Michael Popak (2:15)

And designed to scale with your business, saving you time and money. Say goodbye to juggling multiple platforms and hello to efficient integrated management. Stop wasting resources on complicated systems and make the switch to odoo today. Visit odoo.com o d o o.com and discover how Odoo can simplify and streamline your business operations. Odoo Modern Management Made Simple A federal judge in Tennessee puts what essentially amounts to a gag order on the Trump regime in the Abrego Garcia case. Abrego Garcia amends his complaint in the Maryland case to add additional allegations about the torture he experienced in Sicat. The concentration camp in El Salvador will break down everything that's going on there. The Supreme Court strikes again. They issued an order regarding clarification on a prior order. They really want to send these migrants to third countries like South Sudan. We'll talk about what the Supreme Court did and how that's impacting a group of migrants who were stuck in Djibouti who are now going to South Sudan. Talk about the CBS settlement. Their parent company Paramount caved and settled with the Trump regime for $16 million. Talk about the implications of this that we heard this idea of what something called a media. We accepted the mediator's proposal. What does that mean? I'll give you a hint. Right now it's a bunch of bs. We'll talk about the new head of the Office of Special Counsel, this guy Paul Ingracia and his background. It is very, very, very scary to say the least. And then let's talk about some of these orders that are happening around the country where the Trump regime is. Even after that nationwide injunction order that we talked about by the Supreme Court saying that nationwide injunctions are limited, courts are still finding ways to grant class wide relief. And so we saw a judge in Washington, D.C. blocking Donald Trump's attempt to basically deprive asylum seekers of their ability to get asylum and just turned it into basically a class action order to get around what the Supreme Court said about nationwide injunctions. That and more on this episode of Legal af. Great to see you.

Ben (4:37)

Can barely see me. Don't adjust your dial, everybody. It looks like I'm in the dark, but I'm really traveling with my family and we're putting, putting our one year old to sleep. So I've been relegated to an alcove with limited lighting but with a strong signal. So glad to be here with you, Ben, and with the Midas Mighty and the legal A effers.

Michael Popak (4:57)

Well, great to see you. We've all been relegated to alcoves, it seems when it comes to the constitutional alcoves that we're in as a result of what the Trump regime is doing, you still have this kind of push and pull taking place. Why don't I start with some good news or some productive news? We'll start with Abrego Garcia and we'll talk about what's going on there. So Pam Bondi, the Trump regime, they've been just like defaming Abrego Garcia over and over again. And they say things that are not in the indictment against Abrego Garcia that are not in the criminal complaint that they brought in Tennessee. So everybody knows Abrego was sent to El Salvador. There was an order back when Trump was in office in 2019 saying, you can't send this guy to El Salvador. So what does the Trump regime this time do? They send him to El Salvador. The Supreme Court says facilitate his return and restore him to the status quo, as if he was not basically kidnapped and sent to El Salvador. So Trump regime returns him to Tennessee at their request that he be returned to Tennessee from El Salvador's dictator, and then they immediately charge him based on a traffic stop that happened in 2022, where the Trump regime alleges that this traffic stop captures Abrego in an SUV with a bunch of other people who look like migrants. They say, look, it looks like you were trafficking these people. I know trafficking is a bad. You know, is. Has a lot of implications. What they were saying is you were driving people around to go to different job sites and to do work. So that's what they alleged in the criminal complaint. Even though when Abrego was pulled over in 2022, nothing came of it. He was living in Maryland. He has an American wife. He has American kids. He works in a union. He would show up every year to ICE and just say, hey, I'm here to check in. But then the Trump regime says, nope, this guy's like a criminal mastermind. Drugs and child trafficking and all these things. And it's like, okay, well, none of that's actually in the underlying indictment. And they would go out and do this media campaign where they would just say that Abrego was, you know, doing all of these things. I think we have some clips of Pam Bondi going out and defaming him. I'll show those in just a moment. But Abrego's like, abrego has got a great legal team. And they're just like, you can't do this. Like, this is unethical, frankly. It's a violation of the rules of professional responsibility. You can get disbarred for doing stuff. Like, it's like, 101. You can't just start, you know, doing these things. And, you know, and they would say, look, you called him a gangster or, like, basically accused him of being, like, a sex trafficker. You know, you said that he was a drug dealer. You said that he was a murderer. You know, and you would go on. You would go on TV and say all of these things, and none of these things were true. Let me show you. We've got Pam Bondi saying a few things here. Let's play this clip.

Ben (7:47)

2.

Michael Popak (7:48)

One's on topic, one's off topic. Maybe I misunderstood you, but you were.

Ben (7:52)

Mentioning, you know, that he had some.

Michael Popak (7:54)

Involvement in these, in a murder, you know, or was connected to groups that.

Ben (7:58)

Had, you know, involved with this other smuggling ring.

Michael Popak (8:01)

But to be clear, the only charges he's facing right now are the like, you know, human smuggling charges.

Ben (8:07)

Just this. That's the one offense.

Michael Popak (8:10)

But the other things that you have talked about are not actually in the indictment.

Ben (8:15)

No.

Michael Popak (8:15)

Coconspirators allege that. And we were clear to say that he is charged with it's not only very serious charges of alien smuggling. Okay. But before that, she was saying this here, play this other clip above. In that, you know, human trafficking, not only in our country but in our world is very, very real. It's very dangerous. And as you saw recently in Virginia, the arrest we made of the MSD13 member, unrelated to this, we learned at that press conference, that's where they bring young children into our country and they start grooming them at middle school age to become Ms. 13 full fledged members commit violent crimes throughout our country. It is highly organized. It is very dangerous and they are living throughout our country. But no more because they are being arrested. They are being prosecuted and being convicted and deported when appropriate. That's all for today. Thank you. Yeah, that's not what Abrego is being accused of. Federal Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. She granted the motion by Abrego that basically says, look, Trump doj, you can't be saying these things anymore. You got to stop these things. So Popak, that's Tennessee. I want you to speak to that separately. You've got the Maryland proceedings just to remind people, right? That's before a judge named Judge Dennis. So. So people think you have. Tennessee is the criminal case before Judge Crenshaw. That's where the Trump regime has indicted Abrego. But before that, Abrego's lawyers filed in Maryland before Judge Zinnis, who was assigned the case. She was the one who initially ordered return him when he was sent to El Salvador. The Supreme Court ordered his return. The Trump regime argues in Maryland. Well, it's moot now he's back in the United States. So you have to dismiss the Maryland case. This is why Abrego's lawyer amended the complaint in Maryland to say, no, it's not. You should bring him from Tennessee to Maryland right now so he could be near his family in a Maryland federal court. And then they amended the allegations to talk about all the horrible torture that was going on in Seacod. So a lot happening there. But let me toss it to you.

Ben (10:38)

Yeah, no problem. So let me, let me unpack some of it. First of all, they use it interchangeably, but they're not interchangeable. Human, human trafficking is not human smuggling. It was a point made by Magistrate Judge Holmes, who is really running the day to day of the case in Tennessee. She answers to Judge Crenshaw, who's the Article 3 judge there, who's also ruled against the administration on a number of occasions. And if you're, it sounds, I know Pam Bondi with all of that hostage video blinking that she always does during her press conferences, said it's a, you know, it's a terrible and I'm not, I'm not trying to minimize human smuggling. But, but the difference between smuggling and trafficking was pointed out by judge, by Judge Holmes. Magistrate Judge Holmes in her own ruling, which was one involves exploitation, which is trafficking, which, which suggests against your will. And smuggling is there's like a test, there's an agreement. I need to get across a border. You are going to take me, I'm going to pay you that smuggling. And the difference is also in the penalty for those crimes. Holmes, in her own opinion from a week or so ago, she said, I did a survey in this district and it's a 12 month sentence. It's not nothing, but it's not enough to have somebody be a flight risk that wouldn't incentivize them to try to avoid a six month in a halfway house, year and a day type sentence. And so that was the first thing I want to clear up. You had that little snippet in there where Pam Bondi looked the American people in the eye and said because they need to conflate and they need to exaggerate and they need to tar with a broad brush because their indictment is not sufficient for their political purposes. Or as the lawyers for Abrego Garcia said, we're having this is an example of trial by newspaper, which is why they went to Judge Holmes and asked her to shut down the extrajudicial comments that are being made that are not in the indictment but are being used to tarnish. Abrego Garcia in the eyes of a future jury, he is a criminal. This is their choice. The Trump administration. He is a criminal defendant in a case that she's helping to administer justice in. And she doesn't like all the extrajudicial Statements. I think we're going to get a longer version of an order. But she has, as you've touched on at the beginning of the segment, she has issued a gag order reminding the lawyers, especially those from outside of Tennessee, that they need to comply with the local rules about extrajudicial statements. The comment that Pam Bondi made about him being a murderer, not in the indictment. You think if they had the goods on murder, they would have added that to the indictment? Trafficking of a 15 year old? No. Judge Holmes took a look at the evidence and said, what's the evidence that a 15 year old was being smuggled? Oh, the cop during the state highway patrol during the traffic stop from three years ago, which they released Abrego Garcia even though he had a suspended license. They didn't even write him a ticket. They took a roster, a handwritten roster. They made people in the car write down their birth dates and that's what they brought into the judge. Not the cop that stopped them. Not the 15 year old, now maybe 18 year old. Just a piece of paper that had a scribble on it that the judge couldn't make heads or tails of. Like I can't tell if that he's 15 or he's 18 and that makes a difference. But in any event, this is not exploitive, so therefore it's not involved. A minor is not involved in a crime like sex trafficking and therefore I'm not going to hold him in jail. Just to kind of round a square of the circle for our audience, last week or the week before, we were talking, last week we were talking about this extraordinary event where somebody who has been unconstitutionally detained for several months in El Salvador and now we know, based on his allegations, tortured, literally tortured, beaten on his knees 24 hours, lights on, you know, no bathroom, no bathroom breaks. And the rest, which would violate the convention against torture. That we know that from his allegations there he asked and it was granted for effectively there it is. There's a whole list. No mattresses, no lights. We're not talking about Zero Dark Thirty where we've offloaded a suspected terrorist in a black ops place. This is a person who is in our immigration and criminal justice system that the Trump administration offloaded to a third world country led by a petty dictator named Bukele and sent him to a deadly supermax prison where people die, several hundred people die every year in El Salvadoran prisons, including in sicot die. Okay? And so the, the, the, the reference to all of that, he then asked to have effectively protective custody to stay in federal detention on the U.S. marshal side because of his fear that he'll be deported and removed back to El Salvador. And why are his lawyers, which you commented are very good lawyers. They are. They used to be Donald Trump's lawyers. At least one part of them acquainted Emanuel. They ran into court and said, look, the administration speaks with fork and tongue. On one hand they tell, they tell. Pam Bondi says at a press conference he's going to be tried and convicted in Tennessee and then deported. But then lawyers in the court, including in Maryland, said, no, we're not going to do the criminal case. We're going to remove him through immigration process whenever we get the chance. So which is it? And so they ran into court and said, hide him. Will you please protect him from the Department of Justice? And something that I covered in one of my hot takes. The Department of Justice didn't even oppose it. They don't even trust themselves. They're like, we could accidentally or on purpose removed somebody back to El Salvador again. So yes, we're okay with you keeping him in federal detention, protecting him from the Trump administration. Fast forward. And one last comment just to round it out. When Pam Bondi did her press conference clip that you showed, she mentioned an MS.13 leader that had also at the same time they had picked up in Maryland. Okay. He was released and his indictment was dismissed the last time we reported. So this is the Trump administration in action. They'll say anything out loud, false and defamatory in order to make their political point, regardless of what happens to that person in our due process and his right to be presumed innocent. Lastly, we're now switch over to Judge Zinnis, not to be forgotten. Last but certainly not least, Judge Zinnis is the judge who has jurisdiction over Abrego Garcia and the violation of his constitutional rights when he was sent illegally as The Supreme Court ruled 90 to El Salvador over a order of non removal to El Salvador by an immigration judge. She now based on the lawyering that's going on with these same sets of lawyer we just talked about, she's now considering and has set up a briefing schedule at all whether she's going to order Abrego Garcia once he's popped from federal detention to Maryland under her watchful eye and make decisions about that. While of course on one hand the Trump administration is arguing her entire case and jurisdiction should be dismissed because we finally brought him home. You know, he's standing in the indictment. He's in Tennessee while the lawyers for Abrego Garcia have moved again for contempt and discovery sanctions in that case. So where do we sit right now as we end this segment? Abrego Garcia sits in Tennessee. Judge Holmes has issued a gag order about statements made there. He hasn't been released. Judge Zinnis is considering whether he's going to be released and into her custody, so to speak, in Maryland and whether she's going to find the Trump administration in contempt of court. When we get to the next segment or one of the other segments about what happened with the eight people headed now to South Sudan, we'll also talk about the internal inconsistencies of the United States Supreme Court when it comes to due process and deportation.

Michael Popak (19:15)

I just want everybody to even take a step back and think about it this way. Brego Garcia is saying I am safer in a federal penitentiary than I am outside based on what ICE is potentially going to do to me. So please keep me in federal prison. I want to have a trial for these charges because I know I'm going to. You brought these charges. I know they're false. Let's do it. You can keep me in jail for now because I'm worried that you're going to send me to South Sudan. You know, if it's not El Salvador, they probably send them to South Sudan as we talk about, you know, in the next segment or wherever. And the Trump regime is basically saying, no, we want you released, we want you out. And what they're planning on doing is dismissing the federal case in Tennessee once they release him to then move him to South Sudan or move him to another area so they can declare a victory because they know that they're going to lose a federal trial. So it's a interesting, I guess, is putting it lightly situation where you have a criminal defendant is not the one saying dismiss it. You have the prosecutors basically saying let's dismiss it all because they don't want to go through due process. And Abrego is saying, keep, keep trying me. I'm ready to go to trial. Let's do it. I'll be found not guilty. Keep me in jail, keep me in prison, because I rather that than go to South Sudan. So if you just think about it the way I described it, how inverted is that? And doesn't it seem now like the quote, unquote, good guys became the bad guys? Right. Our Justice Department doesn't want to use Justice Department things. They want to use the Gestapo tactics. And the criminal defendant wants the Justice Department from the past tactics to do a prosecution. I think when you pull it back like that. You're like, whoa. I never heard it say, like, someone talk about it like that. But that's what's actually happening here. All right, let's take our first quick break. I want to remind everybody about Michael popo's new law firm. Last week we got a ton of inquiries to your law firm. So if you have a case, a catastrophic injury case where you've been injured in a truck accident or a car accident or sexual assault or negligence, if you know somebody who that's happened to, medical malpractice. If you have a case wrongful death, obviously, if you know somebody who's died as a result of the negligence of somebody else, reach out to popo. You see him right here. You trust him.

Ben (22:06)

You know him.

Michael Popak (22:07)

And his firm will pick up the call right away. They'll respond to your inquiries. They'll place you with a top attorney that's associated with the popoc firm, Popak. Where can they find your firm?

Ben (22:18)

Yeah. Thanks, Ben. We made it really easy. There's two ways to do it. Whatever works for you. 1-877-popoc-af and then a website where you can go which is www the popoc firm.com. both lead you to the same place. You'll have a free case analysis evaluation form. You'll fill it out and some and a real live person, not AI, will talk to you and start evaluating your case. We'll do it for free if we decide to take it. It's a contingency. We don't get paid unless you do.

Michael Popak (22:53)

And everybody Popo's YouTube channel, Legal AF, on its way to 700,000 subscribers and then a million subscribers. So let's get that YouTube channel. 1 million subscribers. Just search legal AF on YouTube, make sure you're subscribed and turning notifications on. All right, let's take our first quick break of the show.

Ben (23:12)

So I had old buddy from law school came to crash at my place after we had moved to Florida. I hadn't seen him in years. First thing he says is, wait, where's the cat? I thought you were a cat guy now. I was like, she's here. She's just not triggering your allergies anymore. Thanks to packagen. This episode is sponsored by packagen. That's p a c a g e n pronounced packagen. And listen, cat allergies are brutal. Almost one in five people have them. And most allergy fixes either don't work or come with side effects. But packagen isn't a treatment for your allergies. It works on the allergens around your home, breaking them down so your body never has to deal with them in the first place. Cats groom themselves constantly. Their saliva is basically allergen central. That's why packaging's Whisker Block Protein. It's genius. It binds to and neutralizes those cat allergens without harsh chemicals. You just spray it every few days and breathe easier. It's safe, it works. And it's science backed literally by Harvard and Princeton scientists. Your pets aren't just pets, they're family. So do what I did. Go to packaging.com legalaf for 15% off and a special gift. Again, that's packaging.com legalaf one more time packaging.com legalaf 15% off and a free gift auto applied at checkout. This show is sponsored by Liquid iv. Sometimes, when my family is fast asleep and nobody's watching but the family dog, I get my big pile of car magazines and the Sunday paper with a sleeve of chocolate chip cookies and a glass of oat milk. Love looks different for everyone, especially when it comes to all the ways you treat and celebrate yourself. Gift yourself the everyday indulgence of extraordinary hydration from Liquid IV powered by Live hydro science. Visit liquidiv.com and fall in love with flavors like the zesty new Hydration Multiplier, Sugar free Raspberry Lemonade and use code legalif to save 20% off your first order. I always make sure I have Liquid IV and it's easy to use packets handy in my gym bag and my carry on computer bag when I'm traveling. Nothing like a quick burst of pina colada to give me the hydration I need and take me to my happy place. Hydration and getting enough each and every day, especially as the days are about to get that much longer, is a quest we are all on. But with Liquid iv I know that with a few packs a day I'm ensuring that when I'm on the go, I'm not neglecting staying hydrated. Liquid IV has true to fruit flavors that keep you hydrated. Find all your favorite hydration multiplier flavors on their website from Acai Berry and lemon Lime to Pina colada. Or choose from their line of sugar free flavors like Raspberry lemonade, White peach and rainbow sherbet. Break the mold and own your ritual. Just one stick and 16 ounces of water hydrates better than water alone. Powered by Live Hydro Science, an optimized ratio of electrolytes, essential vitamins and clinically tested nutrients that turn ordinary water into extraordinary hydration treat yourself to extraordinary hydration from Liquid IV. Get 20% off your first order of Liquid IV when you go to LiquidIV.com and use code legal AF at checkout. That's 20% off your first order with code legal AF@liquid IV.com.

Michael Popak (26:41)

Welcome back to Legal AF. Thank you to our Pro Democracy sponsors. You know, we don't have outside investors. One of the way we grow is through one of the ways we grow is through those Pro Democracy sponsors. My younger brother Jordy spends a long time negotiating those discount codes so that you can get great deals. So check them out. Also, I should also mention the Legal AF sub stack, which I forgot to mention before the break. Everybody on substack, go check out Legal Aft. I want to talk about this Supreme Court ruling regarding the eight migrants who were kind of in this holding area in Djibouti and they were going to be sent to a concentration camp in South Sudan, which is kind of like the Sikat in El Salvador, but in South Sudan, this war torn area, one of the most dangerous and violent places in the world, the Trump regime saying let's do concentration camp there with the local officials there. And that's where we're going to send migrants as part of third country deportation. So we talked about, there's this judge in Massachusetts, Federal Judge Murphy, and Judge Murphy had issued an injunction blocking the Trump regime from bringing the people from Djibouti, bring the people from the United States to South Sudan without justifying that the process that they're supposed to go through is actually followed. You know, Judge Murphy's order was actually narrower than I guess the headlines were. Judge Murphy and I agree with Judge Murphy here in the sense of this. Deportations to third countries is indeed allowed, but you have to follow a process because it might violate not just laws here in the United States, but international law against human torture. If you're taking human beings and you're putting them in war torn countries, and so the idea is that if someone is one allowed to be deported, if you go through the steps of deportation, then the question is where? And if they can't be sent for whatever reason back to their home country for lots of reasons, then the next step is, yes, you can transfer them to other countries that they, that they weren't born in or have no affiliation with. But you have to like justify it. You have to explain why this country, are they going to be safe in this country? Could they die in this country? Is this country able to accept them? And if you can go through those process through our Immigration system. This has always been the case because, you know, you're allowed to do it. This idea, though, of putting people in South Sudan and seekot that's not what it was really ever intended to be used for. So all Judge Murphy said was, is, wow, you've all of a sudden shipped these eight people to South Sudan. When their lawyers came in and said, whoa, whoa, they're going to die in South Sudan. Then there was efforts to try to. Their efforts to try to stop that and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, have they gone through the process? So all Judge Murphy did is that follow the normal process before you send people to third countries. Then the Supreme Court, this was what, a week and a half ago or two weeks ago, we covered it here. They then issued an order on their shadow docket staying or pausing Judge Murphy's order. And so when you stayed in order, which stayed or blocked sending people to South Sudan, what that means is Trump can send people to South Sudan. And the Supreme Court was based. They didn't really provide any explanation, but they've always been saying that Trump and his regime will suffer irreparable harm if their executive orders and their actions as the executive branch are not followed. And then it got kicked back to Judge Murphy after the Supreme Court basically said, we're staying your order. And Judge Murphy had issued two orders on two different, on two different dates. So then Judge Murphy said, okay, well, your stay was just of my original order, not my second order, which clarified my first order. And the second order was basically, can you justify the process that you're using before you send people to South Sudan? So go through the actual process. My first order was the injunction blocking them from going to South Sudan. And then the Trump regime ran right back to the Supreme Court and said, whoa, Judge Murphy is saying that your order didn't address his second order. So he's still allowing these people in Djibouti to stay in Djibouti. We want them to South Sudan, so we want clarification. Supreme Court say that all of Judge Murphy's orders are subject to your main order. Supreme Court, and let's get these people to South Sudan immediately so they can die. It's basically what the Trump regime said. So it went to the Supreme Court and then the Supreme Court immediately, instantly. It's like, it's like a Texas. It's like Trump has text message service now with the right wing Supreme Court. They get it. There's no like briefing, there's no like oral argument. The Supreme Court gets it. They're like, Absolutely. We're granting this for Trump. Send them to South Sudan. Basically, what the Supreme Court did there was a scathing, scathing dissent from Justice Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. And here's what they say. In a democracy, power implies responsibility. The greater the power that defines law, the less tolerant can this court be of defiance. As the nation's ultimate judicial tribunal, this court, beyond any other organ of society, is the trustee of law and charged with the duty of securing obedience to it. This court continues to invert those principles. Today's order clarifies only one thing. Other litigants must follow the rules. But the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial, respectively. I dissent. Popak, that was, you know, that statement. You are in what your job is. Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson are saying, basically the majority, you right wing majority, you are the criminals. You are the ones committing crimes against humanity right now. And you have Trump on speed dial. Anytime he wants to commit crimes against humanity, you take it. And then you take his call and then you grant him whatever he wants to do to allow his authoritarian machinations to be instantly implemented before there's even proceedings and a trial. All anybody was saying here, all Judge Murphy was saying here was, whoa, before we send these eight people to die in South Sudan, let's just go through a process. That's all. So pause it. If ultimately Trump regime, you're right, they should go there, fine. Just go through the process. To which Trump goes, my God, a process causes me irreparable harm. That goes back, Popak, to what we were also talking about in the first segment, due process. All we're saying is like, I'm not. And you're not defending Abrego. I'm not defending these eight people in Djibouti who are now going to South Sudan. All I'm defending is let them have their process. If ultimately you find they should go to South Sudan or Abrego, fine, that's the ruling. But what are we doing here when Trump just says it and then you issue a stay of federal court orders that are just pausing it. Not because they're finding in favor of the migrants, they're finding in favor of due process. And the Supreme Court keeps overruling that. Popa.

Ben (34:05)

I mean, the American people should be concerned and upset that they now reside in a country where the Supreme Court allows somebody's constitutional rights to due process and notice. That's all we're talking about to be run roughshod over by a president, a president that were as so succinctly and pithy put by Ketanji Brown Jackson, a president who lives in a law free zone. That's not okay. And as I've said, same way that you've said it during my hot takes. I'm not Abrego Garcia's defense lawyer. I don't know what these eight people in the Djibouti Air Force Base have done other than what's in the record. I'm not here to defend them. I'm here to defend with my last dying breath the process, just as you and I will defend until, you know, we're hoarse and or dead. First Amendment rights of people to speak about things in the public square that we find uncomfortable because we find them to be uncomfortable. And that used to be democracy and that used to be the brand democracy that we all could be proud of one way or the other. But now you have and I just did a hot take with Leah Lippman from become a semi regular now with her strict scrutiny, a law professor at Michigan. And Lee and I talked about the power of the dissents that are being written. We talk about opposition, we talk about resistance here because we all vibrate on the same frequency on legal AF and on Midas Touch in our audience and on both sides of the camera. I asked her about the power of dissents and why they're important. The ones we see written by Ketanji Brown Jackson, the ones we see written by Sonia Sotomayor, a little bit by Kagan, but really by those two. And why do they matter? And you and I learned a lot in law school from dissents that eventually became the majority opinion because dissents also influence public opinion and dissents influence students, law students and people and give them hope. And they are speaking to history. I mean, we have a playlist on legal AF called Court of History, led by Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz. And because the highest court is not the Supreme Court, it's how history is going to judge the lawyers, the judges, the Supreme Court and us as citizens. No higher. There's no higher title in America nor, you know, it should be that way than citizen. And to watch this destruction and have Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sotomayor call it out and call out, as Sotomayor did, that you touched on the abuse of power, her words, the abuse of the inherent authority of the United States Supreme Court's MAGA right wing majority to benefit, to bend over backwards, to find irreparable harm. Because it touches on Article 3 powers, sorry, Article 2 powers of the president and not care a whit about human beings and their suffering and their lack of due process. Now, some people, I just did a hot take on it for illegal AF side. Some people might think, well, the end of the day, after 72 hours, Trump got what he wanted because he ran back to court just to give the timeline again, he gets a one paragraph ruling by the 6 to 3 majority that says, Murphy, your order keeping those eight people in the Djibouti Air Force Base while due process and notice is being evaluated. We're blocking it. We're going to let the First Circuit do its thing on appeal. But we basically, we're okay with the president exercising his power to send people to third party, third world countries that don't share our values as a dumping, as a dumping ground. So. And that's where we got the Sotomayor dissent, which was 12, 14 pages in length. Then Murphy gets everybody together, as you pointed out, and says, well, I had two orders. What was in April and that was blocked. And you know, you went in on your shadow docket. You didn't wait for a final decision by me. You didn't wait. You did this not only interlocutory earlier than a final judgment, but you did it on one of my orders. There was another order in May where I said, you violated my order in April and I think you may be in contempt. And I made another order and you didn't block that. And Sotomayor actually signaled to Murphy not, she said, not all remedial orders have been blocked. And right on cue, he pulled everybody together the Monday after the Friday of the order and said, I don't. Nothing's changed. Nothing's changed. They are not to move. I'm still evaluating. I'm still getting to the bottom of it. And they ran back to court with this whiny motion for clarification. But as you said, it's like they have a WhatsApp direct line or text messaging to the Supreme Court, like, bring it back, bring it back now. I had hoped that the window had closed. I did a report on this because they left for their, the term ended and they hadn't ruled on it had been several days. Then of course, low and ball, four days ago, they issue a one paragraph unsigned decision that yeah, yeah, yeah, motion to clarify. We're nothing. Murphy, none of his rulings, they're all being blocked. None of them go forward. And so they got a win there. So we're like, oh crap, those guys are going to south. They're going to South Sudan, the lawyers, you know, this is like last minute reprieve for somebody on death row, right? You're trying. You're trying all the locks, all the doors. So they run to Judge Moss, Randy Moss in D.C. and bring what they claim to be a new petition on new evidence. He looks at it and says, I'm gonna block it for a day, but I'm transferring it back to Judge Murphy. So he laterals it back to Murphy. In the meantime, he has another stay order. So it's like the governor reprieve. Okay, all right. And then Murphy gets it back and says, look, let's have a hearing. What I think he accomplished at the hearing, although most people, including myself, don't think it's worth the paper it's written on, is a concession by the Department of Justice that they've spoken to the State Department, and the State Department has informed them that these people are not going to be detained, that they're going to be temporarily released and go through a naturalization process in South Sudan. Let me remind everybody, or say it out loud for people who don't know, these people are not from South Sudan. That's the point. It's a third country, not their country of origin or. Nor one that they wanted to go to or would agree to go to. This is a whole nother thing. This is like an El Salvadoran person, Mexican person, whatever beings or denaturalized US Citizen, God help us, being sent to South. Think about this. South Sudan, okay, And dumped there. And with like, with no passport. What's their passport? They lost their passport for another country. Now they're gonna go through a naturalization process in the middle of a war torn South Sudan. And does anybody really believe that when the Trump administration DOJ told Murphy that when he said, look, what we don't want to be is dumping people off in foreign lands where they get tortured and we act like it didn't happen and I won't, and that's that we can't be in that world. And that's when the lawyer made all sorts of representations, but it's not in writing. And. And you see this Supreme Court, as we've watched the evolution since April of this court, first few orders came out, we were like, okay, we sort of figure it out. They're not going to go as far as to violate due process, habeas corpus rights, or notice when it comes to deportation or removal. Got it. And another couple of orders came out. We're like, okay, I sort of understand that. And then this came out. Of nowhere, which is, no, these people have no rights. We don't care. Dump them off. Like, really, that's the pronouncement of the United States Supreme Court and that Article 2 power is preeminent about everything. And the problem, I'll just leave it on this, Ben. The problem with all of that, it's not about eight guys in the Djibouti Air Force Base. It's about the precedent and the body of law that's being developed by an emboldened Supreme Court led by Roberts and the rest of the now they have the numbers and have had it for a number of years, and how they're shoving this anti democratic, anti American way of life down our throat. I'll give one last example that you and I will keep an eye on. This is so bad that even my baby daughter is crying in the distance in the background. But in Texas, we've got a couple of guys that are trying out for the United States Supreme Court. One of them is Judge Ho. The other one is Judge Oldham. They just, they held last week an oral argument that was sent back to them by the United States Supreme Court on immigration and removal issues related to the Alien Enemies Act. And when you hear the language, because they've been empowered by the Supreme Court, Oldham said in his oral argument, well, we have an armed invasion, an armed invasion of Venezuela by trend that's been in this country and MS.13 has been in this country for a dozen years. We've got an armed invasion. Who are we to disagree with the president's determination under the Alien Enemies Act? We're like, oh, here we go. So this kind of ruling and judges like Murphy willing to stand up for it, is important, but we are watching. We now know better where the Supreme Court's going to go when it comes to Alien Enemies act and where it comes to removal and deportation, a very narrow box of habeas corpus into process and removal rights only under certain statutes related to it. And if it's an emergency or it's a war or a predatory incursion, all bets are going to be off. And the power of the presidency reigns supreme. And that is not only inconsistent with hundreds of years of precedent, but it just shows you, as Judge Ludick, who's just been on our legal AF channel in the last couple of days, said, this is about a Supreme Court that is bending over backwards not just to reinforce the power of the imperial presidency, it's about benefiting a guy named Donald Trump. And we should all be concerned about that, regardless of which side of the aisle or no aisle that you're on.

Michael Popak (44:43)

So our legal AF audience would probably say, because I know them very well, guys, but why aren't you showing me the Supreme Court ruling? Like you, you talked about the dissent. You showed us Sotomayor, which we appreciate, but why aren't you showing me the rulings or the. Or playing the oral arguments? You guys always do that. So are you hiding something from me? No, actually, the Supreme Court is, because, as Popak said, this massive precedent is being set that's overturning our entire conception of the Constitution as we've known it. And the Supreme Court is not holding any oral arguments on these cases. The parties are not showing up and arguing these issues in front of the court. They're not submitting long briefs. You know how we talk about those amicus briefs, which are like friends of the court briefs, where people talk about different groups, give their opinions, and then the Supreme Court sets these things like a year out or six months out or three months out, and all of those types of things. That's not happening. The Supreme Court is using what's called a shadow docket because it's not happening in the sunlight. That's why it's been kind of nicknamed the shadow docket. And they're making these rulings using procedural language that have the substantive impact of endorsing Trump's authoritarianism. So the Supreme Court isn't saying that we feel that Donald Trump violates the Constitution or that the Constitution supports what Trump is doing. They're not going there. What they're saying in all of these rulings is we're not going to even write an opinion. We're not going to have oral argument. What we're just going to do is we're going to say we've agreed to stay or pause the district court's ruling, so ordered. And by pausing the district court's ruling and the district court's cases, they have hearings, they have submissions. The district court has oral argument, has the people argue and submit evidence. And that's why these district courts, whether you're Trump appointed or Obama appointed or Biden appointed or Bush or Reagan, they're finding against Donald Trump after the evidence is provided. They're not just, like, just doing it. They're going through process and they're saying, wait a minute, Trump, you're not showing us evidence, so we have to weigh and balance these things, so we're ruling against you. But then the Supreme Court goes in and basically says, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, to what Popox said, We're dealing with Article 2 of the Constitution. That's the executive branch. If the executive branch says to us that the district court's orders are causing them irreparable harm, we, as the Judiciary, as Article 3, we have to step in for Article 2, the executive. And what we're going to do is we're going to pause the district court's order. So it's this kind of cowardly move the Supreme Court's doing by not issuing the order so we could dissect it and say, oh, here's how they feel about these issues. Here's how they balance the evidence, and they're not doing it. And then the Supreme Court, so cowardly, they're hiding behind this idea. Whoa, whoa, whoa. We didn't rule on the merits. We're not saying that Trump was right. We're not saying that he was wrong. All we're saying is let's just let this thing progress for a few years through the judicial system, and then maybe it'll come to us in a few years. Oh, really? You think those people in South Sudan, that they're gonna come back in a few years after they go to South Sudan and the next wave of people who Trump sends, you think that they're gonna be able to do these things? You know, and there's other cases, too. Like, the Supreme Court's been doing this as Donald Trump's been firing people without cause who are on the various independent agencies. And what they're saying is, hey, the status quo is, we're on the board. Let's keep us on the board, and then we can litigate our case, and then we can see if Trump is right or we're right. But then the Supreme Court steps in and goes, no, no, no. The status quo is Trump fired you, so now that you're fired, you'll be fired for the next few years. Go litigate your case and come back to me in 2029 or 2030, and then we'll deal with it. Do you see what I'm saying? How cowardly. And then popac and I and legal scholars, we can't even look to see, oh, it looks like the Supreme Court's having this type of test. Or, oh, they were strict constructionists, or, oh, I see how they view that statute. No, they're not. They're not giving us any of that data. When we come back, I want to talk about a few other things. I want to talk about the CBS settlement. I want to talk about who Donald Trump is. When Donald Trump fires people who is he replacing them with? We'll talk about the office of Special Counsel, what's going on there, and maybe another topic. Reminder, if you have your own case, if you've been injured in an accident, a trucking accident, a car accident, if you know somebody who's been injured, if you know someone who is the victim of wrongful death because of the negligence of others, I know you know and love Pop and trust him. Reach out to him. He's got a law firm that was set up because you all requested that he set up the Popoc firm. And he set it up to be able to help you out in cases. So if you or someone you know has been injured, catastrophic injury types of cases, serious injury cases that require, like, surgeries, medical malpractice cases, wrongful death cases, sexual assault and harassment cases, Popak, where can they find you?

Ben (50:23)

Thanks. Pardon me. Thanks, Ben. All roads lead back to the exact same place. You can either use a 1-800-number-1877 Popak AF or if you like to do it by the website, just go to the website opoc firm.com and you'll end up talking not to AI but to real people who help evaluate the case with me. And if we take the case, and we won't charge you unless we recover, so we don't get paid unless you do.

Michael Popak (50:55)

There you have it. Subscribe to Michael Popox YouTube channel. The legal a YouTube channel. Help them get 1 million subscribers. Turn your notifications on there. And also the Legal A of substack. Check that out as well. All right, let's take our last quick break. We'll we'll talk about CBS elements and a few other things.

Ben (51:10)

You know, sometimes the news is so wild these days, it makes me just want to crawl under a blanket with my cat. Honestly, there are so many similarities between Chanel and the news cycle. Unpredictable, a little chaotic, but somehow comforting. Now, while I can't fix all the craziness in the world, there's one thing I can absolutely control, what I feed Chanel. And that's thanks to our sponsor, Smalls. This podcast is sponsored by Smalls. If you listen to this show, you already know my cat is cannot live without smalls. To get 60% off your first order plus free shipping, head to smalls.com and use our promo code, LEGAL AF. But only for a limited time. Smalls cat food is packed with protein and made from preservative. Free ingredients you'd actually find in your fridge. Plus it's delivered right to your door. No wonder cats.com named Smalls their best overall cat food. Last night I fed Chanel her favorite flavor, the Tuna Feast and she was all in. She actually preferred her Smalls way more than her old food. I did a taste test with two bowls side by side and no joke, she immediately went for Smalls. Since switching, she's had fewer hair balls, more energy, a shinier coat, and the litter box smells way better. Still skeptical? Forbes ranked Smalls the best overall cat food and buzzfeed said, my cats went completely ballistic for this stuff. What are you waiting for? Give your cat the food they deserve for a limited time only. Because you're a Legal AF listener, you can get 60% off your first Smalls order plus free shipping by using my code LEGAL AF. That's 60% off when you head to smalls.com and use promo code LEGAL AF. Again, promo code LEGAL AF for 60% off your first order plus free shipping@smalls.com 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 foods, Sundays 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 Sundays. Go to sundaysfordogs.com legalize af or use code legalif at checkout.

Michael Popak (54:31)

Welcome back to Legal F. I'm here with Michael Popak. Thanks to those pro democracy sponsors. The discount codes are in the description below. Popak let's talk about Paramount folding. In this my opinion, it was perhaps the most frivolous case I've seen and Trump has filed a lot of frivolous cases. He alleged that CBS, in their 60 Minute segment involving former Vice President Kamala Harris in October of 2024, made an edit or two and that that caused him massive amounts of damage and emotional distress, he alleged. And he brought in Ronny Jackson to be a co plaintiff in the case because Ronny Jackson is from Amarillo, Texas. And Trump wanted to file this before the federal judge, Judge Kacmarek, who's the only judge in Amarillo, Texas. So he has the Congress member from Amarillo join him and say that he was a consumer also who watched this and suffered emotional damage to see former Vice President Kamala Harris give this interview, which they said that CBS in 60 Minutes interviewed certain segments. First off, the edit that they made was kind of purely to keep the movement of it going like the, like it was not a sub. It didn't change a yes to a no or up to a down or anything even of any significance. They took out a few ums and ahs that she was saying and it was a slower answer, although the full interview was out there. The way the Trump people knew it is that in one of the other segments, whether it was on Face the Nation or how it was posted online, it looked a little bit different from that one little segment. There was more ums and ahs. That was really it. Trump won the election. So what are his damages anyway? But he said that then he amended the complaint in February to say, oh, now his damages are $20 billion. What was really going on here is that Paramount, which is owned by the, the, the heir of, what do you say?

Ben (56:34)

The Redstone family.

Michael Popak (56:35)

The Redstone family, you know, it's owned by the daughter. Now, Sherry Redstone, who is Sumner's daughter, she wanted to sell her company to Sky Dance, a kind of a private equity hedge fund that gobbles up these companies. And Skydance is the son of the guy who runs Oracle. So you kind of had one heir wanting to buy a company from another heir. And then Trump was basically not approving, not giving it the FCC approvals that it needed until a personal settlement was reached with Donald Trump in his own case for Emotional distress. And so when we looked at this case, I mean, if anybody filed this case, you would get what's called Rule 11 sanctions, you would get laughed out of a federal court and you would be treated as a vexatious litigant because it's just the most bizarre and deranged lawsuit. But they got the judge that they wanted and then they kept on doing the delays every time the judge was about to make an order, because I think they even thought they might have lost with that judge. They would basically amend the complaint or ask for a delay. And in the background they were doing their gangster tactics and applying pressure to Paramount to settle this thing. They went in front of a mediator, I don't know the name of this mediator. Mediation is kind of non binding, informal, like negotiations that takes place. And basically the mediator's job is not to rule. Oh, you're right or you're wrong. The mediator's sole job is to try to make a deal. That's their job. And so the Trump regime was demanding $20 billion. And so the deal is, hey, Paramount, you want your approval to go through, wink, wink, here's what you gotta do, here's what's gonna happen. Mediation is confidential. That's why they, they go and they do this mediation. And then they basically said, aha, we settled $16 million. We're gonna give it to a future presidential library. And that's basically it. We're not making statements of apology, but we're just going to give $16 million. And then I guess that'll clear the way for the regulatory approval to take place. I mean, the Democrats say when they get power, they're going to investigate this as an unlawful bribe and a scheme. And that Democrats say, well, okay, well, you didn't, we're going to investigate Paramount and Skydance later. But you know, we saw some CBS hosts out there criticizing the decision from Paramount. But you know, you can address it. And then, and then, and then I think it's helpful that you then address Paul, the Paul and Gracia guy.

Ben (59:26)

Yeah.

Michael Popak (59:27)

In this analysis. But look, Popak, I, I, it's sad to say, but corporate news is done. They do good report, they do good. They have some good reporters. Like there are some good reporters at cbs, there are some good reporters at Washington Post, there are some good reporters at New York Times. You know, they're great, there are some great reporters out there who do good work. The issue is they're part of a corporate structure that will always sell out their work for the Oligarchy.

Ben (59:54)

Yeah, well, look, I. I'll just continue with that and then I'll wrap it into Paul again in Grassi. CBS was known as the Tiffany Network for a reason. It was run by Bill Paley, a lion of the industry back in the 50s, 60s and 70s, and 60 Minutes was the crown jewel of the Tiffany Network. But to Paramount and the kids of Sumner Redstone, which is right out of succession last season, where this old line company with, you know, making buggy whips and television shows, you know, gets acquired by the newfangled Oracle, you know, Air, you know, because this is their succession plan. They don't have a succession plan. Sumner died, Shari Redstone took over, and in order to cash out, they got to have a buyer. And Trump decided he was going to take their testicles, corporate in nature, in his hands and squeeze until they paid him the way ABC paid him, because George Stephanopoulos used one sex abuse term instead of another when he was asking a question. They shouldn't have settled either, but that set the precedent for cbs. And then you've got Brendan Carr, who is Donald Trump's bootlicker, who's now in charge of the Federal Federal Communications Commission. I see statements coming out of some of these places, and I think I'm in the Soviet Union circa 1970. It's just like the Politburo and it's propaganda. And you got the FCC guy or person saying things that are just totally political in nature, all to curry favor with Donald Trump. So they told. They effectively told Jerry Redstone, we are not going to approve a merger that any day and twice on Sundays would be ultimately approved because Paramount and Skydance, there's no antitrust issues. Ultimately, this should have been closed a long time ago, but Donald Trump held it up, using his lawsuit to extort a bribe, as you outlined it from Paramount. And now Suddenly, after the 16 million will eventually be paid, suddenly there'll be regulatory approval. So there's many things that lawyers representing Donald Trump have violated their rules of professional responsibility by using these threats for an ulterior motive. And the regulators, too. And so that's something we'll have to keep an eye on. And you're right to open up that, not Pandora's box, but to open up that issue of when, not if, the Democrats take control of the House. And I don't mean that cavalierly. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of voting to do, we have a lot of voting registration to do. But should we do all of that, then the House should be a blue tidal wave that happens. It's going to be a considerable amount of time with real investigations, real articles of impeachment, and about these kind of things. I could see two thirds of the, you know, of their time being taken up with those kind of things along with helping the American people. So the. According to the reporting, it looks like there's a former judge of some sort, state or federal, that was appointed to be the mediator. You and I have been involved with mediators. What happens is they mediate the two parties and the mediator does shuttle diplomacy back and forth, tries to use their own powers of influence and negotiation tactics in order to get the parties close. It looks like the parties weren't that close. And so the mediator. It's a technique in mediation, but the mediator made a proposal. It's called what else? A mediator proposal. And then they keep it open for a certain amount of times. This is usually right at the end when there's an impasse and they're far enough apart, like Trump's at 100 million and CBS is at 5. The mediator says it's something like 16 is my number who's going to meet me there. And they give a certain amount of time without telling either side who met them there. But if they both end up at 16, agreeing to the mediator's proposal, the mediator will announce a deal like my number. She'll. He'll say to one side, my number 16. My number 16, are you there? And then they'll say, we're there or we're not there. And if they're not there, you'll know whether you accept it or not. So you know who screwed you. But, but, but you'll never. You'll never know. You'll never. So that's what happened. Cbs, which has now completely thrown the crown jewel and the Tiffany network into the trash. I mean, if 60 Minutes was a major asset of this company, it has been completely undermined by what Paramount just did. On the way out, Skydance should be like, oh, shit, I thought we were buying a credible news organization. CBS News, and it's flagship magazine that's been on the air for 50 years now. It's not worth anything as far as I'm concerned. If I were the buyer, I'd be really pissed off about this. Bill Whitaker was in, literally, according to reporting, in tears. He's the one that did the interview, and so was the other major player over there, who's the female that does a lot of their. It'll come to me in a minute. But they were, they were, the, the reporters were flat. We're just flummoxed by this settlement. And I've been watching 60 Minutes for a long time. And after, at the end of every segment, they say a version of. For the full interview without editing, go to 60minutes.com blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's what happened here.

Michael Popak (65:43)

What?

Ben (65:43)

The fact that it took. It took Kamala Harris a minute and a half to make her point, and they shortened it to 30 seconds because it was a clip. But to Donald Trump. See, word salad. I would have. You would have what? You won the seven battleground states, you won the popular vote, you won the election. It's like the suit against the pollster that's still alive in Iowa who said, oh, she's up by five points when he was really up by 13. Who gives a crap at this point? But they do it to make a broader all political point. Donald Trump's trying to destroy mainstream media. He can't get control of us. He can't get control of things that are independent. So he has to go after the corporate owners of mainstream media. When we say mainstream media, we generally mean they're owned by corporations where this is an asset on their books, you know, and like Bezos owning Washington Post, the Asian business guy that owns the LA Times, you know, the only thing that's like independent is our papers like the New York Times, which is at least owned by one family. You know, it has been for 150 years. But that's what we're talking about. This is their own by private equity and hedge and the rest. And so at the end of the day, the settlement, they're trying to pat themselves on the back going, yes, 16 million. We didn't have to apologize and we'll just put the full report out. But this so scuttles any of their press or First Amendment integrity. And like I said, if I was Skydance, I'd be like, you just shit all over 60 minutes. And that was a major asset for us in the purchase.

Michael Popak (67:33)

So you've got that happening, I mean, which is completely and utterly outrageous. And then you've got Trump appointing people, you know, so he's taken in this money and then he's pointing people like real whistle people who have real cases, right? So these Trump cases, just phony baloney stuff, right? BS Then you have people who have real cases, whistleblowers who are supposed to get whistleblower protection within the federal government. You have this Office of Special Counsel which is usually led by, in popoc lawyers with real distinction. Right. Who have either been civil rights lawyers or these are the types of people who are like, I can either become a judge, I can stay a partner at a firm where I'm earning seven figures, I can give back and provide real service to the federal government for a few years. And, you know, as a matter of service and protect whistleblowers within the federal.

Ben (68:29)

Government, like Hampton Dellinger, the guy they can't. The guy he can't. Who's a friend. Who's a friend.

Michael Popak (68:34)

So you have Hampton canned and who comes in.

Ben (68:38)

Okay, so Hampton Dellinger, who was Biden's, who again, this is the ombuds person position for whistleblowers in the federal government to feel like they can go complain and drop their whistleblower complaint and not be retaliated against. And make. It's like the ethics hotline and the whistleblower hotline for the federal government. It was created after Watergate. Donald Trump destroyed three major institutions in America almost at the same time. The National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Service Protection Board, and the Office of Special Counsel. He did it like, within days of each other. The Merit Service Protection Board, about federal workers being protected, is effectively been trapped in amber and is on ice because he hasn't replaced the person he fired. And the Supreme Court let him fire him. And so they don't have a quorum, so they can't act. National Labor Relations Board, same thing. Protecting America's workers. All those unions that didn't support Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. What you get now, you got no place to go. You got no regulator, because it's all been put out of business by Donald Trump. And then lastly was the Office of Special Counsel, which is not what it sounds like. Some people thought, oh, that's like where Jack Smith came from. I get it. But that's not what it is. It's just the title that they gave to this office. Hampton Dellinger body of work on, you know, just unrivaled, just bipartisan, independent. A lawyer's lawyer comes from a long line of lawyers. Lawyers. His father, Walter Dellinger, was my constitutional law professor. Hung out at his house because we had a small class on a regular basis talking about con law. Solicitor General of the United States, shortlist for the U.S. supreme Court. That's Hampton Dellinger's family. Donald Trump. And it's just. I'd say it's comic relief, but it's just tragedy. He shits all over the office. I know. I'm cursing so much on this trip he craps all over the office by appointing a first year lawyer. I should stop right there. Who is. Because you're judged by the company you keep, especially on social media. He hangs around with, pals around with and endorses the views of white nationalists like Nick Fuentes, Holocaust deniers, 911 deniers supports Alex Jones and his comments about Sandy Hook massacre of children being an inside job or a false flag does the same for 9 11. Attention Howard Lutnick, Commerce Secretary who lost 658 people of his employees on 9 11. You okay rubbing elbows with the guy who's now the future head of the Office of Special Counsel who doesn't think that happened or thinks it was an inside job. Who went after Nikki Haley as a political hatchet man for Donald Trump calling her the B word, saying that she wasn't qualified to be president cuz her parents were from another country. Okay, I could go on. And you and I do it in our own hot takes. This is the guy who got fired from one job already in the Trump administration. He was at the beginning the liaison between the White House and the Department of Justice until he got sideways with Pam Bondi's right hand chief of staff. He tried to get him fired. The chief of staff got Paul in Gracia fired. He got transferred to Homeland Security where he's been stashed away and now nominated wholly unqualified, obscenely unqualified for this position. What does it signal? It just means that Donald Trump doesn't give a rat's ass about and wants to weaponize an office that's about weaponization, that's about retaliation of whistleblowers and protecting them. If I'm a whistleblower now in the government and this is my, this is the guy, this is the guy running the ethics hotline. I hang up. So that's what Trump wants. He doesn't want whistleblowers, he doesn't want ethics charges. He just wants to put a joker in the spot because the other two he figured out, well, if I just don't nominate anybody, they don't have a quorum, they don't have to act. But I need to put somebody in the office of Special Counsel. But I'll just put this joker in. And that guy was like, I'll do it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. You know, so on. Let me just fold it into one last point. I am very concerned. I just did my own hot take on this about recess appointments by Donald Trump in August. Feeling emboldened and whatever by the, by the bill being passed for the budget which we'll use against him for the midterms. You can just hear it now. He talked about recess appointments where he'll get a year and a half of somebody being appointed through a commission without Senate confirmation. He's got 15 or 20 people in government, including US attorneys like Alina Haba, including federal judges. It's never been done for a federal judge, but it could be like Emil Bovey to be on the Third Circuit, give everybody a year and a half when the August recess happens until they come back a year later, a year and a half later and then he worries about confirmation. At that point. The more I hear about Donald Trump doing things that we weren't expecting, if that's even possible, like Alina Haba for permanent New Jersey U.S. attorney nominating this Senate, this person has to be Senate confirmed for this position. I now believe that he's going to try to shove all this down our throat at a Senate recess appointment in August. What do you think, Ben?

Michael Popak (74:06)

I agree with you and I think that as you try to break this down in a way that's really simple to understand as well, whether it's a Paul in Gracia or that 20 year old guy who they have leading counterterrorism at the Department of Homeland Security, right, who's now like the number one person who's before he was like interning for Trump or something, they made him the number one guy. Everything I try to say here, you know, and this is why, you know, we agree, you know, you did that great piece with Judge, Judge Ludig. Judge Ludig's a pretty right wing judge, you know, in a traditional sense. I mean he's a, he's conservative in the traditional sense of conservative where he and I and we align. Even if you go back and look at his rulings, where I would find disagreements, I'm sure I would find that his opinions were very thoughtful and logical. And we came out differently and had different agreements, but we used stats and data and logic and we tried and we, and we grappled with issues. And right now the, the distinctions here to me are not like they shouldn't be, oh, that's a liberal view or that's a conservative view. That's the way it's kind of being treated by corporate news. But go back to the first segment we did on Legal af. It was I'm not like an Abrego Garcia fan. I'm not a fan of the eight migrants in Djibouti I'm not, not a fan. I don't know. All I care about is that they get actual process and they go through it. And if ultimately, at the end of the day, the process reaches a conclusion, then let's have whatever the outcome is when they are provided due process. That's what I'm a fan of. I'm a fan of the due process. Right. I'm not a fan of someone using the executive branch to shake down media entities and corporations to settle frivolous lawsuits. I don't think that's like a liberal position, conservative position. I just think that's, to me, very illogical. And I'm not for people being appointed who are not only not qualified, but who express views that I think are despicable. And I am biased against views that are discriminatory against human beings. And I am biased against people who are not qualified getting jobs that require real serious qualifications and experience. I just, there's nothing that I'm, I'm saying there that to me feels, oh, well, that's like a hyper partisan statement that you're, you know, that you're making. I don't want people to get kicked off of Medicaid like this disastrous budget bill is going to do. I don't think that billionaires deserve, like, special treatment and that they we should go out of the way to give them the most tax cuts and the most benefits so they can buy extra jets. They should be treated fairly. I'm not against the idea that you could potentially become a billionaire one day if you build a corporation. But I am against the idea of them not getting taxed fairly and then becoming billionaires by gaining unfair advantages and exploiting workers. So I just, I'll leave it with this is that, you know, I want to approach all of this through a lens of common sense and logic. And I'll let you all who watch and listen to this decide where you stand on these issues. But a lot of this stuff is very, is very simple to me when you begin with values and principles like we do here at the Midas Touch Network and on Legal F. Let me remind everybody, subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel now. They're on their way to a million subscribers. Subscribe. Help them get 1 million. They'll get 700,000 any minute now and then let them get a million subscribers. Also, if you've been in an accident, whether it's a trucking accident or a car accident, a catastrophic injury where you've had surgeries, or if you know somebody who has been in an accident or someone who died as a result of the negligence of some company or somebody else or whatever. I know you all know and love and trust Popak. So Popak started his own law firm because you all said, hey, start your firm. And he couldn't handle these cases based on the other type of work he was doing. He could handle it. He just wasn't able to, hey, make phone calls. Let me, let me help people on cases like this. So he started his own firm to be able to do this. So if you or someone you know has a legal case and you want representation, but try to limit it to having those types of cases, trucking accidents, car accidents, catastrophic injury, sexual assault, sexual harassment, wrongful death, medical malpractice, dog bite. Cases like negligence could be like a slip and fall. Whatever it is, you know, if you have a real viable case, reach out.

Ben (79:00)

To Popak, rideshare to Uber Lyft, that kind of thing. We made it easy for you. 1-800-Number is 1-877-POPAK AF. What else? And then a website. It's the popoc firm.com. no AI real people standing by to talk about out and evaluate it with me. And if we take the case, we don't get paid unless you do. That's the way that'll work.

Michael Popak (79:25)

Everybody, thank you for watching Legal AF Popoc. It was great to see you be able to do this on your travels. Thank you so much for doing this. I know the legal aifers are glad to see you, but enjoy your travels. Happy 4th to everybody as well. We'll see you next time on Legal AF Hit. Subscribe here. Shout out out Legal A effers and shout out Midas mighty.