← The Tara Palmeri Show
The Tara Palmeri Show
Why the DOJ is Targeting Trump Accuser E. Jean Carroll w/ Michael Popok
00:52:01
Loading summary
Transcript149 lines
- [00:00]
Tara Palmeri
Hey, want a cookie?
- [00:02]
Progressive Insurance Announcer
Oh, I know you just ate, so
- [00:04]
Tara Palmeri
you're craving something a little sweet.
- [00:06]
Progressive Insurance Announcer
Besides, one cookie isn't gonna kill you. How about half?
- [00:11]
Tara Palmeri
Just a bite. Bite it. Bite it.
- [00:14]
Michael Popak
Bite it. Food noise isn't fair, but Mochi health is your affordable glp. One source that puts you on a path to successful weight loss by quieting food noise. Bite it. Learn more@joinmochi.com Mochi members have access to licensed physicians and nutritionists. Results may vary.
- [00:30]
Tara Palmeri
Hey, everybody. Welcome. Tara PALMERI SHOW and the Red Letter. We've got a very special guest with you with us today. But first, I want to give you some background to what happened overnight. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch has been very busy auditioning for the role of attorney general. Last night, CNN broke major news out of the Justice Department. They're reporting that President Trump's DOJ has opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll. So for you, those of you who haven't been following her story, E. Jean Carroll is the advice columnist who accused President Trump in her memoir of raping her in a dressing room at the Bergdorf goodman store in 1996. She went before two federal juries and proved that President Trump sexually assaulted her and then defamed her. Two juries, one jury for sexual abuse and the other for defamation. They decided he owes her in total nearly $90 million in damages. Now, I'm being very precise about the terminology because as we all know, President Trump sued ABC News anchor George STEPHANOPOULOS For. For $15 million for not being entirely precise about what the jury decided ABC paid out. So President Trump has not paid her yet, and he has appealed it and he's called it a hoax and a false accusation. And this all happened when he was not in power. Which brings us to today because he's president now and he is using that power back in office with the full force of the Justice Department to prosecute a private citizen claiming that she lied under oath during the civil lawsuits that she brought against him. Now, the theory of the case hinges on a 2022 deposition statement that says that she received that she said she received no outside funding for her lawsuit, although it was later revealed that billionaire founder of a LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman, who's also a Democratic donor, paid for her legal fees and expenses to the tune of $7 million. He wasn't the only one, but he was a major contributor. This already came up in trial, so we're going to get to that as well. But get this. So Todd Blanche was Trump's personal attorney at the time. So he had to recuse himself in this case. But he did send it over to a US Attorney in Chicago who is embroiled in his own scandal for tricking a grand jury into prosecuting six progressive politicians for protesting outside of an ICE facility. This is now known as the Broadview Six. So I guess what we're all wondering right now is will E. Jean Carroll even get a fair trial? Have we ever seen a president use the Justice Department like this for his personal vendettas? I mean, we've seen him go after political rivals, but this feels even more extreme. So I'm bringing on renowned trial lawyer and host of the Legal AF podcast, Michael Popak. He's here to help us. Sparse through this investigation. Talk about how unprecedented this is all is. So, Michael, thank you so much for joining the show.
- [03:54]
Michael Popak
Sarah, thanks for inviting me. I'm glad that we were here. We're going to try to get this up on our sub stack as well. Yeah, I'm pretty close to the story we've had Eg and Carol on before. I've had Robbie Kaplan on or a lawyer a number of times. And I know exactly what went down in that deposition. And it's really just what we're watching. We keep calling it the weaponization of the Department of Justice, the new vigilantism on behalf of Donald Trump. Todd Blanche is doing things just as a, As a pre. As a little bit of a pre context here for what we're talking about. He's doing things that would make Pam Bondi blush. I mean, there's just certain things she would not even stoop down to. Do you know, the Seashell indictment against James Comey, the Southern Poverty Law center indictment against our leading anti hate group, the creation of a weaponization fund to pay people who beat up the police. This is, as you said earlier, this is Todd Blanch trying to get the top job. And he is adding velocity to going after Donald Trump's perceived political enemies. Donald Trump is pissed at Eugene Carroll because she proved in a court of law, 96 men and three women in a jury that she was sexually abused by Donald Trump in that dressing room in Bergdorf to Goodman's department store. And with all due respect, the only reason that he wasn't found a judge to be a rapist is because of the law that was on the books at the time, which said that if she could not testify that he put his penis inside of her during that attack, it couldn't have been rape. It could only be sexual abuse. Leaving the jury no choice but to adjudge him a sexual abuser. If that trial went forward today, based on a more recent event, it would be exactly what Judge Kaplan said in subsequent orders, which is he is technically a rapist. And that's where we are with the jury, with the first jury. Second jury also awarded her 83 and a half million dollars in punitive damages for defamation related to his denials of what what happened in that dressing room. Those two judgments, which now with interest, are approaching $100 million.
- [06:08]
Tara Palmeri
Wow.
- [06:08]
Michael Popak
Are in her back pocket. The only thing that has stopped her from being able to collect on the bonds that Donald Trump has had to post because, you know, we don't trust him to pay these off and he has two bonds that are posted, is we're waiting for the United States Supreme Court to do the right thing and to finally deny Donald Trump's appeal, where he's arguing that he has immunity, an immunity that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals already determined was waived by that same Alina Haba because she failed to raise it. He's not arguing that he didn't do it. He's arguing that he has some sort of immunity. Now, 12 times, Tara, including Wednesday last week, the Supreme Court has kicked the can down the road and said we're not going to hear the Trump immunity. E. Jean Carroll matters 12 times. It's almost unprecedented.
- [06:58]
Tara Palmeri
How can he have immunity when the act, when the alleged crime happened while he was president. Right. At least part of it. When he was not president. And even the defamation case like that happened when he wasn't president. So.
- [07:11]
Michael Popak
Well, well, the second, well, there's two defamation cases that there were two trials. There was, we call it EG and Carol 1 and EG and Carol 2, Eugene Carroll. One was things that he said after he was president, which means he was outside of any kind of immunity argument. The other then he kept bashing her again and again and again. So the second trial, which was about when he was president and things that he said right up until that moment and he testified in that particular case and one of his lawyers was Todd Blanch. So I'm not buying. And you can ask your audience about what they think, that Todd Blanche has suddenly grown ethics and has decided he's going to be recused from this case because he used to be on the other side of it and he sent it off to Chicago. I'm not buying that. I'm not buying anything that Top Blanche is trying to sell right now. And he's got a lot to answer to under Oath when he went in about a week or two when he gets back in front of the Senate for another hearing.
- [08:08]
Tara Palmeri
You know what really kind of scares me about this? When I read about it late last night and I'm about to go to bed, I just keep thinking, there are no guardrails. Any of us can be. Anyone can really be targeted by President Trump and his Department of Justice. It just feels like. And that's the thing, whether you win or lose, it's so expensive to mount a legal case. We're all exposed just by existing in this country, by the most powerful person in the land who has the most powerful Justice Department and the world. Like, how is that, you know, how can not every person feel like they could be exposed or targeted?
- [08:50]
Michael Popak
Yeah. I mean, this is the byproduct of sending a felon in chief to the White House. I mean, it wasn't just, hey, wouldn't it be fun to see what he does in a second term? It goes beyond that, because the reason he ran and the only reason he ran, if he wasn't staring down the barrel of several criminal convictions and time in jail, he would be another retiree in Florida making as much money as he possibly could. The reason he ran, Tara, is obvious. He wanted to run away from the criminal cases, get his hands on the Department of Justice and use it to kill off all of his cases, and then do something that even he didn't think to do in the first term, which is to make as much money for himself and his family as humanly possible. And that's. It's going to be when the total tally is. We put the line under it, after this administration is over, it's going to be hundreds of billions of dollars for the Trump, for Trump and the Trump family. And to your. And to your point. Yeah. If we're going to put somebody who should have been disqualified from serving in office, we're going to put them back in office and give them the reins of the Department of Justice and the FBI. You know, no one is immune from being prosecuted by Donald Trump if he's. If you are a perceived enemy.
- [10:05]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah. Even if you're not. I mean, that's the thing. It could be anybody. It could be like the kids who, like, kicked him at school when he was a, you know, who knows?
- [10:14]
Michael Popak
Yeah.
- [10:14]
Tara Palmeri
Well, it's really easy to find a reason to prosecute someone. It's reason.
- [10:19]
Michael Popak
And he announced to the world that he considered himself to be the chief legal officer, not he did it with Pam Bondi standing right next to him that not the depart, not the attorney general, that he alone was the head of the executive branch and all of its agencies, that he did not believe in the independence of the Department of Justice or the FBI, and he wasn't going to operate that way. Now, nobody voted for that. You know, I love when his press secretary say this was the mandate that he ran on. He did not run on corrupting and capturing the Department of Justice and the FBI and using it against, you know, people, you know, dating back to Barack Obama forward that we didn't. Nobody, I mean, I didn't vote for him, but nobody voted for that.
- [11:01]
Tara Palmeri
Even if they, they didn't vote for that. But I do think he did make that very clear. He ran on a vendetta that, I mean, and his, his messaging was, I'm coming between, I'm protecting you from them because if they're going after me, they're going to go after you next, essentially, which is very ironic because we're seeing, you know, the exact thing happen. But, yeah, no, he did run on the vendetta, but I think his supporters and the people who voted for him thought that was secondary and that wasn't going to become his fixation. They were, you know, focused on immigration, the economy, et cetera. But his, no one voted for him because of his personal vendettas.
- [11:39]
Michael Popak
No. But yeah, you're right. He did say I will be your vengeance at some point in one of the speeches. You know, I think, look, there's, there's a lot of healing of our democracy that has to happen after the mid. For the midterms on a lot of much the way the last criminal presidency, Nixon led to a series of changes in the relationship between the Department of Justice and the FBI because the people demanded it. We got a lot of fixing to do in terms of new guardrails and strengthened guardrails, you know, midterms and beyond. Because if you, if people don't like what they're watching, you know, there's only so many things we can do with the existing laws to stop it. You know, we, we may have to have a Constitutional convention to change the Constitution and place the Department of Justice into an independent silo away from the control of the presidency. Because you see what happens when a president just wants to manipulate the Department of Justice and FBI.
- [12:38]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah. Have you ever seen a case like this based on the arguments that President Trump is making?
- [12:45]
Michael Popak
No. No. And, and to the. For those that are joining the story late, Robbie Kaplan has a law firm. This is how it starts, okay? And I'm a practicing lawyer. And in order to do contingency fee cases, which is where you take a percentage of the recovery if you're going to do it that way, as opposed to a pro bono case you do for free, then there are costs that are a part of any case. You'll invest maybe millions of hours of time, but then there's real hard costs. You got to lay out for experts, you got to lay out for court reporters, you got to lay out for copy charges and electronic datab and all sorts of things. It could. It could run you a million bucks. And, And. And Robbie's firm, which I know pretty well, and her former partner, you know, they did a fair amount of corporate litigation and representing companies, and they also did a fair amount of public interest work, like taking on the case for E. Jean Carroll. Now, as part of that, Reid Hoffman wanted to help Robbie's firm, not, like, go upside down. They're small firm, not going to the red out of their pocket for all these cases. So he contributed to her a fund that she used for her many cases, including E. Jean Carroll. I'm not sure the reporting's right that he paid the fees because Robbie's getting a percentage of the fees. There were costs, I know, that came out of the Reid Hoffman fund. Not just E. Jean Carroll's case, other cases that Robbie had in her office. When E. Jean Carroll was deposed under oath in a sort of a gotcha moment by Alina Haba, Alina started asking her about who's funding your lawsuit. She said, nobody, which was in her mind. True, because she's got a deal with Robbie, that Robbie takes a percentage. Now, Robbie had told her that there was a funder, and I think she also told her it was Reid Hoffman for to defray costs. But that's not something that would have stuck in the mind of any client, let alone two years later, as you know, at 80 years old, when she's being asked about the. The economics around her deal, and who cares about the economics around her deal, doesn't change what happened to her in that dressing room. So when she testified. When she testified, Robbie heard it and said, well, Eugene didn't get it quite right on that. So she sent a letter to the judge on the public docket and informed the judge that her client hadn't gotten it quite right, that there was a fund that was used at the freight cost, that Reid Hoffman.
- [15:10]
Tara Palmeri
So they actually corrected the record, or was it after they were called out?
- [15:14]
Michael Popak
No, they corrected the record after the deposition two weeks before the trial, before
- [15:19]
Tara Palmeri
they were called out by Trump like they actually were. Like a cell phone. Okay, so just to be clear, I'm reading this from Influence Watch. The financial support was funneled through a nonprofit organization which paid Carol's legal team roughly 1 million to 2 million in initial support. With records from groups linked to Hoffman showing a total contribution to the law firm of around 7 million.
- [15:43]
Michael Popak
Well, yeah, but, but, but think about what I just said earlier.
- [15:45]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah.
- [15:46]
Michael Popak
Costs, not fees. There's a difference in my world between cost and fees. The fund was used for multiple cases that. That Robbie had in her office, including E. Jeans. So when Robbie had a fee, I have an expert that needs to testify about E. Jean Carroll's mental state or about her economics that that expert gets paid. Let's say it's 150,000. Robbie goes to the Reid Hoffman fund, strokes the check for 150,000. And that, yes, it endures to the benefit of the client, but the client's not really going to be aware every time a cost gets paid out of that fund. So when Robbie's team heard her say that they wanted it before trial to alert the judge that that was a misstatement. There's a couple of ways to do that. You. In a deposition, we have what's called an errata sheet, which is a sheet where you've made an error, you've misspoken. You said the light was green when it was red. And so you write in an errata sheet here. The lawyers went to the judge on the docket and said, let me clear up something my client's not going to be able to clear up. Here's the Reid Hoffman situation. Two weeks before trial, the judge said, I'm going to give a second deposition of Eugene Carroll on this issue. Go. They went and did the second deposition. We've never seen that transcript. They sent it to the judge. The judge looked at it and said, there's no, there's nothing here. She. She's not lying about not knowing about the mechanics of cost reimbursement. And it's. It's not coming into the courtroom because it doesn't go to her credibility. That went up to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, that ruling by Judge Kaplan, who also ruled that nothing that she said or that issue was not reversible error. And at most, she just couldn't remember something that her lawyer told her two years earlier. She did not purposely lie about having some of her costs paid for by Reid Hoffman. And it's a non issue for the trial.
- [17:39]
Tara Palmeri
I Mean, she fessed up, essentially.
- [17:41]
Michael Popak
The lawyers did certainly. Well, she didn't know she got it wrong.
- [17:45]
Tara Palmeri
Right. But like, the point is they tried to correct it. It wasn't like the, the Trump team put pressure on them. Right? Yeah.
- [17:51]
Michael Popak
No. And it was all pre trial. It wasn't after the trial. It was before the trial. The judge gave, tried to come up. He said, all right, you know, you raised an issue. Go do another deposition. And they did another deposition. And the Second Circuit, I have the, I won't read it out loud, but the Second Circuit, in one of the many appeals that went up on this case, said there's no harm, no foul here. She didn't do anything wrong. Now, your first question was, have you ever seen this in your life? No. On no hands and no fingers. Has the criminal Department of Justice ever gone after somebody for misstating something about their cost relationship in a civil case? Zero. And the fact that they're trying to make this perjury or civil rights violation for Donald Trump just shows you how low Todd Blanche and Trump have sunk.
- [18:40]
Tara Palmeri
Okay, so Chris McKinney has a good point. He's joining us from Substack. As bad as this has been, the only good thing about it has been him exposing all of the weaknesses and flaws in our system. I mean, I guess that's a bright spot in all of this. If it can be corrected. Can it be corrected?
- [18:58]
Michael Popak
Yeah, I mean, I listen, I it from our. And welcome to my audience, too. I think the legal AOFF Substack audience has joined as well. Thanks for being here with Tara and me. Yeah. I mean, these are all. If Todd Blanch and others in the Department of Justice think they're going to come out of this unscathed, I mean, this administration, I mean, I don't know why. I mean, you know, history is prologue. Think of all the prior Trump lawyers inside and outside of the government that lost their bar licenses, were indicted, convicted or otherwise. And Tom Blanche is going to suffer that same result because of what he's doing if he's impeachment is probably going to start if Blanche is still around. Come. You know, one of the, one of the good things of the Democrats getting the gavel come January of 2028 is that not only are they going to start passing laws that'll help the American people in terms of affordability, but they're going to do oversight, real oversight, when they have the gavel. Not just nasty letters and attempted subpoenas, but, you know, when Jamie Raskin is the chair of the committee. Right. Or Cory Booker or this or that, we're going to see real oversight and real impeachment proceedings. I mean against Donald Trump. He's the Wall Street Journal just basically said out loud over the weekend put a fork in Donald Trump. He's on his way to his third impeachment.
- [20:19]
Tara Palmeri
Right, but what does that even mean anymore? Because it feels like impeachment is like a trial that leads to nowhere because you need 2/3 majority in the Senate. It's not like they're going to be able to remove Todd Blanche.
- [20:30]
Michael Popak
Well, let's do the math. If, if, if the Senate goes the Democrats way and the Republicans that have been made into anti Trumpers because they've been opposed in the primary and are only going to be there through the through then are still hanging around. There may be enough votes to come across either way. You can't not impeach them just because you don't think you're going to convict and remove them. You have to do, you have to do that part for whether, you know, whether it's oversight or history. You just can't give him a pass because, well, who cares?
- [21:00]
Tara Palmeri
You know, he'll be the third saying that. I just think we need to talk about the political reality of impeachment. I think people are a little exhausted by it. They want more. They wish it had more teeth.
- [21:11]
Michael Popak
Well, I mean more teeth is than give the, then give the Senate to the Democrats in a large enough number to have the conviction stick. That's the result. That's what the founders wanted.
- [21:21]
Tara Palmeri
Well, that's the argument that the Democrats are going to have to make. But I don't think they really want to run on impeachment. That's not what I'm hearing from them.
- [21:28]
Michael Popak
I've heard that. But the Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can, you can both do.
- [21:32]
Tara Palmeri
Are you sure about that?
- [21:34]
Michael Popak
I don't know.
- [21:35]
Tara Palmeri
They can't even put out an autopsy report.
- [21:37]
Michael Popak
Well, that was a ridiculous report. That should lead to the end of the head of the dnc. But, but, but on the, in terms of being you can do both. I mean the Contract with America that they're going to have to close on is affordability. I mean this is a do nothing Congress we have right now. It's the lowest amount of laws that have ever been passed and most of them are to benefit Donald Trump. But you have to, you have to deal with affordability and then you have to do anti corruption and oversight and if you got to run on both, people are pissed off. At both. But affordability alone will get will get Democrats elected.
- [22:10]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah, Penny Thorpe says we need non corporate Dems. Probably true. I think, you know, we'll see what happens. Hey guys. Lately I've been more intentional about what I wear day to day. I lean into pieces that feel effortless, effortless and comfortable. But I still need to look put together. After all, I am running a media company and that's why Quince has become my go to. It just makes getting dressed simpler because the fabrics are elevated, the fits are flattering, and everything just works without having to overthink it. I have been wearing the 100 washable silk slip dress all the time. I have it in navy and I plan to buy it in champagne. It just looks elevated. And you can wear it with a blazer or jean jacket however you want to wear it, flats or high heels. It's just sort of a staple in my wardrobe and I can't get enough of it really. It is such high quality silk and the best part is you don't have to drop it off at the dry cleaner afterwards. Refresh your everyday with luxury you'll actually use. Head to Quince.com Tara for free shipping on your order and 365 days of returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Quince Q-U-I-N-C-E.com Tara for free shipping and 365 days of returns. Quince.com Tara and of course, when they ask you how you found out about us, please say you heard about it here. But there is a lot of scandal around Andrew Boutros, who's the U.S. attorney in Chicago and ostensibly leading this case. As I mentioned earlier in the show, for those of you who are just joining live on the Legal AF Substack channel and the Red Letter, he is embroiled in a scandal right now. So Todd Blanche had to recuse himself because he was Trump's personal attorney at the time. But Andrew Boutros, he basically led a grand jury into indicting these. They're called the Broadview Six. These six progressive politicians who are protesting outside of an ICE facility. And I just want to read exactly what a judge decided. Okay, Okay. I just want to read this really quick. The charges were dismissed after it came to light that the prosecutors in the case had redacted and removed pages from grand jury transcripts and failed to disclose interactions with grand jurors that defense attorneys say amounted to an intentional, intentional cover up of prosecutorial misconduct. District Judge April Perry said last week the actions from prosecutors in the case could lead to sanctions for misconduct and ethical violations. And she said she has never seen types of prosecutorial behavior before grand jury that I saw in those transcripts. So this is a highly corrupt US Attorney that is about to take on this case. How is it possible that Eugene Carroll will get a fair trial?
- [25:11]
Michael Popak
Well, I'm not going to defend Bootros. He wasn't the one that did it in the grand jury. It was a. It was another person, another prosecutor who just got fired from her job to be Dick Durbin's legal counsel. She was going to work for the Dems. But she did violate every edict and every principle of federal prosecutors in the grand jury. She spoke to the grand. She spoke to grand jurors outside the presence of other grand jurors. She eliminated grand jurors between sessions that she thought were not helpful to her. Cause she vouched for evidence, which is a big. No, no. It's. It's where a prosecutor looks a jury in the eye and says, come on, I've been doing this a long time. This evidence is great. I wouldn't bring this case if the evidence wasn't so great. You can't vouch for a witness. You can't vouch for the evidence. She did that as well. And. And the part that got Judge Perry up in arms and led Boutros to have to come in and dismiss the indictment on his own after seeing it, after. After he discovered it, is that the prosecutor then tried to cover up what she did by over redacting the transcript, including her bad acts, and sent that into the judge. And then a young prosecutor pointed it out to Boutros. That was also TARA. The same 24 hour period where Judge Crenshaw dismissed an indictment for a prosecutorial abuse against Kilmer, Abrego Garcia. And here you have an example where the U.S. attorney had no choice but to dismiss its own indictment for prosecutorial abuse. I mean, this. No, this is not in my 35 years of doing federal practice. For me to say that the Department of Justice is in grand jury rooms violating civil liberties and civil rights in the Constitution is just gobsmackingly unheard of.
- [27:00]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah. I mean, so you don't blame Boutros, even though he's the boss. You just think he had a bad. He had a bad.
- [27:06]
Michael Popak
No, no, no. I know, but you said he did it. He didn't do it.
- [27:10]
Tara Palmeri
Well, I mean, I meant, like, it's under his office. It's his office.
- [27:14]
Michael Popak
Yeah, it's his office. But that particular prosecutor had been in the office for 15 years. So, yeah, he inherited her. But the tone is set from the top. I mean, the, the how she got corrupted to feel that what. Maybe, maybe she's done it before. Boutros has said he's opening up an investigation to go look at her other grand jury interactions to see if there's any problems there. But the fact that she thought she could get away with it is just because the Department of Justice no longer has the halo. It's just not a respected institution. Grand juries don't respect the Department of Justice. Its own employees apparently don't respect the principles of federal prosecution and the DOJ manual. I mean, all the prosecutors I've ever known, they sleep. They sleep with the DOJ manual. I don't even think these prosecutors know where the DOJ manual is.
- [28:02]
Tara Palmeri
Wow. And they're supposed to be working for us, by the way. They are taxpayer funded lawyers, essentially protecting our justice and feels like it's. They're basically just personal attorneys. Why did they choose Chicago?
- [28:16]
Michael Popak
Because Reid Hoffman's charity is based there.
- [28:18]
Tara Palmeri
Okay, got it. I thought that. But you could choose a number of places, right, to do it.
- [28:23]
Michael Popak
Yeah, I mean, I could. I think he lives in California, but I think. Well, they, they think they like this particular. Like you said, they like this particular guy. I guess they think they could. And that's, that's why on this particular point, that's why these motions for dismissal for vindictive prosecution are going to be so frequent. You and I are going to be talking about vindictive prosecution motions being filed from. There'll be dozens of them. The, the first successful one, it was Kilmer, Abrego, Garcia in Tennessee. In fact, I have the lawyers coming on with me tomorrow for work with Shawn Hecker, who handled that case. That's not the only one. Lamonica McGyver, the representative in New Jersey, has a pending motion for vindictive prosecution. James Comey has said he's going to be bringing one and has asked for an extension of time granted for his trial to get that. That there. They filed one when Lindsay Halligan was the prosecutor of Letitia, James and James Comey. And the reason why it's. It has the chance of being so successful is because of how Donald Trump has captured and flattened the Department of Justice and its hierarchy. It's so flat now that the senior leadership in Washington, what we call main justice, is calling all of the shots at low, at the local prosecutor level in a way that's unheard of. I've never been involved in a ca. Look I've had cases where main justice was my prosecutors or the local U.S. attorney's office was my prosecutors. Sometimes they collaborate. But I've never had a case where main justice was telling the prosecutor locally what to do. And when you have that and then you have Donald Trump on top of it all, you have the recipe for a vindictive prosecution being the shots being called by Trump to his doj, from Blanche and his right hand, Akash Singh to the local prosecutor, handpicked to then to do, to do the prosecution. You normally don't have that diagram, but because of the capture of the DOJ by Trump and the flattening of the organization, you have very good merit based arguments that you're being vindictively prosecuted by this, by this doj.
- [30:35]
Tara Palmeri
And we see this in corruption scandals, frankly, like the Epstein scandal, where actually DOJ got involved with the U.S. attorney's office. I mean, it went all the way up to the top when they came up with this sweetheart deal in 2005 for him.
- [30:52]
Michael Popak
Oh, oh, yeah. I mean, listen, Acosta, Alex Acosta blew up his entire career. I live down in Miami, and we know Alex, we knew Alex well. And when he cut that deal to have to have Epstein plead guilty, the child prostitution charge. And you know, according to, you know, I've had, I'm sure you've had too. I've had Epstein survivors. I just had Danny Bensky with me on my podcast. And, and Danny said I was abused while he was out with an ankle bracelet for that charge. If he had been properly put away in 08 and 09 and taken off the street, hundreds of victims would not have been victimized by Epstein if they had listened to Annie Farmer.
- [31:37]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah.
- [31:37]
Michael Popak
Years earlier. That's why there should be a fund, if there should be a victimization fund, it should go to the Epstein survivors because they were. Because the Justice Department and the DOJ and FBI failed them.
- [31:49]
Tara Palmeri
I know I, I have done a lot of reporting from the state level to the U.S. attorney to the Attorney General on that case. And like the, you know, the saying is, you could indict a ham sandwich sandwich. Right. The state attorney, Barry Krish, had, I guess, infatuation with Alan Dershowitz, who was, you know, Jeffrey Epstein's attorney at the time. And Jeffrey Epstein would just hire lawyers who could charm whichever prosecutor he was dealing with. So in the case of Barry Krisher, he looked up to Alan Dershowitz. Right. Because he was a Democratic lawyer at the time. It was esteemed Harvard, etc. And the, his, his deputy Lena Blabovic. I don't know if you know her. You might actually know her from Palm Beach County. She literally said to the grand jury, there are no victims here when talking about these teenage survivors, and showed them a bunch of MySpace pages of them with their boyfriends having, you know, drinking or smoking pot, which is something that most teens do anyway. Right. But, you know, that was how she was able to close the case. And then the, The. The local police kicked it to the U.S. attorney. So. And then Marie Via F, who was a prosecutor there, she worked very hard on the case, suggested 81 counts. And then Acosta talks to the attorney general and decides, let's kick it back to the state and give him a sweetheart deal. I mean, the level of corruption is insane, and it feels like those sorts of deals could be happening all the time right now. When you have it, ultimately, US justice, the. The Department of Justice is deciding all of this. We don't know what's going on. Right?
- [33:27]
Michael Popak
Yeah, absolutely. And Alex Acosta got rewarded. I mean, he became the labor secretary for Donald Trump in the first administration until the stench of the scandal brought him down.
- [33:36]
Tara Palmeri
And he had Bill Barr, I believe, was working for George Bush at the time.
- [33:41]
Michael Popak
Yeah. Oh, yeah.
- [33:42]
Tara Palmeri
Justice.
- [33:43]
Michael Popak
Yeah, It's. Yeah. You know, listen, I, I like to leave our audiences optimistic about our.
- [33:50]
Tara Palmeri
Sorry, yeah, don't mean to go down the rabb.
- [33:54]
Michael Popak
But in this world right now where Donald Trump is in control of his own Department of Justice and FBI, only bad and terrible things are happening. Fortunately, federal judges are seeing through it. You know, the grand. You know, you have a number of firewalls to protect democracy. Right. You got grand jurors who are rejecting the. The Department of Justice at record, at record speed in a way I've never seen before. They're having difficulty getting indictments. That's one. Then you've got defense lawyers who now are regularly asking for something they never got in the past, which is the grand jury transcript, which has always been cloaked in secrecy unless you can prove that there's some sort of misbehavior. Now, the very nature of the Department of Justice gives enough evidence, enough prima facie evidence to ask for the grand jury transcript. When you have a. When you have Lindsey Halligan violating the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, according to a magistrate judge in her presentation of the case concerning Comey. When you have what just happened in Illinois, you know, now defense lawyers are. Are. You know, Don, I was just on with Don Lemon last night. Don Lemon's lawyers are trying to get the grand Jury transcript because they're like, how are these indictments really happening? And then if. Even if they're getting indicted, then you got to rely on federal judges to grant motions to dismiss indictments on the vindictive prosecution grounds. And then, failing that, hope that juries do the right thing if it gets that far, when they hear the evidence and a good defense team on the other side.
- [35:24]
Tara Palmeri
This is all really exhausting. Could you imagine being on the other side of this?
- [35:30]
Michael Popak
No.
- [35:31]
Tara Palmeri
Like, everybody hates going to court, right? Imagine.
- [35:33]
Michael Popak
Not me. That's right.
- [35:34]
Tara Palmeri
I know. Everyone hates going to court except you, by the way.
- [35:39]
Michael Popak
Not me.
- [35:40]
Tara Palmeri
Even the jurors hate it. I don't know anyone who likes being a juror, do you?
- [35:44]
Michael Popak
I've had some people that found it a rewarding experience from. If you do it, like, once or twice in your life, you learn a lot.
- [35:52]
Tara Palmeri
Trial, and it's something that the whole world is paying attention to.
- [35:56]
Michael Popak
Yeah, I'm not sure you want to be on that one.
- [35:58]
Tara Palmeri
Oh, really? No.
- [35:59]
Michael Popak
Maybe.
- [36:01]
Tara Palmeri
Maybe. Truth to Power asks, why can't we, the people, object to abusive use of the doj?
- [36:11]
Michael Popak
The problem is the way that our founding fathers and framers put this whole shebang together is that they put the DOJ into the executive branch. Many countries that follow you and me, they're always. They're always like, why isn't that with the judiciary Department? Why isn't that in that branch? Why is it over here? Well, because we wanted to separate the judges and the prosecutors, and instead of having a fourth branch of government or an independent judiciary that was isolated, they stuck it with the executive branch. When you combine that with this United States Supreme Court, who believe. Who believes in the unitary executive model, which is there's only one person in charge of the entirety of the executive branch, from the White House down to every agency, including the DOJ and FBI. When you have that, the MAGA 6 on the Supreme Court, who believe in that, you put those two things together and you have a captured and corrupted DOJ and FBI in a way that a, you know, a Biden or a Democrat would never have thought to do. Because we have respect for the rule of law. And even if technically Obama could have done it, we just didn't do it, especially after the Nixon era.
- [37:24]
Tara Palmeri
How could you do it, though? Like, could you do that by executive order? I'm detaching that. The attorney, Jeff. You could?
- [37:31]
Michael Popak
Yeah. Well, that's what Trump did. I mean, Trump issued an executive order that all legal interpretations that are held by anybody in the entire government are going to be consistent with my interpretations. He said that. He said he's the, he said he's the chief legal officer while Bondi was standing next to him.
- [37:49]
Tara Palmeri
And that's a, that is an actual like executive order. That is.
- [37:52]
Michael Popak
Oh, there's a series of executive orders that put Donald Trump at the end, that put the DOJ not in an independent posture.
- [38:00]
Tara Palmeri
I guess that's the who will ever. So here's the thing. Jill Biden, the wife of obviously Joe Biden, the First lady, she's got a book coming out and in the book she says she's very angry at Merrick Garland for prosecuting Hunter Biden, her stepson, for the gun charges. Right. So she's got some anger at the former attorney general for his decision to prosecute a family member. Why would a Democrat reverse President Trump's executive orders? I mean, a lot of these people, they go into, they, you know, they campaign saying, I'll reverse everything that the last guy did to make himself more powerful as the executive. And then when they actually get there, they don't do it because they find it's actually not great.
- [38:41]
Michael Popak
Well, no, I mean they're, I mean, by and large, Biden overturned most of the executive orders that Trump in his first term had put in place. There were a few that he agreed with, a couple of them on immigration, a couple of them on other things. But this fundamental issue of whether the Department of Justice and FBI should be independent from the executive branch, the way it was before Trump decided that there's nothing in the Constitution nor on the Supreme Court that requires me to do that. And I'm not going to do that. And I'm going to have meetings with my Attorney General at the White House on a regular basis. Merrick Garland never went to the White House, nor did any of his predecessors really, you know, FBI, other, other than Hoover, nobody went Christopher Ray Comey, you know, Mueller. They didn't go to the White House and have coffee and chit chat with the president ever post Nixon.
- [39:30]
Tara Palmeri
But Trump praise him for around a table, huh? Or praise him for hours. We found out through the New York Times Cabinet secretaries of is praise.
- [39:41]
Michael Popak
Yeah. Where top Blanche said I love you. I thought I was watching Marilyn Monroe at Madison Square Garden like I love you, Mr. President. So in order to get back to that, we either have to have a president who's going to respect and not challenge, let's say congressional oversight in this area, or we're gonna have to change the Constitution and do a constitutional amendment about the separation of The Department of Justice into a separate silo that's independent. So to answer your, your, your somebody's listener's question, if we're not going to trust the person in the office, which I think we've learned, we can't to, to do it and then we're going to have to establish a guardrail by way of a constitutional amendment. Period.
- [40:26]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah. Wow. Constitutional amendments again, very hard to make happen. Kind of like impeachment and actual removal from office.
- [40:35]
Michael Popak
Yeah, I mean I, look, the founders and the framers didn't think we would not amend the Constitution as off. We, we rarely amend the Constitution. State constitutions get amended thousands and thousands and thousands of times in the last 30 or 40 years. And the U.S. constitution not once since whatever. You know, we can't even get the ERA amendment passed. So. But, but when they put that in there about amendment, they thought we would have constitutional conventions and or amendments on a more regular basis if the power of the people rose up and wanted it. You just see there, like you said, there's like fatigue and it's very hard. And what do I do? And you know, we gotta like somebody's got a campaign on. We gotta change. You don't like the, the DOJ and the FBI or the thumb of a president, then you need to change the Constitution.
- [41:23]
Tara Palmeri
So then you gotta campaigning on that though.
- [41:26]
Michael Popak
Well, right, but they campaign on everything else. Let's make you know, the campaign on cannabis campaign on something that matters to our democracy.
- [41:36]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah, democracy didn't work in the 2024 election. At least that's what the autopsy report for the DNC said. So I could see why they're worried about campaigning on perhaps, you know, vague esoteric type ideas that matter. But what do you think?
- [41:55]
Michael Popak
Well, I think they're going to have to do a two part Contract with America. I think it's got to be affordability and root out corruption. I think those are your two bumper stakes.
- [42:02]
Tara Palmeri
I mean you're right, you just have to frame it as corruption. That is how you frame it.
- [42:07]
Michael Popak
Yeah, yeah. No, you're not going to run for a general election. I'm not suggesting that you run on amending. But if, if that is what matters to people, if that is what keeps you up at night, that is the solution, that is the antidote. And but let's get, let's get, you know, sober human beings who are adults back into power for oversight. Give the Democrats the House and the Senate so that at least we have oversight over this out of control president and restore that part of the democracy. And, and from there we move forward. 2028 is important. It's a, you know, but it's not just the midterm. Midterms will render Donald Trump basically powerless, except for social media tweeting. If, if they get the House.
- [42:51]
Tara Palmeri
Well, he'll have executive orders still.
- [42:53]
Michael Popak
Right. Which can be overcome by actual laws in the Congress, but.
- [42:58]
Tara Palmeri
Well, he'll never sign them. Like, he'll have to be out of office. They'll all be vetoed.
- [43:02]
Michael Popak
Well, depend, depends on who's got the numbers. I mean, right now there is a group of people that are Republican that are opposed to Donald Trump.
- [43:10]
Tara Palmeri
Right. But they've all hats, they're all, they've all lost their primaries pretty much. Well, they're gonna be gone, right?
- [43:16]
Michael Popak
Well, it depends on when we're past, when these laws are going to be brought up. You know, I, I don't want to be. I'm not as dour as you about we don't have the numbers is what I'm trying to say. Yeah, I don't know if we don't have the numbers.
- [43:29]
Tara Palmeri
I don't think so. Not yet in the Senate.
- [43:31]
Michael Popak
I don't know.
- [43:32]
Tara Palmeri
There's a few. There's a few.
- [43:33]
Michael Popak
Did they run that race yet? Did I miss the election that we didn't see? I didn't see the election yet. Let's see, let's see what happens. Maybe, maybe it's not just enough to win the majority. Maybe it's more. Maybe it's 56 or 57 and then you only need three people to caucus with you.
- [43:49]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah. You don't know, maybe someone at some centers in their YOLO phase.
- [43:55]
Michael Popak
There's a lot of voter anger against the Trump administration and Donald Trump. How it expresses itself we'll have to see at the midterms and then in the general election. But there is a pent up demand to vote in this country. If there was a vote right now, do you think that, Don, if there was a vote of confidence like in parliamentary countries, you think Donald Trump's government would survive?
- [44:15]
Tara Palmeri
No, I don't.
- [44:16]
Michael Popak
Right.
- [44:17]
Tara Palmeri
Because his numbers are way too low.
- [44:18]
Michael Popak
Right. And they're not going to get any better.
- [44:21]
Tara Palmeri
Sometimes you wish that we were a part of a parliamentary system. I feel like it keeps the leaders on their toes in a way that ours doesn't because they're more responsive. Although they can last for about, you know, ahead of lettuce like Liz Truss, which could be kind of chaotic when you keep cycling through leaders.
- [44:40]
Michael Popak
Yeah, yeah. I mean, there's an instability problem. It does keep you very, very attuned to the will of the people.
- [44:46]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah, they usually have monarchies, too, which is the thing that kind of keeps them afloat. I don't think I'd be into a monarch, to be honest.
- [44:53]
Michael Popak
No, I agree with that.
- [44:54]
Tara Palmeri
I'm a Jersey girl. Not our thing.
- [44:56]
Michael Popak
Where are you from in Jersey?
- [44:58]
Tara Palmeri
Where are you from in Jersey originally? I'm from North Jersey.
- [45:02]
Michael Popak
Oh.
- [45:02]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah.
- [45:03]
Michael Popak
I'm from outside of Asbury Park.
- [45:05]
Tara Palmeri
Cool. So you're kind of more of like a Jersey Shore guy.
- [45:08]
Michael Popak
Yeah, that's a Jersey Shore guy.
- [45:10]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah, I'm more of like an outside New York City girl.
- [45:13]
Michael Popak
Except. Except when that show was on MTV and I didn't want to be associated with it, people would ask, Jersey Shore? Yeah, people would ask me where I'm from. And I said, oh, I'm from a coastal community in New Jersey. And they go, you mean the Jersey Shore? So it didn't work.
- [45:27]
Tara Palmeri
Well, at least you're not Italian American. It was real hard on me.
- [45:32]
Michael Popak
That's true. They didn't even film that. Most of those people on that show were from Staten island, by the way.
- [45:37]
Tara Palmeri
And I know I kept saying that. I'm like, they're not from New Jersey. They're not even all Italians.
- [45:42]
Michael Popak
Leave me alone. Yeah, well, thanks for having me on.
- [45:46]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah. No, I love the name of your show, too. Legal af. It's bold. You're a wealth of knowledge. We'd love to have you back on. I sadly have a feeling that this won't be our last time.
- [45:58]
Michael Popak
No.
- [45:59]
Tara Palmeri
When do you think we're going to see any progress in the Eugene Carroll case? Is there any chance that the judge just throws it out before it even goes to trial?
- [46:06]
Michael Popak
You talk about the criminal. The criminal prosecution part, Yeah. I mean, look, Trump's already got what he wanted. He wants to tarnish her and besmirch your reputation by saying that There. This is what all he ever wants, you know, Criminal investigation probe opened up against Adam Schiff. Probe opened up against Letitia James. And then where they go, he gets bored. He doesn't even care where they go.
- [46:26]
Tara Palmeri
He owes her $90 million.
- [46:28]
Michael Popak
It's gonna be close to 100. Yeah. And the Supreme Court on Wednesday. I think it's. They're. They're connected. Supreme Court last Wednesday said, nah, pass. We're not going to take up the case. 12th time, Tara. They passed on that case to give him immunity, so it looks like he's about. And whatever he's about to lose, you know, he goes nuts. He starts writing or. Or Natalie Harp or whatever her name is, starts writing these social media posts, you know, at 4 o' clock in the morning against the Supreme Court. And because he knows he's going to lose birthright citizenship or he knows he's going to lose this or that. So this is like a preemptive. I think he knows he's going to lose and have to pay her $100 million. So he wants to besmircher. Here's the real question for you. I don't think it gets. It gets knocked off that easily. Unless they can't get a grand jury to convict to indict on this. That the grand jury, I'm hoping out. I'm holding out hope for the grand jury. However, here's the. Here's a question I'll leave you with. Should Robbie Kaplan and Eugene file a third defamation case, arguing that they've now been defamed again because she's been accused of being a liar when she's not, there's nothing stopping her from having a civil lawsuit about this. That's a ballsy move.
- [47:42]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah, I mean, I like EG and I've met her before. She's pretty ballsy. I respect a woman who's a writer. You know, she's a columnist. One of the comments she made on Rachel Matta, when Rachel said to her, what are you going to do with all that money? And she was like, I would go shopping. I do hope that if she wins and gets that money finally, if that ever happens, I hope she does donate it to a cause that helps others who are being targeted.
- [48:07]
Michael Popak
Well, I think she was trying to be funny on my. Yeah, I think she said the opposite. My show, she said she's going to donate all of the money. And I said to her, well, Ben, my podcast partner, said, you should save a little for yourself. And she says, I don't really need any money. And then she says, I'd rather have a great plate of fettuccine Alfredo and, and go for a walk in the fall in Central park than have any money. And I agree. Yeah. So that was a whole different. For those that are interested, that video is up on Legal AF. YouTube.
- [48:37]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah, maybe that was. She was being funny. I was hoping I was. I was just like, oh, that kind of sucks. Is that really what she's gonna do?
- [48:43]
Michael Popak
No, that's not what she told us. In fact, I was encouraging her to spend some of the money, but I think, sure.
- [48:49]
Tara Palmeri
Especially for the emotional abuse she had to deal with. Go Buy yourself a bag, right?
- [48:52]
Michael Popak
Yeah, but she, you know, she's. She's. She was married. She's not married. She's 82 years old. She doesn't have children. I think she's gonna donate the lion's share of that money. What if she couldn't? I mean, she could spend it, but she's not gonna. She's not gonna spend it. That's not the kind of person she is.
- [49:10]
Tara Palmeri
She's also, sadly, at the. Towards the end of her life. Like, I hope she gets it right.
- [49:15]
Michael Popak
I mean, if she gets it at 84, God love her. Take. Take a world cruise and donate the rest.
- [49:21]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah, you know, you're right. I mean, you could never spend that much money shopping anyway.
- [49:27]
Michael Popak
Right?
- [49:28]
Tara Palmeri
Well, thank you so much for joining the show and to everyone who tuned in, sorry about the technical difficulties. I'm gonna put the show out on YouTube and then I'll put the link for the full YouTube in an email with you on it if you also want to send it out. And at least part of this show is on substack right now, so I'll try to post it. But thank you, everyone for joining and for supporting both of us. Of course, like, this is independent journalism, independent commentary, and you can support us by subscribing. Becoming paid subscribers is great, too. And I will see you again soon.
- [50:03]
Michael Popak
Yep. Tara, we'll have you over on Legalif as well.
- [50:06]
Progressive Insurance Announcer
Insurance isn't one size fits all. That's why customers have enjoyed Progressive's Name youe Price Tool for years now. With the Name youe Price Tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they'll show you options that fit your budget. So whether you're picking out your first policy or just looking for something that works better for you and your family, they make it easy to see your options. Visit progressive.com find a rate that works for you with the name your price tool, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates, Price and coverage match limited by state law.