Loading summary
Progressive Insurance Ad
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.
Amazon Music Ad
Hey prime members, are you tired of ads interfering with your favorite podcasts? Good news. With Amazon Music, you have access to the largest catalog of ad free top podcasts included with your prime membership. To start listening, download the Amazon Music app for free or go to Amazon.com adfreepodcasts that's Amazon.com ad free podcasts to catch up on the latest episodes without the ads.
Michael Popak
Representing Donald Trump in his criminal matters must be vogue again because we've got some new appellate lawyers from a top flight firm filing a new brief on behalf of Donald Trump with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers New York, about his 34 count felony conviction. But it should end up being the same result. The filing has been made directly to the Second Circuit and it's asking the Second Circuit to reverse the lower court's decision to to keep the state conviction and keep the state appeal in the state court system and not bring it over to the federal court system just because there was a couple of pieces of stray evidence, some of which related to the Midas Touch podcast and Michael Cohen and Legal AF that was presented to the jury. I'm Michael Popo. Let's get to it here on Midas Touch Network. Here's the new filing, the new lawyers, let's start there. I always find that interesting. Remember that all of Donald Trump's criminal lawyers were sucked into the administration and sucked into the executive branch and are now serving in the Department of Justice or the Solicitor General's office. So he lost those lawyers. And originally in the first round of representation, Donald Trump had a hard time finding any legitimate law firms to represent him. I guess now that he's the president of the United States, those firms are all not as gun shy about representing Donald Trump. One of them is Sullivan and Cromwell, a firm I know well, I've opposed and beaten in New York and its lawyers in both Washington and New York, they've now come forward. We refer to them in New York as a white shoe firm because they're one of these silk stocking elite firms. I guess they had their ethicist and their management committee get together and say, sure, we'll represent the President now. All right, well, it doesn't change the arguments. I just thought it was interesting that top firms are now on the right wing side coming into cases in favor of Donald Trump. So now let's turn to the merits of the case. So what happened is this to just to bring everybody up to speed, we had a trial In New York, 34 count felony conviction. A nine member jury convicted Donald Trump nine zero for violating business record law. And in furtherance of a second crime in this case, a federal election crime in the hush money cover up related to payments made to Stormy Daniels to stop her story from going public while he was a candidate for office against Hillary Clinton in the 2018 campaign. That brings us current. The judge was Judge Marshawn. He presided, they convicted the judge, held off on sentencing, waiting to see what would happen with the United States Supreme Court in their immunity decision. We know what happened there. I'll talk about that in a minute and how it backs up under this appeal. In addition, we had an election. So there were, there were numerous delays lasting several months apiece until right after the election. But before the inauguration. Judge Bershon ended up sentencing Donald Trump, but not to jail time and sort of wrapped it up that way. Now Donald Trump wants to bring an appeal, but he doesn't want to bring it in the state appeal courts, which would be the first Department appellate division of which I'm a member, where another of his cases is currently pending on the civil fraud matter. Remember that 400 and little, that little issue of a $450 million fraud conducted over 10 years? That's, that's up with the same state appellate panel that Donald Trump wants to avoid? They haven't ruled yet. I expect them to cut some or half of that judgment down to size. But Donald Trump wants to be in the feds because he wants a fast track to the United States Supreme Court, who he sees as helping him. In fact, speaking of the United States Supreme Court, did you catch on the joint session address last night as Donald Trump was entering the room, his little fist bump or whatever that was supposed to be with Chief Justice John Roberts, in which Chief Justice John Roberts had to have heard Donald Trump say, you know, I won't forget you. I got you. Let's run the clip.
Progressive Insurance Ad
Thank you again. Thank you again.
Michael Popak
Don't forget. So good.
Amazon Music Ad
That's good.
Michael Popak
So good, sir. Remember those days when the Supreme Court, when a Democrat was a president, said they weren't even going to go to these kinds of things because they didn't want to be political. Now Chief Justice Roberts is doing high fives with President Trump as he enters the room that does not fill me with a lot of confidence about their being fair and impartial when they get this case again. Now the reason we're here is because in last July, in the immunity decision that was written by that same guy, the fist bumping president guy, Chief Justice Roberts, he effectively gave Donald Trump two types of immunity. Or any President, but really Donald Trump two types of immunity. One is immunity for official conduct or core constitutional conduct under Article 2 of the Constitution, absolute immune. Then there's the presumption of immunity bucket for things that happened at the outer boundaries of his official conduct. And then there's also what we call evidential immunity which came out of that same case, which is if a in doing the prosecution or the case against the guy that was or is President, you can't use any element of his official conduct against him.
Tushy Ad
Listen, that extra hour of daylight, it's so good for the mental health, but so hard on the morning routine. If you like me, take like 15 minutes to do your business on the toilet at the best of times you need to get a bidet. Tushy helps me elevate comfort in the bathroom while getting me out the door sooner. Now look, before Tushy, I thought a bidet was just like some awkwardly placed water fountain next to that shower with no glass divider that soaked my hotel bathroom floor. But now I know I'm worthy of a bidet too. And using Tushy on a daily basis was a lot easier than I envisioned and was gentle on my private parts in a way that only clean water down there can be. Tushy is the modern bidet that instantly transforms your bathroom habits and bottom health for life. And Aura is the luxury bidet seat that turns toilet dime into la dolce vita. Aura is Tushy's brand new electric bidet with an auto open lid and seat, instant warm water that never runs cold and UV sterilization for next level hygiene. Aura by Tushy easily attaches to your existing toilet without the need for additional plumbing. Instead of wiping endlessly with toilet paper, Tushy pristinely removes 99% of bacteria protecting your natural skin barrier thanks to one natural ingredient, fresh water. Installation is simple. It takes about 10 minutes to complete. Literally anyone can do it. Tushy bidet gives you two in one benefits, reducing irritation and preventing micro tears with soothing water instead of scratchy toilet paper or damaging wet wipes. It's also easy to use sit, cleanse and dry using the built in air dryer. That's right, cleaning yourself after Using the bathroom is now hands free and every hello Tushy bidet comes with a 30 day hassle free return and a 12 month warranty. Reclaim your comfort zone in the bathroom for a limited time. Our listeners get 10% off your first bidet order when you use code LEGAL AF at checkout. That's 10% off your first bidet Order@hellotushy.com with promo code LEGAL AF.
Michael Popak
And Donald Trump now argues in his Second Circuit brief that that during the trial there were three different discrete pieces of evidence when he was wearing his president hat that should not have gone to the jury. One, Michael Cohen testifying about certain things, fellow podcaster here, including that Donald Trump may have sought advice from the then Attorney general, Jeff Sessions, that was his first attorney general, about whether he committed an election law violation while he was running for office. I don't see how that's a presidential act, asking the attorney general about a private affair, a private transaction that happened while he was candidate, not a president, but that came into evidence. Some conversations with Hope Hicks came into evidence, the White House press secretary at the time and some other testimony about Michael Cohen. Now we know from the kind of the original motion practice and submissions that they also did not like Michael Cohen making comments against the press president at on the Midas Touch podcast, on Michael Cohen's podcast on Legal af, they cited all of that. It was very surreal that we became part of the record, if you will, for this ultimate appeal. Now they're arguing that under the removal statute, we're really focused on a very specific removal statute, that if there is any colorable act relating to a presidential conduct and there's a federal defense available to the, to that person, that officer, the federal officer, boom, then he gets to remove it, no matter the timing of it, even though the trial is over at any time. Problem with that argument is I've read through now this 40 page brief. I see very little credible argument that there is a colorable argument that what Donald Trump was talking to Jeff Sessions about or Hope Hicks about or Michael Cohen about that went to the jury, that any of that was colorably related to his being the President of the United States as opposed to what Judge Hellerstein, the lower court judge, referred to it as a private affair, literally with Stormy Daniels. And so I think they've got, they don't get over the first prong, which is lack of colorable federal connection, federal office connection. And I don't really see their federal defense. You have to have a federal defense as well in order to remove and their federal defense is, oh, the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Election Commission act preempts any kind of state prosecution. I don't see that generally it's a civil matter. You, the courts have found that you could have a state court crime, a state crime in furtherance of a federal crime. I really don't see how there's a federal defense here at all. So I would be surprised as a federal court practitioner, one who appears kind of regularly before the Second Circuit, I would be surprised if this three judge panel that will ultimately be assigned to this matter and we'll know who that is soon, but there'll be oral argument on this matter soon and we'll report on it here on the Midas Dutch network. I would be surprised if they find that there's a removal so late in the game so filed so far after the sentencing. And on these grounds, I just don't see them saying, sure, take the case back to us on the second Circuit. We'll do your appeal. But if he loses at the second Circuit, which I believe he will, his lawyers will then file an emergency application with the United States Supreme Court and we'll have to see what fist bumper Chief Justice Roberts, which that gave me no confidence whatsoever. I mean, you know, we've had the upside down flags of insurrection being filed by Judge Alito, Justice Alito, we got this little scene going on there and so we'll have to see what the United States Supreme Court does. What's the worst case scenario? The case ends up in a 2nd Circuit appeal on all aspects of what happened during that trial and then up to the United States Supreme Court. I guess that could happen. I mean, there's many different roads to the Supreme Court now that Donald Trump is president and we'll continue to follow them all. I think the takeaway here is we've got major firms who have decided it's okay to get back into bed with Donald Trump again. We've got Midas Touch and Legal. I have being cited in the record again. And We've got the 2nd Circuit sitting on a decision after an oral argument that'll be coming up soon about whether this whole 34 count felony conviction on appeal should go to a federal court, the second Circuit or should go back to the first Department Appellate Division in Manhattan, which is a state appellate court. I'll follow it all right here on the Midas Touch Network. Follow me. Michael Popak, Legal AF Wednesdays and Saturdays at 8:00pm Eastern Time. And then wherever you get your podcast from, I have a new show called Popoc Live on Tuesday nights on the Midas Touch Network 8pm as well. And then Legal AF the YouTube channel. Legal AF MTN. Help us continue our march to 500,000. We should get there this weekend, but with your help. Until my next reporting, I'm Michael Popak.
Tushy Ad
In collaboration with the Midas Touch Network, we just launched the Legal Afghan YouTube channel. Help us build this pro democracy channel where I'll be curating the top stories the intersection of law and Politics. Go to YouTube now and free subscribe. That's egalafmtn.
T-Mobile Ad
Like your favorite travel guide, T Mobile's network knows all the spots because T Mobile helps keep you connected from big cities to your hometown on America's largest 5G network. Switch now keep your phone and T Mobile will pay it off up to $800 per line via prepaid card. Visit your local T Mobile location or learn more at T Mobile. Com KeepAndSwitch up to four lines via virtual prepaid card. Laugh. 15 days qualifying unlock device, credit service port in 90 plus days device and eligible carrier and timely redemption required card is no cash access and expires in six months.
Podcast Summary: Legal AF by MeidasTouch
Episode: Trump Exposes Plan with Humiliation of Chief Judge
Release Date: March 8, 2025
In this episode of Legal AF from the MeidasTouch Network, host Michael Popak provides an in-depth analysis of the latest developments in former President Donald Trump's legal battles. The discussion centers on Trump's recent 34-count felony conviction in New York, his new legal representation, and the strategic moves being made to appeal the verdict. Popak offers a critical perspective on the potential implications of these developments within the broader context of law and politics.
Michael Popak begins by highlighting the significant shift in Trump's legal team. He announces that a top-tier law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell—a prestigious "white shoe" firm known for its elite status—has taken on Trump's appellate case.
"They've now come forward. We refer to them in New York as a white shoe firm because they're one of these silk stocking elite firms."
—Michael Popak [00:53]
Popak notes that Trump's previous legal counsel were largely absorbed into the Department of Justice, leaving him without robust representation until now. The involvement of Sullivan and Cromwell signifies a bolstering of Trump's legal strategy as he prepares to challenge his conviction.
The episode delves into the specifics of Trump's 34-count felony conviction, which includes violations of business record laws and a federal election crime related to hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels during the 2018 campaign against Hillary Clinton.
"A nine member jury convicted Donald Trump on nine counts for violating business record law."
—Michael Popak [00:53]
Judge Marshawn presided over the case, delaying sentencing pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. Eventually, Judge Bershon sentenced Trump without jail time post-election, setting the stage for the upcoming appeal.
Popak critically examines Trump's strategy to move his appeal from New York state courts to the federal system via the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. He argues that Trump's legal team is attempting to circumvent potentially unfavorable outcomes in state courts by seeking a faster path to the Supreme Court.
"Donald Trump wants to be in the feds because he wants a fast track to the United States Supreme Court, who he sees as helping him."
—Michael Popak [08:21]
He scrutinizes the arguments presented in Trump's brief, asserting that the evidence introduced during the trial does not sufficiently relate to Trump's official conduct as President to justify federal jurisdiction. Popak remains skeptical of the removal's success, emphasizing the weak connection between the alleged crimes and Trump's presidential duties.
"I don't see how there's a colorable argument that any of that was colorably related to his being the President of the United States as opposed to... a private affair."
—Michael Popak [08:21]
A significant portion of the discussion focuses on the perceived impartiality of the judiciary, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts. Popak expresses concern over Trump’s interaction with Roberts, suggesting it undermines confidence in the judiciary's fairness.
"Chief Justice Roberts is doing high fives with President Trump as he enters the room that does not fill me with a lot of confidence about their being fair and impartial when they get this case again."
—Michael Popak [05:06]
He references a previous immunity decision where Roberts granted Trump substantial protections for his official conduct, questioning the implications of such judicial actions on Trump's current legal challenges.
Popak outlines the possible paths the case might take, including the likelihood of it reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. He anticipates that if the Second Circuit denies the removal, Trump’s appeal may not find favorable grounds, and the case could proceed without substantial changes.
"I would be surprised if they find that there's a removal so late in the game."
—Michael Popak [08:21]
He remains doubtful about the efficacy of Trump's strategy, especially considering the current judicial climate and the actions of key Supreme Court justices.
Michael Popak [00:53]:
"Representing Donald Trump in his criminal matters must be vogue again because we've got some new appellate lawyers from a top flight firm filing a new brief on behalf of Donald Trump with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals."
Michael Popak [05:06]:
"Chief Justice Roberts is doing high fives with President Trump as he enters the room that does not fill me with a lot of confidence about their being fair and impartial when they get this case again."
Michael Popak [08:21]:
"I don't see how there's a colorable argument that any of that was colorably related to his being the President of the United States as opposed to... a private affair."
Michael Popak provides a nuanced critique of Donald Trump's legal maneuvers, emphasizing skepticism about the success of his appeal strategy. He underscores the potential conflict of interest within the judiciary, particularly concerning interactions between Trump and Chief Justice Roberts. Popak anticipates that the Second Circuit may not grant the removal to federal courts, thereby maintaining the state's jurisdiction over the case. The episode highlights the intricate interplay between legal strategies and political dynamics, offering listeners a comprehensive understanding of the ongoing legal battles facing Trump.
This episode of Legal AF serves as an essential resource for listeners seeking to understand the complexities of high-profile legal cases intersecting with politics. Michael Popak's detailed analysis sheds light on the strategic decisions made by Donald Trump and his legal team, while also critiquing the broader implications for judicial impartiality and the legal system's capacity to handle cases involving former presidents.
Follow-Up: Stay tuned to Legal AF for continuous updates on this case and other significant legal-political developments. Michael Popak also invites listeners to support the network's growth and engage with their content across various platforms.