Legal AF Podcast Summary – “Trump DOJ Makes Shock Confession in Court”
Podcast: Legal AF by MeidasTouch
Date: February 20, 2026
Host/Analyst: Michael Popok (MeidasTouch Network)
Episode Focus: Dissecting the Department of Justice's (DOJ) confession of widespread violations of federal court orders in New Jersey immigration cases during the Trump administration, the political machinations behind key appointments at the DOJ, and the systemic erosion of trust in the rule of law.

Episode Overview

In this episode, Michael Popok delivers a pointed legal analysis of the Department of Justice's recent admission in federal court that it violated 56 court orders across 547 immigration-related cases in New Jersey since December. Popok delves into parallels with even more flagrant DOJ violations in Minnesota, unpacks the internal jockeying for the U.S. Attorney position in New Jersey, and highlights the broader implications for due process, judicial trust, and the constitutional rules for appointing federal prosecutors.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. DOJ’s Confession to Violating Court Orders

[01:55] – [05:30]

• The DOJ, via a recent court filing, admitted to 56 violations of court orders in 547 New Jersey cases—mostly related to immigration and the “Great Writ” (writ of habeas corpus).
• These violations included failing to appear or file documents, missing deadlines for bond hearings (keeping detainees unlawfully), unauthorized transfers or deportations, and not providing court-mandated evidence.
• Popok contrasts this with Minnesota, where Judge Schultz documented 96 violations in a similarly short timeframe, calling it “probably the most violations in the history of an agency.”

Notable Quote:

"It's a sad day in the Department of Justice and its corrupt operation when admitting to a federal judge...that they've violated 56 court orders and 547 cases...is a 'good' week."
— Michael Popok (02:00)

2. Political Intrigue and Appointments at the New Jersey DOJ

[03:20] – [09:25]

• Jordan Fox, currently a key figure in the NJ DOJ office, authored a conciliatory letter to a judge admitting these violations, likely as part of her campaign to secure the permanent U.S. Attorney position.
• Popok reveals Fox's close professional ties to Emil Bovey, a Trump-aligned Third Circuit judge and former Trump defense attorney.
• Trump’s maneuver: Instead of nominating a single U.S. Attorney, he split the office into three, bypassing Senate confirmation—Popok calls this an unconstitutional “divide and conquer” strategy.
• The real power lies with 17 district court judges who can vote to appoint the interim U.S. Attorney during a vacancy. Fox needs their support and is suspected of currying favor through these gestures.

Notable Quote:

"All the smarmy brown nosing that I found in the letter...she's campaigning, she's trying to get the 17 votes. She's got the inside track. Donald Trump wants her, and she's close to Emil Bovey. How convenient."
— Michael Popok (03:41)

3. Breakdown of Court Order Violations

[10:10] – [13:10]

• Popok enumerates the specifics of the DOJ’s failures:
  • 6 missed court order deadlines (no-shows, late filings)
  • 12 missed bond hearing deadlines (unlawful detention)
  • 17 prohibited transfers or removals (in defiance of court orders)
  • 10 failures to produce required evidence
• Popok emphasizes that even 1 or 2 violations would be alarming; “56 is better than 96,” but the number should be “zero, maybe one for human error.”

Notable Quote:

"One would be too many. 17 transfers...a judge said do not transfer this person...and they violated it 17 times, including sending somebody outside the country."
— Michael Popok (11:43)

4. Critique of DOJ’s Excuse-making and Erosion of Trust

[09:30] – [16:00]

• Popok excoriates the DOJ’s “gaslighting” tone, noting the contrast between claims of upholding the rule of law and documented systemic abuses.
• Points to a strategic pattern: DOJ lawyers are unprepared in court, purposely uninformed, and fail to respect due process in immigration cases.
• As a direct result, prosecutors, judges, grand juries, and the public have lost faith in the DOJ under Trump.

Notable Quote:

"Judges don't trust you. Magistrate judges don't trust you. The American people don't trust you. And nothing that you write either yourself or through chatgpt to a judge you're trying to get a vote from is going to change that."
— Michael Popok (13:40)

5. Significance & Next Steps

[14:00] – [15:45]

• Judges, fed up with repeated violations, are now demanding the DOJ self-report every order it has violated across the entire district—not only to keep score, but to enable actual remedies, possibly including contempt sanctions.
• Popok commits Legal AF to continue following the story and urges listeners to keep an eye on how the courts escalate their response.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “You think this smarmy letter that you wrote to a judge is going to solve that problem?” — Michael Popok [13:18]
• “If she wasn't connected to Emil Bovey...would they be considering her? Probably not.” — Michael Popok [04:50]
• “The fact that you think your career is going to be benefited by pinning your fortune to this donkey and that you don't have some personal responsibility as an officer of the court to comply with ethics...” — Michael Popok [12:33]

Important Timestamps

• [01:55] — Introduction: DOJ admits 56 violations in NJ
• [03:20] — Who is Jordan Fox? Political ties and appointment process
• [05:30] — Minnesota comparison: 96 violations in a month
• [10:10] — Breakdown of violations by type
• [13:10] — Systemic issues: Erosion of judicial and public trust
• [14:45] — Judges demanding district-wide audit of DOJ compliance

Conclusion

Popok’s analysis underscores the profound issues undermining the integrity of the Department of Justice, especially in the immigration context under Trump. He exposes the political maneuvering that prioritizes connections over qualifications, and he warns that a DOJ “good week” where only 56 violations occur is a national scandal. As courts begin to reclaim their authority, Legal AF pledges to keep audiences updated—reiterating the necessity of vigilance at the intersection of law and politics.