A (0:01)

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, Monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations. Introducing 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 iPhone 16128 gigabyte $829.99 Eligible trade in eg iPhone 11 Pro for well qualified credits end and balance due if you pay off early or cancel contact T Mobile A Mochi moment from Mark who writes, I just want to thank you for making GLP1s affordable. What would have been over $1,000 a month is just $99 a month with mochi. Money shouldn't be a barrier to healthy weight. Three months in and I have smaller jeans and a bigger wallet. You're the best. Thanks, Mark. I'm Mayra Amit, founder of Mochi Health. To find your mochi moments, visit joinmochi.com Mochi Mark is a Mochi member compensated for his story it must be that time because my alarm just went off. We're on live on the intersection with Michael Popak on the Midas Touch Network. Here's my list, everybody. This is what we're going to be going over today. For those that wonder how does Popa keep it all straight, what are we going to talk about? Yeah, it's in the notes, but we're ready to go. And plus, I'm going to try something. That's what happens in live tv. Plus I'm going to try something else tonight. I'm going to check out. I got two people working with me, Ben and Terps, and they're checking the chat because I'm busy doing this part and if they they're going to catch some great questions and I'm going to try to do that at the back end of the intersection. But I think you come here for the reason that I want you to be here, which is so we can talk honestly to each other about things at the intersection of law and politics that we're watching and so that we can talk truth to each other first, which is necessary before we talk truth to power. We got to know what we're talking about in the streets, around the kitchen table, around our social media. And here's the stories I want to talk about first. I'm going to lead off with Epstein. Of course, I got to lead off with Epstein and this ridiculous, nonsensical, illogical defense that they've now come up with, which is the birthday card submission was a fraud. Somebody signed my name. Thank you. Somebody signed my name 30 years ago and pasted it in the middle of a multi volume book about a person that I knew well because they wanted to tank my presidency 30 years later. And if you line up the signatures and I'm going to talk about question documents. There we go. We're going to talk about question documents because I've done cases involving handwriting and, and people challenging the authenticity of documents in front of a jury. And I'm going to tell you why. Got a lot of assets tonight. I'm going to tell you why this would never fly. It will never fly with the Wall Street Journal and the multi billion dollar lawsuit that Donald Trump has had brought. The worst thing he ever could have done was to bring that lawsuit. I'll tell you how it's going to be used against him. And I'll tell you what I have seen and we have posted in the legal AF substack all 300 plus pages of this ridiculous 50th birthday leather bound scrapbook that Ghislaine Maxwell, do I have to continue to say her name? Ghislaine Maxwell assembled for her boyfriend, slash co conspirator in a child sex predator ring. And why, if you're going to create a forgery, this would not be the one. And there was worse things in there. Acknowledging that everybody knew the, that Donald, that Jeffrey Epstein was chasing after girls, meaning he was raping girls. Because you see it in the cartoons that were submitted by others. There is one right there. We'll talk about that a little bit later. And you also know that Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein traded like it was collateral or chattel or an inanimate object, girls and women between themselves. But because there's a card inside of the book that represents that and this entire attack right on cue by maga, right wing social media and podcasters and Charlie, Kirk and Benny, whoever he is, is all ridiculous. I got news for all of those people. They've never been in a court of law. They've never had a jury in front of them. They've never handled successfully A question, documents, case I have and I'm going to tell you what we're going to do about it here at the intersection. But it's not just the birthday card because I don't want to lose sight of it that we're using as a way to continue to bring maximum pressure on the Trump administration to release the files. But Donald Trump doesn't want the files released. In fact, he has said, I quote, it is a hostile act if any Republican joins the discharge petition that's very close to getting the 218 votes necessary to go to the House floor for a vote. We're going to talk about all of that. Ghislaine Maxwell, the victims, the survivors taking back their dignity on the steps of the Capitol and what it means for the Trump administration. Speaking of the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch, we've got multiple. Look at my hands today. A pen exploded. Sorry, folks, we have multiple elements, tentacles about the wal, Rupert Murdoch's family and the Wall Street Journal. First of all, the Wall Street Journal has kind of gone off sides and has continuously attacked Donald Trump personally by publicizing the pornographic birthday card submission that he made for which they got sued. But they will ultimately win their case. There's a, there's a copy of it. And also by attacking him on the op ed pages by the editorial board declaring what we all see, which is Donald Trump's failed one trick pony of fiscal policy around tariffs is terrible for economic growth and jobs. We just got, as I came on the air, we've got new job numbers. Turns out the economy made 1 million less jobs, some of which under the Biden administration, some of which under the Trump administration. But the reason I pinned the tail on Donald Trump is because he knowing or should have between his council of economic advisors and his commerce secretary and his treasury secretary when they're not busy trying to have fist fights in the hallway with people, apparently they should have told him that the job numbers get revised by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and it could be Revised up to 3,400,000amillion jobs. And so don't do a job killing policy around tariffs when you're coming off of a Bureau of Labor Statistics set of job numbers that can be and will be revised, likely downward. Jay Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve in his speech just last month in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, knew that the job numbers were going to be substantially revised down. And now Donald Trump and now the rest of America, we're all caught with our pants down as the economy falls off the cliff. If you haven't noticed we are in the beginning of the Trump recession. I'll talk more about that from my economic perspectives as Rupert Murdoch solves his succession problem by buying out the other three kids for $3 billion and turns the reins over to Lachlan Murdoch. I'll tell you why I think that's a death sentence for Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. We got a win for E. Jean Carroll that we're going to talk about. I've interviewed, I've had the pleasure and the honor of interviewing Eugene Carroll on the Legal AF YouTube channel. What an amazing person. She's also the only person in America or in the world that has taken not one but two judgments off of Donald Trump totaling a hundred million dollars. And the second Circuit Court of Appeals in my one of my home states of New York has ruled in her favor related to the 83 and a half million dollar side of the judgments that she's holding for being a sex abuse survivor and victim of Donald Trump for being defamed and the punitive damages that the jury awarded her. It's a slightly complicated case procedurally, but I'm going to, I'm going to get you everything you need to know about why Donald Trump just lost and she's likely to get her $100 million subject to the Supreme Court. We'll talk more about the Supreme Court. Speaking of the Supreme Court, haven't they been busy little beavers getting ready, get getting ready for the first Monday in October and the opening of the new term. This is like preseason. It's like football in preseason. We're waiting for the opening of the season, but we're getting all these preseason games. Unfortunately, they count against our democracy. So we're getting all the emergency docket cases now being resolved. So I don't know if you've heard, but there was a funeral for the fourth Amendment of our Constitution two days ago in which the right wing MAGA of the Supreme Court took the Fourth Amendment against illegal searches and seizures, took it out in the back and shot it. I would have thought that if they were going to put the Fourth Amendment out of our, you know, out of their misery, they would have done it in a 50 or 100 page decision with a proper oral argument and a number of briefs and people commenting about it. Nope, they did it in a sit down for this one, everybody. They did it in a paragraph and then a concurrence by Brett Kavanaugh that demonstrates that he does not live on planet Earth. There's Brett Kavanaugh that he does not live on planet Earth. And then a scathing dissent by Justice Sotomayor. I'm going to talk about all of that as they also decide that they're going to get rid of 95 years of precedent which was represented by a case called Humphreys executor. Yes, yes, you came for the intersection but you stayed for Humphrey's executor. I'm going to explain what that case is so that you can talk about it at your next cocktail party around the kitchen table. And why again, we're watching yet another 100 year old or 50 year old precedent being overturned by this MAGA right wing of the United States Supreme Court as John Roberts bails out Donald Trump again and lets him cut $50 billion worth of funding for global affairs by just a simple administrative stay, the old administrative stay game. And then finally, the United States Supreme Court is going to be hearing and deciding whether Trump's reciprocal tariff scheme combined with his trafficking tariffs. I'll talk about the difference there, which rips the heart out of 2/3 of his tariffs. There we go. That's why he's waiting for the asset to come back to me. Waiting. Two thirds of his tariffs, meaning hundreds of billions of dollars are now at risk. They were struck down, we've talked about this on the intersection 7 to 4 by a specialty appellate court called the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals or the Appellate Court for the Federal Circuit. They were struck down 30 by the Court of International Trade. And now the parties are taking their show on the road to the United States Supreme Court who has agreed to have oral argument in November on full briefing this time. I'll just leave you on this before we return to it. During the show, the Wall Street Journal in their op ed piece or their editorial board piece a couple of days ago said that the best thing that ever could happen to the US Economy and and to Trump's presidency is if the United States Supreme Court strikes down those tariffs. We're going to talk about that and so much more that pops into my brain. Plus I'm going to try to do can tell this is a high wire act without a net. I'm going to try to do answer your questions, stump the popoc towards the end of the show as we accumulate some of your questions because I want to see if Ben and Terps can pull this off with me. It's really the reason we're doing it. All right. Thank you for being here on the intersection. Let's get to the first story which is if I see. Thank you mighty Cheryl, for being a moderator tonight along with the others and trying to catch those questions for me. Let's start with Epstein. Okay, how do we get here? Donald Trump, as is probably his closest personal friend for a 15 year period, turned out to be. Oops. A convicted, well, an indicted child sex trafficker and pedophile. Only reason he wasn't convicted, I'm sure, is because something happened to him in that jail cell while he was on trial or awaiting trial and he didn't come out, if you know what I mean. Ghis Maxwell, his co conspirator, she got to have a trial and she got convicted and is looking at 20 years, although she's been moved to a federal spa, apparently as a reward for trying to help out Donald Trump, which I don't think, in retrospect, just a month later, I don't think it's helping at all. I think it's actually killing Donald Trump because Ghislaine Maxwell's rehabilitation tour is now over and her trying to act like she was the victim. The more you read her or, or, or remember her 300 pages of testimony to Todd Blanch, Donald Trump's former criminal defense lawyer, now doj, second in command, the more you come away with, she's a liar, she's disgusting and nobody believes that she doesn't remember if Jeffrey Epstein chased girls and raped them. Nobody believes that. So it actually backfired. And in places where you think she'd remember, you could tell she purposefully forgot, like. Well, as long as we're here, let's talk about the Epstein leather bound birthday book. Do you remember that? Oh, yes, I do. I'm sorry if I launch into some plummy British accent for her. Yes, I do. What do you know about it? Well, my mummy gave it to my daddy for his 80th. I thought it was a great idea, so I decided to do it for Epstein. I didn't realize it was a multi volume set. Like when I was a kid, they were selling the Encyclopedia Britannica one letter at a time at the supermarket. I didn't realize it was, it was like volumes of this thing that he had so many friends that wanted to send in perverse submissions for his 50th birthday. Do you remember who? Who? So there were like hundreds of people. There was cat. It was separated into categories. You can find it on Legal AF substack. There were the, it was the family section, there was the friends section, there was the ex girlfriends or girlfriend section. It was like there were, there were chapters and do you remember any of it? No. Do you remember anybody being in it? I don't. Do you remember if Donald Trump submitted anything for it? I can't say. Nobody believes that she made the effing book. I haven't seen my yearbook from high school in 30 years, but I can tell you certain pages that are in there that I remember from having looked at it. So nobody buys this. And this new defense. Now, I'm going to take it from a defense lawyer standpoint, this new defense, that this was a forgery. By who? The Wall Street Journal. In order to believe Donald Trump. Now, be jurors for a minute. Be six or nine jurors in Florida. We're in federal court. Nine jurors in Florida. And this is what you have to believe in the opening statement for Donald Trump, somebody, we don't know who, decided they wanted to embarrass and tie Donald Trump closely to Jeffrey Epstein and his pedophilia. So they created a birthday card that they pasted on page 158 out of 237 pages in volume one. He's not even the headliner. He's buried on page 158. That they made the card, that they then researched Donald Trump's vernacular, his vocabulary, his grammar, his syntax, and they wrote something in his voice using words that he uses, like enigma and it's a wonderful thing and other stupid phrases. And then they took a pen and they sat with tracing paper or on the fly, and they mimicked his handwriting exactly to sign Donald, not Donald Trump. Donald. See, that says. Leave that up there for a minute. That. That says Donald. Now let. Leave it up. Now, here's how that card got created. I'm going to be the defense lawyer for the Wall Street Journal. Donald Trump drew the outline. He then told the people in his office at the Trump Organization what he wanted it to say. They then created it. You can come back to me now. They then created it, and then he signed it with his Sharpie pen. So to believe Donald Trump, somebody unnamed, created a card exactly like his vocabulary, then signed it exactly like his signature, glued it into a book along with 70 or 80 other submissions, hid the book for 35 years somewhere in the Epstein house on a shelf, and then used it to embarrass him. When the Wall Street Journal said, we've seen the book, Donald Trump said, there is no book. And then the book gets whipped out. This. You have to believe every link in that chain. Who would do that? Or there's a time machine. Somebody went back in time and Pasted the page into that and there was a blank page and they were able to paste it in there. Who is buying this? This is the equivalent of Donald Trump leading the birther movement against Barack Obama. And when Barack Obama and his people produced a 1963. You can look it up, Honolulu Times or whatever it was, birth announcement for Barack Hussein Obama mentioning his mother. That that's a fraud because somebody either went back in time or his mother knew in 1963 that he would one day be running for president. No jury, no jury on planet earth that breathes oxygen and is carbon based is going to believe a word of what they're peddling through Carolyn Levitt, through Benny Johnson, through Charlie Kirk or any of these other morons. In fact, let's put up. Since I've got. Since I got my bed with me, let's put up some of what they're saying we have. That's Benny Johnson. The Wall Street Journal just released a letter. They claim that they claim President Trump sent to Epstein. They're not claiming that. Benny, let's stop right there. This album was preserved by the Epstein estate. It was provided to the Oversight Committee pursuant to a subpoena. We have a chain of custody. It's not the Wall Street Journal doing arts and crafts and creating something and writing about it. The difference is back in 20 in July, when they wrote about it with such great detail, they didn't publish it. Now the Oversight committee basically has made it public record so that Midas, Dutch and legal AF and the legal AF substack can show you what we're talking about. Let's go back to Benny for a minute. Benny Johnson. Trump has the most famous signature in the world. And then he puts. At the bottom. Now stop right there. He puts fake at the top and real at the bottom. The real at the bottom. He's comparing apples and bowling balls. The real at the bottom is Donald Trump. Donald Trump. That's how he signs Donald Trump on official documents. You can see that's an official document. Some. Either an executive order or whatever. The one at the top is Donald, which he saves for his personal notes. How do I know that? Because the New York Times went back into their archives. You can come back to me. The New York Times. They'll leave that there. Leave that there. The New York Times. I love it. We just cut and pasted it with my. With my phone. I love that. The birthday book is at the top. This is from the New York Times archives. The letter to Rudy Giuliani from two years earlier. Then a letter in 98 to a new York official. These are all the Donald examples. Another Giuliani letter. Another Giuliani letter. Now come back to me for a minute. Now let's talk about question documents and handwriting. Okay? You do not have to have a handwriting expert in front of a jury. A jury in Florida or anyplace else is considered to be the trier of fact in a case and they alone can make a determination once they're given what's called the exemplar, which is a certified example of an authentic signature and they can compare it to the one that somebody is questioning as a forgery. Yeah, I deal in evidence and I'm an evidence based person and what courts and juries decide. Now you can bring in a handwriting expert. You can go and find one of these former FBI question documents guys, you know, or people who you know at Langley and they can. And the juries like them, you know, they eat popcorn. They watch though. That's interesting, but you don't need it. A lawyer can do it. You put up the signatures, three or four or five or ten examples of an authentic signature. You then show one versus the other. Now, nobody can replicate their, their signature exactly. I defy you to take a Sharpie pen right now and we'll watch the show, do it later. But write out five or ten versions like your, you know, Bart Simpson at the, at the chalkboard of your signature. They won't be identical. They'll be. And they'll do it one today, one a week from now, one a year from now. They, they're not going to be identical, but there's going to be some common hallmarks, some idiosyncratic aspects of it that you can point to the curlicue, the way the line is drawn at the end, the way the D is. And if they can get the actual documents, then they can do ink comparisons. You might need an expert for that. Ink comparisons, pressure, you know, harder on the D, lighter on the N. But I'm just telling you, I've done enough of these cases where there is no doubt in my mind that that is his signature. And then answer, riddle me this, Benny Johnson, or don't we have the one for Charlie Kirk? Let's see the Charlie Kirk one. Does the below. First of all, that's not even the reproduction. That's a lie. It was to his audience. That is not the signature on the bottom of the letter, of the birthday letter. That is, I don't know where he got that from, but that's what he throws up to Feed his audience some bullshit. Let's take it down. So then you have to also believe the rest of it. Who fabricated it? Who would manufacture it? Who's the forger? Why would they forge it? Did Ghislaine Maxwell make it? How did they get the signature almost perfect? Why did they reuse the words that Donald Trump used? Now, look, this isn't like when they, they try to figure out whether a lost Shakespeare play is really Shakespeare. So they run it through the computer and the AI and they compare it to, oh, this is just like the Twelfth Night. Here's a rhyming couplet that was used in, in Romeo and Juliet. And it appeared this is just language that Donald Trump uses every day. He says, and his defense is, I'm an idiot. I, my vocabulary is terrible. I never use the word enigma. Look at the challenges that he. They're not even really challenges that he gives to media to go out and find every example of him saying the word enigma. And there's a dozen of them, including about Dan Rather, about Don King. He did it in books that he's written or had ghosts written for him. He also said other. He also has said it's a wonderful thing about a million times. So it is, in his vernacular, as limited as that may be. But all of this that we're talking about now is only important to convince the holdouts who are not signing the discharge petition. I'm going to talk about that next. The discharge petition to get that bill to the House floor for a vote where it will win by majority to have the entirety of the Epstein files released instead. Donald Trump has told his people and has told and threatened Republicans, including those who were about to sign that discharge petition, to get it out of committee and onto the House floor, that it is a hostile act if they agreed to the full disclosure of the Epstein files. Did you hear what I just said? This puts a lie to all the things that Donald Trump and people around him are telling you or telling the American people that he's in favor of transparency. He has threatened Nancy Mace Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene, and they have been told it is a hostile act if they sign on to the discharge petition to get to the 218 signatures necessary. And they've said politely, they don't care. They're for the victims, not for the predators. And they're going to, they're going to buck the president on this right now. They did. They leaned on Anna Luna from Florida and she backed off. That's where we're at right now. So I want to talk about the discharge petition. I want to talk about what the victims were able to accomplish to the survivors with their press conference, the Wall Street Journal going after Donald Trump and the lawsuit there and how they've attacked him on the economy and how Rupert Murdoch thinks he settled his succession problem. But I think he bought himself a bigger problem. We're going to talk about E. Jean Carroll and her victory not just for herself, but for all victims and survivors of sexual abuse, especially at the hands of Donald Trump. Courageous woman. She's already said she's taken the $100 million. She's not taking a dime for herself. She's putting it into foundations to support women, especially the ones, in her words, that are going to upset Donald Trump. Love everything about E. Jean Carroll. We'll talk about what just happened at the 2nd Circuit, multiple decisions coming out of the United States Supreme Court, including ripping away 100 years of precedent about who the president can fire or not fire of an executive, an executive, agency or commission, and the death of the Fourth Amendment by this United States Supreme Court. And then we'll talk about Trumponomics and the beginnings and the rise of the Trump recession and what it means moving forward, including for the interest rate to be considered on September 18th by the Federal Reserve. You are on the Intersection, the live podcast with Michael Popak here on the Midas Touch Network. Appreciate you all being here. A lot of people ask and we see it in the notes tonight. How do we support we got 3,000 people with us tonight so far. How do we support all the work that you do and others do related to Legal af? This ecosystem that we have built together, relatively straightforward and simple. We created a legal AF sub stack. I'm doing two lives a day. There we go. Thank you. Two lives a day. In addition, 10 or 12 postings a day of current things you need to know at the intersection of law and politics, including my contributors on Legal AF, including versions of the actual the YouTube versions of the podcast Legal AF and the Intersection. One Stop Shopping on the substack become a member. And I'm watching various haircuts of mine over time. If you want, become a member. And if you want to help us out, become a paid member. And I kept the rate low for paid membership. Get back to me. There we go. Paid. I'm trying to guide my editors to get off some of the assets quicker. We're getting there. We're getting there. It's a. It's a. It takes a village to make a podcast. The if you want to become a paid member. I kept it low. It's like seven or eight dollars a month. I promise you the return on investment will be great. And there's things that you'll be getting as a paid member to support us and take your receipt with you that you won't be able to find anywhere else. And then we've got our so substack is a major way to support the intersection as well. And then we've got our sponsors who are along here just like they are for legal AF to address our audience. These are sponsors that we selected through the brothers through Jordy my Salis. We we then curate them with them, we adopt them, we we negotiate great deals and you know, if you find something that you like up there, you got some disposable income. It would be a good way to support the sponsors as well. So now let's take a word from our sponsors. Guys know I love my late night snacks, but not the sugar crash after. That's why I'm obsessed with Magic Spoon. It's the cereal and treats you remember from your childhood reinvented. Each serving of their high protein cereal has a wild 13 grams of protein, zero sugar and only 4 grams of net carbs. Perfect if you're carb conscious or living that low carb lifestyle. And the flavor straight out of the Saturday morning cartoons. Fruity cocoa frosted nostalgic fueling and totally satisfying. Now let's talk about their treats. They're crispy, crunchy and packed with 12 grams of protein. I toss them in my gym bag, my glove box, even my nightstand. With flavors like marshmallow chocolate, peanut butter and dark chocolate, you really can't go wrong. Get $5 off your next order at magicspoon.com legalaf or look for Magic Spoon on Amazon or in your nearest grocery store. That's magic spoon spoon.com legalaf for $5 off. You ever have a meal that just stays with you? Like for me it was this spicy citrus marinated grilled fish thing I had on vacation last summer. It was perfectly charred, bursting with flavor and I still crave it. That's exactly what Cook Unity delivers. Meals so good they stick in your memory. Cook Unity was made for adventurous eaters with countless global cuisines. From more than 160 award winning chefs. Explore an ever expanding menu of small batch meals tailored to your lifestyle, dietary needs and cravings and get them delivered right your door. My go to Chef Andres Mendez's Chicken Pibil bowl with passion fruit. Perfectly juicy protein. That sauce I could drink by the spoonful and made with humanely raised meat and organic ingredients when possible. It feels like savoring, not sacrificing, and I have more energy all day. These are handcrafted meals from Food Network alums, James Beard Award winners and acclaimed restaurateurs, never frozen, ready in as little as five minutes and at a fraction of restaurant prices. Get what you're craving. Try the freshest, best tasting meal delivery made by your favorite celebrity chefs. Go to cookunity.com legalizeaf free or enter code legal af free before checkout. For free Premium Meals for Life. That's free Premium Meals for Life by using code legal af free or going to cookunity.com legalaf free terms and conditions apply. Go to cookunity.com for details. I am back. I'm glad I'm back. I got a couple of questions that that came up, so let me see if I can answer some of them on the when we're going to get to the Fourth Amendment issue, which is coming up a little bit later. Actually, I'll be dealing with it in about a second. So Blue Vase asked why did Sotomayor send it to the whole court? I know, I know what they mean by that. She can't be that naive that she didn't know, that she didn't know what she what happened. Her descent sings hollow. So what we're talking about there is in the shadow docket, the first stop on the train is one of the associate justices or the chief justice when an emergency application comes up from one of the 13 circuits to decide whether they're going to decide it on their own or it's going to go over to the full en banc, all nine of the Supreme Court. And I'll just tell you, I've asked this of people who are Supreme Court experts. You know, they've served on the Supreme Court as clerks and that kind of thing. And they're just not going to and I've said the same thing. They're just not going to buck tradition that when it is a major issue, a major question, they're while they could decide it on their own, they're just not going to. And they're going to now, although they used to, they're going to send it over to the full nine. And if they didn't, the parties could still request an onbound consideration of it to bypass Sotomayor. So while I agree with you, but there are just certain protocols that they're not willing to scrap at this point. And I, I, I encouraged her to do that and Kagan to do that and Sotomayor to do that and Katanji Brown Jackson to do it in their districts. They're just not going to do it. And so, you know, sort of like the blue slips in the Senate for confirmation of attorney, of U.S. attorneys and judges. You know, could the Republicans get rid of the blue slip rule and help Donald Trump right now get all these people confirmed? They could, but they don't even want to do that right now. They're going to keep it in place because they're afraid that if Gavin Newsom or somebody, the Democrats becomes president, they just lost the blue slip tradition. So it sort of falls into that category. Let me turn to a little bit on the Wall Street Journal. Then we'll talk about E. Jean Carroll, Wall Street Journal, attacking viciously Donald Trump on the editorial page owned by Rupert Murdoch. They just had about the Trump economy a tutorial for Donald Trump in which they said, and this is my, this is exact quote, repeat after me, tariffs are taxes and taxes are bad for economic growth. Because Donald Trump's entire, he's a one trick pony. His entire domestic and foreign policy is framed around tariffs, 158 of them against countries up to 20%, sometimes 50% and other types of tariffs, including sectoral tariffs against copper and metal and gold and, and electronics and chips and that kind of thing. It's the entirety of his, of his plan. There is nothing else. He uses it to abuse our allies. He threatens to use it against our enemies, but doesn't he he uses it to fill the giant hole in revenue collection because he cut taxes. But now that whole thing is up at the United States Supreme Court level. Somebody asked in one of the questions tonight, what are the chances that the United States Supreme Court taking up the case in November on full briefing, not on the shadow docket, are going to overturn the tariffs? I'll tell you, they should overturn the tariffs. Wall street wants them to overturn the tariffs. It's terrible for the American economy. It's job killing. There's no way out. Donald Trump is not going to grow a brain between now and the midterms and fix his failed economy. He's gone all in on the tariffs, so he could he should be praying, as the Wall Street Journal said, that they overturn them for him. Now, the analysis should be relatively straightforward. Congress has not delegated to Donald Trump or a president the express power to impose reciprocal tariffs or trafficking tariffs for the drug trade to stop the fentanyl trade. And because they haven't expressly Delegated it and it doesn't appear in the, in the statute. The International Economic Economic Emergency Economic Powers act iipa because it doesn't appear there at all. He has no power. Presidents only have the power that the Constitution gives them or that is delegated from Congress. That's it. Now the definition of their, of their Article 2 powers of course is subject to interpretation by the United States Supreme Court. But they are they what their job is as the executive branch is to execute faithfully the laws of Congress. We know that's not happening. And so if I were the Supreme Court and you were being intellectually honest and their jurisprudence was being honest, I would say International Economic Emergency Economics Powers act does not contain the word tariffs. At no time has any president attempted to use it that way. Tariffs is the power of Congress. Congress has not clearly spoken nor given you the power. And since it's a major question which they, which is a man made Supreme Court made fictitious doctrine that they used against the Biden administration to strike down anything that Joe Biden tried to do to help the American people. Oh, forgive student loans. That's a major question. That's not, that's, that doesn't appear anywhere in the statutes. That would have to go to Congress and Congress would have to clearly speak in a statute. The major questions doctrine. Well, why doesn't the major questions doctrine apply to the tariffs? It should go back if they're not being legislators, which Amy Coney Barrett just had. You know, she's on some sort of book shilling tour to earn her $2 million advance. You know, we, we, we don't make the law. We, we don't, we're not here to put our values down people's throats or up their body parts. I'm paraphrasing now. No, no, no, no, no. I don't like to be unpopular. I'm like, I almost vomited during most of her interview. She's the person who single handedly on her own found a way to rip away a woman's right to choose after 50 years of being in the Constitution and being declared to be in the Constitution. So if they're not legislating and they're just calling it like they see it, then why isn't the major questions doctrine the death knell for the Trump tariffs should be. Now the only thing we got going for us right now is this is not going to be on the shadow docket. Meaning there's going to be not two briefs and, and no oral argument and no reasoned opinion that we could read but there's going to be full briefing, three briefs. It's going to be the Trump brief, the opposing brief, and Trump gets one more brief. That's how it works. There's going to be a ton of what we call amici or amicus briefs, which are friends of the court. You're going to see the Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce, all sorts of crazies, professors on both sides of the aisle submitting briefs. And then the court can read them. And sometimes they don't just read them, they, like, cite to them and their opinions. They find something that's very, very interesting. So there'll be a raft of, of the abacus briefs, the briefs, and then there's gonna be oral argument. We'll run it live on legal af. You can watch it. I'll do commentary during it, and we'll see. We'll know right away whether those tariffs are going to live or die. And that's going to be sometime in November. But they're not going to rule on it right there. It's not going to be like from the bench. They're going to have to write an opinion, circulate the opinions, get enough votes to get five votes or more, and then publish it. I think it's going to be, I don't know, January event, maybe December, maybe February, somewhere in there. In the meantime, they're letting them collect the money, which is, of course, Trump's using, is saying, look at all the money. It's like a bank robber saying, you can't put me in jail. Look at the amount that I stole. If he didn't have the power to do it, if it's what we call void ab eo, then I don't understand how that justifies the fact that he did it without legal basis. I don't understand how by collecting the money, it justifies it. But that's what all of his people around him are doing. All his economic people look at the money. You can't take it away. Now. It's the basis of our foreign policy. And how. Speaking of foreign policy, how is that going? Not well. Donald Trump's closer to being indicted as a war criminal than he is getting a Nobel Peace Prize. Let's take Russia as an example. Let's do my global AF segment here on the intersection, Alaska. Remember that meeting in which he had the military bow down to Putin as he applauded and took him into the Beast and put his arm around him and gave him all the hugs and kisses that were available? What did, what did, what did Putin get out of that. Everything he wanted. No ceasefire. We're still no ceasefire. Bombing of Kiev just in the last 48 hours. Biggest air attack of the war. Setting the guy, you saw that, setting the government's buildings ablaze. That is a major middle finger to Donald Trump. Because he's weak. You know how you know somebody's weak? Because they keep saying they're strong when they. When somebody tells you they're strong. Or it's not about the money, or it's exactly about the money. And you are not strong. You are weak. And the rest of the world, allies and enemies, know it and they're exploiting it. Look how much, not only. Look what Putin has accomplished since he left Alaska. No ceasefire. Him getting property and territory that he's never going to get in a war is on the table. And Donald Trump still running around declaring, I'm getting mad. It's like watching the old Honeymooners routine, Alice. I'm getting mad. I'm going to do something. What are you going to do? You've threatened these economic sanctions now. I mean, this is a toothless threat and Putin knows it. While Putin goes off and celebrates in China, because now we've turned Russia and China into best friends economically, along with India. India's prime minister was literally dancing on a stage during. In America to support Donald Trump's election, you know, coming out to raucous applause. And what did he get in return? A 50% tariff because he's selling oil to Russia or whatever he's doing. So I agree that the tariff scheme is at the core of all that Donald Trump is trying to do around the world. It's not working and people are dying because of it, just like people are. Hundreds of thousands of people are going to die because of Donald Trump's depraved public health policies being implemented by RFK Jr. The worst Kennedy in history. And that's saying a lot. Joe did a lot of bad things, by the way. So that answers, I think, in a long winded way, the question about what's going to happen at the United States Supreme Court and what is the purpose of the tariffs if. If it's not going to ultimately be used against somebody like Putin to stop and solve the war that should have been solved according to Donald Trump, eight months ago. Then what you're watching, if you didn't know before, not only the intersection, but if you're. You're seeing what a failed presidency actually looks like up close, we unfortunately have the ringside seats for it. Let's turn to some Positive news before I return to the United States Supreme Court, Eugene Carroll, love everything about E. Jean Carroll, personally, about the pleasure and the honor of interviewing her. E. Jean Carroll, for those that I don't want to talk too much in shorthand, I'll do, I'll do it briefly. She was a famous advice columnist for Elle magazine in the 1990s in New York. I worked in New York in the 1990s, blocks away from where a lot of these events happened. And she, she knew Donald Trump the way a lot of people in New York at the time knew Donald Trump. She was married to a famous newscaster, John Johnson. For those that watched WABC in New York, I knew, I knew, I used to watch him a lot. And he, he was running around in between wives and being a bachelor or whatever. And they have a fateful meeting for her, fateful in front of the revolving doors of Bergdorf Goodman department store, which is a stone's throw away across the street from Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York. For those that visit recently or have visited recently, you know where the Apple store is with a giant glass cube. It's the store across the street. And so they bump into that. They bump into each other. Starts with, according to her playful banter, ends dark and ominously with her being pushed into a private dressing room and being sexually assaulted. And then years later, she's defamed on top of it when she writes a book about the assault. Twice. Once when he was president and once when he was not president. So there's two lawsuits that went to trial. That's why there's two cases and two judgments. The first case that actually went to trial was about Donald Trump's sexual abuse of her in that dressing room. And the defamation, what, he was not president when he called her a hoaxer, a fraudster, that she's trying to shake him down. Not my type. Disgusting person. And all the other things which are defamatory. The jury, this was led by Alina Haba, by the way. Donald Trump did not testify. Jury returns a verdict of 5.5 million. It's been affirmed on appeal at the 2nd Circuit. And she's going to get that money. Three months later, there's a second trial. Why was there a second trial? Because he defamed her. He defamed her twice. The earlier def. The earlier or sorry. The later defamation went first in trial in order of operation because Donald Trump took a. Donald Trump took a bunch of appeals about certain types of immunity, and it took a while to get back to the trial. Judge so now he, after the jury found for Eugene Carroll in the first trial that she had been sexually abused, they were very close to finding rape. But under New York law at the time, they had a find based on her testimony, that she was penetrated with a penis and not digitally. And she couldn't testify to that because she, she had her eyes closed during the assault. Today, that would be a rape in New York. So second trial starts and Judge Kaplan decides, rightly so, affirmed on appeal, that the issue of sexual abuse can't be relitigated. It's already law of the case. It's already what we call race judicata. The only issue for the jury is punitive damages and the amount of damage for the second jury. He testifies in that trial. How did that go? Not well. $83.5 million judgment, $65 million of which was for punitive damages. Donald Trump takes an appeal, multiple appeals. First appeal, he argues that he's got presidential immunity because of the criminal immunity case that came out two years ago by the Supreme Court. The big problem with that is Alina Haba did not raise immunity. And in the world of defenses, you have to raise defenses or you waive them. So the 2nd Circuit in 2023 ruled that she had waived it or he had waived it because she never raised it. And they pointed out, you know how to raise a defense, but, but you raised the wrong one. You, you raised the Supremacy Clause defense, you didn't raise the presidential immunity defense. They argued, but we didn't know we were going to win at the Supreme Court two years later. They said, it doesn't matter. You need to raise it to use it. And nothing about the case of criminal immunity dealt with waiver. Donald Trump then appeals this case and he lost two days ago on the 83 and a half million dollars in a decision written 3, 0 by the three judges. They said, first of all, Judge Kaplan did nothing wrong. That constitutes reversible error in how he ran the case. They argued that, well, he didn't let Donald Trump testify about certain things. They said, what were the questions that Alina Haba was even going to ask? Oh, those were the questions. None of that would have helped him against the mountain of evidence against him. So, no, then the major argument was presidential immunity. And they said, no, our brethren two years ago ruled against you on that. You don't get to re litigate that. That's now law of the case. Third, they argue that the putative damage award was ridiculous. And, and they went through methodically, all of the vicious attacks for five years. This is the appellate court that Donald Trump did against E. Jean Carroll during the trial of the first trial, during the second trial, on the way into the trial, on the outs, during breaks of the trial, calling her every name in the book. Every name in the book. And they said that level of vicious attack rises to the level of. Of sufficiently to be outrageous conduct to support a 65 million dollar judgment. Because they said rightly so. The judge instructed the jury pick a number that makes him stop defaming her. And that's what Eugene, that's what Eugene Carroll's lawyer, Robbie Kaplan, who I also interviewed a couple of weeks ago on the Legal AF YouTube channel. That's what she said was the turning point in the case. That when in the closing, when Robbie Kaplan looked the jury in the eye and said, make him stop, he says he's a billionaire, I'll take him at his word. Make this check big enough that he stops defaming my client. And while she was doing that, he got up and walked, buttoned his jacket or whatever he tried to do with his jacket and walked out in front of the jury, in front of a woman making a closing argument with. About sexual abuse. How do you think that went over with the jury, according to Eugene Carroll? Not great. It was demeaning, it was misogynistic. And it only reinforced the entire thematic for the trial. And so she's now been affirmed to the 2nd Circuit to answer the questions that have come up. Supreme Court, anybody? Sure. Could he ask for what's called an en banc of the 20 judges of the 2nd Circuit first? He could. He's going to lose that, by the way. But he could delay, although it's running with interest. She's up to $100 million in what she's owed. Then he's going to have to try to lob it into the United States Supreme Court. First stop on that train is Justice Sotomayor. Back again. There we go. Thank you very much. About whether it's going to be referred to the full. It's going to be referred to the full appellate panel, that is for sure. And that of the, of the, of the Supreme Court. And then they're going to have to decide whether they're going to bail out a president who's been adjudged basically twice to be, according to the judge, a technical rapist, a sexual abuser and a defamer out of a putative damage award for stuff that he did while he was president where he defamed her effectively. From the Rose Garden. I don't even think this Supreme Court wants to touch that with a ten foot pole. But we'll have to see. They certainly limited their immunity decision to criminal conduct, not civil liability, and they took pains to do that. So if they're at all ideologically consistent, which of course we know they're not, they will avoid this, this, this appeal and leave it where it lies with the Second Circuit. So if you're looking at this as a clock, she is one minute to midnight to getting $100 million. And I'll continue to report on it on legal AF and a legal A F sub stack and the rest. So that's E. Jean Carroll. Let's talk about the Supreme Court and what's going on there. So as it relates to Rebecca Slaughter on the Federal Trade Commission, it looks like the Supreme Court is going to finally overturn 95 years of precedent in a case called Humphreys Executor, where Humphreys, who was a Federal Trade Commission commissioner, sued FDR to get his job back because he was fired without cause. And the way the FTC was set up in 1914 by the Congress required that it be for cause. Meaning you can't just fire somebody because you don't like the look of them or you don't like their politics. And that's been on the books. Sorry, folks, that's been on the books since 1935, that decision. Now they've chipped away at it. That's why we've seen Donald Trump firing the heads of different agencies and commissions. And every time they say, well, it depends on how much executive power the executive commission exercises. The more power they exercise of the executive branch, the more we're going to let Donald Trump fire them without cost. Except for the Federal Reserve. They're always like, except the Federal Reserve because we don't want to like take our economy out in the back and shoot it. So we're going to make sure you can't. They went out of their way in May in a decision about the National Labor Relations Board to say not the Fed. You can't fire them without cause. That's why we're watching the fight with Lisa Cook about whether she's being fired for cause for not or not because she took out a couple of mortgages that checked the box for primary mortgages, which is exactly apparently what everybody in Bill Pulte's family has done with the federal the head of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Donald Trump's pit bull, and 20% of Donald Trump's Cabinet. But be that as it may, that's for another day, another intersection. But that's why he's fighting for cause over there. Because only because the Supreme Court said, not the Federal Reserve. Everybody else you can apparently fire. Now, we figured, well, not the ftc. That is Humphrey's exact case. In fact, last week when I reported on the decision on, on Friday, Friday off of Labor Day, which would have led to today's show, that's why I wasn't sure what the Supreme Court was going to do. The 2 to 1 panel on the D.C. circuit Court said, we're not going to do your job for you Supreme Court. We're going to apply Humphrey's executor. It's exactly on all fours. And we're going to reinstate Rebecca Slaughter into her job. She's the only Democrat on the, on the panel on the commission, the Federal Trade Commission. And so what does the Supreme Court do? They block the decision, effectively ruling for now that they're gonna. And signaling they're gonna throw away 95 years of precedent and they're finally going to get rid of Humphrey's executor, meaning they are going to create not just for Trump, but for the next president, who hopefully will have a D next to his name, an ability to hire and fire anybody they want for any of these, what was supposed to be nonpartisan commissions just to do the people's business. And if that's what they want, as even though we'd like it to end now, Donald Trump's tenure is going to end, I guarantee it, by natural causes or otherwise, it's going to end and there will be a new president. And if it's a Democrat, they are going to get the benefit of all of this case law, body of case law with Donald Trump's name on it. So be careful what you wish for. And if the House is returned to the Democrats, which looks like it's likely, and if the Senate is too, then we're up and running with impeachment, we're up and running with conviction, we're up and running with investigations. And all of these people. I'm looking at you, Stephen Miller. I'm looking at you, Pam Bondi and Cash Patel and Taylor Buddowicz and the rest of you and Alina Haba and Todd Blanch. You know, let's just say after Watergate, a number of people went to jail, including the Attorney General for Nixon. I'm just saying I always like to leave the intersection with some hopeful. I don't want to be The Grim Reaper all the time. We got to talk about something, hopefully. So let's talk about that was slaughter. And then the new decision finally by the Supreme Court that just came out is against the Fourth Amendment. Fourth Amendment is, was originally enshrined in our Constitution by our framers and founders in order to protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures so we don't have unfortunate interaction with law enforcement, if you know what I mean. And reasonable suspicion is the doctrine created by the Supreme Court, which is that a law enforcement officer, whether ICE or Border Patrol or your local state trooper or whatever, can't stop and frisk you, can't stop and start asking you questions in an interrogation moment or even, or apprehend you or seize you without having reasonable suspicion, which is based on a totalitarian, a totality of, of the circumstances in the mind of an objective, reasonable law enforcement officer. That's the law. What they weren't allowed to do until like yesterday is racially profile. So this case came out of a, a ruling by Judge Frimpong in California, of course, federal judge, who said there's four things you can't use if you're doing a stop and frisk for citizenship and immigration. You can't use race. You can't use what they sound like, what language they're speaking. It's going to be more than four. You can't use where they're, where you, where you see them, Home Depot parking lot, car wash, a field, a day laborer hangout spot, or what you think their ethnicity is. You have other things in there. Fine. And what she was basing that on also was she got the trial record because they had some hearings over this where people testified about how they were ripped out of their places of work or out of Home Depot parking lots thrown to the ground. There were, there were very few questions about their citizenship while they were having their Fourth Amendment rights deprived, their civil liberties abused. And so that's how Frimpong made her temporary restraining order. She's now off on doing preliminary injunction and a trial related to that, which doesn't stop, by the way, it continues. What the court decided to do in one paragraph was to block her temporary restraining order, allowing ICE and Border Patrol to run amok and abuse civil liberties all through California and other places, which they are more than willing to do because they've announced they're going to do it. And Brett Kavanaugh, because it was one paragraph in the decision, one paragraph, we're going to block it. We'll get back to you after there's more in the case. But for now, you do. You do. You. Government in fourth Amendment. We're going to anesthetize you. So we got two written opinions off of that. Not the opinion, because that was the opinion. We got a concurrence and a dissent. Kavanaugh, who lives something. There he is. Who lives somewhere not on planet Earth, and who's never, I'm sure, run into anybody that's had a mixed immigration status or had an accent or hung out at a Home Depot or shopped at a Home Depot, he wrote an opinion that said, I concur. I don't think that the law enforcement should be hamstrung in their abilities to deport 1.5 million illegal people in California because they're not allowed to. To make a rep. To make a reasoned opinion about somebody's ethnicity, their accent, or go shopping for them, in my words, in a Home Depot or car wash or in a field where day laborers hang out. And the reality is, Kavanaugh said, there are just so many people who don't speak English. This is a barely paraphrasing, by the way. There's no requirement to be a citizen that you speak English. So now if you're a Hispanic person who happens to be at my local Home Depot and you're in the parking lot with your family talking to them in Spanish about something you want to buy inside, and your friendly neighborhood ICE or Border Patrol agent comes knocking on your door and you don't have what, in his view is the required citizenship papers. Give me your papers. You'll end up in an interrogation proceeding, and maybe we won't see you again. And that's okay with Brett Kavanaugh, who says. Who describes it this way. I don't think it's an inconvenience from a constitutional standpoint for a person to be asked a few simple questions about their citizenship before they're let to go on their way. This is how he describes it. Sotomayor says we now live in a country where, based on the country color of your skin, the language you speak, or the job that you hold, you may now end up without any civil liberties. I respectfully dissent. And she went through from the record, because that's what you're supposed to be doing at the appellate court level. You're supposed to be doing the record develop below on the facts, like what Judge Frimpong developed. She said, in the record below, there are descriptions not of people. You know, the way he sounds, the way he does it. It's like this very polite interaction. Hello there, kind sir. Do you have your citizenship papers on you? Oh, you do? Great. You can go on your way. No. How about ripping people out of their employment or on the street or out of a van or, you know, in Home Depot parking lot, throwing them to the ground hog, tying them, ripping their arms behind them and saying, do you know what hospital you were born in? Under that pressure, the one guy couldn't remember and he got taken to a, an interrogation center. But, but to Kavanaugh, with his one sentence, it was just a little gentlemanly interaction. That's the, that's the fraud. That's the intellectual dishonesty of the MAGA on the United States Supreme Court. Whether it's Amy Cody Barrett or it's Kavanaugh or it's Roberts or Alito or Thomas, I'm getting choked up. They are intellectually dishonest and lying to the American people every time they put pen to paper. So to answer the question, what can we do about it? Okay, we can't do anything about the current makeup of the United States Supreme Court. We just can't. We have to wait them out. We got to get control of the presidency. We got to hope there's some openings that we can fill to change the numbers from 6 to 3 to 5 to 4 or, or 6 to 3 in our, in our, in our direction. And we got to hope that Donald Trump doesn't fill Clarence Thomas's and Alito seat. If they decide to die or leave the bench and he fills them with a 40 year old, and then we're going to have, we're going to be stuck with a 6 to 3 MAGA majority for my natural born days. Now, I will tell you that in my 50 years plus, there has never been a Supreme Court dominated by liberals or moderates. Never. It has been Republican dominated for 50 years. And yet they whine and complain about the United States Supreme Court. How about give it to us for a while? We've never had it. We've never had it. So maybe the solution is somebody with some brass ones comes in like Gavin Newsom or one of the other major candidates for the Democrats on our bench, and we expand the United States Supreme Court. Why don't we add a few seats? Gavin's good at this, by the way. He just added he's about to add five seats to his congressional map to balance out Texas. Why don't we do a little court packing? That's what FDR had to threaten in order to. And then suddenly when he Threatened court packing. All of a sudden, a lot of aspects of his new deal were approved by the Supreme Court. So I think we're going to have to, you know, we're going to have to be transactional here. First step is getting back into office. Second step is thinking about how to restructure the United States Supreme Court. While Donald Trump tries to figure out if he's going to restructure the Federal Reserve, we should be doing the same thing at the United States Supreme Court. So let me see what's come up in questions as we come to the end here. I have a, I have, I have a cheat sheet for that. Pardon me. What can the somebody asked Donald Donnie asked what can the American people do legally to get this administration administration out of office now? Not much. There's no will of the people that can. We don't have a recall ability like they do in some states. We have impeachment. The will of the people is supposed to be expressed through our Congress. So give me back the House and the Senate in the midterms and I will give you investigations, impeachments and maybe convictions and removals. And that's the start. To answer that question, let me do somebody asked, here's Hillary Clinton, but I doubt that's her real account, said Popak. See, Hillary Clinton calls me Popoc. Can we have a Dem Congress write a new update to expand the court? Yeah. Yes. It's. Yes. That new Congress could do some court packing and start getting some bills passed on it. There's going to be a fight over it about the separation of powers. But the Supreme Court's already destroyed the separation of powers and the CO equal branches. We don't have CO equal branches. Now we have a giant leviathan called the executive branch, which levitates above the other two branches. Or he's got them on their lap like lap dogs because of the Supreme Court immunity decision. So I don't want to hear an argument, although it'll be made that, oh, this destroys the delicate balance of co equal branches. F that this is for the, this is for the the are the, the constitutional Republicans is what we're trying to protect at this point. Let me look at one more here. Hold on, folks. I got one more coming in. Janie Smith asked is it possible to fill a jury with all MAGA or Republicans? I mean, technically there's no, there's nothing against that. You just can't get rid of all the black people. That's. At least the Supreme Court has said that you can't use Racial aspects. You have to have come up with other reasons to bounce jurors. But if you're in an, if you're in Alabama and, and they're all maga, they all show up wearing their MAGA hats, there's nothing you can do about it. You know, in that case, that's why Trump's worked so hard to file some of his cases in places where he thinks he'll have a better shot at getting some of his MAGA onto the jury. You know, like in, you know, it's funny. On that note, E. Jean Carroll told a great story. She said that a snowstorm helped her case. A snowstorm helped her case. I said, how was that? She said, we were, we were picking a jury in the, I think in the, in the case, they gave her the 83 and a half. And none of the people in Orange county, which is a more red. There's no, no pun. The Orange county in New York is more red, more conservative, more MAGA potential than the five boroughs of Manhattan that make up the Southern District of New York, which is where she tried her case federally. And Orange county couldn't get in because of the snowstorm. And so it was all of Manhattan. It was a lot of Manhattan people. Which trends more liberal. See how that happens. But I like this part. I'm going to do more, you know, we love doing the lives. I'm going to do more questions here. Here's one from K. Marie that I'll end with. If SCOTUS continues to bend to Trump and with the immunity granted to him, what hope is there that this regime can be brought down? I think we're back to the same, you know, approach. We have levers of power as we, the people we've got think of it as fists in the fight. One fist we have is at the front lines for the battle is in the court system. And rest assured that the public interest groups and the attorney generals, like from New York and California and the 23 other blue states, and the other public interest groups like Democracy Forward, that has an amazing playlist with me on legal AF and the ACLU and the NAACP, they filed over 400 cases against the Trump administration. They're winning 90% of them. Democracy Forward is 80 cases alone. They're winning 93% of them, and that is backing Donald Trump off the ball in certain, in certain important areas. So one fist is in the courts, the second one is in protest. It's joining together here and getting the information and talking truth to power here, talking truth to each other. First and then hitting the streets. And whether that means joining in the, in the no Kings Day Protest or the 5501 protests, or it's just signing up for your local party affiliation, Democratic, whatever, to help with voting and voting roles and voter registration, I'll do my part. I'll be a poll watcher where I live and inside the polls to make things, to make sure things don't go awry and people's real ballots end up provisional ballots and not counted. And you could do the exact same thing. You could be trained to be an election worker, you can be trained to be a poll watcher. You can work the phone banks, you can knock on doors to get mail in voting, mail in registration done properly, absentee balloting done properly. You can get people to the polls on election day. Sold to polls. That's, that's your other fist, right? Court and then over here, go to town halls, write letters and all of that collectively. And then we'll do our part from the main, from the independent, from the mainstream media. That's why we're building this Legal AF community together in the intersection as part of it, so that we can come together on Legal AF substack, which I'll talk about in a minute. Legal Substack, I get two or three thousand people in an instantaneous huddle to talk about something that just happened and then I post the video later on in there. This is the way we overcome. This is the way we overcome the Trump administration. But don't lose faith, don't lose heart, don't lose energy. Lean forward, not back. We have to keep the edge, not lose it. We are a party of and not even party. We are. Whether you're fair, fair minded, what other party you're in, Independent, moderate, socialist, Democrat, whatever you are, now's the time not to be fatigued and we need to redouble our efforts and we do it here on podcast here on the Midas Touch Network. So here's how you support what we're doing. We've got the Midas Touch Network, subscribe there. We've got Legal AF, the YouTube channel. We're about to hit 800,000 subscribers before our one year anniversary on the 17th of September. We've already crossed the 250 million view barrier over there. It's all because of you. And we're continuing to try to grow that to get to our 1 million dot landmark on Legal AF YouTube. 10 new videos every day, 12 contributors. Amazing, amazing things are going on on Legal AF YouTube. But then we have this companion audience that we built on Legal AF substack and think about being a paid member there as well with original content you're not finding anywhere else in the substack universe. And if you don't know what substack is, check it out. It's an amazing, amazing place for people whether you're a hobbyist, somebody involved in law or politics, or just an interested concerned citizen. Come over to the substack on Legal af. And then finally, I think people know because we talk about it on the podcast. Wait for the B roll to roll. We talk about on the podcast. I formed a law firm called the Popoc Firm. And what I do there is I've assembled this amazing group of plaintiffs lawyers around the country who have billion dollar verdicts in order to get into this club, meaning they're helping the American people and the Midas Mighty and the legal a efforts with their most important legal matters of and focused on catastrophic injury, illness, wrongful death cases, auto accident, medical malpractice, employment cases at the highest levels where you need to have somebody in your corner to fight against big insurance. You want to come to the POPOC firm? We've got a 1, 800 number. There we go. 1877 Popoc AF. Or you can go to the website the popoc fir firm.com a live real person is on the other side of that phone call to help screen that that case for you, tell you if you have a case that we're interested in and if we decide to take that case, we're doing it on a contingency meeting. You don't pay unless we get paid. That's the justice that we will provide. And hundreds and hundreds of Legal AF and Midas mighty have come to the Popoc firm and are now clients and and we're in courts all across America from airplane disasters to truck rollovers to car accidents to employment cases, medical malpractice, civil rights violations, you name it, we'll screen it. And if we take the case you got, you have a vigilant law firm on your side that I lead at the Popoc firm. So I'm glad you're here at the intersection. We'll see you next Tuesday we for a live along with Michael Popak answering questions. Until then, I'm Michael Popak. You're on the Midas Touch network. Shout out to the Midas mighty and the legal A effers. I'm Michael Popo and I got some big news for our audience. Most of you know me as the co founder of Midas touches Legal AF and the Legal AF YouTube channel or as a 35 year national trial lawyer now building a what we started together on Legal af I've launched a new law firm, the POPOC Firm, dedicated to obtaining justice through compassionate and zealous legal representation. At the POPOC Firm, we are focused on obtaining justice for those who have been injured or damaged by a life altering event by securing the highest dollar recoveries. I've been tirelessly fighting for justice for the last 35 years, so my own law firm organically building on my Legal AF work just feels right. And I've handpicked the team of top tier trial fighters and settlement Experts throughout all 50 states known as Big Auto Injury Attorneys who have the know how to beat heartless insurance companies, corporations, government entities and their attorneys. Big Auto's attorneys working with my firm are rock stars in their respective states and collectively responsible for billions of dollars in recoveries. So if you or a loved one but on the wrong side of a catastrophic auto motor vehicle rideshare or truck accident, suffered a personal injury, or been the victim of medical malpractice, employment, harassment or discrimination, or suffered a violation of your civil and constitutional rights, then contact the POPOC Firm today at 1-877- POPOCAF or by visiting my website at www.thepopocfirm.com and fill out a free case evaluation form. And if we determine that you have a case that and you sign with us, we don't get paid unless you do. The POPOC Firm Fighting for your justice every step of the way.