Legal AF by MeidasTouch
Episode: "Top DOJ Lawyer Confesses All on Trump at Shock Hearing"
Date: February 5, 2026
Host: Michael Popok (MeidasTouch Network)
Overview
This episode of Legal AF dives into extraordinary courtroom revelations by Julie Lee, a Department of Justice lawyer, who, in a moment of candor, criticized U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and confessed in open court to concerns about racial profiling by her own client. The episode explores the implications of her admissions, the escalating battle between DOJ lawyers and ICE, and the increasing willingness of federal judges to challenge government agencies—particularly following the Trump administration era.
Key Discussion Points and Insights
The "Accidental Whistleblower" – Julie Lee's Courtroom Confession
- Julie Lee, a DOJ lawyer assigned to ICE cases in Minnesota, delivers a stunning courtroom confession:
- She admits concern that ICE is engaging in racial profiling, a worry driven in part by her own Asian American heritage.
- She voices frustration at her overwhelming workload (80 cases at once), lack of training, and ICE’s refusal to comply with court orders or even communicate.
- Lee’s statements expose internal dysfunction and ethical dilemmas plaguing parts of the DOJ and ICE relationship.
- Despite her candid criticisms, Lee is not punished or removed from her post—she is sent "back to ICE and immigration court," drawing comparisons to the myth of Sisyphus (03:38).
Quote:
"She admitted that she's not properly trained. And then she said this part out loud, which is not getting enough attention, where she said out loud that she is worried that her own client, ICE, is racially profiling. And that concerns her because she said to the judge, as you can see, Judge, I'm not white."
— Michael Popok (03:10)
The Breakdown Between DOJ Lawyers and ICE
- Systemic communication failure: DOJ attorneys report that ICE refuses to return their calls, hindering their ability to follow judicial orders.
- Judges' orders being ignored: A Minnesota survey shows ICE violated at least 96 court orders in January alone (06:43).
- Judicial frustration: Federal judges, even those with conservative backgrounds, are threatening to hold ICE and DOJ officials in contempt for their disregard of the courts.
Quote:
"This is not the only situation. There are half a dozen situations in which US Attorneys in the Department of Justice in Minnesota have told judges, and it's reflected in orders, that they can't do their job, that ICE is not returning their phone calls, nobody's home, and therefore they can't comply with the court orders."
— Michael Popok (05:58)
Ethical Dilemma for Government Lawyers
- Lawyers are reminded of their ethical duty to uphold the Constitution and legal ethics above loyalty to problematic clients or agencies.
- If a client instructs actions that are illegal or unethical, lawyers are obligated not to follow those instructions (04:36 – 05:48).
Quote:
"You cannot follow illegal instructions if you have a client who's not communicating with you... you can't go to court, frankly, throw your client under the bus and say they suck."
— Michael Popok (05:36)
Increasing Courage and Pushback from Federal Judges
- Judicial pushback is growing: Judges who once tolerated agency noncompliance are now openly threatening sanctions and contempt proceedings.
- Notable example: Judge Schultz, a conservative, demands accountability after ICE violates nearly 100 orders in a month (06:43).
- Historic context: Judge Michael Ludig discusses the newfound courage among lower federal judges since the “tsunami” of public and political opinion turned against Donald Trump (09:11).
Memorable Moment (09:11):
"Every American is against Donald Trump today except his dye in the wool MAGA and of course, the Congress of the United States... it gave them [federal judges] the courage, the needed courage... to do what they knew they had to do and wanted to do all along."
— Judge Michael Ludig (Guest)
Calls to Action for Courts and Lawyers
- Michael Popok urges judges to continue or accelerate the process of holding federal law enforcement in contempt when orders are ignored.
- The episode underscores the vital role of the courts in defending constitutional norms against executive overreach or indifference.
Quote:
"I've never seen in 35 years Federal judges tolerate more impertinence, tolerate more vitriol attacks on them, more inappropriate, unethical conduct in defiance of their orders than I see right now. And it must come to an end."
— Michael Popok (13:02)
Notable Quotes and Timestamps
- Julie Lee’s confession: "I have to threaten to resign and multiple phone calls before anything happens..." (05:48)
- Judge Schultz’s condemnation: "He said at least, and he thinks he's under counting, 96 orders have been violated in the month of January by ICE in just Minnesota federal courts." (06:43)
- Judge Michael Ludig on judicial courage: "The federal judges began to push back on that the last six months of last year. Now ... those same federal judges ... they're not going to have it." (11:03)
- Michael Popok’s call to judicial action: "Federal courts are the things that are keeping our constitutional republic from spinning off and burning up in the atmosphere. But they got to do more." (13:07)
Important Segment Timestamps
- Julie Lee’s whistleblower moment: 00:59 – 04:33
- Discussion on lawyers’ ethical duties: 04:36 – 05:48
- Systemic breakdown between DOJ and ICE: 05:48 – 07:00
- Judge Schultz’s findings and judicial contempt threats: 06:40 – 08:11
- Judge Michael Ludig interview: 09:11 – 11:38
- Final calls to action and closing thoughts: 12:55 – 14:13
Episode Tone
The tone throughout is both urgent and impassioned. Michael Popok mixes legal analysis with strong opinions and humor, especially in metaphors describing DOJ lawyers’ Sisyphean struggles. Judge Ludig’s cameo offers a sober, historical perspective, reinforcing the episode’s emphasis on judicial backbone and the fight for constitutional integrity.
Conclusion
This Legal AF episode is a deep dive into the public eruption of tension between the Department of Justice, its lawyers, and ICE. With courtroom revelations, calls for judicial assertiveness, and expert reflections on the intersection of law and politics post-Trump, it captures a critical moment of legal reckoning in America—and urges both courts and lawyers to meet the moment for the good of the republic.