody to the third party in this situation. They had valid deportation papers. It was more about where you were sending them. And Judge Murphy had made clear, when you're sending them to a three point party, third party country, you have to make sure you're giving them notice, not in English. You have to give them enough time to be able to consult the lawyers. We just had the Supreme Court right with the Aliens enemies Act saying 24 hours is not sufficient here. This is perhaps the amount of time the government gave. There's a little bit of dispute, but it's definitely not more than 24 hours. The notice wasn't English, so like very clearly violating his order. Judge Murphy in the hearing today, very upset about the, the fact that they're violating it. And as you said, he might look into criminal proceedings. And this is not even the only case. There is a Guatemalan man, again with Judge Murphy, that they sent to Mexico. And Trump put in the declaratory statement saying that the man, we only know him by his initials, ocg, had evidently been okay and fine and felt safe going to Mexico. And then when it came time to have a hearing, the ICE agents admitting nobody had actually asked him, nobody had spoken to him. So in the hearing today, Judge Murphy, really eviscerating about that, too. Like, you basically lied to the court here. So the amount that Trump is doing in terms of violating court orders, lying to the court, all in this name of really the fact that we're talking about the DHS maybe doing like a reality show regarding immigrants. This is the reality show, right? Let's, but let's be frank. He's doing this on purpose. He's scaring people. I mean, can you imagine? You're coming. We shouldn't even be talking about deportation or immigration policy. This is about taking somebody off of the streets, giving them a life sentence in a country they're not from for the sole crime of crossing into this thing. And a lot of them haven't come legally into this country. But even if not, I mean, you are scaring people. That's his purpose, right? That's his purpose. This is why he doesn't care about the laws. His whole point is to make this as, as scary, as depraved as possible as being a daughter of an immigrant. I can't even imagine purposely wanting people to not come to this country, especially when we're talking about low birth rates. We need immigrants more than ever. But this is what this is about. It's about scaring people and they're willing to break the law to do it. But it is heartening to see. Now we saw Judge Boasberg talking about criminal contempt. Now we see this judge saying he's going to take it up at another hearing. And it's again, it's these low level career officials that are going to be subjected to this criminal contempt. It's not Trump. It's the low level ones, which is the only saving grace possibly in this. Because I know that's the thing a lot of people are saying, who cares about the judge's orders against them? Like, who cares? Who cares? It's just violating. Does it matter? It doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is we're giving these officials due process. Right? They're slowly looking into was, you know, what did these Trump officials know, did they violate it? We have to be patient and let this play out. But the person who's just trying to do a job and feed their family and is not really like the MAGA person may not want to break a judge's violation when they see their co worker get brought into court and his name publicly named and Then they'll get fired.
- [74:57]
Karen Friedman
The problem is they'll get fired. That's what they do.
- [75:00]
Michael Popak
Well, if they don't listen.
- [75:01]
Karen Friedman
Yeah, yeah.
- [75:02]
Michael Popak
But it's better to get fired than criminally prosecuted. And it's us.
- [75:07]
Karen Friedman
Yeah.
- [75:07]
Michael Popak
If I was somebody like that, I'd be like, fire me. I don't want to go in front and get a lawyer and all that kind of stuff. And here's the thing. It may not make a huge difference, but AOC talks about this, and I think she talks about this so well. She says we have to slow them down. You may not be the one person that, yes, you decide to not do it. You decide to quit overdoing it, like we saw with the US Attorneys with Eric Adams. But you're slowing it down. You're taking a chink into what they have to do. And that helps. Every little action helps. So just like we saw with all these federal employees, everyday people getting fired, you know, we are seeing the everyday U.S. attorney or the everyday DHS employee kind of being the resiliency between us and Trump. And we're going to have to see case by case. But. But it's helpful that it's not just like the upper echelons. Like, we're never going to be able to count on Stephen Miller to do the right thing, but we may be able to count on that person who's just really trying to do their job and go home to their family at the end of the day.
- [76:10]
Karen Friedman
But what's really frustrating to me about all this is deporting immigrants who have committed violent crimes has always been a thing. Every administration, even New York City, sanctuary cities, they all get deported, all of them. And in fact, the numbers are such that more people were deported under Biden last year than Trump is on track to deport this year. That's what the numbers are showing, which. So to make it seem like deportation is not something that was already happening. It was and always, always has been violent criminals have always been deported, period, full stop. But they, they get some process and. And then they go and they are. They leave this country. What's happening now, what's different is Donald Trump is packaging it differently. He's doing it in a way to, first of all, he's taking credit for it as if he's the first person to have thought of this and it wasn't happening already. And he's doing it in a way to violate court orders. He's not. Doesn't want to go through the process. He wants to do it so that we all get upset and everybody's, you know, hemming and hawing and everybody's, you know, everybody's out of breath about this because he's violating all these court orders and doing it so that he can then say, oh, but this is a murderer, this is a rapist, this is a robber. The Democrats want you to, you know, want you to love these people and care about them, but really these are the people who are the scourge of our, you know, of our, of our country. Guess what? Those people would have been deported anyway under a Biden policy, under every policy that we've had. I mean, this is how it's always been. This is what happens. This is who gets deported. And so he's using this as like a marketing campaign for himself and so that he can then actually blow a giant hole into all of this and deport hundreds of thousands of people who aren't violent criminals, who are hard working people. The reason they say these are all criminals is because they view it as a crime to come here and to be an undocumented immigrant. They view people who come across the border as criminals just by virtue of that. It's not that you come here and commit a crime to them. It's all criminal because you came here when you weren't supposed to. And what's interesting is when you look at the people who their policies are impacting, it's Haitians, it's Venezuelans, Cubans, Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, Afghans, Cameroonians. All of these are people who, that is who they're going after. They're moving to terminate their temporary protective status. They are moving to kind of get them to be deported. They're going after students, right, as well, and student visas and people who are here temporarily. Those aren't people who are here unlawfully or criminally. But, but you know who they haven't done anything to. They haven't touched the $250,000 or not$250,000 Ukrainians who are here, right? They are welcoming the white South Africans who are here. Why is that? Because they each have a certain skin color. Those are people they want here. Those are people they want having babies here and having higher birth rates. It's the people of color that they are deporting en masse and they are using as poster children, these eight or 10 or whatever. It is really bad people who would have been deported anyway. Because we're fighting about process for everyone, including the people who aren't criminals. We're fighting for process for everyone. They make it Seem like, no, we're fighting to keep the murderers and the rapists here in this country. No, we're not. We're just saying follow the law, follow the process, due process, so that the grandmother who's done nothing wrong and who's lived here for 40 years and who has a large family here gets to stay and doesn't have to get deported in the middle, you know, doesn't have to have her house broken into in the middle of the night and whisked away to some third party country the next day. Right. I mean, that's what we're saying is if the process doesn't work for, for the people you don't like, for the, for the rapists, the murderers, the robbers, make them as bad as you want, I don't care. It doesn't matter because that's how much I believe in due process and the rule of law. The process should work for everybody, including them. And they will get deported the right way eventually, because that is what the law is. But if you don't, if they don't, if they don't have process, neither does anybody else. And that's where it becomes dangerous. And that's where the situation, I think, is untenable.
- [80:52]
Michael Popak
And the criminals are the easiest to deport. Let's be frank about that. Because they're in jail, right? They've been convicted of a crime, they have their sentence and they usually get deported when they're done with their sentence. I mean, we are, they are in the justice system by nature of them being convicted criminals. They are the easiest people to deport. You don't have to do raids to go get the criminals. You don't have to tear the mother from the child in the street to go get the criminals. You don't have to, to stake out the schools to go get the criminals. We know where the criminals are because they were in the justice system. That's how we know they're a criminal. So, you know, this is definitely, I think you touched on it, Karen. This is all about race there. He's deporting people of color. The temporary protected status people are here legally. This. So this whole farce around illegal deporting people illegally, that is be well beyond that. We're talking about hundreds and hundreds of thousands, thousands of people here legally. But they are people of color. And like you said, they want more babies. JD Vance talks about that. Elon Musk talks about that. The birth rate is declining in the United States, which can be bad. Right? We've seen in Japan and other Countries, economies slow down when birth rate falls. United States of America, we've never had that problem because people are clamoring to come contribute and become working members of our country. But when you start shipping them off, even when they're here legally, and you also start talking about declining birth rates, and you take away a woman's right to choose under Roe, you are trying to make more white babies. And it becomes a scary situation that we need to keep our eyes and ears out for.
- [82:30]
Karen Friedman
Yeah, without a doubt. It's. It's happening. I mean, this is what I think a lot of people want, but we have to. The due process matters. Habeas corpus matters. The rule of law matters. Living in a democracy matters. Separate separation of powers matters. The Constitution matters. We cannot let this person who's trying to become. Well, I don't know what he's trying to be. We can call him a fascist dictator, you can call him an oligarch, you can call him whatever it is. It's democracy. It's all of the above. He's trying to create a situation that is not what this country's founded on. And it's an existential crisis we're in, and we have to fight for it, and we have to fight every single battle and try to get our country back. Because this is. It's so obvious what he's doing. We all see it, but we just have to call him out for it. And that's why I love Legal af. That's why I love the Midas Touch network, because that is what we try to do. We try to come here day after day, week after week, and give you our interpretation of what's really going on. And we don't have to. We don't have editors that we have to run our points of view past. We'll tell you when we're talking opinion versus what's a fact. And we also aren't afraid to admit if we're wrong. Right. I mean, that's exactly what we do here on Midas Touch. And that's why I am so grateful to have been a part of it now for, I think, almost five years, and so proud of Midas Touch and how great they are and how great they got. The Midas Touch podcast, got the Webby Award for being the number one podcast. And they're getting every big interview of anyone who's anybody is being done by people in Midas Touch. And we just got. Katie Fang is coming to be a part of Midas Touch. And, I mean, more and more people are gravitating towards the Midas Touch Network. And it's because of what we're doing and the fact that we're here to tell the truth. And I still believe in without fear or favor. So I call it like I see it. And so do you, Dina, and so does Popak and Ben and everybody else here on the Midas Touch Network. And so I'm just so grateful to have met you and to be able to do this with you regularly. Is there anything else we should talk about? Anything else you want to mention before we. We sign off?
- [85:00]
Michael Popak
No, I say I feel the same way. I'm grateful that we have a voice because it is and other people get to. We kind of get to have a collective voice and collective community because this is really difficult stuff we're going through. But this is just the beginning. I really believe in the justice system and all the really strong state attorneys generals and officials out there really fighting the good fight. So, you know, we've got a long road to go, but we're definitely here to. We're bringing it here. We're not going to be walking away, right?
- [85:28]
Karen Friedman
Oh, God, no. Absolutely not. If anything, we have a big job ahead of us for the next, you know, whatever it is, three and a half years, there's a lot going on. And every day, just when you thought it couldn't get any worse or any more, just unbelievable, he accepts a plane from the Qatari government. So we've reached the end of another midweek episode of Legal af. Dina, thank you so much for being here and send our love and condolences to the entire Popoc family and hopefully we'll see Popak back again soon. Great to see you, Dina.
- [86:09]
Michael Popak
Good to see you, too.
- [86:21]
Karen Friedman
Trip planner by Expedia. You were made to have strong opinions about sand. We were made to help you and your friends find a place on the beach with a pool and a marina and a waterfall and a soaking tub. Expedia made to travel.