Loading summary
Transcript40 lines
- [00:00]
A
Back to school is better. With Family freedom from T Mobile, we'll pay off four phones up to $3200 and give you four free phones all on America's largest 5G network. Visit your local T Mobile location or learn more@t mobile.com familyfreedom. Up to $800 per line via virtual prepaid card typically takes 15 days. Free phones via 24 monthly bill credits with finance agreement eg Apple iPhone16128GB8 2,999 eligible trade in eg iPhone11 Pro for well qualified credits end and balance due if you pay off early or cancel contact T Mobile. Welcome to another midweek episode of Legal af. I am your co host Karen Friedman, Agniphalo. And standing in again for Michael Popak is the amazing Dina Dahl who is a regular Legal AAF sub in and also contributes to Midas Touch and the Legal AAF channel. And Dina, so happy to have you back and it's always nice to be with you on this show. How are you doing? How's California? How's your blue state? I'm in New York.
- [01:02]
B
Well, we'll talk about it a little bit more. I know one of our topics touches on it, but I recently had something happen with one of these ICE raids or I know a lot of people in Los Angeles know somebody who is scared about getting rounded up with the ICE raids and somebody that I know very well self deported, although I think we need to stop calling it self deported. He is a refugee. He's an American refugee. He fled because he was afraid of, of what this government was going to do to him because we see what they're doing with these Hispanic men, rounding them up, sending them to third world countries or third party countries, putting them in this Alcatraz detention centers. And so my heart is really breaking for him and for so many other people here in Los Angeles who are either afraid that this is going to happen to somebody they love or actually happening to somebody they love.
- [01:52]
A
Yeah, it seems like they're enforcing it in blue states more than red states just to whip up the blue states. Right. And really punish the blue states and punish frankly the businesses in blue states because really the businesses between the tariffs and the deportation of immigrants who are such a part of the fabric of our society and of our economy, it's just crazy to me what's going to happen. And you know, they can do all they want with the blue states and you know, it'll impact things like construction industries, farm industries, things like that. But what are they going to do like California is responsible for so much of the food chain. Right. The Central California is. Most of the fruits and vegetables in this country come from there. And so many employees in that industry are seasonal employees are immigrants. And I just don't know what's going to happen when either people can't get their food or prices go skyrocketing because of this. So it'll be really interesting to see between these deportations and the tariffs, if the economy. What happens to the economy and if those. That will finally be the pressure point that the administration needs to stop doing. Doing this, you know, asking for the thing that no one wants. It's. It's just crazy to me.
- [03:09]
B
I mean, they're just evil. I can't think of anywhere else. The fact that you would want to have somebody who's been hardworking in this country for years, like the best. He represented the best of what this country is. And for him to feel so unseen that he couldn't feel like he could stay and go through the legal process, but literally to flee and leave his family behind, it is because this is a hateful, evil administration. And it is for sure going to affect Los Angeles. It already is. Construction is really slowing down. We have the Olympics, we have the Palisades, but this Trump regime doesn't care. AG Bondi is out there already threatening to withhold money because we're a sanctuary city. They're going to blame the raising prices on all sorts of other stuff. But those of us here that might have touched the legal afers, we know we're going to keep putting like the fire to the feet, but they're not going to change their stripes no matter what. And unfortunately, yes, he didn't go and try to help Desantis and Abbott, even though evidently they were the ones who were, like, clamoring for help. He decided instead to punish us. And it is painful because these are real people, and real people's lives are being torn, torn apart. This man left his family to come to this country, never able to see them for years, and had to do it again a second time in his life. Separated now from his children solely because of the hate that is coming out of this Trump regime.
- [04:40]
A
Yeah, you make a really good point. Because whenever a city is going to have the Olympics, it's not like they just say, okay, here we are. They have to build a huge infrastructure to. To host and be able to house the Olympics and all the sporting events. And so there is a lot of construction associated with that. And same thing with as you said, the Palisades, the Palisades fire, right, was it just decimated an entire community, hundreds of houses and all at once they're all going to need to be rebuilt. And who's going to be doing all that work if you're going to be deporting all the construction workers? So, yeah, it's really a challenge and, and really upsetting because as you said, it's not just the economy, it's these people's lives and family members and they're lovely, wonderful people. And it's the opposite of what they promised. Right. They said we're going to deport the ones who are criminals, who commit violent crimes. And that's something, I think, something that everyone's always done, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. We've always deported the violent criminals and certainly no one I think is against that or hopefully not. But the hard working people who become our friends, our family members and employees, it's just really a shame and really sad. And I'm sorry to hear that about your friend. That's really terrible. Let's talk about. There's so much going on in the world of the intersection between law and politics, which is what legal AIF has been all these years and what we talk about and what really the Midas Touch Network is about. It's all about the intersection between law and politics. And there's so much we could talk about again, as always, you know, there's so many court cases that are going on, there's so many issues that are happening. There's so many people who I have so much respect for who are really leading the fight to push back against the lawlessness of this administration. Right. It's just they're not just pushing the boundaries of the law, but they're finding every loophole there is and driving a Mack truck through it legally. And by and large, they're losing in the court of law. Not in the Supreme Court so much, but only a few tiny little group, you know, a tiny minuscule percentage of cases actually make it to the Supreme Court. When they do go to the Supreme Court, it seems like Trump, the Supreme Court is very much giving Trump a lot of leeway. But in the federal district courts, which is the trial level court of federal courts, and in state courts, the Trump administration keeps losing one after another after another case. And they're losing and they're losing in a really huge way, which is great. And even though the Supreme Court will sometimes reverse or allow the Trump administration to do things, it's because it's such a small fraction of the hundreds and thousands of cases that are being brought across this country to fight back. It's worth fighting because sometimes Trump administration doesn't appeal. Sometimes they appeal and it's upheld. Sometimes they walk away from the policy. So it's really important to continue holding the line and to continue shining a bright spotlight on these legal cases and what is going on in this administration with, you know, Donald Trump as President of the United States, he's required to uphold the laws, right? He takes an oath of office. He has to. The language is take care that the laws are faithfully executed. He's required as part of his job to follow the law. And he doesn't do that. He really doesn't follow any of the norms especially. But more importantly, it doesn't matter to him what the law is. To him, it's a means to an end. And he looks at the end, he looks at the result first and then figures out a way to try and drive a truck through it and make it happen. And so the judges are the first line of defense against these actions. And the judges are fighting back and upholding the law. And the founders, when they created this country, the systems of checks and balances, the three branches of government, the judges are the ones who are really holding the line here. And I think it's important that we talk about a lot of the cases that are going on. And I want to start with the Epstein case, right, The Epstein files. When Jeffrey Epstein has been investigated multiple times and was ultimately about to be prosecuted and was prosecuted and arrested. And it was in 2022, and a month after he was arrested and held in jail, he committed suic. But that was after a lengthy, lengthy investigation. After he committed suicide, the Department of Justice then prosecuted his co conspirator, the woman who facilitated and even participated in these sexual assaults against minors, and hundreds of women who have since come forward. And the Justice Department prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell, and there was a trial and she was convicted and she was serving a 20 year sentence. And so to get to the point of prosecution and trial in a federal case, it is, there are, there are just terabytes of discovery of documents, right. Of investigatory materials. There are going to be witness interviews, there were search warrants that were executed, cell phone records, flight records. There's video evidence, there's witness testimony, there's computer evidence that exists. There's the credit card receipts. I mean, I can't tell you how many types of records there are that the Department of Justice will have in order to be able to prosecute cases like this. Thankfully, in this day and age, or not so thankfully, if you're a criminal defense attorney like I am trying to represent, people leave digital footprints in everything that they do, right? Whether it's video of what you're doing out on the street, to your cell phone records, to your Epstein, because he's a very wealthy person and flew on private planes, there's private plane records. And there are just everywhere you go, you think about your day. If you're in New York City, every time you go through the subway, there's a digital record of that. If you're staying in a hotel, every time you go in and out of a hotel room, there's that card reader that leaves a digital footprint. It's like digital breadcrumbs that prosecutors and FBI agents and investigators use to build a case against someone. And that's what they did in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. And all of those records are contained in files that are in the possession of the Department of Justice. We don't even know half of what they have. And the most, the thinnest record, the smallest record that has the least amount of information are grand jury minutes. Grand jury minutes, by design, are just the bare bones probable cause to charge someone with a crime. And federally, what they do, what the prosecutors do, is they go into the grand jury. Hearsay is allowed in the grand jury federally. So they typically don't put live witnesses in and they'll just call an FBI agent or two to essentially summarize the facts and summarize the evidence. And they usually call the FBI agents that they're not going to use at trial so that they can't be cross examined based on their grand jury testimony. And therefore, that grand jury testimony doesn't have to be turned over to the defense. So you never really get to see federal grand jury records. But they typically, like I said, don't say anything. And we know that's the case in the Epstein case because there have been three cases that the Trump administration has brought, two in New York, one in Florida, basically saying, please release the grand jury minutes. I think that the Trump administration is doing that to kind of say, look, we're making an application to release these grand jury minutes because we know, we see that everybody, bipartisan, Democrats, Republicans, everybody, is clamoring for the release of these records, of this investigation to find out what is in those files. I mean, don't forget Trump and all of his people surrounding him, including Elon Musk and others, especially leading up to the election, were clamoring for the release of these records and saying, we're going to name names, all of these individuals who were part of this, this circle of this web of sexual abuse and rape and et cetera, and rapes of children and trafficking. We're going to release all of that because it's not just Epstein alone. It's lots of people, lots of wealthy people, lots of people who have been, who we've seen were very close to Jeffrey Epstein, whether it's Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, others have all been very close to Jeffrey Epstein. In fact, it's been said that Donald Trump was one of his best friends for many years and flew on his private plane many, many times, including with his children. And so Donald Trump was very much in this, as well as Democrats, Republicans and other people alike. And Trump and his people were saying, we're going to release these files. And that's been a bipartisan effort to try to do that. And they're the ones in possess of these files. Right? Just only the grand jury minutes. It's the only thing they need to get permission of the court to release, because grand jury minutes are protected by law. They are secret, and there's a very high threshold you have to meet in order to get those released. And to basically allow the Trump administration to say, to blame the judges for saying, oh, we can't release the Epstein files now because the judges won't let us, because we can't meet the standard. To release the grand jury minutes is actually a fallacy because there's nothing in there. What the meat, the substance, the thing that people want to see is in the possession of the Department of Justice, and they can release it any time. And so we have another federal judge. Why don't you take it from here, Dina, and catch us up to what's happening in the federal courts with these grand jury minutes and what they're saying.
- [15:45]
B
So Judge Berman was the latest judge to deny this request. So Trump is 0 for 3. All three district judges have denied his request for the release of the grand jury testimony. And as you say, the most important thing is our grand jury testimony, unlike our other court proceedings, is not meant to be public. This is where the prosecution gets an indictment. You have not yet been indicted. We've always had secrecy around it. And so you have to overcome. There has to be like that compelling interest to overcome in order for the prosecution to kind of request this get released. Somebody who's testified actually could voluntarily on their own testify, but to get the Prosecution to get this released when secrecy is like presumed is a high bar. And frankly, Judge Berman has said you have more. In this particular case, the testimony was from an FBI agent And there was 70 pages. And he explicitly, the judge in his order compared those 70 pages to the 100,000 pages that the DOJ has and really said, come on, like, you have so much more than what you're even asking for. You're asking me to break the secrecy for absolutely no reason. It's not as if the only information you have is in this. And to your point, you know that this isn't the meat of it. It's also really important to say it's not only, not only the meat of it, but clearly the prosecution had the FBI's testimony in their DOJ file. Clearly the prosecutor had spoken with this FBI person and other FBI agents and knew exactly what this FBI person was going to say. That was the whole reason to put the FBI person in the grand jury, because the prosecution was trying to get an indictment. So all of that testimony wasn't like a surprise to the prosecution. It was the whole purpose of putting on that FBI agent because they already knew what the FBI agent was going to say. So it is in the DOJ files. And that was really why the judge in all three cases denied it, because the information can be found elsewhere. It can literally be found in the DOJ's own files. And there is no secrecy, you know, presumption in those DOJ files. The DOJ can do whatever they want with their files. I mean, maybe you have some, you know, you help. You know, you may not want to release like classified information or information about a victim, but in terms of what the FBI told you, you can certainly release it. And that's why this has been really a clear cut case for all three of the judges.
- [18:29]
A
Yeah, it really is unbelievable to me that, you know, some of the language in Judge Berman's decision I just want to read. He said, quote, the government is the logical party to make a comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein files. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged conduct. And so, you know, Berman also called Pam Bondi for essentially reneging on her promises to release the investigatory materials and basically said that these 70 pages of grand jury materials are a diversion from the scope and breadth of the Epstein files in the government's possession. So, you know, it's really interesting that the judges are basically, they see right through this, all three judges basically called out the DOJ which is unusual in my experience. The federal judges historically have always protected the Department of Justice. Criminal defense attorneys in federal court and civil attorneys in federal court. Going against the Department of Justice, there's a deference and a presumption of regularity. There's a deference to Department of Justice and U.S. attorney's Offices because historically, frankly, they have always been the cream of the crop, the best of the best. You know, you tell the truth. You, you do things without fear or favor. You know, you, you're, you're honorable. You're these honorable public servants and judges have always kind of gone along with that. And, and the judges here are calling out the Justice Department in ways I've never seen before. They're really skeptical and suspicious of the motives of the, of the Department of Justice attorneys, of what they're saying and of, and what the judges are doing is they're essentially saying, you're not going to put this on me. I see what you're doing. Pam Bondi and Donald Trump, you want to blame the court and say, oh, it's the, I would have released everything. You know, it's the court who's not doing it. I'm not going to let you do that to me. This is not about the judges. There's nothing here. You have all the information to release. And so the judges are calling out the administration, and rightfully so, because it is, I think, totally unprecedented the way this is all coming about. We'll see how this plays out. Meanwhile, Congress, there's this other parallel action happening in Congress where the chairman of the House's chief investigative committee basically issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice. The oversight, you know, for oversight. This came from Representative James Comer. He's a Republican from Kentucky who issued subpoenas to Pam Bondi after a bipartisan group of representatives essentially teamed up and said, we're going to force the issue. We want these records and we want them to come and we want them. I think it was by today, actually. And, and that was interesting to see what's going to happen. And it sounds like the administration is going to comply. They're not going to meet today's deadline, but on a rolling basis. I think as soon as Friday, they're going to start releasing heavily redacted documents. Some stuff should be redacted. The victims identities, for example, should be protected. But let's see if they will actually produce. They said they needed more time because of the volume. Okay, so let's see if they're going to produce this. And let's see if they are going. If the committee then releases this information to the public once they receive it or if they'll cherry pick it. So that's going to be very interesting. The committee has also started to interview because they've sent subpoenas to former government officials and the reporting is that on Monday there was a closed door deposition with Bill Barr because he was Trump's AG when Epstein died at the in jail. So we'll see what, what that, what that all says. Interestingly, the person who was not subpoenaed is Alex Acosta. And if you remember, Alex Acosta was the federal, was the, the Florida prosecutor that gave Epstein a sweetheart deal back in 2007, I believe it was a ridiculous deal actually where he got a slap on the wrist essentially and then immunity from prosecution forever. And him and his co conspirators. Conspirators, you know, for future immunity from prosecution. Ghislaine Maxwell is trying to use that language to say I had immunity and appeal her, her case. And Alex Acosta was then promoted by Trump and made to be, you know, a cabinet, a cabinet member. So, you know, but he didn't receive a subpoena yet, which I find very interesting. So the, what, what did you take from, from what's going on in Congress? What do you think, do you think they're going to release? Release. Do you think they're going to get it? Do you think they're going to release it?
- [23:50]
B
Okay, I'm sorry, but there's no way that a Republican led committee is actually doing anything here to truly get transparency. This is just another way of delaying because as we know, they have 100,000 documents. This is going to be, there's going to be going to get a trickle of documents, we're going to get a lot of the most mundane information and they're hoping that in two years time they're still going to be releasing this and everybody will have forgotten about it. The fact that they act as if the Trump Committee needs to subpoena the DOJ in order to get this information tells me everything I need to do. Because Trump controls the doj, he controls his Republican committee. If they really want a transparency, they wouldn't need a subpoena. So this is all a dog and pony show. We're gonna get a whole bunch of nothing and they're going to act just like with the judge and the grand jury that oh, we're doing this like be patient, have time. And you know, the thing is, if people have been on this story For a very long time. He may be able to dissuade some people, let's say, who are newer to the story, but there's a whole chunk of people, including a whole chunk of maga, that this diversion is not going to work. We're going to, of course, hear Midas and legal af, you know, call it out as well, but we're not going to get anything from that subpoena. And it was interesting. Evidently the Bill Barr testimony comer came out and said something completely different than a Democrat on that committee said that Bill Barr said. And the Democrat called for the release of that transcript. I'll hold my breath of whether or not we get transparency there as well. But that's the other thing. If you're having people speak in private and you're willing to lie to the public about what they say, that doesn't help transparency either. So we're not going to get anything about this unless the public continues to put pressure. And maybe there is a leaker. I think maybe that's our best hope. There's some sort of leaker who's willing to actually give us transparency here.
- [26:01]
A
You know, my biggest beef with this administration is the fact that they're just not. They don't tell the truth. I mean, you know, look, I believe in our democracy so much that I believe that you can disagree on issues and you vote on them. And if there are issues that you disagree with and the majority of people want one thing that you disagree with, everybody has to live with it and vice versa, right? But let's all talk about facts. Let's tell the truth. Let's not live in these alternative realities. And that's the thing that frustrates me the most, is you and I, in preparation for all of these podcasts and all the public speaking that we do, we actually go and do our research. We read the decisions, we read the opinions, we read transcripts. And then when you hear what the Republicans, many of them, but this administration in particular, how they characterize facts that are pretty clear and black and white, they don't tell the truth. And that's what frustrates me the most. And that's the thing that I think is the fuel that runs the engine of Midas Touch, because we're all about trying to get the truth out because it doesn't get. It just doesn't come out. And. And that's the thing, like I said, that I get the most frustrated with. It's like, okay, we can disagree, but let's disagree on facts. Let's not lie and pick and choose and mischaracterize. And that's the thing, like I said, that just makes me so crazy. And so on that note, I am going to ask everybody, if you're not a subscriber to Midas Touch, please hit the subscribe button. If you're not a subscriber to the Legal AF YouTube channel, subscribe to that too. We depend on our listeners and our and the people who watch and listen and really participate in this community. This is what helps us keep the lights on. And we really appreciate that people support our sponsors who choose us, right? They know what we're about and they choose us. They choose to advertise on this network. And so if you like the products, we test them out ourselves. Some of them have become complete staples in my life that I will never live without that are amazing. We have really phenomenal, phenomenal sponsors. And so just, I really just appreciate how much support people give us and that you're helping us keep this community going. So with that, we're going to take our first ad break.
- [28:50]
C
This episode of Legal AF is brought to you by MoikBox. Did you know four companies control over 80% of the US meat industry and that the largest share of US pork is now controlled by China? These meat giants use mobster like tactics to crush American family farms, flooding our food supply with sketchy additives and low quality meat. So what can you do about it? Here's where Moink comes in. Featured on Shark Tank Moink is standing up for family farms and your food security. Their meat comes from animals raised outdoors like nature intended. Their farmers get an honest day's pay and Moink delivers straight to your doorstep at a price you can actually afford. This is real American meat, born, raised and harvested right here in the usa. Moink is helping save rural America. I love it and you will too. Join the Moink movement today. Support American family farms and join the Wait for it Moink movement today@moinkbox.com legalif right now and get free bacon for a year. That's one year of the best bacon you'll ever taste. But only for a limited time. Spelled M O I n k box.com legalaf that's moinkbox.com legal a f the weather. It's heating up and your nighttime bedroom temperature has a huge impact on your sleep quality. If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend you check out Mirror Miracle Maids bed sheets. Miracle Maid sheets are inspired by NASA and use silver infused fabrics that are temperature regulating so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long Using silver infused fabrics inspired by NASA, Miracle Maid sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long no matter the weather so you get better sleep every night. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag and of other luxury brands and feel as nice if not nicer than sheets used by some five star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with Miracle. Upgrade your sleep as the weather heats up. Go to trymiracle.com legalaf to try Miracle Mate sheets today and whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, if you order today you can save over 40% and if you use our promo legal AF at checkout, you'll get a free 3 piece towel set and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product it's backed with a 30 day money back guarantee. So if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle made. Go to try miracle.com legalif and use the code Legalif to to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's trymiracle.com legalaf to treat yourself. Thank you Miracle Made for sponsoring this episode.
- [31:47]
A
We're back and thanks for staying with us. We have so much more to talk about. We were just talking about Jeffrey Epstein and how I still hold out hope that this issue bipartisan. I still hold out hope that both parties care about sexual exploitation of children in particular. And that is something that we should all be in agreement is terrible. And I'm hoping that the Republicans on the Congressional committee, ultimately at least some of them, at least one of them, will come forward and help finally shine some light on this issue. Because I do think this is an issue that so many people care about and that really does cut across party lines. So I'm going to keep my optimistic hat on here and hope that they'll do the right thing. But there are some issues that the Republicans that have this weird, in my opinion, obsession with. And I know this is not a topic that we're that we're going to cover. But I just want to mention it because I cannot believe what I read today, which is that the Department of Justice has issued subpoenas demanding that hospitals turn over a wide range of sensitive information related to medical care for young transgender patients. And I bring that up because this is the issue that they seem to be obsessed with this is. I don't know what it is. I don't know why they are so against trans people. Why it is that your sexual orientation or your gender identity are two things that. It's like an obsession with the Republicans. It's something that they care so much about. They're gonna, They've already, you know, that. And abortion, right? They've already, they're already chipping away at abortion. They're going to chip away at marriage equality. But the fact that they are now sending subpoenas to one of them was to a children's hospital of Philadelphia. They issued over 20 subpoenas and they were seeking to, quote, hold medical professionals and organizations that mutilated children in the service of warped ideology accountable. That's what they wrote on their, on their subpoenas. Like, that's how they look at this issue. And they're asking for emails, zoom recordings, every writing or record whatsoever that a doctor may have voicemails, text messages, etc, about hormone therapy, puberty blockers, gender transition surgery, etc. And you know, back it used to be, you know, in 2020, about half the states pass laws that now don't allow this anymore. And now they're trying to. This is the Department of Justice issuing subpoenas. That means they are building criminal cases against medical providers saying that they may have violated criminal statutes. This isn't like they're issuing subpoenas to look at healthcare fraud or health insurance fraud, something that they should be looking at. Right. They are looking at doctors and looking to punish them for medical decisions made between a patient and a doctor about. Because of their own ideology. And if this isn't going to have a chilling effect going forward, I mean, I can't imagine the parents of these children who are already struggling. I mean, I can't imagine what it's like to be in a body and have a gender that you. That isn't who you are, that your body is just different and that, that there's a solution, there's medicine that can help you and that there are doctors who can help you and that you can then live in the body that you, that you are meant to live in. You can live the identity that you are. And the fact that they are trying to criminalize this is so shocking to me and so appalling to me. I can't, I just can't believe it. I just had to mention it.
- [36:04]
B
No, I mean, for sure that's going to get. They want a lawsuit on this. They want to go Back to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court just handed them a huge win this last term on transgender rights, basically allowing all those states to ban transgender medical care. Right. They already allowed that. This is this lawsuit waiting to happen. They want to go back to the Supreme Court. They want the Supreme Court to allow this to become criminal for these doctors. And it's because it's a winning political issue for them. I do not believe in any way that they actually care. It's because back 20 years ago, it was a winning issue for them to make it a culture thing of fear mongering around same sex marriage. And now it's become more acceptable. So they shift and now it's become about transgender. Because frankly, most people in life have never met somebody who is transitioned. And so it's easy to turn them into an object of fear. And it is what has it helped them with this last election? And so they are leaning into it. And Democrats cannot be afraid to talk about this issue. I feel like we are not a party if we're going to throw our transgender children to the wolves. I know a few people here in Los Angeles who have had to go through this. And it is excruciating as a family. Most children who transition are suicidal. And doctors will talk about this. It is an excruciating medical decision that should be about the parents and the children and their doctor. And it's sickening that Trump gets involved because he thinks he can win a few votes. If you make them the outcast, if you make them the problem. And this lawsuit is for sure trying to just, you know, they're going to run on it, right? The midterms alone. This is what the DOJ did and look how great we are. And it's another political point on their side. And it's a way to get back to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court to get even more of a wins. And I'm not okay with them doing that to transgender children. And Democrats can't be afraid to talk about it.
- [38:11]
A
Yeah, I agree. I agree. So let's now pivot to Abrego Garcia. Okay. Because this is their other big issue, right? The deportation, what we were talking about earlier when we started this and what's going on with Abrego Garcia? So Abregos Garcias lawyer are basically bringing. They brought a 35 page filing saying that alleging vindictive prosecution, which is very interesting. Selective prosecution, vindictive prosecution, they're similar. And saying that the criminal charges against him that were brought in Nashville are only because they're pissed off that he complained that they mistakenly deported him in the first place. And this filing, they're basically saying. And it's a really hard standard to make out, because prosecutors have enormous discretion, right? A prosecutor has tremendous discretion. It's a thing, right, to bring cases, to not bring cases, to show leniency on certain people, to go hard on others. And it's something that every prosecutor's office in this country has this discretion and something that they exercise regularly. When I was a prosecutor in the Manhattan DA's office, we used our discretion, for example, to stop. To stop prosecuting things like prostitution or not paying your subway fare, because, believe it or not, when you didn't pay your subway fare in New York City, if you jumped the turnstile, that was considered a class A misdemeanor, the exact same level of misdemeanor as if you endanger the welfare of a child. That is how the criminal. The books in New York treated that crime. And so we used our discretion to say, look, no, that. That's not something that we're going to waste our prosecutorial resources on. Or we would say, oh, look, violent crime is up in a certain area, so we're going to turn our focus to that area, and we're going to use our discretion to put a lot of resources in that area, because violent crime is up. And so prosecutorial discretion is nothing new. It's something that is done all the time. But what's happening and what they're claiming is that this was a vindictive prosecution, because don't forget. So Abrego Garcia was married, he was here lawfully. He wasn't a citizen, but he was here lawfully, and he has children here, he works here. And he was mistakenly deported and sent to El Salvador, a country that he didn't. That the immigration court said he didn't have to go. He was allowed to stay here because he was being persecuted down there, and his life was in danger there. And so they mistakenly deported him, and it turned into a huge, giant political issue for the Trump administration, right? That went all the way up to the Supreme Court, who actually agreed and said, you have to facilitate his return. It's one of the few times that the Supreme Court did not vote in favor of the Trump administration and you have to facilitate his return. And they thumbed their nose at it. They basically said, yeah, right, they had a press conference with the. With the president of El Salvador, and they all, like, yucking it up, laughing, and, you know, basically saying, oh, we don't have the authority, or I didn't even ask, you know, and then there was that. That. That newspaper article that. That said the Trump administration must facilitate the return. And someone in the administration took red. You know, took red marker and like, crossed out certain words and basically made a joke out of the headline and then posted it online, like, as if to kind of say, yeah, right, like, we're really going to do this. I mean, they were so egregious about how they're not going to listen, they're not going to facilitate it. But then they had to. And then they got him back, and they were so pissed off about that that they had to do it, that they. That they basically did a colonoscopy on Abrego Garcia's life. They found that he had a traffic ticket, essentially, from back in 2022, where he was stopped in a car. He had other migrants or other people in the car. The law enforcement took down the information and then decided not to do anything about it and let him go. Right. And they then decided to conduct a criminal investigation into that and now brought human smuggling charges, which is not trafficking, by the way. So if the administration or anyone tries to say, oh, this is human trafficking, there's a big difference between human trafficking and smuggling. Smuggling. Human smuggling is a crime, but it's not as serious of a crime. It just basically means transporting people who are here illegally, but they want to be transported. It's giving them a ride. It's helping them enter the country, it's moving them around the country. It's basically, you're an Uber driver, essentially. That's very different than human trafficking, which require. Which is. Which is against someone's will by force, fraud or coercion, that you're moving them around and bringing them into this country. And so don't let them sort of call it what it's not. It's smuggling, if it's anything. And that's what the charges are. But what they said was that basically that they brought this case and manufactured this case just because they were mad that he, you know, that he. He won essentially, in the Supreme Court. And so this is an art. This is now a case that they're bringing in Maryland, which is where he's from, Maryland, the criminal cases in Tennessee, because that's where he was stopped. But in Maryland, there's this civil case going on, and this is where they filed it and said, this is a vindictive prosecution. Dina, did you get a chance to look at this filing?
- [44:10]
C
Yeah.
- [44:11]
B
I mean, and I think they have a very strong argument, like, to Your point that this is a very rare thing to do, but I can't think of a case that is more, you know, perfectly suited for it. Because Trump can't lose, right? Like, he. He lied about losing in 2020. He's like a narcissist. And he could not. He couldn't do the right thing. He lost at the Supreme Court. He couldn't bring back our Brago Garcia without, you know, charging him, because it would have been a loss to him. And this poor man, this poor man having the weight of the government against him again and again, he deserves to have this dismissed. You know, in the filing, they were. There's so much evidence about this case being, you know, about a vindictiveness. I mean, the fact that, you know, there's a gag order against the DOJ because of all of the awful things that they've been saying about him already trying to taint the jury. They point out in the filing that Trump himself, of course, was, you know, happy about the fact that the DOJ charged him, saying, quote, you know, it is now a way to show everybody how horrible this guy is. Right? That's not about whether or not he actually did the crime. Right. But he wants. He had to win. He had to say, see, this person was so horrible, I should have deported him. And the filing saying, quote, the unprecedented public pronouncements attacking Mr. Abrego for his successful exercise of constitutional rights by senior cabinet members, leaders of the doj, and even the President of the United States make this the rare case where actual vindictiveness is clear from the record. Seriously, this poor man, having the President of the United States lie about him repeatedly, obviously calling for this criminal prosecution because he lied, lost because he had to bring him back. And to the point of this person that I know who fled this country, it's because of this kind of thing. If the law cannot protect Abrego Garcia, in this moment, this just gives amplifies that people are not safe here, even if they're hardworking, even if they pay their taxes, even if they're just trying to go about living their lives. If the President of the United States can personally not like you because he lost to the Supreme Court and you are dragged into another criminal trial, this is why people are fleeing. And so this is so important. I thought they did a really good job with that filing, and I think they have a really good shot at winning. And I think it is essential that they win in order for there to be some sort of giving people some sort of hope, you Know, people here undocumented some sort of hope that the law can be on their side because right now it doesn't seem like it.
- [47:07]
A
Yeah, you know, interestingly so he's, he's held in on his criminal case and he wanted to stay in because he's afraid if he gets out and held in meaning like he's in custody criminally. And he wanted to stay in initially because he's afraid if he gets out that they'll deport him again. And so it's, it's. So one of the reasons that you hold someone in custody when they're pre trial, right? Which is you can either be given bail or you can be held in and denied bail and, or you could just be released without any conditions. But one of the reasons you hold someone in is because they're either a danger to, you know, your future dangerousness or they are a. At risk of fleeing. This is the opposite. Okay. He is, he wants to stay. He doesn't want to flee, right. And so he's not at a risk and there's no danger. Right. And so they're going to release him. And he's supposed to be released, I think, on Friday because he doesn't meet the standard of being held in custody. And I think he's afraid of being deported and not prosecuted. And you know, he asked the court to allow him to return to Maryland from Tennessee as a free man and be protected against being deported. And you know, he has to be given, according to Judge Zinnis, at least three business days to be able to, if they seek to remove him to a country other than El Salvador, which of course they haven't said which country that's going to be, but that's all he's asking for. He's just asking for. And what people are asking for is due process, right. Just not to be whisked away in the middle of the night, which is what's been happening to so many individuals, right. They're being sent to countries that they have no connection with a language that they don't speak. They don't know anyone there. Some of these countries are extremely dangerous and without any notice, without any due process. And that's all everyone is asking for. No one. You know, I don't know if Abreco Garcia is a good person, a bad person, if he did this crime or didn't do this crime or what, right? I have no idea. I don't think anyone knows because there's been no trials, right? But what has happened and what they are doing is they're not giving him process, they're not giving him due process, which is what's required by law and in the Constitution of the United States. And that's what I think, think so many people, myself included, are, are upset about because, you know, they deported him mistakenly to begin with. And if you gave him due process, that would have never happened in the first place.
- [49:49]
B
And just to add to that, even people who are on our soil, but in these detention centers, you know, one, some of them aren't getting due processed because they're, they're being denied access to their lawyers. But the reports coming out of that, that alligator Alcatraz, you know, this cutsy name they gave to this detention center, the suffering in there, because the reality is the bill that was passed and all the money they're going to build these detention centers, they don't need detention centers. You can deport somebody to their own country. You just need enough judges. And they're not putting the money to hire judges in order to facilitate the deportation faster. Instead, they're putting money to detention centers to hold people on this soil while they wait for the due process so they can be abused and suffer. And this again is why there are people now who are American refugees who are leaving because they don't want to even go through that process because who knows how long they're going to be in these detention centers. This isn't even, even if they're trying to, quote, give somebody due process. It's not due process if you're sitting in a detention center waiting for your hearing when you are putting money to build more detention centers instead of give paying for more judges. If you want people deported, go ahead and deport them. But that's not what they're doing. They are creating suffering for people in this country who have been working hard here. And that is like the evil out of this administration.
- [51:21]
A
Yeah, it's really sad. These are human beings and these are human beings lives. And in this day and age that they're being treated this way, it's just shocking to me. I can't believe it. It. And when we come back from our next short break. So come back, stay with us. We have more to talk about. We are going to talk about a related case because the Trump administration, when Judge Zinnis basically called him out and the chief of the Maryland bench issued an order saying you can't just deport people in Maryland, you got to give them due process. What did the Trump administration do? They decided to sue all of Maryland's federal court judges, all of them, which is crazy. I've never seen anything like it in my life. So we're gonna take another quick break. We're gonna talk about that, talk about what's happening in that. And we have so much more to talk about.
- [52:13]
C
You know, as much time as I spend prepping, reading and recording for Legal af, I didn't realize how much sitting all day was dragging me down physically and mentally. By the end of the day, I felt stiff, foggy and worn out. That's why I started using this episode Sponsor Uplift Desk Total game changer. It's not just about standing, it's about moving more, improving posture, and keeping my energy up throughout the day. I'm sharper, more focused, and honestly happier at my desk. Uplift Desk builds premium ergonomic furniture designed to keep you moving, feeling good, and doing your best work. You can customize your setup with over 200,000 desk combinations to fit your style and workflow. My personal favorite? Their wire management system. No more tangled cords, just clean, focused space. Your workday doesn't have to leave you feeling worn out. Go to upliftdesk.com legal af and use our code legal af to get 4 free accessories free same day shipping free returns in an industry leading 15 year warranty that covers your entire desk desk plus an extra discount off your entire order. That's U P l I f T-E-S-K.com legalaf for this exclusive offer only available through our link right now. The headlines are chock full of data breaches and regulatory rollbacks, making us all vulnerable. But you can do something about it. Delete Me is here to make it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online. As someone with an active online presence, privacy is really important to me. I keep hearing about data breaches in the news. I just had one happen to me in a recent Coinbase breach. A hacker got names, addresses, even parts of Social Security and bank account numbers. And guess what? Data brokers scoop that up and sell it. Thankfully, DeleteMe helps remove that data from hundreds of those sites, keeping it out of the wrong hands. Delete Me does the hard work of wiping your personal info from data broker websites. You tell them what to delete and their privacy experts get to work sending you regular personalized reports. You always know it's been removed. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your delete Me plan when you go to join deleteme.com legalaf and use promo code legal af at checkout. The only way to get 20 off is to go to joindeleteme.com legalayoff and enter code legalaya checkout. That's joindeleteme.com and code legal af.
- [54:45]
A
Okay, we're back. And Dina, let's talk about what's going on in Maryland with these federal judges. So I think there's about 14 judges in the Maryland Federal District court. That's the trial level of the federal courts. And it is turning out to be this ground zero of this immigration clash between the judges and the Trump administration. And I think it's because of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He challenged how the administration was removing detainees with no due process, no notice. And so Judge Thomas Cullen just is hearing a lawsuit. He's not from Maryland because all of those judges were basically taken off, that conflicted off the case. Because if you sue, I think if you sue all 14 or 15 judges in Maryland, however many there are, if you're suing them all, how could you. They can't listen to the case, so they had to bring him in. He's from Virginia, he's a Trump appointee, which is really interesting. And he's hearing a, essentially this, this lawsuit because there's this temporary bar that was issued by the chief judge in Maryland that basically said the administration cannot carry out fast moving deportations of immigrants. Right. That's all he's saying is slow it down. And so there's this temporary bar. And Judge Cullen, who is hearing this case, had a two hour hearing and he criticized the administration's decision to file this lawsuit and is, is questioning whether this is gonna lead to other litigation against federal judges. It's sort of unprecedented. What I loved about it is they're saying there's judicial immunity. The judges are represented by this very well known, he's sort of a legend. He's a conservative lawyer. Paul Clement, he was George W. Bush's Solicitor General. He's argued, I think, over 100 cases before the Supreme Court. I mean, really a top notch, very highly respect Supreme Court litigator, which is a whole other type of litigator. Right. It's the top of the top right are the solicitors General and these Supreme Court litigators. And the judges hired Paul Clement and essentially said that he argued. Paul Clement argued that the judges have judicial immunity from lawsuits like this one and that there's no cause of action here. This is kind of unprecedented. And the judge here seems skeptical. So he's going to rule, I think by Labor Day. But this is sort of interesting, right? Former judges have come forward and filed amicus briefs on this. And you know, you can't just sue a whole court, right? If you want to, if you don't, if you don't like this, do it on a case by case basis. Argue that the, you know, the file an appeal file. You know, if you don't like that, we said you can't, if you can't deport someone in the middle of the night, that you have to give them due process, then appeal it. But to just go ahead and try to conflict out an entire sitting bench of judges, I don't think that's going to fly. What do you think?
- [58:06]
B
Not at all. And even the Trump appointed judge, he said, quote, you probably picked up that I don't have a very good poker face, end quote. Completely skeptical of it. The fact is, the order that Trump didn't like happened way back in May 21. He could have appealed. The Supreme Court probably already would have spoken on it if it ended up going that far up there because the Supreme Court has been acting relatively fast to appeals such as this. This is all about like, this is a facade. It will take so much longer for Trump. Let's say their lawsuit even works. Even though to your point, to the judicial immunity, it's going to not even work, but let's say it did. It would take him so much longer than if he had just appealed that. And that's how you know, this isn't actually about him not liking the order. We have a mechanism in place, relatively easy to do it. He wants, you know, his fascist approach is to tear down our justice system, our judiciary. And he does it, you know, by talking about the nationwide injunctions. Right? And he talks about it about these biased judges. And he talks about it with this lawsuit disparaging, really, that's what it is, you know, disparaging an entire court system in the state of Maryland, the President of the United States doing this. This is attack on our co. Equal branches of government. That's all it is. It's a talking point for him and for his allies when they go out on Fox News. This isn't about anything actually related to the law because he's doing it in like the worst possible way. If it were truly just about the or order.
- [59:55]
A
I agree with you completely. It's just unbelievable to me that they're doing this and you can't just go after the judges because you don't like them. I mean, I've just never seen anything like this before. So I don't think that's going to go anywhere. Obviously, Trump will appeal it. I don't think that'll go anywhere, but we'll see what the Supreme Court does. But the separation of powers means something, and it's important. And Congress, you know, they make the laws and the judges interpret the laws, and the President is supposed to enforce the laws. Right. That's what they're supposed to do. And they're not supposed to break the law and they're not supposed to sue the judges because they don't like that. They aren't ruling in your favor. You can appeal the rulings. That's why we have appellate courts. Right. That's why we have intermediate appellate courts. And the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has no problem letting Donald Trump run there on an emergency basis and have him almost be his personal legal advisor. Right. I mean, that's what they're doing, and that's how you do it. But you don't just. This is just another intimidation tactic to try to intimidate judges and intimidate everyone, frankly, that's what's going on. And nothing shy of that. So I very much look forward to watching that and to see what that decision is. But this is a really important one because it has to do with judicial independence and the separation of powers. And the separation of powers. Look, this country was founded on. There are no kings. We don't want a king. And we want three separate but equal branches of government. And we have a massive power play here of authoritarianism that's happening. People much smarter than me, who are historians and who follow these things, can talk about how this is happening in other countries as we speak. And this has happened in the past. My father, who is a Holocaust survivor and my grandparents were, will say that this reminds him of what, the playbook for Nazi Germany. Right. This intimidation. And it's just, it's really scary what, what's happening in the world. And it's happened. It's, you know, it's, it's happening, like I said, in some other countries. And he's, he's taking their playbook and they, this brute force intimidation has to be countered, and people have to stay strong. And so to the extent that we can shine a bright light on it, the extent that we can all stick together, hopefully we can save our democracy and our system of checks and balances, and that's all we're trying to do here.
- [62:30]
B
Yeah. And the Supreme Court will side with the justices Here, I mean, we should. I think that's a pretty obvious given because if this lawsuit proceeds, the judges will be deposed. Their court records, internal communications could be open to discovery. And we have our Supreme Court justices unwilling to even show up to Congress to speak about their yacht trips because they feel as if there's the separation of powers and they shouldn't be exposed to, you know, the Congress to talk the truth and have ethics rules. So, you know, they have a vested interest, let's say, in keeping the. There's some separation there. So I would be surprised if Trump actually got a win on this with the Supreme Court.
- [63:18]
A
Yeah, I'd be surprised as well, but we'll see. To be determined, one of. So I want to pivot now to our final issue, which is Alina Haba, who is the acting United States Attorney in the District of New Jersey, which is in complete chaos right now, the entire District of New Jersey, because Alina Haba, who has no prosecution experience, who has never been in law enforcement or a prosecutor, and everybody agrees is unqualified to be the United States Attorney in that office. You know, in exchange for being Donald Trump's personal lawyer, who she lost so many cases. Right. She was the lawyer on the civil fraud case and, and so many of his other cases, but she was his spokesperson. In exchange, he put her in as the United States Attorney. And there's an expiration date on that. Right. You can hold that type of job for, as an interim. You can be appointed for 120 days, but within that time period, you have to nominate them, and they then go before the Senate, Senate, and you get, you know, you have hearings and you get confirmed. And the two New Jersey senators, who are Democrats, did not nominate her. And that's how it works, is they have to be the ones to nominate or to put, I'm sorry, Trump nominated her, but they have to be the ones to kind of put her before the Senate, and they didn't. And so her term expired. There's another way that you can become United States Attorney, which is the judges, the district court judges can. Can vote essentially, and confirm someone and put them in the place. And Alina Habba's number two, her chief assistant was somebody who actually had prosecution experience, was highly respected prosecutor. Her name was Desiree Grace. She is a Republican, but she is competent and she's good. And so Alina Haba, I think knowing that she doesn't know anything about prosecution, had to have a really smart, good number two to actually do the work and run the office. Office the judges, the district court judges in New Jersey didn't vote Alina Haba in. They voted Desiree Grace as the United States Attorney because she's actually qualified. They weren't trying to be partisan. Right. They didn't try to put in a Democrat. They didn't try to put in a political appointee because the prosecutor. Right. All prosecutors and anyone who. Who's taking away people's liberties, which is what a prosecutor does. You prosecute crimes can't be partisan. It can't be political. You can have a certain political opinion, but that has to go out the door. When you go and go to work and you're looking at whether to prosecute someone, you have to prosecute them, as we always say, without fear or favor. And politics has no place in the criminal justice system, ever. Ever. It's supposed to be. Justice is supposed to be blind. But the judges thought, she's qualified, she's great. We're not going to use this as a political position. We're gonna give you someone that you liked, that you appointed, that you put in the position, but who's actually qualified. Cause Alina Haba is not. And what did Trump do? He fired her. He fired her. She's no longer a federal prosecutor, which is such a shame. And for her, for her career, but also ridiculous. And then he made Alina Haba an acting United States attorney as opposed to the interim United States attorney. I might have gotten those terms mixed up. I'm so confused. But he basically is trying to shoehorn her in as the acting United States Attorney. But the problem is, is there's a little pesky law that says you can't do that. If you've already nominated the person for officially nominated, then you can't do it. And the fact of the matter is he nominated her. So as you know, he put forth her name, even though she didn't get it. So what's happening in New Jersey is all the criminal cases are being put on hold. There are criminal. There are defendants who are seeking dismissal of their indictments because they believe that. That what Trump is doing here by trying to put her as United States Attorney, that he's just trying to bypass the constitutional checks and balances, and that this nomination has made her ineligible to serve as acting under this. It's called the Federal Vacancies Reform act, which is a law that says essentially there are well established mechanisms that can give her temporary power. But. But unfortunately not. If he's. If. If she's been nominated and she was nominated, and so there's over 1500 active federal cases in New Jersey that have been postponed or canceled. So it's bananas. It's, it's gone. Justice has basically screeched to a halt in New Jersey.
- [68:43]
B
Yeah. I mean, Trump has made us less safe across the board with his appointment of an incompetent person to the faa, to taking people off of actual crime with the FBI and targeting to free speech instead. I mean, again and again, I think you said it, the reason why she's there is because of the spokesperson part. She did her little spokesperson job. That's all he cares about. And unfortunately that, you know, the people of New Jersey suffer as a result of it. Judge Matthew Brand, he's an Obama appointee, is going to be the one to make this decision, which we're going to get like in a day now. He said midweek. We thought hopefully by the midweek legal AF we would get it, but not yet. So, you know, wait and see. But, you know, I think Trump validly, we can all argue fact after fact after fact is making us less dangerous. And perhaps the people there in New Jersey will become more vocal because as you said, she doesn't have the qualifications to do this job. His only qualification he cares about is are you willing to prosecute my enemies? Are you willing to go out on Fox News and lie? And if so, you know, you get the job that the people there are going to suffer because obviously there's some real crimes that need to be prosecuted there.
- [70:01]
A
Look, and Alina Haba has made no kind of, she's not hiding what her true motives are. She says she's there to turn New Jersey from blue to red. She's already started going after Democratic politicians. And she's, it's not like she's hiding what she's doing. And that's just again, there's no place in prosecution for that. And so many, as I said, to get a job at the Department of Justice and to be an ausa, an assistant United States attorney, which is what they're called prior to now, I don't know what the standards are now, was really kind of the cream of the crop. It's the federal prosecutor. There's always this rivalry because Iowa was never a federal prosecutor. I was always a state court prosecutor. And I used to get really upset that people somehow would think lesser of a state court prosecutor. That federal prosecutor is sort of the elite, you know, the best of the best, et cetera. I never tried to be a federal prosecutor and never wanted to. I liked, I liked being in State court. But the. But there was always this kind of rivalry, right. Because they were. They were. They are that good, and they are excellent, and they're really smart and great lawyers. And he's firing some of the best ones. Ones. And. Or they're leaving, and it's such a shame. I mean, in addition to losing, it's like a big brain drain, you know, of knowledge and experience and information, and it's just judgment. You know, these are great lawyers who are leaving in droves or being fired, and I think Desiree Grace is one of them, by all accounts. I don't know her, but by all accounts, she was excellent. Recently, Jim Comey's daughter, Maureen Comey, who was a career prosecutor in the Southern District, was. Is widely respected as an extraordinary, excellent prosecutor in her own right. And I've actually seen her in court. She's. She's exceptional. She was fired for no reason, but probably other than being Jim Comey's daughter. And it's just. It's just a shame. It's a shame for us because it makes us less safe, and it makes us. We're the losers, right? We're the losers of this. And. And this just is not. It's not a good thing that's happening. You know, he thinks he cares about law and order, but he doesn't. He cares about politics and vindictiveness and himself.
- [72:26]
B
I don't know if he cares about anything other than himself, to be honest.
- [72:30]
A
Immigration and trans. You know how it affects him. Yeah. Yeah. So it's such a shame. And. And the Department of Justice to see what's happening to the Department of Justice. I hope some people can stay strong, put their head down and stick it out. And I don't know how the Department of Justice builds back from this, but it used to be one of the most respected entities. So I don't know.
- [72:59]
B
Yeah, I think if they, you know, my hat's off to the DOJ lawyers, especially the civil rights divisions, who are stepping down, rather than being willing to go. Go to court and prosecute somebody, you know, try to denaturalize somebody for their speech, you know, despite Pam Bondi's DOJ letter, or commit some sort of fraud to the court, you know, because, you know, we need ethical lawyers who are not willing to do Trump's bidding. But to your point, I mean, there's some real crimes that will not get prosecuted if they don't have the manpower or if they don't have. Have competent people. So it's, you know, it's gonna this is gonna be a tough few years.
- [73:40]
A
It is gonna be a tough few years. So anyway, Dina, we have reached the end of another midweek episode of Legal af. I'm always so thrilled to have you. I miss Popo, but life gets in the way sometimes. But for both of us. So the fact that you're always so willing and able to step in is just wonderful. I love, I love hanging out with you on a Wednesday and seeing you and really thank you to all the people who spend Wednesdays with us and every day with us on the Midas Touch Network, on the Legal AF YouTube channel and the Legal AF substack and all the places that you can get information wherever you want to get your news and information. The fact that you also choose Legal AF and the Midus Touch such network is just something we cannot emphasize how much we appreciate it and how honored we are to be a part of this amazing, growing, just growing at lightning speed community, especially the Legal AF YouTube channel is just more and more just names that you've heard of people that, you know, really impressive people are signing up to be on the Legal AF YouTube channel that's hopefully going to become the go to place for legal information and the intersection of law and politics in addition to the Midas Touch Network. Thank you to all the people who come here every week and every day. We love you and we cherish, cherish to be a part of your community. Dina, so great to see you and we'll see you again soon.
- [75:25]
B
Yeah, great to see you too. And yes, I mean, times are tough and I'm glad that this community makes us hopefully all feel a little bit less alone and like a glimmer of hope that all is not lost because it's going to be a tough fight forward, but we need the numbers. So I'm glad that, I'm glad to see we're growing and getting the message out and getting the truth out, as you say.
- [75:46]
A
And you know, I still have a lot of hope. I have, I have a ton of hope. I, I don't think. I think democracy might be fragile, ish, the way they say, but in the end, I think people are going to have enough. And this country is a strong country. It's an amazing country with wonderful, amazing people. And in the end I have hope and optimism that there's going to be a massive course correction. This is just something we're going through. It's a difficult time, but we'll be back and we'll be back stronger than ever. I can already see it happening. I can already feel the change and the difference. And I think part of it is because people are starting to really get informed and start to get information themselves and make decisions themselves. And people will see what's going on for what it is. And so I know we're going to be okay and we'll be back and stronger and better than ever. So with that, I will bid you adieu and we'll see you next week.
- [76:54]
C
You say you'll never join the Navy, that you never track storms brewing in.
- [76:59]
A
The Atlantic.
- [77:02]
C
And skydiving could never be.
- [77:04]
A
Part of your commute. You'd never climb back Mount Fuji on.
- [77:08]
C
A port visit, or fly so fast you break the sound barrier.
- [77:14]
A
Joining the Navy sounds crazy. Saying never actually is.
- [77:19]
C
Start your journey@navy.com, america's Navy forged by the sea.
- [77:25]
A
Ever wanted to stay on vacation longer? Us too. With verbose long stay discounts, you can stay longer and save more on select properties. Gotta love a win win in book the perfect Summer getaway today with Verbo Private Vacation Rentals. Your future self will thank you later.