Loading summary
Transcript43 lines
- [00:00]
A
What is Dadication?
- [00:01]
B
The thing that drives me every day as a dad is Dariona. We call him Dae Date for short. Every day he's hungry for something, whether it's attention, affection, knowledge. And there's this huge responsibility in making sure that when he's no longer under my wing that he's a good person. I want him to be able to sit back one day and go, we worked together. We did a good job.
- [00:22]
A
That's Dadication. Find out more@fatherhood.gov brought to you by the U.S. department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council. Hablas Espanol Spries to joy Nos if.
- [00:32]
B
You'Ve 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 may 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 10 years.
- [01:30]
A
From today, Lisa Schneider will trade in.
- [01:32]
B
Her office job to become the leader of a pack of dogs as the.
- [01:36]
A
Owner of her own dog rescue.
- [01:38]
B
That is a second act made possible by the reskilling courses Lisa's taking now.
- [01:42]
A
With AARP to help make sure her.
- [01:44]
B
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@aarp.org want to sharpen your aim.
- [02:01]
A
Save money on ammo and train like the pros, all from the comfort of your home. Meet Mantis X, the cutting edge dry.
- [02:09]
B
Fire training system used by the Marine Corps, army and Special Forces to build precision and confidence. 94% of shooters report improved accuracy in just 20 minutes and you could be next. With Mantis X, you train with your own firearm anytime, anywhere without wasting a single round in less than two weeks. The system pays for itself and ammo savings alone. As a proud gun owner, I believe in the Second Amendment. But rights come with responsibility. That means refining your accuracy, mastering your skills, and staying prepared every time you train. Whether you're a new shooter or an experienced marksman, Mantis X helps you train smarter, shoot better, and defend what matters most. Get yours today@mantisx.com that's Mantis X.com.
- [03:00]
A
Major legal news this week. We're going to break it all down for everybody. Abrego Garcia back in the United States under an indictment for human trafficking and conspiracy to commit human trafficking. One of the most embarrassing detention hearings I've ever seen from the perspective of the Department of Justice. Trump trying to indefinitely hold the Brago Garcia in detention. They literally had the United States attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee conduct the proceedings. He said that he drew the short straw, like he didn't even really want to be there. And it was just obvious that he was relying on just these cooperating witnesses who were not reliable at all. We'll see what happens, but it definitely showed the importance of due process. I want to break down everything that took place there. Then we'll talk about Donald Trump, Trump's federaling, federalizing of the National Guard. The ruling by a federal judge in the Northern District of California, Judge Breyer, who blocked Donald Trump from utilizing federalizing the National Guard under 10 USC 124 06, finding that the specific statute and the provisions within in which you could federalize the National Guard did not apply to this specific situation. Donald Trump immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They stayed the ruling of Judge Breyer, meaning the National Guard is still being federalized and still permitted basically to be co opted by Donald Trump. We'll break down everything going on there. There's going to be an immediate hearing, though, on that this week. We'll talk about what we expect is going to happen. Donald Trump lost his appeal before the full panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal in the E. Jean Carroll sexual assault case. Yes, that case is still working its way through the Court of Appeals. There were two judges who were in the dissent there and I think it was an 8 to 2 opinion. We'll break that down. I guess it potentially goes to the Supreme Court next, although I'll get your thoughts, Popoc. If you think that that's going to be a case that the Supreme Court Even takes. But who knows when it comes to Donald Trump, another important federal ruling when it comes to Trump's attempt to federalize state election law and injunction blocking, Trump's attempt there. Then earlier today, of course, we learned about the horrific assassination of Democratic Representative Melissa Hortman in Minnesota, the Minnesota speaker there and the state senator, John Hoffman there, by an individual who was dressed as a police officer, imitating a police officer. Horrific, horrific stuff. And you just reflect on this week whether it was a California senator, not state senator, United States senator, being thrown to the ground by Donald Trump's Gestapo and being detained and attacked for trying to ask a question in the Los Angeles FBI office of the Department of Home Homeland Security Director Kristi Noem, whether it's Trump calling for the arrest of California Governor Gavin Newsom. This week, the speaker of the House maga, Mike Johnson saying that Newsom should be tarred and feathered. You have, you know, a Congresswoman McIver who's been charged. You have a judge in Wisconsin who's going through a criminal proceeding, and she's filed a motion to dismiss based on immunity grounds. I mean, it's, you know, this is just what we're talking about in the law yet alone. The war raging now in the Middle east and certainly a dystopian moment. Michael Popak in American history. I mean, to say the least, it's.
- [06:50]
B
A solemn start to a show, but it needs to be. About three and a half years ago, you and I started a show, right, when Ukraine was invaded by Russia. And you said, you look very upset or solemn. I said, I am. The world has changed as we know it with the, with the attack there. And I think everything that we've just watched over the last. It's hard to believe, 72 hours with a war that has started between Israel and Iran, supported by Donald Trump, the use of military assets against American citizens on domestic soil. That we'll talk about when we get to the Judge Breyer case and explain why even though there's a stay at the Ninth Circuit, it's not stopping the progress of justice in his courtroom as it relates to the use of the Marines against citizens like you and me in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. We'll talk about how, and I'll put it in my own perspective, the seething cauldron that Donald Trump has created, putting Americans and pitting them against each other and putting them at each other's throats, which he needs in order to thrive. He feeds off that negative energy over those attacks. And it animates his policies of suppression and repression that come from having American at each other's throats. He's no better than. And he benefits from the trolls around the world in North Korea and Russia and Iran and other places in China that use and infiltrate our social media and using AI and other methods in order to make us weaker and to make us attack each other. And it's only in that type of environment will you have some crazed gunmen with a target list of Democratic lawmakers and a no King's demonstration flyer in his car, now abandoned while he's still on the loose, at least while we're on the air, you have that environment creating that moment. And as a lot of Democratic lawmakers are now saying, Donald Trump has blood on his hands, even though he's given that hopes and prayers social media post and there'll be prosecutions. I believe this doesn't happen in another type of world where we have a unifying president, not one who almost like an anti Abe Lincoln, uses federal troops not to reconstruct, not to reunite, not to enforce civil rights the way that Lyndon Johnson or Eisenhower did or others did, but instead to continue to divide and try to tear this union asunder. That's what we're watching. It's not an attack on California. It's an attack on federalism. It's an attack on every state that Donald Trump from his bully pulpit and with his puppet master Stephen Miller, dictating immigration and deportation policy, that he is rolling out the troops against a state and a leading political rival. We said with quite a lot of solemnity when we watched the results and the debate on the oral argument around the immunity decision, as was posed by a appellate court judge. What's to stop Donald Trump from using Seal Team Six to take out his political rival? Aren't we watching Donald Trump testing that theory when a United States senator not only gets taken down and handcuffed in front of Kristi Noem, and Donald Trump's reaction to that is not. That was inappropriate. That was excessive. It was. Well, I don't know. He looked like an immigrant. Why? Because he's, because he's brown. Because he's, because he's Latino. He looked like an immigrant. And so what were they, what were they to suspect that was his reaction. So as you said, when you have, when you have their testing, this is, this is, this is like a toddler testing, except a toddler that, that has the full power of the military behind him. So they take down, they take down, that they arrest, as you said, a Representative in Congress they they indict also a bridge in there and then and then what do we have? Is anyone shocked that on no Kings Day while Donald Trump is doing a Soviet style victory parade down Pennsylvania Avenue with 60 ton Abraham M1 Abrams tanks and and I feel sorry for the military although the brass and there I use that term lightly. That is still left that allowed their 250 year anniversary to be co opted and hijacked by Donald Trump for his birthday parade. You know and and plenty of military who not only filed amicus briefs in the case we're going to talk about involving Judge Breyer, four star generals and secretaries of the army and the others who said this is an inappropriate use of federalizing the National Guard. Not only not only that but there are military retired who have come out and said they are scared about the Tiananmen Square potential where China rolled tanks over protesters of what Donald Trump has set up in Washington for today. The counter protesting has taken on an entirely new meaning for me now that we've got the assassination and attempted assassination of two lawmakers Democratic in Minnesota along with their spouses. I have videos up and talking about no Kings. This is our Selma, Alabama moment of peaceful protest but disobedience and resistance in the streets. But now it takes on a whole new meaning. You've got purpley state governors who are because they're obeying in advance, they are rolling out the state militia or the state National Guard because they don't want Donald Trump to do it for them. Even though there's no threats, credible threats. We now have the credible threats. And I'm worried about people on the street and everybody should be. Everybody needed to be very careful out there during the no Kings Day. Although it is important at these moments that we apply public pressure to support our legislators like the Democrats who support our federal judges to have the Supreme Court hear us in the moment about Donald Trump's fascist policies.
- [13:12]
A
Let's get into it. Let's talk first about the case involving Trump federalizing the National Guard. The case is called Gavin Newsom versus Donald Trump in the Northern District of California. And the order that dropped on June 12, 2025 so two days ago granted the application by the state of California and the governor to block what Donald Trump did, which was to federalize the National Guard. The National Guard is normally under the control and command of the governor of the state. And Governor Gavin Newsom relies on the state National Guard in California to do things like wildfire prevention. You know, when there's wildfires in San Bernardino, for example, like, like, like is happening. That's how the National Guard is normally utilized. And when the federal government, in an unprecedented fashion, co ops a state national guard and sends 4,000 of the state National Guard to not really do anything of, of, of, of kind of clear purpose and just to make the showing of force and not know what they're even supposed to do, you're pulling the resources away from a state governor. States rights, isn't that what the Republicans always used to say? And you're parading them around for a show of dictatorial force in a way that's very harmful to the state. So Governor Newsom, along with the Attorney General of the state of California, sued the Trump regime and said, what the hell are you doing? This is unlawful. You're citing a statute 10 USC 12406, which requires that you can only federalize the National Guard in very few circumstances. And there are three circumstances that are listed in the statute. One, the United States or any of the commonwealths or possessions is invaded by a foreign nation. Two, there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States. Or three, the President is able, with regular force to execute the laws of the United states. The statute 10 USC 12406 goes on to say that it is required that the governor basically agree to this federalizing of the National Guards at the request of the President to the governor, and the governor has to approve it. So the Trump regime, Michael Popak, and legal A effers, they concede, okay, we haven't been invaded by a foreign nation, but they say we're under a rebellion against the United States right now, and that Donald Trump can't, with regular forces, execute the laws of the United States anymore. And so there was a hearing that took place this week, and Judge Breyer, the federal judge in the Northern District of California, looked at Trump's DOJ lawyer and says, come on, we're not under a rebellion. We're not under. You know, you're telling me Trump can't execute the laws anymore because there have been 300 to 400 people who have been arrested in Cal. In Los Angeles, which, by the way, it's like less than the amount of people that get arrested when the Dodgers win the World Series. Like, this is, this is not. Like, I live in Los Angeles, you know, like, agitators and people who engage in any form of violence need to be dealt with with the full force of the law. But by and large, almost all of the protests were peaceful and Then in terms of where the agitators were, small area of downtown Los Angeles in a sprawling county, LAPD and LA sheriff saying, look, we're able to easily handle this. It didn't even get to the point where we would even think about the National Guard. It didn't even get to the highest levels of kind of the intra department policies because this is stuff that the LAPD and LA Sheriff's Department are just equipped to deal with. Popak the Trump regimes, the DOJ lawyer though, basically their main argument to the judge is you can't even ask us these questions. The moment that Donald Trump claims that there's a rebellion or claims that he can't execute the laws, it ends there because he's got, he's dealing with foreign policy. He's the commander in chief. The Constitution says that he shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed. So it's Donald Trump's subjective belief that there's a rebellion. This is not and this is what Trump this is the main argument that Trump made in front of the judge. This is not a justiciable issue. Courts have no roles in making this decision. This is purely the subjective intent of the president. And what was interesting, and I'll toss it back to you, Popak, is Judge Breyer cited some of the other cases involving Trump's deportations of people to El Salvador and he cited a Trump that's Trump appointed judge in Texas on the issue of justiciability. And let me just pull up this portion on justiciability because you can see how like one judge cites another judge. And it's interesting that he specifically picked the Trump appointed judge out in the Texas court. Judge Breyer says this court agrees with Judge Rodriguez's thoughtful analysis in the JAV deportation case and finds it applicable here. To start, JAV is in line with other decisions, rebuffing efforts from defendants to skirt judicial review of their alleged statutory violations. And so there's this whole body of law of the Trump regime saying we're we do whatever the hell we want. Courts, you can't decide. And there's courts saying no, we do decide. We're the courts. Courts decide the law. And that's kind of where we're at. Not just in this case though, Popak but in terms of like every case that Trump says, yes, that's what the law says. But, but the president takes care that the law is faithfully executed. Don't ask any further questions. That's the whole, it all comes down to that. So talk to us. What did Judge Breyer do where are we at with the, you know, Court of Appeals?
- [19:34]
B
Well, there's been a development even since then. So Friday we get the order. I'll read some aspects of the order that I find are the most interesting. As you said, Breyer finds after a hearing in which he's very carefully questioning the lawyers for the Department of Justice. You know, this is the family business. 83 year old senior status judge in San Francisco is brother Stephen Breyer of the Supreme Court. So he knows what he's doing is what I'm trying to, and he's seen it all. And he instantly goes to the statute that you talked about, which is known as the militia act of 1903, basically says, I see the three things here. I don't really see how this is. He literally says in his order, I don't see how throwing mangoes, water bottles and chairs and maybe some concrete by some people constitutes an armed rebellion as that term is used in any dictionary definition from 1903 even till now. And how is it organized, these independent things. And he said, he also said in the order and in the hearing, he's very troubled by the argument that the that and it's your justiciable argument that Trump can declare any First Amendment expression where there are a couple of bad apples in there, a couple of bad actors in there that doesn't convert First Amendment expression, that is defended by vigorously by our Constitution and our founding Fathers into a rebellion to be quashed and crushed by a president. And that is a scary slippery slope that the judge calls out. He has to start because as you said, Trump always starts all of his cases with its political question, which is a bastardization of a political doctor, of a doctrine, a term of art coming out of the United States Supreme Court, that if it's truly a political issue, then the only way you can fix it is not in the courts, but at the ballot box. But this is not a political issue. Oh, yes, it is. The Trump administration says, it says here that I can have the power if there is a rebellion. I can't faithfully execute the laws or an insurrection or other things. I get to use these powers, these superpowers. Right. And I get to declare whether there is one of those, those three things under the Militia Act. And you can't challenge it because it's a political question. No, it's not. That is a misinterpretation on purpose of what the political question is in order to deny federal judges oversight. And every judge has to start with, you know, Marbury versus Madison, which you and I learned like day one in constitutional law class in our respective law schools all over again. Let's remind the President what the role of the federal judiciary is under Article 3 since the case of Marbury vs Madison. You do, you do, you, but we do us and what we're doing us as judges, we get to, it's justiciable. So. And as you said, he points to Judge Rodriguez, a Trump appointed judge in the Southern District of Texas who ruled in one of the immigration cases against Donald Trump on Alien Enemies Act. And he says, I like that framework. I'm going to adopt that framework. But he also put Easter egg, bear trap. He also put in his order, in his temporary restraining order a trap for the Trump administration, which they've already walked into. He said, I'm going to grant the temporary restraining order under I'm going to find that what Donald Trump did was illegal, that it violated the militia act of 1903. This is that 10 USC 12406 statute we keep talking about. Because none of the things that trigger your entitlement as president to use your power to commandeer the pardon me and federalize the state National Guard are present. And I get to oversee and provide oversight as to whether you're right or wrong. And so that's not present. So you have violated that. You also did not consult properly or go through the governor for the issuance of the order, is it? Yes, they said, yes, we did. They said, how did you do that? Well, we typed the governor's name on the top of the memo. I said, sorry, you didn't consult with the governor. You barely spoke to the governor. You didn't coordinate any of these things that happened in the raids on 6 June. But we put his name at the top. That's not what the federal statute and the act of Congress requires. The judge also found they violated the 10th amendment, which is a little litigated but very important part that holds our whole union together, a federalism. If it's not in an act of Congress and it's not in the Constitution for a federal power, for a federal role, then all other power is in the hands of the people in the state. That's it. That's it. That keeps the feds out of a lot of different things and holds our union together because states weren't going to join and leave the confederation and join the United States of America unless they had continued state sovereignty and states rights. And so Donald Trump has attacked that by today, it's California. Tomorrow fill in the blank state by coming in and violating the sovereignty of California. But the judge punt it, but set up the trap on the, what we call the Posse Comitatus act, which is an act that generally prevents anybody sitting in the office of the presidency from using the weight of the US Military, the awesome power of the US Military internally on domestic soil for law enforcement purposes. That sounds like a good thing. Like, I don't want the tanks and the M16s pointed at me by federal officers on domestic soil as a citizen or otherwise during a protest, because that violates the act. There are things you can do to support law enforcement, but you can't, for instance, detain people. And what Breyer said is, look, I got the record in front of me. I've. I am issuing the temporary restraining order on the violation of the 10th Amendment and on the violation of the Militia act, on the Posse Comitatus Act. We're close, but we're not there yet. But I'm setting a hearing for next week on preliminary injunction. Because just to remind everybody and maybe new people joining Legal af, there's levels of injunctions and blocks that a judge, appellate or trial can do. Starts with an administrative stay sometimes, which is like, could be hours or days, just to give the judge time or the appellate court time to kind of get the briefs in. Then it moves to a temporary restraining order, which can last days, weeks, less than a month, usually maybe a little bit longer, until they can get around to the preliminary injunction. Generally, temporary restraining orders do not give appellate courts jurisdiction to review them and to, and to stay them, usually that you have to wait, as the Supreme Court has said recently, you have to wait till you get to the, to the preliminary injunction phase. That's next week. The judge said, let's see what the evidence is. Because I see a lot of speculation by California about the Marines arriving and what they're really going to do, but you don't have evidence yet that they have detained, arrested, and other things. But let's see what next week brings. And what now. What do we have? We wake up last night, or we go to bed last night with the reporting of Reuter taking a photo of what appears to be a peaceful protester in zip ties, you know, behind his back, by the Marines in front of the Wilshire Federal Building in L. A, which is, and I'm sure there's more examples. So that gets, that goes like wildfire on social media and, and, and reporting that, okay, well, Breyer anticipated it. We now have the violation of the Posse Comitatus act. Now, just to clear up where we are procedurally, there is a stay issued BY Effectively all three judges, but two Trump judges appointed to the 9th Circuit on an emergency application for a stay of the judge's temporary restraining order. They've issued an administrative stay with a briefing schedule for next week to determine whether there should be a stay of the temporary restraining order while they litigate the underlying merits of the appeal. I don't see the grounds for it. I don't see them having jurisdiction for it. They've asked for briefing from California, who I'm sure will say you don't have jurisdiction under the temporary restraining order. We're already in the process of preliminary injunction for next week. So stay out of it or keep your administrative stay, but don't make that other ruling. They are now briefing that issue, but that does not divest the trial court Judge Breyer of jurisdiction to continue administering justice in that case, including moving forward with everything else, whether it's a contempt proceeding in the future or the preliminary injunction hearing next week. That continues on a fast track. If he rules after that that they have violated the 10th, the militia act and the Posse Comitatus act, he will enter a preliminary injunction which now triggers appellate jurisdiction back to the Ninth Circuit. I assume that same panel and then whoever is the loser there on it as the time ticks by because the the troops are currently still federalized. I'm talking about the National Guard and there's no ruling about the Marines yet. That will then go back to the 9th Circuit who will make whatever ruling they're going to make. And just because they're doing the briefing on a fast track doesn't mean they're going to rule on a fast track. You and I waited around two years ago for over a month for the immunity decision to come out of the D.C. court before it went to the Supremes. I don't know. It could be another month, meaning troops on the ground, Donald Trump pouring kerosene over the fire in California in order to repress them and to suppress them. And so whoever loses at the Ninth Circuit in two weeks, three weeks or four weeks, now we're off to another emergency application to the United States Supreme Court. And the question I have for you, Ben, is once it gets to the Supreme Court, given now what we know from the Trump law that's been developed over the last 175 days, watching them when it's presidential power versus immigration or due process rights versus church and state, all the over federal funding and doge all the rulings that we've got. Can you make heads or tails? How when they're presented with this issue, this statute, this amendment and this Posse Comitatus act, what they're going to do?
- [30:01]
A
Yeah, I think it's going to be a 7 to 2 decision. I think though, before the 7 to 2 decision, they're going to issue an administrative stay that will still keep in place the National Guard being federalized for a period that is way too long. I think ultimately the Supreme Court makes the right decision. And on a case like this, they rule against Donald Trump and say that he can't federalize the National Guard on a seven to two basis. I'll give you the breakdown of where I think that's going to happen. I'll get your take on it as well. But let's take our first quick break of the show. I want to remind Everybody about Michael Popo's YouTube channel, the Legal AF YouTube channel. It's absolutely crushing it on its way to 1 million subscribers. Racing past that 500,000 subscriber mark. Make sure you all subscribe. I want to see that Legal a channel get 1 million subscribers. Michael Popak is also now on substack. Legal AF sub stack is crushing it as well. Check that out. And Michael Popox, new law firm, the Popak Firm, signing up a lot of cases from our viewers here. Michael Popak, I know the firm was inspired by our listeners and viewers who had cases and they wanted you to represent them and they wanted you and your network of lawyers to, to represent them. And you couldn't do that, what you were doing before. So you started your own law firm right now. And it's off to a great start. Catastrophic injury cases like bad trucking accidents and people who are involved in car accidents, sexual assault and sexual harassment cases, wrongful death cases. If someone you know was involved in a wrongful death case, any really kind of big negligence case, reach out to medical for a medical malpractice. Where can they find you? Popo.
- [31:48]
B
Yeah, thanks. And as you and as you convinced me last week, dog bite cases, serious dog bite cases. Look, one of the things we've learned at the intersection of law and politics is that good lawyering matters. And so I've assembled a group that are expert in their, in their jurisdiction, in your jurisdiction. And you know and, and, and know their way around those courts. And that's what you need in this particular situation. So reach out to the Popoc firm. It's easy. You can if you want to talk to somebody and they're standing by. You can call them at 1-877- POPAK-AF. That's P O P O K A F or if you just like to go on the website and end up with our free consultation case evaluation form, you can go to www. The popoc firm.com we'll be right back.
- [32:34]
A
After our first quick break of the show.
- [32:36]
B
Life moves fast and sometimes you just need a way to relax, recharge or refocus without overcomplicating things. That's where Via comes in. I've been using Via's gummies lately and I have to say they work. When I need to wind down at the end of a long day, Via hits the mark. I love that I can choose how strong I want the experience from 0thC to full effect options. These aren't random gas station gummies. Via makes effect driven high quality products that enhance your everyday. With over a half a million happy customers and a product line made from organic lab tested hemp grown right here in the us, Via is the real deal. Plus they ship discreetly and legally to your door. No medical card required. If you're 21 years or older, try via for 15% off and a free gift with your first order, head to via co/legal af and use code legal af that's V I I A.co/legal af code legal af enhance your everyday with Via. I may be very open with you on this podcast, but off the air I really do value my privacy and it's 2025. Are your blind still from 2005? There is a better way to buy blind shade shutters and drapery and it's called three Day Blinds. They are the leading manufacturer of high quality custom window treatments in the US and right now if you use my URL three day blinds.com legalaf they're running a buy one get one 50% off deal. We can shop for almost anything at home. Why not shop for blinds at home too? Three Day Blinds has local, professionally trained design consultants who have an average of over 10 years of experience that provide expert guidance on the right blinds for you in the comfort of your home. Just set up an appointment and you'll get a free no obligation quote the same day. Not very handy DIY projects can be fun, but measuring and installing blinds can be a big challenge. The Expert team at 3 Day Blinds handles all the heavy lifting they design, measure and install so you can sit back, relax and leave it to the pros. It's 2025 and so much of my house is smart. With Alexa but I never thought about getting my blinds connected to Alexa too so I can just say Alexa Open the blinds each morning. With three day blinds you choose from thousands of options that fit any budget or style and with actual samples you won't be guessing about what your blinds will look like. 3 Day Blinds has been in business for over 45 years and they have helped over 2 million people get the window treatments of their dreams. So they are a brand you can trust right now. Get quality window treatments that fit your budget with three day blinds. Head to three day blinds.com legalaf for their buy one get one 50% off deal on custom blinds, shade shutters and drapery for a free no charge, no obligation consultation. Just head to three day blinds.com legal af one last time that's buy one get one 50% off when you head to the number 3d a y blinds.com.
- [35:49]
A
Legalaf welcome back to legal af. Thank you to all of our pro democracy sponsors right there. This show's not possible without those pro democracy sponsors. My younger brother Jordy does a great job negotiating some really great discounts. The discounts for those sponsors are in the description below. So you asked me what do I think the Supreme Court's gonna do based on the kind of precedent, if you will, of what's been taking place already this term on the outer limits of dictatorial power. We've usually been seeing the Supreme Court rule against Donald Trump, but first they kind of go through this exercise of granting Donald Trump the administrative stay that he requests, preserving not the status quo that existed before Trump engages in a disastrous executive order or takes some really harmful action, but the status quo as it exists once Trump implements that really bad thing. So that often that bad thing remains in place for a long period of time. But if it goes on the outer limits of dictatorial power, you really only see two of the justices who have been siding with Donald Trump, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Alito seem to side with Donald Trump on everything. This is one of those cases, Popak, for all of the reasons you laid out though, because it violates the statute, it violates the 10th Amendment, and it violates just kind of common sense. I could see this being one of those nine to zero rulings like the facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia ruling and we'll talk about Abrego in a bit. That was a 9 to 0 ruling there. So this feels like it'll be a 7 to 2 or even a 9 to 0. But you know, I think you'll clearly have you'll clearly have, you know, Katanji, Brown, Jackson. I think you'll clearly have Kagan, you'll clearly have Sotomayor, the three liberal justices. I think you're gonna get Roberts, I think you're going to get there. Amy Koenig, you'll get Amy Coney Barrett. And then the question is, are you going to get Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? And I think in a case like this, given their kind of states rights backgrounds, I just think you get them. So that's what I, what do you think will happen?
- [38:08]
B
No, I agree with you. I think it's going to be a win for our constitutional republic and our system of federalism. It goes to the very core of who we are as a United States of America. And it's, they're going to quickly, I think, dispatch the argument about lack of judicial oversight over anything Donald Trump wants to do. I mean, let's just call it out, you know, let's take the scales off our eyes, which you and I have been working on with our audience for five years, which is what we're watching, which is Donald Trump creating phony emergencies, phony wars, phony indictments, phony, you know, rebellions or insurrections in order to use the crushing superpowers that are given to presidents only in those limited circumstances. Okay. Yeah, I just picture a book on his desk that was created by like a three ring binder created by Stephen Miller of war powers and what you have to, and what you have to lie to the American people about in order to use them and that, but that's, that's not working in federal courts and that's not working with appellate courts in general. And I don't think it works with as you, the law lineup that you just gave there because this tension of the unitary president model, which five of them believe in, where at least four of them strongly believe in, runs counter to states rights and state sovereignty. And I've seen enough written by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch at least to believe that even they, so whether it's, whether it's six to two, sorry, six, three or seven, two in that ballpark. But you're right, you'll never get Alito and Thomas. They're going to be, well, he's the commander in chief, you know, they'll do a whole analysis that doesn't even fit with what you're supposed to be analyzing under the language of the statute or under, or under federalism. And they'll say, well, this is like a war power. And they'll go off because they'll reverse engineer it where? What's the outcome? We want the president to be able to do what he just did. Okay. And then they start pulling out of their tool bag of monkey wrenches all the things that get them there. Oh, is it originalism saying that the text has to match exactly what the founding. No, that doesn't work. Is it. Is it a dictionary definition? No, that doesn't work. Is it public policy? Maybe. Is it war powers? Oh, war powers. That'll get us there. That's how they operate. I'm talking about at least four. If not. If not. Yeah, four on the total right wing. But we're going to get there quick. I never thought in my. I keep saying this out loud. I guess it's comforting to me. I never thought you and I would be doing podcasting and hot takes about a president's violation of the Posse Comitatus act, the Alien Enemies act laws on the books since 1903 or 1878 or everything else. I thought these were inviolable guardrails around our democracy until we elected rogue lawless felon in chief who his entire animating principle for his presidency, as we've said throughout, is to crush dissent, to repress and to be vindictive and retribution against those he sees as his political enemies, which is frankly, anybody that's not MAGA and supporting him.
- [41:24]
A
Well, you know, earlier this week, when Donald Trump was at Fort Bragg where he handpicked the soldiers behind him that would be. That supported him politically and they were selling all of the MAGA gear, one of the things that Donald Trump was talking about in his speech with the military flanking him in the background, was using the military to liberate Los Angeles. That's what he said. We need to liberate Los Angeles. And then his Department of Homeland Security cosplay dog killer, Kristi Noem, when she went to the Los Angeles FBI office right before that incident, where the Senator Alex Padilla of California was thrown to the ground and detained for trying to ask her a question. She was giving a speech like a coup leader who just invaded a country or had just taken over the country from within. And she was speaking in Los Angeles and her speech was, Los Angeles has been liberated. The military is on the streets. The Marines are here. The National Guard has been federalized. You are now safe because of the. It was a coup speech. So the Democratically elected California senator, Alex Padilla was asking a question when she was talking about her liberation of Los Angeles, which, by the way, it's the most delusional concept in the world. Of the 4,000 National Guard troops that have been federalized, only about 100 to 200 of them have actually been operationalized because there's no plan with what to do with them. They're not trained to do this. So you have 100 to 200 of them surrounding some of the federal buildings, like kind of glorified bodyguards or glorified bouncers that you may see at, like standing in front of a club, you know, as people, you know, as people are looking at them and saying, what the hell are you doing in our city? Why are you doing that? You know, what are you doing in the city? And then Trump adds on top of that, you know, the Marines and cause the Marines to come in, in addition to federalizing the National Guard. But to your point, we're talking about the language of dictators, of coup leaders saying that they're liberating American cities and that what needs to be conquered and taken over are liberal blue cities. And I've said this about California. I'll just say it again. California has the fourth largest GDP in the world. If California was a country to have the fourth largest gdp, our diversity makes California great. The migrant community in California helps California. Know how. Donald Trump says that the United States subsidizes Canada, which it doesn't, because Donald Trump doesn't understand the way deficits work. California literally subsidizes mostly every red state. Yeah, all of the red states are failed states. They're the worst in education, worst. When it comes to mortality, poverty, mortality, quality of living, health, you name every stat. Those red states are the. Are the worst. They're taker states. And then they have the audacity to basically say, we're sending in the troops to go after California. And really, hat tip to California Governor Gavin Newsom, who I think has shown awesome leadership. Presidential medal, Very, very much so. And we here at the Midas Touch Network were the exclusive live streamers of his major address to the state and to the country.
- [45:06]
B
And look what legal a efforts of Midas Mighty and others were able to do. Donald Trump figured out, as Gavin Newsom said, that it's a bad look and bad politics to be chasing people, human beings, through supermarkets and hotel lobbies and factory floors and food and food and agricultural plants. That was a bad look. So Donald Trump issued a new ruling through his immigration, his ICE that says, and see, they know the term. They know that Donald Trump knows that not all undocumented are criminals, because that's the instant conflagration that Donald Trump does in order to support his inhumane policies. They're all criminals. They're all rapists and drug users and drug dealers and human traffickers. We'll get to Abrego Garcia in a minute. But they actually have a term for the hard working undocumented that do the dirty jobs that nobody wants to do in America that make up a large percentage of many of our industries like hospitality, construction, food processing. They're known as. Listen to this, Ben. Let's talk about Orwellian vocabulary, non criminal collateral. You know what non criminal collateral is in Trump's vocabulary? It's the undocumented who have not committed any crime. And now he's sent out a memo that said, and Gavin Newsom did a great job trolling him about it. I guess he figured out it wasn't a good look to be chasing through, chasing brown people through hotel lobbies and factories, right? So now it says ICE don't do any raids. If it involves agriculture, hotels and food plants, stay away from them. If they're non criminal collateral, meaning they're not doing anything wrong, don't arrest them. A recognition as he did when he owned hotels and golf courses and employed a lot of undocumented people that this part of the lifeblood of our economy and putting them far underground out of fear instead of giving them a dignified path to citizenship or permanent residency is probably not a good look. But I find it remarkable. And the press, of course, doesn't cover it enough that he has a term. He knows what undocumented that are just hardworking and hoping to God that there is a new president that comes in in 2028 who knows about ethnic diversity and its value, such as Gavin Newsom, that will reward them for paying their taxes, keeping their nose clean, not committing crimes, and doing the jobs that Americans by and large don't want to do. That's. And they're holding on, barely holding on. At the same time. Stephen Miller, who gives out the the command there needs to be 3,000 arrests a day, which amps it up. They finally get to 2,000 arrests a day, leading the leading into California. And focus, Listen to this, Ben. Stephen Miller wants ICE to focus on Home Depot and the parking lots because they've recognized that over the last 30 years there's a lot of undocumented day laborers and other workers there. So he's like, let's go, let's do the raid in Home Depot parking lot, which is a red owned MAGA owned company that has Donald Trump's ear The Home Depot people, big supporters of Donald Trump, and now they're just going to turn away other human beings and let ICE do raids in Home Depot parking lots. And you know what they do for the employees at Home Depot, Ben? They can't report it. They have to report it on a database that there was an ICE raid and they get to go home if they were offended by anything that happened in the parking lot. But they're not going to stop it either.
- [48:38]
A
You know. And that brings us to Abrego Garcia and the importance of due process. Due process, due process. Because regardless of what the outcome of this detention hearing in the middle district of Tennessee Federal Court is, boc the importance of due process, I think, was demonstrated because the prosecutors, the Department of Justice, they had to show evidence, and their evidence was very, very flimsy about why they think that Abrego Garcia is a threat to society. So much so that he needs to be detained and he can't be even let out on bail. He just has to be there forever. On the other hand, you saw Abrego Garcia have a lawyer represent him and provide their own cross examination of the prosecutor's witnesses and provide witnesses in favor of Abrego such that the judge can balance and weigh the evidence and make a ruling. Because our system isn't just trust me, bro. Or in the case of Trump, whatever Trump says, that becomes the answer. Especially when we know that he. That Donald Trump's lying the moment he opens up his mouth. It's almost always the opposite of what he says is what's actually, you know, really happening. So just a reminder, everybody remembers, Abrego was sent to El Salvador, kidnapped, disappeared to a concentration camp at Sicot is what it was called in El Salvador. The Department of Justice lawyer who was then kind of fired and pushed out admitted it was a mistake. Because back in 2019, there was an order by an immigration judge when Trump was in office saying that Abrego Garcia could not be ever deported to El Salvador. That based on hearsay witnesses and a lot of evidence that wasn't high quality. But an immigration judge did say, there's enough. If you want to deport this guy, deport him to another country. The one thing you can't do is deport him to El Salvador. So what does the Trump administration do or the regime do in 2025? They deport him to El Salvador. The DOJ lawyer admits it was a mistake. The Trump administration fires that DOJ lawyer for admitting it was a mistake, and they push him out. And then the Trump Regime says there's nothing we can do to bring him back. He's stuck in El Salvador forever. We're not bringing him back. The pressure builds. Abrego files a lawsuit against Donald Trump in federal court in Maryland. The Trump regime DOJ and the Maryland case seem to be moving closer to criminal contempt. Voila, the Trump regime caves. They bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States after claiming it was impossible to do that. And. But when they bring him back to the U.S. they indict him immediately on human trafficking charges. Human trafficking. Like, and if you actually. Human trafficking and conspiracy to commit human trafficking. And when you actually look at what they're charging him with, they're basically saying that he was like a mule who was used to drive laborers around to work in different locations for a larger enterprise that would put migrants to work. And so the claim was he was pulled over in Tennessee. That's why this case is in Tennessee, driving an SUV with eight people who seem to be migrants in the car. He was pulled over in a traffic stop, I think by, like, the Tennessee Highway Patrol. While he was driving the Highway Patrol, the Tennessee police officers, they gave him a warning. They thought nothing of it. In 2022, they stopped him. Maybe they were suspicious, but they had better things to do with their time than, you know, than deal with this. Who knows? But they didn't think that he would. That there was human trafficking or that there was a danger or anything. They took a police report. They gave him a warning. He went on with his life, lived in Maryland with his family, an American wife, American kids. Every year he reported. He reported himself back to ice, and he would let them know his status. Once a year, he'd let him know. They didn't think that he was a threat then at all. They didn't deport him to a foreign country, although they could have at any point in time other than El Salvador. And then the Trump regime, as part of their cruel deportation exercises, sends him to the concentration camp in El Salvador, where currently there are still hundreds and hundreds of people who are sent there without due process, who shouldn't be there, and they're fighting also to return to the United States. So he's indicted in the Middle District of Texas and the Middle District of Tennessee. The head of the criminal division there, basically the. The number two person at that federal prosecutor's office in the Middle District of Tennessee, a guy named Ben Schrader, he immediately resigns. And I think we see why he resigned. I mean, we knew is because this was a guy who was there during Obama, Trump, first administration, Biden, and now Trump. Nonpartisan guy, well respected top lawyer who goes after criminals, not people. Like, he's not here to do Trump's politicized bidding. So this guy left, and then literally, the office couldn't find any prosecutor to do this detention hearing other than the United States attorney, the top prosecutor, who's the interim top prosecutor in that district, which is just so rare that you would actually have that prosecutor, the US Attorney, actually argue in a detention hearing that, like, that never, ever happens. And the purpose of a detention hearing, then I'll toss it over to you, Popak, about what happens is to determine, can you let Abrego out? You know, pending the proceedings, he has to show up to court. If ultimately he's convicted of the crimes, he goes to prison. But can he be out on certain conditions? And usually the kind of qualifications is like, if you're a threat to society or a flight risk or things like that, you know, you could be detained during your proceedings, but ultimately, if the conditions satisfy the judge, that you can be out and about and you'll show up to your court date and you'll be around and you're not going to flee the jurisdiction. They let people out all the time. You know, you see that people post a bond, they're let out, and then they show up in their court, in their court proceedings. So that kind of sets the framework there. And so, you know, ultimately where this hearing devolved into, when it was clear that the prosecutor did not have the goods at all on Abrego, they said, one of the reasons why we don't want you to let Abrego out is because he can be deported immediately by ICE to another country other than El Salvador. ICE may deport him. That's why you need to keep him detained. That was like the final argument to which the federal judge said, why is that important? Why do I care about. Like, that's not what I'm here to do. I'm here to. If ICE does that, ICE does that. And by the way, ICE can do that if they want to do. Even right now, if ICE wants to deport this guy to another country other than El Salvador, you won't hear Michael Popak and I say they can't do that. I don't like the quality of evidence that he was hit with in 2019 when an immigration judge made the order that said that he can be deported to other countries, but he can. That was the order. That was it. The Trump administration could have done that. They didn't do that. So, Popak, let's talk about the detention. I want to take our last quick break of the show before we do that. The Michael Popak Law Firm is absolutely crushing it. The Popak firm, catastrophic injury cases, like trucking accident cases, car accident cases. The consultation with Michael Popak and Popak's firm is free. So you're not paying Popoc and then if he takes your case, you don't pay him unless there's a recovery. Wrongful death cases, sexual assault and harassment cases. You're handling all those types of cases, big negligence and malpractice cases. Where can they reach you? Popak?
- [56:43]
B
Yeah. Thank you, Ben. It's my honor to represent people, especially the legal A efforts, the Midas mighty in their world on these cases that turn your life and those of your loved ones upside down. So reach out to two ways. Easy. You can call. You can call and get somebody on the phone right now and start talking about your case at 1-877- POPAK-AF. It's P O P O K for those that want to know how to spell my name. And then we've got the firm website, which is also I'm trying to make it simple, not just for our audience, but for me. Www.thepopoc firm.com also subscribe to Michael Popak's.
- [57:26]
A
YouTube channel, the Legal AF YouTube channel on the way to 1 million subscribers and Michael Popox substack, the Legal AF substack. Let's take the last quick break of the day. I want you to tell us what went down in the detention hearing that caught your eye and ear. We also had some boots on the ground in there. We've been working with Popoc and I know they're going to work with the Legal AF channel, All Rise News as well. They do a really great job and we got a firsthand of what went down from them. I want you to talk about that. And then E. Jean Carroll has another victory against Donald Trump in the Second Circuit Court of Appeal. And bong panel, tell us about that. Then let's talk a little bit more about what happened in that federal election law case and maybe a few other things we'll talk about. Let's take our last quick break of the show.
- [58:15]
B
You ever notice the signs of getting older? Creeping in poor sleep, low energy, maybe a little brain fog or stiffness that didn't used to be there. Same here. And healthy aging is something I've been thinking about more than ever. That's why I'm so excited to share with you guys C15 from fatty 15, the first emerging essential fatty acid to be discovered in more than 90 years. It is an incredible scientific breakthrough to support our long term health and wellness and you guessed it, healthy aging. Fatty 15 co founder Dr. Stephanie Van Watson. She discovered C15 while working with the US Navy on aging dolphins. Over 100 studies now show that C15 strengthens our cells and helps slow biological aging at the cellular level. When our cells don't have enough C15, they become fragile and age faster. That's called Cellular Fragility syndrome, the first new nutritional deficiency. In 75 years. One in three people worldwide may have it. Fatty 15 is a science backed, award winning, patented 100% pure C15 supplement that repairs cellular damage, boosts sleep and brain health and helps your body feel younger from the inside out. I've been taking fatty 15 for a few months now and I really started noticing deeper sleep and more energy throughout the day. I wasn't expecting much at first, but I've actually seen a difference and that's saying a lot when most supplements don't deliver and it comes in a beautiful reusable jar with easy refill sent right, right to your door. Fatty 15 is on a mission to optimize your C15 levels to help support your long term health and wellness, especially as you age. You can get an additional 15% off their 90 day subscription starter kit by going to fatty15.com legalaf and using code legal af at checkout. In this crazy upside down world that we're working to make sense of, I have no better judge of character than my lab border collie Lily. And having given her her forever home, we take pride in making sure that we feed her healthy fresh dog food while making sure we don't break our back or the bank doing so. And my family is thrilled to have found sundaes for Lily, having tried other freezer box brands and we noticed the improved health of our dog almost right away. First, she loves the flavor and we love what it's done to her coat, eyes and breath. And with her weight management, so much easier to manage her weight with a scoop of sundaes than any other product we tried. And this product is super easy for us to store and serve. It doesn't require refrigeration or the delivery of dozens of pounds of ice packs. Sundaes is fresh dog food made from a short list of human grade Ingredients. Sundaes contains 100% all natural meat and superfoods and 0% synthetic nutrients or artificial ingredients. Dog parents report noticeable health improvements in their pups including softer fur, fresher breath, better poops and more energy after switching to sundaes. Unlike other fresh dog food, sundaes does not require refrigeration or preparation because of their air drying process. Just pour and serve. Cancel or pause your subscription anytime. With their 14 day money back guarantee, every order ships right to your door so you'll never worry about running out of dog food again. Did I mention how easy and convenient it is to store the bags? Insert big Wife smile here. Get 40% off your first order of sundaes. Go to sundaysfordogs.com legalea or use code legal AF at checkout.
- [61:41]
A
Welcome back to Legal AF. Thank you to our pro Democracy sponsors. Discount codes are in the description below. All right, Michael Popak, tell us what you what was interesting to you about that detention area there had the judge had not ruled yet whether or not Abrego can leave or not. But you know, Abrego's lawyer was putting on a lot of good evidence and basically saying, if he was such a big threat based on a 2022 traffic stop, why didn't you care about him until all of a sudden he became this high profile figure that Donald Trump had to get. Seems, seems a little suspicious, don't you? Don't, don't you think Abrego's lawyer, this guy Shabazz was great, huh? He was. And he kept on basically saying to the prosecutor, he was like, do you realize that your only witness tying a bray goat as a human trafficker is a snitch who y' all have deported five times already. So your main witness is someone who you already deported five times. What'd you make of it?
- [62:43]
B
Yeah, I mean, the judge, the judge actually stopped him on that. I'm sorry, what did you just say about the confidential informant? He said he's a two time felon and five time deported person that's now going to be able to stay in America because he snitched on my client. The judge was like, okay, a couple of unusual things. Six hours in length is unusual for a detention hearing. The judge, effectively the magistrate judge, Judge Holmes, basically putting the Department of Justice back on its heels and saying, I'm not even sure you've met the threshold necessary to detain him, let alone what the indictment looks like. And her not ruling at the time of the hearing, that's also unusual. She said it's unusual, but she also said these are unusual circumstances. Some of the facts that I picked up from my own read of what happened in the courtroom is they didn't get around to assigning a agent to do the investigation until the 28th of April. I'll put the timeline together in a minute. And the indictment got spit out less than, less than A month later, three weeks later, on May 21, while the Trump administration is stonewalling and telling Judge Zinnis to pound sand in Maryland, telling the Supreme Court effectively and taunting the Supreme Court like, we're not going to listen to your 90 decision about the return of Abrego Garcia. We're going to do it on our terms with a manufactured lawsuit, a manufactured criminal case in Tennessee that, as you said, based on a traffic stop in 2022 in which they let the guy go. I mean, they played the, the body cam interaction. Now, there are some, there are some things and the facts that were brought out in the hearing that don't exactly track. Like Abrego Garcia said that the last that they had come from St. Louis into Tennessee, but when they did later tracking of the car, he was not in St. Louis, he was in Texas. So whether he lied or didn't lie about that particular issue, whether that makes him a human trafficker, I don't know. But certainly the fact that the entire case was put together in three weeks, obviously under tremendous political pressure, that led to the person that was responsible for the case after a 15 year career to throw in the towel and quit. The new person who's a Democrat, the acting interim U.S. attorney, basically said, I'm the last man standing. That's why I'm here. But I don't think that my federal agent who's about to testify is going to throw away his career and perjure himself. So I believe him. That was the, the best he could do to present his case against sort of a withering cross examination of by Abrego Garcia's lawyers, with his mother in the room, his wife in the room. And I think they thought they did so well in just cross examining the government's case in front of her, in front of the judge, the magistrate, Judge Holmes, that they didn't even bother putting on. The brother, the brother of Abrego Garcia was in the courtroom ready to testify. And, and they didn't think they needed to put him on. Related to that. Now, what is, what does a win w I n look like for Brego Garcia? So manage expectations sort of similar to what you touched on. He's currently in detention while she's making the decision. If she says there's not, there's that you haven't met the threshold to show any of the danger to society, flight risk, all the things that are in that statute for detaining him pretrial based on this indictment with this flimsy evidence, she's not going to let him go because they're just going to transfer him to an immigration detention center for safekeeping until they do whatever the next thing they're going to do. They still have to deal with a federal judge in Maryland, Judge Zinnis, who is not going to let up on the contempt proceeding because they were in contempt from April 10th at least through, through the return of abrego Garcia on 2 Fridays ago where they willfully flouted the orders of Judge Zinnis and of the United States Supreme Court. Finding them in contempt, I think is the next thing that's going to happen, especially based on some new filings that happened with Judge Zinnis that we covered separately. So you got that going on. His civil rights were violated. He was not given due process before he was sent to El Salvador. And the fact that he's now been returned doesn't solve that problem necessarily. Could they, as you said, deport him under other circumstances? As long as it doesn't violate that law? I still think there needs to be due process related to it. I still don't think Zinnis is going to give up on it. And we'll have to see how these next steps that are uncharted play out. But I think that a win is going to be if we're able to announce on Legal AF and on the Midas Touch network that he's not going to be detained for the criminal case and he's now been transferred over to federal immigration detention, wherever that may be. At least he's on this side of the Atlantic or on American soil where federal judges in habeas corpus petitions and it looks like very competent lawyers that we know of course can assist him. So that's what I think plays out. But the fact that it went six hours, the judge was skeptical during most of it. You had a kind of a half hearted support for the case by the acting interim U.S. attorney. You had the one Homeland Security agent testifying about a three week case that he trumped up. And all the other facts that we've talked about all came out at the same time. But if anybody thinks he's going home to Maryland to be with his wife and his two children who are all US Citizens, that's not happening.
- [68:25]
A
Or at least it's not happening anytime soon. And from the outset it's Never that I've been an American. I've been rooting for Abrego. Garcia, as, as, as a human being. I don't really, I don't know enough about the guy to vouch for Abrego from, from what I've heard from people who work with him, seems like a hard working guy in Maryland. The people who he worked with at his union seem to like him. But look, if the guy committed crimes in the United States and he receives due process and goes in front of a jury and a jury ultimately convicts him of crimes, and crimes are presented through the normal course, look, that my position has always been that that's the system that we have. And you and I have always made it very clear if there are migrants who are in, who are involved in criminal conduct, of course they should either be deported or they should be fully prosecuted. That's not what the Trump regime is doing, though. They're targeting factories and as you mentioned at the outset, Home Depot parking lots and restaurants. And they're going into communities that are hardworking migrant communities, ripping families apart and creating, you know, torturing these hard working communities with people who are paying their taxes, who are very important to the United States of America and who, people who, in those communities who are citizens appreciate these people who are, who are in the communities. My belief is always that there needs to be for hard working migrants. We need an overall overhaul of our immigration system. There needs to be more programs like the Dreamers act and have a pathway to citizenship. People who are here undocumented but who are working hard and paying their taxes and contributing and doing all of those types of things, they shouldn't have to fear that they need to kind of live, you know, their lives and in, in hiding, you know, outside of their communities or the block that they live on. So, so I'm for comprehensive immigration reform. I'm for strong borders. I'm not for violations of due process. And Popak, I believe, you know, even though I disagree with the immigration how the immigration judge in 2019 used an officer's double hearsay statement of an officer who was kind of like disgraced for, I think like being in, you know, taking money from giving secrets to prostitutes and taking. There's like a whole thing about who the cop even was who was involved in that. 2019 seemed like a shady, dirty cop to begin with. Who was involved in the 2019. But the order said you can deport this guy to any other country. He got the process before an immigration judge. I thought it was a bad process, but he got the process, and they could have deported him to any other country other than the order. Just says, except El Salvador. You can't do it.
- [71:18]
B
It.
- [71:18]
A
And they went right to El Salvador. So it was at least good to see due process played out. I mean, look, Trump got due process in the E. Jean Carroll sexual assault case where he was found liable. Trump got due process in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case where he was found liable. Trump got due process in the business records case where he was found, where he was criminally convicted on 34 felony counts by unanimous jury. Donald Trump got due process US in his civil fraud case brought by the New York Attorney General, where he was found liable for massive fraud for guess what, Popak making up fake numbers. Kind of like what we see him doing now in the office, right? Like saying that this is worth 500 billion, you know, or 500 million 100 million, 2.6 billion. Just change the numbers and inflate and deflate valuations whenever it benefited him. Just making up numbers all of the time. That's exactly how he's treating our economy, reckoning our economy. But going back to Trump's due process, why don't you talk about E. Jean Carroll? I've got an update there.
- [72:24]
B
Yeah, great update. So E. Jean Carroll was two cases, right? One had to do with whether a jury would find that she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump in a dressing room at a department store near Trump Tower back in the 1990s, and whether she was defamed by him when he denied that that happened and then attacked her mentally, emotionally, physically. I mean, talking about what she looked like and everything else, and just classic defamation. That was before he was president. And then the second case, dovetailing on that, both federal, both in front of nine zero juries, presided over by the same judge, Judge Kaplan. The second trial, Carol 2, we call it, was for the same set of facts, but now to be assumed by the second jury that the sexual assault happened, as that term is used under New York penal law, and that whether he defamed her again while he was president. The first case that went up on a. So he lost both. First case he loses. Alina Hobb is the lead lawyer along with Joe Taina. Donald Trump does not testify, infamously goes to Scotland and decides to go into the bunker of one of his golf courses rather than testify, threatening to testify, but never does, and he loses. The jury finds sexual assault happened and that she was defamed and awards her $5.5 million. So we have a next trial. They appeal that. Okay. And that's the appeal I'm going to talk about next. They post the $5.5 million cash. Second trial happens about a month or two later. All before the election, by the way. Second trial, Taina's replaced, Haba's out. They bring in new lawyers, and Donald Trump testifies and blames Joe Tacopina for not letting him testify the first time. And how did that go? Not well. Jury awards $83.5 million now to E. Jean Carroll. That had to be bonded by Donald Trump because he couldn't scratch up enough cash at the time or didn't want to. It's now running with interest at about 100 million. That appeal sort of is based on this appeal, the first appeal by E. Jean Carroll on that case because it dealt with presidential comments or comments made while he was president, Better way to put it. Alina Haba gets trotted out to argue at the Second Circuit Court of Appeal. And they say, interesting, but you didn't raise it in time and you waived any presidential immunity argument or executive privilege argument. And that was they could have taken and tried to take it to the Supreme Court, but that's where it lies. It sits there at the Second Circuit. And she lost. Now, they also appealed to 5.5 million, and they lost 2 to 1 at the Second Circuit. Way back when. Way back when, in December 30th of 2024, after the election, but before he was inaugurated. And that's when, you know, Stephen Chong takes the social media White House communications director and says, Donald Trump got elected to reunite the country. Is that what we're watching? I'm sorry. Thank you. Is that what we're watching over the last 170 days? The reunification of America and peace and love, and yet this, you know, this. And he attacks the court and he attacks the judgment. Tax the judge all over again. So Trump asked for what we refer to in the business as an on bomb revisiting reevaluation of the appeal by the full entirety of whoever wants to participate at the 2nd Circuit, which is about 10 this time. It's about 10 people because four or five judges have said, I got a conflict. I'm not around. I'm not here. So 10 judges looked at in order to get an en banc review to overturn. Pardon me, to overTurn what the three judge panel had ruled. You have to get a majority to be interested in that. So you got to get six out of the 10 to say, yeah, let's, let's see it. Does he get six out of 10. No, he gets two out of 10 because the other eight said, yeah, not interesting. In order for you to win, there had to have been a manifest error, what we call reversible error by Judge Kaplan about evidence that was admitted. The main attack by Trump was Judge Kaplan shouldn't have allowed in two other women who testified about being sexually assaulted by Donald Trump at other times. And they shouldn't have let in the Access Hollywood tape where Donald Trump is infamously caught on tape, which he's never denied because he can't about sexually assaulting women and getting away with it because he's a celebrity. And they shouldn't allowed in some other witnesses that were contemporaneous, what we call outcry witnesses who testified about what E. Jean Carol told them at or about the time of the sexual abuse and a lot of other little other things that happen. And let me just be straight with our public, with our audience. Due process does not entitle you to a perfect trial. I've never, I've done 35 trials. I've never had a perfect trial. Nor does it entitle you to an error free trial. It just entitles you to a reversible error free trial that it's not so manifestly erroneous that it didn't undermine your liberty, your due process rights. And so they said, look, the court originally said, look, Judge Kaplan made his decisions and has broad discretion, wide berth to make decisions about evidence. And given that and the things that you've pointed out, we don't see a retrial here happening. And that was the ruling. It went up for the vote and one of the three judges that originally ruled jumped out with another statement in support and concurrence of the decision not to grant another appeal and said there's nothing that you've raised that would require relitigating this case, no error that is so erroneous, so beyond the pale of law that we would reverse the ruling and give you a new trial. So en banc denied. They don't even get to en banck at all now. His last stop. But I think it's a loser. Ben, is the United States Supreme Court, because you and I talk a lot about how this panel, this nine justices, the Supreme Court will rule when it comes to Donald Trump on lack of due process for immigrants or presidential power or doge or this or that. But when it comes to a case about Donald Trump before he was president, about a sex abuse judgment of a jury 90 and an affirmation by an Appellate court. I just don't see them being interested enough to even take an application. Won't be emergency to even take a writ of certiorari and take it up on appeal. What do you think?
- [79:22]
A
I agree. I don't think the Supreme Court will take it up. I mean, you know, perhaps Donald Trump tries to be creative is probably not the right word. You know, trying to use some sort of presidential powers hook to not have to pay right now. I don't know what that even looks like. But, you know, this is not a case involving presidential powers. This is not a case involving presidential immunity. This is not a case in the course and scope of anything that he's doing in terms of his Article 2 powers. So, I mean, the appeal to this full en banc panel of the 2nd Circuit was related to really just evidentiary issues about propensity evidence. I mean, their main issue on appeal, basically, is the fact that Donald Trump would continue to brag about sexually assaulting women throughout his life. Should that have come into evidence? That's basically the issue. And those two dissenting judges said that even though Donald Trump, his whole life had said or frequently made comments about sexually assaulting women and grabbing women's vaginas without their consent and doing that, that shouldn't have come into the trial about E. Jean Carroll. That's where the two said that was prejudicial to Donald Trump. So I don't think the Supreme Court weighs in on this popoc for that reason as well. But I think it's important for people to know what Trump was. The central part of Trump's appeal is you shouldn't have held all of the stuff that I did in the past against me on a case where I was found liable for sexual assault just because he said it all the time in the past, should that have come in or not?
- [81:05]
B
Even though, even though there is a rule of evidence related to sex abuse crimes that allows that very evidence in. It's an exception to the general rule that you and I, you know, have done when we've been defense lawyers, which is, no, you don't get to bring in, like, unless it's modus operandi or other things, you know, bad acts in the past need to stay outside the courtroom so as not to influence the jury except in matters like sexual abuse charges.
- [81:30]
A
Yeah. So I don't see it going to the Supreme Court. I just want to touch upon this because I mentioned it. You know, with all of the news going on, we can forget about cases. Sometimes we don't put the emphasis on cases like this is why I want to mention it now. A federal judge blocked federal election officials from enforcing Trump's Executive order forcing states to apply citizenship requirements, saying it imposes significant burdens and would harm eligible voters. It's a ruling by Judge Casp Spur out of the District Court of Massachusetts. On March 25, 2025, Trump issued Executive Order 14248, the Preserving and Protecting Integrity of American Elections Executive Order. Among other things, the Executive Order requires the United States Election Assistance Commission and the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, to implement documentary proof of citizenship requirements with federal voter registration forms required to be used by plaintiffs attorney generals in 19 states, California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, et cetera. They sued and said that this was unlawful. And after careful consideration of the party's filings, briefs from Amichai Kuri, and oral argument by counsel, the court allows the state's motion for a preliminary injunction for the reasons explained below. And the judge goes on to say that the states have also shown the risk of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, where the challenge sections of the Executive Order would burden the states with significant efforts and substantial cost to revamp voter registration procedures and would impede the registration of eligible voters, many of whom lack ready access to documentary evidence of citizenship. In light of the likelihood of success on the merits of their challenge of the aforementioned sections of the Executive Order, the risk of irreparable harm in the absence of the relief sought having been considered the balance of equities in the public interest, the Court allows the state's motion for preliminary injunction. So we have that order there as well. An eventful, eventful week indeed. Michael Pope Pockets why we, when you and I embarked on this show, now, what, like four years ago, Five years ago, Almost five years ago, you know, I didn't know that we were headed here, but I'm glad that we could at least bring the have built the infrastructure that now, during these very challenging and difficult times, to make all of this knowledge accessible to people, to read from the briefs like we just did, to uphold due process, to uphold our jury system, to uphold the way law and order is supposed to be done in the United States of America. And sure, you know, going through due process, it has the word process. Sometimes processes can be clunky, they can be slow, they can be not always fair. We cannot like aspects of the process. We can be frustrated by the outcomes of the process. But the process and the balancing that our framers created and that as our system has developed, it was largely viewed by the rest of the world as a shining example against all odds of how justice can be faithfully executed. And to see Donald Trump and his regime try to attack, have the least competent and the most fascist leaning people try to attack and break our system. I mean, Trump literally a criminal sexual abuser. He's a criminal. He is a sexual abuser. He's a bankrupter. Try to destroy our system the way he's doing. It's sad, it's tragic, but also it's motivating and it motivates us to fight on this. No Kings Day.
- [85:20]
B
And happy Father's Day to everybody out there who serves as a father for a child. Ben, this is your first Father's Day. This is my first Father's Day with a child. Very, very, very excited. I'm sure your lovely wife has something great planned for you and your daughter. I know my wife does here. But a shout out to everybody and be safe out there as we know we're going to follow. You're doing a great job on Midas Touch following the protests in the streets that organizations like 5051 have promoted. And it's not the last one. It's just the right counter programming against the Trump administration. And to round out your point, you and I looked at each other after the election and said, or actually just two months before the election in September. And we said we better get Legal AF up and running as a YouTube channel because our democracy may count on it. And you know, you and I talked about it a lot. We kicked it around, spitballed it a lot for a number of years about having a separate channel, you know, in collaboration with Midas Touch. And we thought that right moment was September, not because we were hoping for Kamala to lose, but we needed a break the glass emergency moment for our, our audience if we did. And I'm so, so honored and glad that you and I did that.
- [86:36]
A
Shout out to all the hard working team members at the Midas Touch Network as well who spend their weekends working really hard. That's a shout out to Adam Salton, our top executive here at the Midas Touch Network. But down the lines, they all do a very good job. You don't see or hear from them, but we know how hard they work. So thank you.
- [86:55]
B
Roll credits. We should roll old credits someday.
- [86:59]
A
They do great work. Anyway, everybody hit subscribe. Thank you to the Midas mighty and legal efforts. We appreciate you. Shout out to everybody and keep checking back for more updates throughout the day and into the morning.
- [87:15]
B
High interest debt is one of the toughest opponents you'll face unless you power up with a SOFI Personal Loan. A SOFI Personal Personal loan could repackage your bad debt into one low fixed rate monthly payment. It's even got super speed since you could get the funds as soon as the same day you sign. Visit sofi.compower to learn more. That's s-fi.com p o w E R Loans Originated By SoFi Bank NA Member FDIC Terms and Conditions apply.
- [87:43]
A
MLS 696891.