0:02

Judge Eileen Cannon just denied

0:04

a major motion filed by

0:06

Donald Trump to hold a

0:08

hearing to suppress

0:10

evidence obtained in connection with the

0:12

search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago back

0:14

in 2022. But

0:17

although that's the headline, Michael Popak and

0:19

I will dig deeper here on Legal

0:21

AF because Judge Cannon then gave Donald

0:24

Trump another gift, which was an evidentiary

0:27

hearing on the issue of whether or

0:29

not the attorney-client privilege

0:31

should have been pierced as it

0:33

was in the Washington, D.C. grand

0:36

jury proceedings that led to special

0:38

counsel Jack Smith getting critical evidence.

0:40

We'll break that down. Also

0:43

special counsel Jack Smith submitted

0:45

supplemental briefing regarding the threats

0:47

that FBI and Department of

0:50

Justice officials have received as

0:52

a result of Donald Trump's

0:54

lies that the FBI and

0:56

DOJ are actively trying to

0:59

assassinate him. Special counsel Jack

1:01

Smith wants to modify the conditions

1:03

of Donald Trump's release to impose

1:05

a common sense gag order arguing

1:07

there is no First Amendment rights

1:09

of convicted felons or in this

1:11

case a criminal defendant as well

1:13

to lie and claim that they

1:15

are the target of assassination attempts

1:17

by holding up the general use

1:19

of force policy used by the

1:21

Department of Justice and FBI on

1:23

all search warrants executed always in

1:25

the United States of America. Judge

1:27

Eileen Cannon has requested supplemental briefing,

1:29

which I think has a whole lot

1:32

to do with delay, delay, delay. Earlier

1:34

in the week when she held a

1:36

hearing on this matter, she seemed inclined

1:38

to deny special counsel Jack Smith's request

1:40

to protect the lives of law enforcement

1:43

and the DOJ. However, since a modification

1:45

of the terms and conditions of release

1:47

is an immediate appealable order to the

1:49

11th Circuit, she's going to drag this

1:51

out as much as possible. But you

1:54

know who can't drag it out anymore

1:56

as much as possible? Steve Bannon, his

1:58

emergency appeal to the United States. States

2:00

Supreme Court to stop

2:02

him from having to go to

2:05

prison on Monday was denied by

2:07

the United States Supreme Court. Probably

2:09

the only good thing the United

2:11

States Supreme Court has done in

2:13

recent memory. Steve Bannon will

2:16

have to check himself into prison on

2:18

Monday and because of all of the

2:20

delays that he created, he's going to

2:22

be in there for about four months

2:24

during the critical time period when he

2:26

wants to create mischief in connection with

2:28

the 2024 election. We'll also touch

2:32

upon how in New York

2:34

Justice Mershan felt obligated to

2:36

relieve Donald Trump of some

2:38

of the requirements of the

2:40

gag order there since

2:42

the trial was no longer taking

2:44

place. The gag order protections as

2:46

to witnesses and jurors was lifted,

2:48

although Donald Trump still precluded from

2:51

mentioning the names and identities of

2:53

jurors. Justice Mershan says he did

2:55

not want to have to make

2:58

a ruling lifting the gag order

3:00

as to those categories of protected persons,

3:02

but he felt he had no option

3:04

given that the trial is

3:07

over and that he would have otherwise

3:09

been reversed by the appellate division in

3:11

New York's highest court, the court of

3:13

appeals, the gag order protections still apply

3:15

though to the district attorney's office, the

3:17

staff and the family members of the

3:19

district attorney, district attorney's staff and

3:22

to Justice Mershan. It does not apply

3:24

to Justice Mershan himself, it applies to

3:26

Justice Mershan's daughter, it does not apply

3:28

to Alvin Bragg, just Alvin Bragg's

3:30

staff will break that down and then

3:33

we got to go talk about the

3:35

just kind of breakdown of precedent by

3:37

this United States Supreme Court order after

3:39

order, the one

3:41

that probably isn't getting the

3:43

biggest headline, certainly having the

3:46

biggest effect and we'll talk

3:48

about that which is the

3:50

Supreme Court reversing 40 years

3:52

of precedent in a decision

3:54

known as Chevron whereby courts

3:56

would give deference to the

3:58

interpretations of enabling statutes. by

4:00

administrative agencies. In other words, courts

4:02

would defer to the expertise of

4:05

administrative agencies to decide how to

4:07

enforce the regulations that they were

4:09

required to either enforce or not

4:11

enforce by the laws of Congress.

4:13

The Supreme Court said that agencies

4:16

should not be given any deference

4:18

at all, that it should be

4:20

the courts who are the ones

4:22

who interpret these enabling statutes. Basically,

4:25

the result being whether it's the

4:27

EPA, the FTC, the SEC, you

4:30

name it, the Supreme Court

4:32

is going to impose their

4:34

views over the agency's views

4:36

and over the agency's expertise

4:38

that's gonna have really detrimental

4:40

effects on environment, on gun

4:42

control, on securities fraud,

4:45

and we'll go through the list.

4:47

Also, the Supreme Court ruled in

4:49

the Fisher case that the obstruction

4:51

of official proceeding statute, 18 U.S.C.

4:53

Section 1512, Sub-C Sub-2, it

4:59

was improperly used to prosecute

5:01

January 6th insurrectionists

5:04

as long as the

5:07

charges did not specifically relate to

5:09

the tampering or manipulation of documents,

5:12

which the Supreme Court claimed is

5:14

what 1512 C-2 is

5:17

really about. This means that hundreds

5:19

and hundreds of January 6th insurrectionists

5:22

who were charged with that crime,

5:24

that charge is gonna be dismissed.

5:26

However, even though Donald Trump

5:28

was charged with two counts

5:30

of obstruction of official proceedings, reading

5:33

what the Supreme Court wrote, it doesn't seem that

5:35

it will result in the dismissal of

5:37

any of the charges against Donald

5:40

Trump, but nonetheless, Donald Trump is going to

5:42

request the dismissal, it's gonna cause more delay,

5:44

and that's of course if the Supreme Court

5:48

depends on what the Supreme Court rules

5:50

on Monday, when it will be issuing

5:52

its ruling on absolute presidential immunity, waiting

5:54

to the literally last day it created

5:57

to delay that ruling, and we'll get

5:59

a ruling. on Monday and whether or not they

6:01

think that Donald Trump should

6:03

be able to order the military

6:05

to assassinate his political opponents and

6:07

massacre the other political party and

6:09

get absolute immunity for doing it.

6:11

It's crazy that I even have

6:14

to say that that's what they're

6:16

actually deliberating while we're recording this

6:18

legal AF, but that is what

6:20

they are deliberating right now. Michael

6:22

Popak, good to have you on

6:24

legal AF, or should I say

6:26

Papa Popak, congratulations Michael Popak for

6:28

this very special edition of Legal

6:30

AF, your first legal AF

6:32

as a Papa or your second?

6:34

No, Wednesday was I went on

6:36

two days after birth. That's

6:39

impressive, that's dedication right there.

6:41

Congratulations. Thank

6:44

you very much. So there's Francesca,

6:48

one of my favorite photos. Thank

6:50

you very much. I

6:52

got to carry my end of the bargain here and

6:55

set a precedent, taking a precedent, we'll be talking

6:57

a lot about it today, for

7:00

future fathers of Midas Touch parentage

7:03

and lineage in the future. We're

7:06

here. I said she has exquisite timing. She

7:08

decided to be born along with my wife

7:10

on Monday in between the midweek and

7:14

the legal AF Saturday, but here we are. I

7:16

was just listening to your rundown. To think

7:20

that we'd have to start off a Saturday

7:22

edition of Legal AF talking about not one,

7:24

but two more super

7:26

precedent of over 40 years

7:28

being tossed by this United

7:31

States Supreme Court, the only

7:33

reason because they have the numbers, not because

7:35

the prior precedent, whether we call it Chevron,

7:37

or we call it anything related

7:39

to the SEC or anything like that, not because

7:41

it was wrong, not because it has just been

7:43

sitting there just waiting

7:45

for the Supreme Court to get around

7:47

after 40 or 50 years and make

7:49

the change. It's only because this MAGA

7:51

right-wing Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Roberts,

7:53

has decided that they're going to, it's

7:55

like a going out of business sale, but they're not going out

7:58

of business, but they're going to clear the shelves. of

8:00

any precedent that has offended them

8:03

and has given too much power

8:05

to other branches of government to

8:07

their and diminishing the Supreme Court.

8:09

Supreme Court always wants to remind

8:11

you that they are the law

8:14

interpreter and not agencies

8:16

that are in the executive branch. And

8:18

even though we've got delicate

8:21

regulatory frameworks, as you

8:23

mentioned, around water, clean

8:25

water, clean air, the

8:27

environment, securities regulation, consumer protection,

8:30

and the list goes on,

8:33

and they're all based on when

8:36

Congress has not spoken

8:39

exquisitely perfectly about a particular issue

8:41

in the subject matter that the

8:43

agency is responsible for. The agency

8:46

is able within those parameters to

8:48

develop law and rulemaking without having

8:50

to go back to Congress. That's

8:52

been the law for

8:54

40 plus years. It's so

8:56

old, the Chevron decision that you and I are

8:58

going to talk about and the Chevron

9:00

doctrine, that it was seven

9:02

years old when I went to law school. By

9:05

the time I graduated, it's been

9:07

on the books that long. And yet

9:09

to this group, it's like they're going

9:12

through the list of

9:14

doctrines and precedent from prior

9:16

Supreme Courts that they don't

9:18

like. That is not

9:21

in their view MAGA slash conservative and

9:23

benefiting Donald Trump. And they are just

9:25

stripping them away looking for any cases

9:27

and excuse to do it one

9:29

by one by one. That's all we've seen this term.

9:32

If we thought it was going to end with

9:34

the Dobs decision, the anniversary of the Dobs decision

9:36

is already here two years ago where

9:38

they threw out the super precedent of Roe versus

9:40

Wade after 50 years and just

9:42

tossed it aside as if, well, it

9:44

was wrongly decided then. So we're just

9:46

fixing something that was an anomaly, a

9:48

historical anomaly and an aberration now. If

9:51

we thought they were going to end there, no, you and

9:53

I always thought that they were

9:56

going to try to dismantle the

9:58

regulatory and administrative procedures. Act

10:00

framework around agencies. And

10:03

when we get to that certain section in

10:05

our podcast today, we'll talk about, be

10:07

careful what you ask for, because if Donald

10:10

Trump finds his way back into

10:12

the White House, God forbid, and

10:14

he thinks he's going to use his

10:16

agencies and his agency heads and his

10:19

executive orders to render

10:21

fundamental change of government retribution

10:24

and retaliation. I'm not sure

10:26

he's able to do that any longer based on the

10:29

recent Supreme Court decisions. You

10:32

know, the Chevron decision, when we're saying Chevron and

10:34

people are like, why are you saying Chevron? Isn't

10:36

that a company? The

10:38

case was called Chevron

10:40

USA versus Natural Resource

10:43

Defense Council, Inc. And it was

10:45

a case that went before the United States Supreme

10:47

Court in 1984. So when

10:49

we refer to the Chevron decision,

10:51

that's why we're doing that as

10:53

a shorthand. But even before the

10:55

Chevron decision, the kind

10:58

of evolution of our country,

11:00

our government, the world, the

11:03

complexities required

11:06

that there be agencies

11:08

that deal with all of these

11:10

things like pollution crisis,

11:13

proliferation of guns,

11:16

people who were finding new and

11:19

sophisticated ways to engage in securities

11:21

fraud, right? And a

11:24

federal judge who already has a

11:26

busy docket and Congress who

11:28

usually can't agree on a

11:30

lot of things, but they can try to

11:33

build bipartisan consensus, at least

11:35

in the past, to kind of put

11:37

this in the power of agencies to

11:39

then interpret and enforce the regulations. There's

11:41

a reason why Chevron as a decision

11:43

came about. There's a reason why all

11:45

of these decisions kind of came about

11:47

in the 60s and the 70s and

11:49

the 80s that are now

11:52

being shattered in 2024. And

11:55

it's not like an accident or an

11:58

activist court doing it. It's that. the

12:00

way our country was evolving, how else

12:02

could you deal with a

12:04

pollution crisis? How else could you deal

12:07

with all of these crises that we're

12:09

developing if you don't

12:11

have the people to do that? And

12:13

then in 2024, the Supreme Court

12:15

is basically now saying, you

12:17

can't do that agencies. We're going to

12:20

do that, or Congress has to speak

12:22

to it directly. Really? This Congress that

12:25

continues to spend all of their

12:27

time, and I'm not making this

12:29

up, showing dick pics of Hunter

12:31

Biden. They're the ones who are

12:33

going to help with our

12:35

climate, and they're the ones who

12:38

are going to help with the

12:40

increasing complexities of AI in business

12:43

and industry and how that impacts us.

12:45

That's who we expect to do that.

12:47

That's just not a realistic thing. And

12:49

then, Popak, you talked about when you

12:52

went to law school. So one of

12:54

the ways to talk to our viewers

12:56

and listeners about this is when Michael

12:58

Popak went to law school, his textbook

13:00

taught him the law the

13:03

same way math would tell you

13:05

one plus one equals two. And

13:07

Michael Popak learned about these cases,

13:09

like the Chevron case and Chevron

13:11

deference. And there's a whole class

13:13

that you learn about administrative

13:15

law, administrative procedures. And

13:17

you learn that, you take exams on

13:19

that, and you believe that's the law.

13:21

And then they teach you in law

13:23

school that there's precedent, and they're super

13:25

precedent, and these things can't be overturned.

13:27

And you learn about how this

13:32

has evolved over time. And then when I

13:34

went to law school, guess what? Because of

13:36

the concept of precedent, I learned the same

13:39

thing that Michael Popak learned. I

13:41

learned that. And I learned

13:44

about the Chevron case. And we're not going to

13:46

talk about overturning Roe v.

13:48

Wade on this episode, or going to that

13:51

much detail on it, because we've covered it

13:53

in other episodes in the job session. But

13:55

you learn that this is the law of

13:57

the land, or we've talked about on other

14:00

episodes, the Civil Rights Act and

14:02

the Voting Rights Act and all of these

14:04

things. So what the Supreme Court's

14:07

done in this term

14:09

is they basically taken the

14:11

law textbooks and they're like,

14:13

we don't like this. And they threw them out. Like

14:16

quite literally, if you took an administrative

14:19

law exam last week before

14:21

this decision, you now failed that

14:23

exam basically because the law is not the

14:25

law anymore. They just, they just shredded it.

14:28

And we'll go into more detail about that,

14:30

but I think that's helpful at the outset

14:32

to just reflect on how

14:34

dramatic it is, these things that they're doing. But

14:36

look, let's talk briefly about what Judge Eileen Cannon

14:39

did. Donald Trump was

14:41

requesting what's called a Franks

14:44

hearing, which is basically like a

14:46

suppression of evidence hearing. And Trump

14:48

claimed that the affidavit used in

14:51

2022 in August that

14:53

was issued in

14:55

connection with the search warrant

14:58

that was executed at Mar-a-Lago,

15:00

had material omissions and material,

15:03

intentionally material falsehoods that

15:05

would require a hearing called a

15:07

Franks hearing that could then result

15:10

in the evidence obtained

15:12

at Mar-a-Lago, hear

15:14

the documents that Donald Trump stole

15:16

being suppressed. So that would basically

15:18

lead to the dismissal of the

15:20

case if you went through a

15:22

Franks hearing and then all of

15:24

the evidence was suppressed as a

15:27

result of the affidavit that was

15:29

used to execute the search

15:31

warrant. And Donald Trump

15:33

claimed that the material omissions included

15:36

just like a number

15:38

of things that the FBI

15:40

agent who filled it out didn't

15:42

give a definition of personal records

15:45

or that the FBI agent didn't

15:47

talk about how the FBI was

15:51

consulting with NARA before the search

15:53

warrant was executed, things that were

15:55

actually not material at all. And

15:57

look, to her credit, Judge Eileen

15:59

Cannon, Jaleen Cannon said, I don't think

16:01

that these are any types

16:04

of like material omissions or

16:06

material things that would change

16:08

the general character of the

16:10

affidavit and the search warrant

16:12

that was executed. So

16:14

the headline that came out was Judge

16:16

Cannon denies Donald Trump's request to have

16:18

this suppression hearing that was held. So

16:21

that feels like a good headline, but

16:23

you read deeper into it, Popak, and

16:25

let me throw it to you. Judge

16:28

Cannon's like, you know what though? I

16:30

think what I need to do independently

16:33

is I need to look

16:35

at what that well-respected and she

16:37

didn't say this, but she is

16:39

a well-respected judge, not Cannon, but

16:41

Judge Beryl Howell. I need to

16:43

look at what Judge Beryl Howell

16:45

did when she presided over the

16:47

grand jury proceedings in Washington, D.C.

16:49

in the grand jury that was

16:51

used as part of the investigative,

16:53

the criminal investigative proceedings, because Judge

16:55

Beryl Howell found that Donald Trump

16:57

was using his lawyers in furtherance

16:59

of crimes and therefore found the

17:01

crime fraud exception applied such that

17:03

attorney notes had to be handed

17:06

over to special counsel Jack Smith.

17:09

But Judge Cannon said, you know what? I'm

17:11

not sure Judge Beryl Howell was right.

17:13

I think it's my job, and this

17:15

was her direct quote, to look anew

17:17

at what Judge Beryl

17:19

Howell did in finding the crime fraud

17:21

exception applies. I want the

17:23

parties to meet and confer and hold

17:25

an evidentiary hearing on this matter.

17:28

We'll do an evidentiary hearing, meet and

17:30

confer, about what the contours of this

17:33

hearing looks like. So Popak, we

17:35

talked in the last episode about

17:37

how Judge Cannon refused to listen

17:39

to the chief judge in

17:42

the Southern District of Florida court, Altenaga, when

17:44

she said to, you know, you shouldn't even

17:46

be taking this case. So

17:49

that was one way of just like giving the

17:51

middle finger to your colleagues. But

17:53

then here we have Judge Cannon also

17:56

trying to usurp kind of, I mean,

17:58

look, she is the trial. court judge

18:00

here, but this has been ruled on by

18:02

another federal judge and judge Cannon's like, I'm,

18:05

I'm going to look at it a new

18:07

with fresh eyes and we'll do a new

18:09

hearing here. What do you make of that?

18:11

Well, I, I've, I've, this is probably my

18:13

third time, including a hot take telling you

18:16

I've been very concerned about her going after

18:18

the Evan Corcoran 50

18:20

pages of single space notes, notes, testimony,

18:22

and his audio recordings about his representation

18:25

of Donald Trump, which was

18:27

the basis of Pierce, the attorney client

18:29

privilege by chief, the chief

18:31

judge at the time of the DC court, circuit

18:33

court barrel Howell after a full evidentiary hearing at

18:35

that time, in which if they didn't like the

18:37

results of it, I think that I

18:40

was incumbent upon Donald Trump and his lawyers at the

18:42

time, whoever they were to

18:44

take an appeal to the

18:47

United States Supreme court or to the DC court of

18:49

appeal. And they didn't do that. I

18:51

don't totally disagree with her. I'll be back into

18:53

this part of this, my

18:55

contribution here. I don't

18:57

totally disagree that post

19:00

indictment and a

19:02

suppression hearing prior to trial

19:04

is the proper province of

19:07

a trial judge, whether her

19:09

name is Aileen Cannon or someone else

19:11

that we admire like

19:13

judge Alton Naga. Um, I

19:15

get that part, but I

19:18

don't get the process as

19:20

you so smartly noticed

19:23

is just built for the purposes of

19:25

delay. She like judge Chutkin

19:27

could have ruled on this on the

19:29

papers. She doesn't need a

19:32

full blown evidentiary hearing, not with the transcript

19:34

that was already developed, which he's now asked

19:36

for, um, from this grand

19:39

jury process presided over by a

19:42

much smarter and wiser and more temperate judge

19:44

than she in judge, uh, barrel Howell, who's

19:46

still on the bench, by the way, she

19:48

just rotated off as chief judge.

19:51

Um, and now I get it. She wants

19:53

to flex her muscle and she, and she

19:55

chafes whenever the, she

19:58

gets a whiff that she thinks she's. being

20:01

disrespected by the prosecutors. And it's happened over

20:03

and over again. Karen and I talked about

20:05

it on the midweek. I wanted Karen's view

20:07

as a former prosecutor. I've done it as

20:10

a defense lawyer. I've gotten a little bit

20:12

sideways with a trial judge or a magistrate,

20:14

federal judge or magistrate. And

20:17

then the impact on that. It got

20:19

so bad with David Harbatch, who's one

20:21

of the many prosecutors, lead prosecutors down

20:24

in Mar-a-Lago that the judge even said,

20:26

if you can't be civil in my

20:28

courtroom and answer my questions appropriately, then

20:30

there are plenty of people on your team that

20:32

can argue this motion. I mean, that's how bad

20:35

it has gotten with this relationship, if you will,

20:37

sandpapery as it is

20:39

between the special

20:42

counsel's office and

20:45

the judge. I mean, I've had plenty of judges

20:48

where I've thought, I don't

20:50

agree with this person. I think they're not properly

20:52

prepared. They're not reading the case law right and

20:54

they're not following me. But you can't act like

20:56

that. You can't act like the judge is not

20:58

getting it. You have to find another way around

21:01

the brick wall. So when

21:03

I first read about the Frank's decision, and

21:05

then until I got to the second half of it,

21:07

I was like, okay, well, this is sort of consistent

21:10

with what I heard about the hearing, which

21:12

is people forget this name

21:14

because she doesn't really use him anymore.

21:16

But magistrate judge Reinhardt, who

21:18

sits in Fort Lauderdale, is

21:21

her magistrate. And most judges

21:23

who are more experienced than she would

21:26

be using the magistrate for most of what

21:28

we're watching her do if they had any

21:30

intention to get this case prepared properly for

21:32

trial in an expeditious fashion. But since Ailey

21:35

Cannon doesn't, she's created a

21:37

sandpit of her own making

21:40

where everything has to go through her

21:43

with her multiple level self-created

21:45

procedures of evidentiary hearings. And then

21:47

those are weeks away. And then

21:50

briefing schedules that are extended and

21:52

whatever Donald Trump sneezes or bats

21:54

an eyelash, he gets an extension

21:56

of that time. And

21:59

that's all self-creative. for those that are out

22:01

there that are not yet on our Patreon or

22:03

just wonder about the law, like,

22:06

well, what is the timetable for the release of

22:09

Supreme Court cases and how they drop? There is

22:11

no. It is all created

22:13

at the moment in real time by that

22:15

current panel of the Supreme Court. There's no

22:17

rules, there's no regulations, you can file to

22:20

make them go faster. And within

22:23

a trial judge's discretion,

22:26

yes, there are certain rules that say how many days

22:28

for this and how many days for that. But in

22:30

other places, whether it is going to be an evidentiary

22:32

hearing granted or not, you know, yes, there might be

22:34

some precedent. We'll talk a lot about precedent with a

22:36

C today, but it

22:38

really is up to the judge to construct

22:41

their own processes. We call them colloquially chamber

22:43

rules. It's the rules of the chambers. I

22:45

tell my lawyers who work with me, there's

22:47

three or four things you have to know

22:50

in every case, especially if you're the junior

22:52

member of the team. One, if

22:54

we're in federal court, the federal rules that apply,

22:56

the local rules that apply, and

22:58

the chamber rules that apply. What

23:01

is the judge's, you know, little

23:03

peculiarities and piccadillos that you have

23:05

to follow? You got to get that

23:07

right also. And she just creates her own because

23:09

she's never been on the bench that long. She's

23:11

been on the bench a very short amount of

23:13

time. So when I read the Frank's decision, I

23:15

was like, okay, she's siding with Judge, magistrate Judge

23:17

Reinhardt, who properly got that

23:19

subpoenaed issued on the evidence provided and

23:21

within the scope of the scope

23:24

looks right and the searching looks right.

23:26

Okay, that's fine. And she's not, she

23:29

doesn't find the grounds to overturn the

23:31

actual search warrant issued by her magistrate

23:33

judge, who again, she should be using

23:35

more as a laboring or to kind

23:37

of get through this case, but she does it

23:40

for a reason. She wants everything with her. Second

23:42

half of it is exactly what

23:44

you and I, and I've anticipated

23:46

time and time again, it's the Evan

23:49

Corcoran neon light. We knew

23:51

when he, when the attorney client privilege

23:53

got stripped from Donald Trump,

23:55

because the client holds the privilege

23:57

under the crime fraud exception. because

24:00

Beryl Howell was the second federal

24:02

judge, not the first, to find that it was

24:04

more likely than not that Donald Trump with a

24:07

lawyer committed a crime

24:09

or fraud. He's Judge

24:12

Carter, where you practice a lot in

24:17

Central District of California, in

24:19

the John Eastman matter related to the

24:21

Gen 6 Committee, two and a half

24:24

years ago, found that it was more

24:26

likely than not stripped Donald Trump from the

24:28

attorney client privilege and turned over all of

24:30

that material through John Eastman to the Gen

24:32

6 Committee. Same thing, Beryl Howell, on her

24:35

own findings, based on testimony, including of Evan

24:37

Corcoran, that we don't really have the

24:39

transcript of yet, or

24:41

we have a partial of it,

24:43

and then decided that Evan Corcoran's

24:45

interactions with Donald Trump were being used by

24:48

Donald Trump to commit a crime or fraud

24:50

on the Department of Justice and the United

24:52

States, the way he

24:54

handled or mishandled the classified documents.

24:56

Evan Corcoran was not the first

24:58

lawyer for the

25:01

Mar-a-Lago matters for Donald Trump. He

25:03

had an earlier one that dealt

25:05

with the National Archive negotiations. That

25:08

lawyer dropped out after Donald Trump

25:10

refused to take his instruction or

25:12

his advice. Then we

25:15

had Tim Parlettore, Jim

25:17

Trusty, and Evan Corcoran

25:19

all there, all of which are

25:21

now gone. And they were handling

25:24

the day-to-day, along with Christina Bobb and

25:26

Jennifer Little out of Georgia. That

25:28

group, and Evan

25:31

Corcoran in particular, were responsible for

25:33

interacting with the response to the

25:35

subpoena. Let's not forget, and when I

25:37

say let's not forget, I mean our audience, that before

25:39

there was a search warrant in August of two years

25:42

ago, there was a subpoena. Before there

25:44

was a subpoena, there was a request

25:46

by letter to turn over, just turn

25:48

over the documents that don't belong to

25:50

you. That's all you had to do. And

25:52

you can do it on your own if you do it right. But

25:55

when the government figured out from insiders

25:57

who were providing testimony and sworn test-

26:00

testimony that supported the search warrant that Donald

26:02

Trump wasn't doing that at all. He

26:04

was hiding the 34 boxes. He

26:06

was reviewing 70 boxes. He

26:08

was staging the area for his lawyer to

26:11

review after he had already sanitized the boxes

26:13

and pulled out things he didn't want the

26:15

lawyer to see. Because

26:17

the lawyer Evan Corcoran gave him almost

26:19

two weeks, turned his back on Donald

26:21

Trump and let him do whatever he wanted. By the time

26:23

he came back, they were like, oh, it's all in one

26:26

room. Here you go. Here's the 30 boxes. And Evan Corcoran,

26:30

I don't know if you remember this Ben,

26:32

testified along the way. He spent 20 minutes

26:35

looking through 30 boxes,

26:37

which is almost impossible. And he

26:39

turned over those 36 or 38 documents, the

26:42

now infamous folder with the tape around

26:44

it. And he had Christina Bob sign

26:46

it and said, this

26:48

is all we found. And that's all. But

26:50

the interaction between Donald Trump and Evan Corcoran,

26:52

which was we already know about

26:55

was Donald Trump basically instructing Evan

26:57

Corcoran to destroy evidence and

27:00

to and to eliminate from his pile, pluck

27:02

them out with a plucking sound as

27:04

Evan Corcoran put it. When

27:07

he went back to his hotel at

27:09

the Brazilian court around the corner from

27:11

Mar-a-Lago and Evan Corcoran didn't do that,

27:13

but he did record that happened. And

27:16

that helps with the mens rea criminal

27:18

intent and willfulness component of the prosecutors.

27:20

If they lose that, meaning the there's

27:22

a suppression of the

27:25

Corcoran testimony, evidence, notes

27:27

and audio, prosecutors,

27:29

just their case just got a lot

27:31

harder. I'm not saying it's climbing Mount

27:33

Everest without oxygen, but it got a

27:36

lot harder. Now you're left with grainy

27:38

videos of the

27:40

two co-conspirators moving around boxes, testimony

27:42

of people on the fringes around

27:45

Donald Trump. But you had Donald

27:47

Trump red handed with

27:49

mens rea with through Evan Corcoran. It

27:52

becomes a whole nother case and a

27:54

whole harder case that the Evan Corcoran

27:56

stuff is suppressed. So that the

27:58

first part I was like, okay. that's what a

28:00

normal judge should do. And the second part,

28:04

I've been up at night ever since, not

28:06

just because of my new baby. Well,

28:10

for the crime fraud exception to apply,

28:12

there has to be two things. One,

28:15

was a crime committed? And the

28:17

standard for it doesn't have to

28:19

be beyond a reasonable doubt at

28:21

this stage. It just has to

28:23

be, I think, by preponderance. And

28:26

then were the specific documents

28:28

or communications with the attorney

28:30

used in furtherance of the

28:33

crime. So here, the reason

28:35

why it's so odd she's holding an

28:37

evidentiary hearing is that it's kind of

28:39

so obvious that the attorney-client

28:41

privilege should be pierced. Often the

28:44

hardest prong of that two-prong

28:46

test is for a judge to have

28:48

to make a decision that a crime

28:50

took place more probably than not.

28:53

That's really why you'd need to hold

28:56

the evidentiary hearing in this area,

28:58

because that's a big type of

29:00

ruling to make. But then

29:02

obviously here, especially as it relates

29:05

to Corcoran, of course his communications

29:07

here were then in furtherance

29:10

or Trump was communicating him in furtherance

29:12

of the crime. We know what they

29:14

were about. It was so that Corcoran

29:16

could go in a different location while

29:19

Donald Trump committed the crime and Waltie

29:21

now to move the boxes. So clearly

29:23

it was in connection with prong one,

29:26

the crime. And just so people know,

29:29

again, that this is not how it's supposed to be

29:31

done, you all remember

29:34

federal judge David Carter in the

29:36

Central District of California when he

29:38

made the ruling with respect to

29:40

John Eastman that the crime fraud

29:43

exception did not apply or that

29:45

the crime fraud exception applied that attorney-client privilege

29:48

did not apply. It was

29:50

handled in a fairly concise order. There

29:56

was information that was submitted. The judge

29:58

read through the documents. Yeah,

30:00

there's a crime and these communications are

30:02

in furtherance of a crime. And there

30:04

were certain communications that had nothing to

30:07

do with the underlying crime. And those

30:09

would be attorney-client privilege, but as it

30:11

related to the attempt to overthrow the

30:13

government, Judge Carter was like, yeah,

30:15

clearly that's in connection with the crime. These

30:18

are fairly easy decisions to be made by

30:20

a federal judge, but to your point, Michael

30:22

Popak, Judge Cannon just keeps on delaying, delaying,

30:24

delaying. And just not to leave a, there

30:27

is, I mean, I am recognizing that there is

30:29

a difference between Judge Carter's subpoena

30:31

compliance hearing and a suppression

30:34

hearing related to an indictment.

30:37

I get the difference, but I totally agree

30:39

with you. She does not have to create

30:41

this Rube Goldberg contraption of week's

30:43

delay and evidentiary hearing. She could look

30:45

at the grand jury testimony

30:48

and hearing transcript, which the government will

30:50

now provide her. And

30:52

then with that and some briefing, that's

30:54

it. She doesn't have to bring in

30:56

live witnesses again. She

30:59

says it's not gonna be, don't worry, government,

31:01

I know you're worried about a mini trial,

31:03

but it's not going to be. And then

31:05

she goes on in her order to describe

31:07

effectively a mini trial that she's gonna be

31:10

conducting about this issue, which only means it's

31:12

gonna be like beyond November when she has,

31:15

when she has made her ruling, we

31:17

should start doing a counter. She's

31:20

holding this trial hostage. And the

31:22

amount of days that it's taken her without having

31:24

set a trial date, it should be like zero

31:26

dark 30. We should be writing with a board

31:28

like 227 days and

31:32

no trial set. It's

31:34

a great point. I mean, the reason that she's

31:36

doing this is she sets the hearing in November.

31:39

She asks for supplemental briefing that

31:41

takes us into 2025. She

31:44

asks for more supplemental briefing. I think

31:46

in her own mind, she's gonna try

31:49

to do everything she can if she

31:52

was left to her own without

31:54

special counsel, Jack Smith, being able to

31:56

appeal anything. She dragged this out till

31:58

2030. you know,

32:00

till as long as possible. But

32:03

anyway, but the question is, is

32:05

Ken Special Counsel Jack Smith appeal

32:07

to the 11th Circuit on this

32:09

issue of modification of the conditions of

32:11

Donald Trump's release,

32:14

which is an appealable order should

32:16

Judge Cannon make the order. Judge

32:18

Cannon has not yet made the

32:20

order. She's ordered supplemental briefing as

32:23

part of her plan. And we

32:25

like to show comparisons. Karen had

32:27

a great one. I joined her

32:29

on Wednesday. Just just so we

32:31

show that we're not

32:34

being unfair to her to to

32:36

critiquing alien cannon. Menendez

32:39

in my home state of New

32:41

York, a senator who took apparently

32:44

gold bricks as bribes in

32:46

an elaborate government

32:48

contracting public corruption scheme

32:50

involving halal certification for

32:53

for food going over

32:55

to the overseas for

32:57

for armed forces that

33:00

that he's already in he's already at

33:02

trial that that already went to trial

33:04

is going to trial within seven months

33:06

of the indictment. Hunter Biden is going

33:08

to trial twice within a

33:10

year of his indictments. So no,

33:13

yes, there are some civil cases,

33:15

for instance, that Ben, you and

33:17

I work on, they'll go on

33:19

2357 eight years, no

33:21

doubt. But criminal cases, criminal

33:24

cases, they're a year,

33:26

year and a half tops. Absolutely.

33:29

I want to remind

33:31

everybody about Patreon, patreon.com/

33:34

legal AF get those lectures

33:36

from Michael Popak and myself,

33:38

it also helps support the growth of this

33:41

independent media network and this show we don't

33:43

have outside investors. And

33:45

so your help in joining

33:48

the Patreon community goes a

33:50

very, very long way. One

33:52

more time. That's patreon.com/legal AF

33:55

sign up. And then

33:57

Michael, I'd love to do another live.

34:00

Zoom meeting in

34:02

July with everybody, even though we were saying

34:04

we were going to do kind of the

34:06

quarterly partner in associate meetings. Let's do one

34:09

in July, obviously, when

34:12

your dad duty permits you to

34:15

do that. All right, we'll be right back with our

34:17

first quick break. We've got a lot more show. Let's

34:20

hear from our pro-democracy sponsors. Summer

34:22

is jam-packed and the heat? No joke.

34:24

You got to prioritize hydration. We're made

34:27

from 60 to 70% water.

34:29

So when we're dehydrated, we

34:31

feel imbalanced. You know, the

34:34

signs, fogginess, and fatigue. With

34:36

all the drinks out there,

34:38

you want hydration that works.

34:40

Liquid IV delivers extraordinary hydration

34:42

with advanced science, thanks to

34:45

live hydroscience, an optimized ratio

34:47

of electrolytes, vitamins, and nutrients.

34:50

One stick of liquid IV delivers

34:52

superior hydration to water alone with

34:54

three times the electrolytes of the

34:56

leading sports drink, plus eight

34:59

vitamins and nutrients. It's hydration

35:01

for endurance, mental

35:03

clarity, and overall well-being.

35:06

Sugar-free white peach for

35:08

me, the perfect poolside

35:10

companion. Liquid IV

35:13

is a must-have for my

35:15

bag of summer necessities. It

35:17

is the number one powdered

35:19

hydration brand in America. Tear,

35:22

pour, live more. One

35:24

stick plus 16 ounces of water

35:26

hydrates better than water alone. Eight

35:29

vitamins and nutrients. It's non-GMO and

35:31

free from gluten, dairy, and

35:34

soy, and there's no artificial

35:36

colors or sweeteners. There's four

35:38

delicious sugar-free flavors. White

35:41

peach, green grape, raspberry

35:43

melon, and lemon lime. It's

35:45

a zero sugar hydration solution

35:48

with no artificial sweeteners. Clinically

35:50

test it to hydrate more

35:52

than water alone. Turn your

35:54

ordinary water into extraordinary hydration

35:56

with liquid IV. Get 20%

36:00

off your first order of

36:02

liquid IV when you go

36:04

to liquidiv.com and use code

36:07

legalAF at checkout. That's

36:09

20% off your first order when

36:11

you shop better hydration using

36:14

promo code legalAF at

36:17

liquidiv.com. It's hot outside

36:19

and your nighttime bedroom temperature has a

36:21

huge impact on your sleep quality. If

36:24

you wake up too hot or too cold,

36:27

I highly recommend you check out Miracle Maids

36:29

bedsheets. Using silver

36:31

infused fabrics inspired by NASA,

36:33

Miracle Maid sheets are thermoregulating

36:36

and designed to keep you at the

36:39

perfect temperature all night long, no matter

36:41

the weather. So you

36:43

get better sleep every night. These

36:46

sheets are infused with silver that prevent up to

36:48

99.7% of bacterial growth, leaving them

36:51

to stay cleaner and fresh three times longer

36:53

than other sheets. No more

36:56

gross odors. Miracle

36:58

sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high

37:00

price tag of other luxury brands and

37:03

feel as nice if not nicer than sheets

37:06

used by some five-star hotels. Stop

37:08

sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria

37:10

can clog your pores causing breakouts and

37:12

acne. Sleep clean with

37:15

Miracle. Go to trymiracle.com/LegalAF

37:17

to try Miracle Maid

37:19

sheets today. And

37:21

whether you're buying them for yourself or

37:23

as a gift for a loved one,

37:26

if you order today, you can

37:28

save over 40%. And

37:31

if you use our promo code LegalAF at

37:33

checkout, you'll get three free towels and save

37:35

an extra Miracle

37:38

is so confident in their product, it's

37:40

backed with a 30-day money-back guarantee. So

37:43

if you aren't 100% satisfied,

37:45

you'll get a full refund. Upgrade

37:47

your sleep with Miracle Maid.

37:50

Go to trymiracle.com/LegalAF and use

37:52

the code LegalAF to claim

37:54

your free three-piece towel set

37:57

and save over 40% off. That's

38:00

trymiracle.com/LegalAF to treat yourself.

38:03

Thank you, Miracle-Made, for

38:05

sponsoring this episode. I

38:09

want to thank our pro-democracy sponsors. They

38:11

make this show possible. Some great products

38:14

as well. Jordy Vetson, Michael Popak, and

38:16

I use them. So if

38:18

you're able to support those companies,

38:20

support those products, use

38:23

our discount codes. The discount codes are

38:25

in the description below. So in a

38:27

little bit, we'll talk about some of

38:29

the, I think, atrocious Supreme

38:31

Court rulings from this week. Although

38:33

the Fisher case, the way it

38:35

was written, does not seem to

38:38

be resulting in the dismissal of

38:41

the two obstruction of official proceeding

38:43

charges against Donald Trump. Although he'll

38:45

try to make some mischief to

38:47

cause delay. And of course, that's

38:49

pending the Supreme Court's order on

38:51

the issue of absolute immunity, which

38:53

they've delayed until Monday. But I

38:55

guess the one thing the Supreme

38:57

Court got right, although it should

38:59

be a no-brainer, the fact that

39:02

you even have to hesitate for a second and go, all

39:04

right, what are they going to do? They've

39:07

denied Steve Bannon's emergency request

39:09

to try to avoid

39:11

prison. Steve Bannon

39:14

filed an emergency application saying

39:16

that based on the issues raised in

39:19

his appeals, even though he lost before

39:21

the D.C. Circuit, he

39:23

claimed that he thought that this was

39:25

an issue the Supreme Court should hear. And

39:28

the Supreme Court said, no, you're going to

39:30

prison. Check yourself in.

39:32

So he goes to prison on Monday. There's

39:34

the order right there. So you can all

39:36

see it, the application for release pending appeal

39:39

presented to the Chief Justice. And

39:41

by him, referred to the court

39:43

is denied. And that actually means

39:46

that Chief Justice John Roberts submitted

39:48

this to the rest of the court for their

39:51

review. And they did not get these

39:53

sufficient votes when it was

39:55

submitted to the entire court. Justice Roberts could

39:57

have on his own just denied. but

40:00

that hasn't really been the practice and policy

40:02

of the court. What do you make of this,

40:04

Michael Popock? Well, it hasn't been the practice and

40:06

policy of the court ever since shows like ours

40:08

have shined a light on shadow dockets and a

40:11

year or two ago, which had been

40:14

sort of matter, of course, where every

40:16

circuit, in this case, the

40:18

D.C. Circuit has a Supreme Court justice assigned

40:20

to that circuit by the chief justice. They

40:22

do it at the beginning of the term.

40:25

They don't usually change much. And

40:27

every associate justice and the chief

40:29

justice has one or two circuits

40:32

assigned to them. And so the fifth circuit has

40:35

somebody in the seventh circuit, the ninth circuit. And

40:37

the way it splits is the way you think

40:39

it's been splitting. The more democratic,

40:42

liberal, moderate circuits

40:45

are headed by Katanji Brown

40:47

Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan. And

40:50

the red meat ones are headed by

40:52

Alito Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney

40:55

Barrett. And Chief

40:57

Justice Roberts reserves for himself, as all chief

40:59

justices do, the D.C. Circuit, where a lot

41:01

of these cases are coming out. And as

41:03

you so rightly put it, he could have

41:05

made the decision on his own with a

41:07

shadow docket, decided to refer it in, which

41:09

is actually worse for Bannon, because it shows

41:12

that they couldn't not only couldn't they get

41:14

the five votes that would have

41:16

been required to be interested in this

41:18

appeal. They couldn't get the four votes

41:20

to even consider it and

41:23

stay the case. And so that

41:25

doesn't mean it was nine zero. If I

41:27

had to guess, I'll when we kick it back

41:30

to you, Ben, you'll tell me your thoughts is

41:32

definitely voting for Bannon. Having a

41:34

further delay would have been Alito and

41:36

Thomas. And for some reason, and when

41:39

we get to more Supreme Court stuff, I'll

41:41

give you my view on it. Gorsuch has

41:43

been siding with Alito and Thomas

41:46

a lot in different makeups on

41:48

different court decisions recently. I

41:50

think we've got a couple of developments. Maybe this is

41:52

the thing we can do on Patreon in July. Sort

41:54

of take the plane up and look back down at

41:56

the landscape of what this term meant for the United

41:59

States Supreme Court when. dust settles and we

42:01

can look at all the 60 or 70

42:03

cases. But two things that I saw right

42:05

away was Amy Coney Barrett stepped out of

42:08

the shadows and has taken a more of

42:10

an active role both into sense and concurrences

42:12

and speaking out and questioning. We'll talk about

42:14

what that means at the appropriate time. And

42:17

Gorsuch seems to be apparently siding on occasion

42:19

with the right, right, right, right wing, which

42:21

signals where his head is at for a

42:24

lot of these issues. As to Bannon, he

42:27

doesn't seem to care that he's going to jail

42:30

for four months. He'll be going in as Navarro

42:32

is coming out in Miami. And

42:34

to Trump, all

42:37

this means for Trump is that

42:39

these are the bona fides that he's looking

42:41

for for his next term. So as I've

42:43

said to people, if you want an administration

42:46

filled with felons, people who have

42:49

had their sentences commuted, pardoned,

42:53

uh, uh, you know, people

42:55

have lost their bar licenses, people

42:57

subject to criminal prosecution, a rent

42:59

in state and federal proceedings. I

43:01

got an administration for you and it's headed by a

43:03

guy named Donald Trump. I know everybody, including

43:06

Democrats, were doing a lot of hand

43:08

wringing off of the first debate.

43:11

But that, and then, you know, of course,

43:13

I think the president acquitted himself well when he was on

43:15

the campaign trail the next day, I think

43:17

in North Carolina, but it doesn't matter. These

43:20

debates don't matter. First, this,

43:22

this was the old, these were the

43:24

old days when George Bush looking at

43:26

his watch tanked him being

43:28

elected against Clinton. Um,

43:30

you know, when Ronald Reagan looked really

43:32

old in the first debate and then

43:34

the second debate, he got off a

43:37

quip against Mondale that won the debate.

43:39

We're done with all of that. These

43:41

two, we know as an American people,

43:43

the body of work of the

43:45

two people running for the highest office of the

43:47

land, 50 years of

43:49

a body of work for Joe Biden, from,

43:52

from youngest Senator to oldest president and

43:54

everything in between Donald

43:56

Trump, his business record fraud

43:58

records, sex. sex

44:01

rape adjudged record, convicted

44:04

felon record, and

44:07

everything else. And that's what you

44:09

have to choose from. And the

44:11

administration and the people that go

44:13

along with those two, and the

44:16

Supreme Court that will likely, based

44:18

on precedent and historical events,

44:22

there'll be one, if not two

44:25

openings in the next term. So

44:27

if you were like, well, I really wish you'd

44:30

done better in the debate, if that's where your

44:32

focus is at and not who's going to be

44:34

picking your next Supreme Court justices and who's not

44:36

going to be trying to address women's

44:38

rights being thrown into the trash in

44:40

this country, voting rights being thrown into

44:43

the trash in this country, rights for

44:45

immigration going into the trash

44:47

on Monday morning, okay,

44:49

that needs to be your concern

44:52

and not all this other hand wringing that's going on about,

44:54

well, I just thought in the first half of the debate,

44:56

he was a little bit sluggish. Enough.

44:59

Sorry. Sorry, even my diatribe. Bannon's going

45:02

to jail. He'll podcast somehow from there

45:04

with his dime a week that he

45:06

can put into his pay phone and

45:09

he'll come out after the election and hopefully he'll

45:11

find the landscape has changed and Donald Trump has

45:13

lost. I want

45:16

to also touch upon Justice

45:18

Mershan partially lifting the

45:20

gag order in the Manhattan District Attorney

45:22

criminal case where Trump was convicted on

45:24

34 separate felony counts.

45:27

We are nearing sentencing

45:29

on July 11th

45:31

and Donald Trump's lawyers

45:34

petitioned Justice Mershan now

45:36

that trial was over to

45:38

remove some of the, to remove all of

45:40

the conditions of the gag order, to remove

45:42

it in all. The

45:45

District Attorney's office said, you can remove

45:47

it with the witnesses, but keep it

45:49

on with respect to the jury and

45:51

keep it with respect to the

45:54

District Attorney's office, staff

45:56

members, family members, and to your own

45:59

family members. The integrity

46:01

of the proceeding is still necessary

46:03

because the proceeding is still happening

46:05

July 11th is when

46:08

sentencing will take place and justice.

46:13

The proceeding is still taking place so

46:15

as a result there needs to

46:17

be a gag order and protected

46:19

persons specially based on Donald Trump's

46:22

conduct but those protected persons are

46:24

limited to those who are now.

46:26

Presently involved in

46:29

the proceeding and if

46:31

i were to expand it to those

46:33

no longer in the proceeding i'm gonna

46:35

get overturned he basically said so i'm

46:38

following the law here and justice mission

46:40

is always a law and order judge

46:42

when it comes to these things and

46:45

so well i guess to some extent

46:47

it's maybe upsetting to some that this

46:49

gag order. What's partially

46:51

lifted as it relates to witnesses

46:53

like Michael Cohen and store me

46:55

daniels or as it relates to

46:58

the jury. I

47:00

think that's all to me the you know

47:03

what what the law required justice mesh

47:05

on to do otherwise he was going

47:08

to get reversed and that there could

47:10

be delays caused with the sentencing. Coming

47:12

on July 11th if we were fighting

47:15

these types of issues now in advance

47:17

of the sentencing i

47:19

think that also is an indication though as

47:21

well, that justice mesh on

47:23

though isn't going to be afraid when

47:25

it comes to sentencing to make the

47:27

tough decisions and i think that he

47:29

said in this order to in this

47:32

gag order i'm reluctant to lift it

47:34

for the jury because i know donald

47:36

trump's behavior he said look i am

47:38

still going to enforce the requirements that

47:40

trump. Can himself for

47:42

cause others to like out jurors

47:45

or to like the address

47:47

them by name or give specifics

47:50

about their backgrounds like donald trump is permitted

47:52

to say the jury was unfair to me

47:54

this was an unfair he can say things

47:56

like that but he can say your number

47:58

eight. Was a. I'm

48:00

making this up, this is not jury number eight.

48:03

Jury number eight was an accountant from the upper

48:06

east side and that was a bad jury.

48:08

He can't do that still. So he can

48:10

talk generally that he thinks it's unfair and

48:12

he could whine. And obviously if

48:14

Donald Trump commits crimes and threatens people,

48:17

he can still get arrested for that. That still could be

48:20

criminal conduct. So Pope

48:22

Ocke, I wanna get your view. What do you

48:24

think about what Justice Mershan did here? I think

48:26

he did exactly what

48:29

we would expect

48:31

from a temperate, sophisticated,

48:33

experienced judge. One

48:35

of the things that we were able to do because

48:37

we cover legal and political

48:39

issues so regularly

48:42

on a, really without skipping a

48:44

beat, twice a

48:46

week, every week without delay, whether

48:49

I can cover you, you cover me, we

48:51

cover Karen, whatever it is, is

48:54

that we're able to really make observations

48:56

of incremental and micro things

48:59

that happen and macro things that happen.

49:01

And what we've always said is that

49:03

Judge Mershan is somebody who's perfectly suited

49:06

for this particular case, both in temperament,

49:08

in decision-making, in experience,

49:12

and in every way that you would

49:14

expect it. And that is stands in

49:16

stark contrast to how he is characterized

49:20

and character-churred

49:23

by the right-wing MAGA, like the

49:25

Elise Stefanik's, Marjorie Taylor Greene's, Beau

49:27

Burt's, Trump, Bannon, and everybody else,

49:29

where they try to make him

49:31

into a cartoon character where, oh,

49:33

his daughter has a job and

49:35

works for Democrats. Okay, oh,

49:37

he donated, I'm not making this up,

49:39

$15 to Biden once and got sanctioned

49:42

by the Judicial Ethics Committee,

49:44

no, he didn't. He got warned along with 3,000

49:46

other judges about, you know what, we'd rather you

49:48

not make any donations at all. But, you

49:50

know, New York's judges are an elected position

49:52

and they come out of the

49:55

Democrats. And frankly, if you want to be a judge in

49:57

Manhattan, you better be a Democrat,

50:00

not going to get elected. That's just the way it is.

50:02

And that's just what the people of the state of New

50:04

York from Manhattan want. And so, but

50:06

other than that, there's nothing about

50:08

his record, his track record, his

50:10

body of work that would indicate

50:12

that he does anything other than

50:14

make appropriate, well thought through, well

50:16

thought out, supported decisions. And

50:19

this five page order on the gag order was

50:21

exactly what I would have expected. Look, our president

50:23

has said, regardless of what happens on Monday, he

50:26

will accept the outcome of the Supreme Court in the immunity

50:29

decision. You know, you and I will touch a little bit,

50:31

preview what we think may happen based on

50:33

what has already happened and

50:35

the lineup of the various judges on these

50:38

other cases. Let's get there in a minute.

50:40

But I would

50:42

accept anything. Would I have liked the

50:44

gag order to stay in place on

50:46

everything so that it would also help

50:48

the special counsel who's arguing

50:50

for a gag order at this very

50:52

moment with Judge Cannon? Yes. But

50:54

is that, did I also

50:56

think his had intellectual honesty

50:58

about his analysis about why

51:00

he lifted it for witnesses

51:02

and jurors and not

51:06

for the rest or lifted it for that,

51:08

but not for the rest? Yes. I thought

51:10

it was what I would

51:12

have expected from a very good judge

51:14

and Judge Rashawn. And I want to

51:16

just keep talking about that because if

51:18

you only get your information, not our

51:20

audience, but in general from right wing

51:22

MAGA, you would think this is the

51:24

devil incarnate and he's the most unsophisticated

51:27

corrupt jurist out there.

51:29

And the exact opposite is true. And then

51:31

of course, it's projection because they got to

51:33

try to cover for Judge Cannon, who is

51:36

way over her skis and compromised

51:39

and, you know, goes to Federalist conferences

51:41

and seems to bend backwards

51:43

and out of her way like Gumby

51:45

trying to help former

51:48

President Donald J. Trump. Well

51:53

said, Michael Popak. Want to remind

51:55

everybody about our Patreon here. It's

51:57

patreon.com slash legal a F.

51:59

join the lectures, join the Patreon community,

52:02

and it helps the show. We don't

52:04

have outside investors here on the Midas

52:06

Touch Network or on LegalAF. We build

52:09

this thanks to your emojis, thanks to

52:11

our pro-democracy sponsors, and the Patreon does

52:13

go a long way in helping continuing

52:16

to build and grow out this network.

52:18

When we come back, I want to

52:20

talk a lot about what the Supreme

52:23

Court's been doing and not

52:25

doing, kind of both equally dangerous.

52:27

But the importance of

52:29

this next segment, I think, cannot be

52:32

emphasized enough because we have to

52:35

understand what their schemes are, what

52:37

their plots are, how

52:39

they are doing it, so

52:42

that we can call it out and share

52:44

people and share with others so we know

52:46

how we can protect ourselves and restore

52:50

agency to we the people that

52:53

these unelected Supreme Court right-wing justices have

52:55

taken away from us and are continuing

52:57

to try to take away from us.

53:00

Let's take our last quick break from

53:02

those pro-democracy sponsors. How

53:04

much do you think you're paying in

53:06

subscriptions every month? The answer is probably

53:08

more than you think. Over 74% of

53:12

people have subscriptions they've forgotten about. I

53:14

definitely did, like the time I

53:16

forgot about that I subscribed to Paramount+. But

53:19

thanks to Rocket Money, I'm no longer wasting

53:21

money on the ones I forgot about. Rocket

53:24

Money is a personal finance app

53:26

that finds and cancels your unwanted

53:28

subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps

53:30

lower your bills so that

53:33

you can grow your savings. With

53:35

Rocket Money, I have full control over

53:38

my subscriptions and a clear view of

53:40

my expenses. I can see all of

53:42

my subscriptions in one place, and

53:44

if I see something I don't want, Rocket Money

53:46

can help me cancel it with a few

53:48

taps. I love how the

53:50

dashboard shows me this month's spending compared

53:53

to last month, so I can clearly

53:55

see my spending habits. Plus, they'll help

53:57

me create a custom budget and keep

53:59

me by spending on track. Rocket Money

54:01

will even try to negotiate lower bills

54:04

for you by up to 20%. All

54:07

you got to do is submit a picture of

54:09

your bill and Rocket Money takes care of the

54:11

rest. They'll deal with customer

54:13

service for you. Rocket

54:16

Money has over 5 million users

54:18

and has saved a total of

54:20

500 million in cancelled subscriptions,

54:22

saving members up to $740 a year

54:24

when using all of

54:28

the app's features. Stop

54:30

wasting money on things

54:32

you don't use. Cancel

54:34

your unwanted subscriptions by

54:36

going to rocketmoney.com/legal AF.

54:38

That's rocketmoney.com/legal AF. rocketmoney.com/legal

54:42

AF. I've

54:45

been taking timelines, might appear for

54:47

over a month now, and I

54:49

feel absolutely incredible. I have way

54:51

more muscle strength and energy to

54:53

get things done. And

54:56

as you may know, there's been a lot

54:58

of legal and political news lately. And

55:00

timelines might appear has helped provide me

55:03

with the energy to get through these

55:05

long days. Timeline,

55:08

a Swiss based life science company

55:10

is a global leader in Eurolithin

55:12

A research. They spent 10 years

55:15

doing research to bring this product

55:17

to market. Eurolithin A

55:19

is a powerful post biotic that

55:21

is nearly impossible to get from

55:23

your diet alone. Might appear is

55:26

the first product to offer a

55:28

precise dose of Eurolithin A to

55:30

upgrade your mitochondrial function. Take two

55:32

soft gels a day for two

55:34

months, and you can

55:36

see significant improvements in your cellular

55:38

energy, muscle strength, and

55:41

endurance. After four months

55:43

of taking might appear, you'll feel

55:45

yourself getting stronger, recovering

55:47

faster after a workout and

55:50

experiencing less inflammation. All

55:53

part of your healthier aging routine.

55:55

Might appear is the number one

55:57

doctor recommended Eurolithin A supplement. That

56:00

is NSF and Clean Label Project

56:02

Certified. Timeline has Mitapure in two

56:05

product designs to fit your needs.

56:07

They're berry powder, which is great

56:09

to mix into your breakfast yogurt

56:11

or daily smoothie. And they're soft

56:13

gels for those days where you're

56:15

on the run and want

56:18

a convenient grab and go option. Timeline

56:20

is offering 10% off

56:22

your first order of

56:24

Mitapure. Go to timeline.com/legalAF

56:27

and use code legalAF

56:29

to get 10% off

56:31

your order. That's timeline.com/legalAF.

56:37

Wanna give a special thanks to those pro-democracy

56:39

sponsors. I truly mean it when I say

56:41

it, like it goes

56:43

a really long way to help

56:45

this show, to help this network

56:47

and those products, the services we

56:49

offer. Jordy Vetsum,

56:52

Jordy spends a long time

56:54

working with them and then we try them out.

56:56

And if we like them, they get on the

56:58

program. And so I wanna give them a shout

57:01

out and Jordy negotiates some

57:03

great discount codes for everybody as

57:05

well. So supports the network and

57:07

you get great discounts. So that's

57:10

a good thing. And

57:12

we're grateful for Jordy to do it.

57:14

And also thank you to everybody who's

57:16

joined our Patreon. I see a lot

57:18

more people joining. We're gonna do a

57:20

Zoom meeting with all of our patrons.

57:22

You can meet Michael Popak and myself

57:24

will answer your legal

57:27

questions relating to ideally

57:30

the intersection of law and politics. We

57:32

won't give you direct legal advice for

57:34

yourself, but we will answer all the

57:36

legal questions that you've been wondering about

57:38

and maybe we have an answer. That's

57:40

patreon.com slash legalAF. Let's get into

57:43

the Supreme Court, Michael Popak. Obviously

57:45

they have not ruled on Donald

57:48

Trump's appeal on the issue that

57:50

he claims he could be able

57:52

to order SEAL Team Six to

57:54

kill his political opponents or

57:56

massacre the other political party if

57:59

he so. chooses under his

58:01

claim of absolute immunity. I

58:04

like to phrase it that way because

58:06

it shows what he's actually asking for

58:08

versus using the doctrinal name absolute immunity

58:10

because let's be clear, he was asked

58:13

an oral argument, his lawyers were, if

58:15

that's what he means and he says,

58:17

yes, we should be able to,

58:19

oh yes, if it's an official act, ordering

58:23

the military to kill your political opponents,

58:25

that's something that Trump should be able

58:27

to do. The Supreme

58:29

Court's waited until the very

58:31

last possible moment on

58:33

Monday, that will be the last order handed

58:35

down, then they'll go on

58:37

their vacation, Justice Clarence Thomas will go

58:40

on his lavish yachts paid for

58:42

by the corporate interests and Henry Crow

58:44

and others and they'll all leave and

58:47

they'll leave our country. This

58:49

pile of you know what that they've handed us

58:52

at the end of this term.

58:54

A few other major rulings here that were

58:56

issued this week and then I'm gonna turn

58:58

it over to you Pope to dissect it

59:00

in any order that you so choose. The

59:04

Fisher versus United States decision,

59:06

that's on the issue of

59:08

whether the Department of Justice

59:11

appropriately used the

59:13

obstruction of official proceeding

59:16

statute to charge

59:18

January 6th insurrectionists. The

59:21

statute 18 U.S.C. section 1512 has

59:26

various subsections and subsection

59:28

C1, it

59:30

refers to kind of

59:32

tampering, manipulating, or

59:35

engaging in obstructive

59:37

conduct as it relates

59:40

to documents. C2

59:42

says or otherwise engages

59:44

in obstruction of official proceeding.

59:46

So the question before the

59:48

Supreme Court was 18 U.S.C.

59:53

1512 C2s or otherwise

59:56

obstruct official proceeding, was

59:59

that necessary? related to

1:00:01

the proceeding subsection,

1:00:03

subsection C-1, that

1:00:06

deals with documents, objects,

1:00:08

or other things like that, or

1:00:10

was it just other forms of

1:00:12

obstructive conduct? This statute

1:00:15

was passed in 2002 in

1:00:18

connection with the Enron

1:00:21

scandal, the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation,

1:00:24

and so it initially had to

1:00:27

do with documents, but the text

1:00:29

also did state, there could be

1:00:31

other examples of obstructing official

1:00:34

proceedings, not just like burning documents

1:00:36

and hiding documents and destroying documents

1:00:38

in connections with official proceedings like

1:00:40

Enron was doing and

1:00:43

others were doing. The

1:00:45

Supreme Court said, nope, it has to, even

1:00:47

though we're strict textualists, we still think it

1:00:49

has to deal with documents. And

1:00:51

so we're gonna look at the history

1:00:54

of when the statute was passed, and

1:00:56

that any of the January 6th insurrectionists

1:01:00

who were charged with this statute,

1:01:03

who didn't direct their behavior at

1:01:05

documents or objects

1:01:07

or things like that, they

1:01:10

should not have been charged with obstruction

1:01:12

of official proceeding that carries within a

1:01:14

20-year sentence. So

1:01:17

a lot of hundreds of cases and now we're

1:01:19

gonna have to go to trial again, or

1:01:21

those charges are gonna have to be

1:01:23

dismissed. Many insurrectionists are probably gonna be

1:01:26

let out of prison as a result

1:01:28

of this. You'll explain why you think

1:01:30

this isn't going to impact though the

1:01:33

two obstruction of official proceeding charges as

1:01:35

it relates to Donald Trump. Just really

1:01:37

quickly, others, the overturning of the Chevron

1:01:39

decision, we touched upon it at the

1:01:42

beginning of this episode, courts used to

1:01:44

give what's called Chevron deference for administrative

1:01:46

agencies to interpret their

1:01:49

own enabling statutes. So the

1:01:51

EPA and the SEC and

1:01:53

the FTC and all of

1:01:55

the agencies can look at

1:01:57

their statute, apply their expertise,

1:01:59

engage in a- rulemaking process

1:02:01

and then regulate pursuant to

1:02:03

the priorities of a particular

1:02:05

administration. And then

1:02:07

if the agencies were challenged, which they

1:02:10

could still be challenged for the regulations

1:02:12

and things that they engage in, you'd

1:02:14

have to prove that their behavior was

1:02:17

arbitrary and capricious or that there was

1:02:19

something improper in the rulemaking, but otherwise

1:02:21

you would give deference to what the

1:02:24

agency does. You wouldn't second

1:02:26

guess their environmental regulations to

1:02:28

stop pollution or their regulations

1:02:31

over big tobacco

1:02:33

or oil or gun control or

1:02:36

whatever it is, you would give

1:02:38

them deference. No more deference, says

1:02:40

the United States Supreme Court. The

1:02:43

court says that we will substitute

1:02:45

our own judgment. Only the unelected

1:02:47

bureaucrats and as

1:02:49

judges, we're going to supplant

1:02:53

the expertise of

1:02:55

regulators who are appointed

1:02:57

or who are

1:03:00

put in power and put in

1:03:02

place and execute the priorities of

1:03:04

an administration that is elected. Then

1:03:06

you had a jarkese versus the

1:03:08

SEC, which was kind

1:03:10

of the appetizer to the overturning of

1:03:12

Chevron, where the Supreme

1:03:14

Court said that in any proceeding

1:03:17

enforcement action against

1:03:19

people for securities fraud or whatever,

1:03:21

the SEC would have to impanel

1:03:23

a jury and conduct a mini

1:03:25

jury trial for civil enforcement. We're

1:03:27

not talking about criminal cases. We're

1:03:29

talking about when the SEC would

1:03:31

slap people with fines for engaging

1:03:33

in security fraud, the Supreme Court

1:03:35

says, nope, you need juries now.

1:03:38

Congress is not giving the SEC the

1:03:40

money for juries. The SEC doesn't have

1:03:42

a jury system, so that basically guts

1:03:45

all the enforcement power by the

1:03:47

SEC to go after people who engage

1:03:50

in securities fraud. There's no mechanism anymore

1:03:52

for the SEC to go

1:03:55

after people who engage in securities fraud,

1:03:57

which is what the interest.

1:04:00

who are paying Clarence Thomas and

1:04:02

who are submitting all, who are

1:04:04

funding the Federalist Society what they want. They

1:04:06

want to go on with their securities fraud

1:04:08

without any accountability. And

1:04:12

that doesn't just impact the SEC, that

1:04:15

will impact all other agencies that have

1:04:17

civil enforcement and fines as well. And

1:04:19

then on top of that, you layer

1:04:22

on at the Chevron decision, though, BOPOC,

1:04:24

which basically says, you know, the agency's

1:04:26

interpretation of its own statutes and what

1:04:28

it does, shouldn't even be given deference

1:04:31

in the first place. So really just

1:04:33

kind of a destruction of how our

1:04:36

government functions on a day to day basis.

1:04:38

So I think it needs to be given

1:04:40

a lot more attention. Obviously, the Fisher case

1:04:43

and the immunity case are headline grabbing cases.

1:04:46

But I think the Chevron case also

1:04:48

may have even a bigger impact and

1:04:51

just cause massive disruption that I'm not

1:04:53

quite sure how it is

1:04:55

that government I really don't. How is

1:04:57

government supposed to function if

1:05:00

administrative agencies are

1:05:02

now no longer able to regulate? I

1:05:06

think the Chevron decision is

1:05:08

potentially more life altering to life

1:05:11

as we know it in the

1:05:13

federal regime and

1:05:15

the agency power than the

1:05:18

Jan 6th decision. Jan 6th

1:05:20

decision is, okay, future insurrectionists

1:05:23

won't be able to be charged ultimately if

1:05:25

they do a similar thing. I'm going to

1:05:28

put Donald Trump into a separate category because

1:05:30

I do believe that his indictment

1:05:32

for obstruction of an official proceeding

1:05:34

survives with specific language. It's already

1:05:36

been baked into the decision, which

1:05:38

I'll read out loud. But

1:05:42

that is a small subset

1:05:44

of crazy violent insurrectionists

1:05:46

and what the Department of Justice

1:05:48

can do in the future against

1:05:50

them in terms of what's in

1:05:53

their toolbox to charge.

1:05:56

They have, we know, they

1:05:58

have seditious conspiracies. They

1:06:01

actually have a charge of insurrection that they

1:06:03

didn't use. They instead, the

1:06:05

two highest charges the Department of Justice

1:06:07

used was seditious

1:06:09

conspiracy and obstruction of an

1:06:11

official proceeding because they thought that 2002 law, which

1:06:15

comes, yes, did come out of Enron and came

1:06:17

out of a now defunct accounting

1:06:20

firm called Arthur Anderson that destroyed

1:06:22

documents during a government investigation. That

1:06:25

we've never really held that law that

1:06:28

is written in such a way that

1:06:30

it still is able to

1:06:32

be mapped onto new conduct couldn't

1:06:34

be applied. I mean, the racketeering

1:06:37

influence and corrupt organization act RICO

1:06:39

was created to fight Italian

1:06:41

organized crime. We've used it and

1:06:44

successfully and has been validated by

1:06:46

prior Supreme Courts in a myriad

1:06:48

of other ways, having nothing to

1:06:50

do with organized crime at all.

1:06:53

It's being used right now against

1:06:55

Trump in Georgia under a state

1:06:58

version of RICO. The

1:07:01

fact that statutes get stretched to apply

1:07:03

to new conduct and new behavior is

1:07:05

because prosecutors don't have the luxury of

1:07:07

ginning up and generating new crimes to

1:07:10

fit this conduct that they just saw.

1:07:12

They got to take old crimes and

1:07:14

apply it to new conduct the best

1:07:16

that they can. The

1:07:20

Chevron decision, which I'll touch on in a minute,

1:07:23

is going to change life as we know it

1:07:25

under the Administrative Procedures Act. You and I used

1:07:28

to joke two, three years ago, even four years

1:07:30

ago when we got into the Administrative Procedures Act.

1:07:32

We'd look at each other during the podcast and

1:07:34

we'd say, wow, we just geeked out for 30

1:07:37

minutes on the APA and then we would laugh

1:07:39

to ourselves. But the audience seemed to

1:07:41

be okay with that and came back week after week.

1:07:43

But there was a reason for it. Things

1:07:46

that matter to a person when they get up

1:07:48

in the morning and their families, energy

1:07:52

policy, certain

1:07:55

aspects of civil liberties, clean

1:07:58

water, clean air. and

1:08:02

everything else that the federal government touches

1:08:04

in terms of regulation that makes

1:08:06

this world a better place. It

1:08:09

comes out of the Administrative Procedures

1:08:11

Act, which is Congress's way to

1:08:14

delegate to agencies through a certain

1:08:16

set of processes that which they

1:08:18

can't do themselves in

1:08:21

lawmaking. The reality is, and this is going

1:08:23

to have to change in the next Congress,

1:08:26

is that the Congress does,

1:08:28

I guess, the best job they

1:08:30

think they can do to put a law on

1:08:32

the books. And when they

1:08:34

want to exquisitely and expressly address something,

1:08:36

they have to do it in

1:08:39

the actual code that they've generated or

1:08:41

the law that they've generated. But there's

1:08:43

a reason that there's an agency

1:08:45

with expertise that

1:08:47

have the experts about the environment

1:08:50

and petroleum and regulation and child

1:08:52

safety and all these other things.

1:08:55

It's because they have the expertise and judges

1:08:57

don't and others don't.

1:08:59

And so you defer what Chevron said

1:09:01

is, when in doubt, and

1:09:03

if there's an ambiguity within the

1:09:06

law that Congress has created, but they

1:09:08

haven't indicated that they think something else,

1:09:11

the agency can come in and

1:09:13

it can interpret within the parameters

1:09:15

of that ambiguity, as long as

1:09:17

they stay within the four corners

1:09:19

of the law. And that decision

1:09:22

by the administrative agency and

1:09:24

its experts will be given a

1:09:26

tremendous amount of deference by courts.

1:09:28

It didn't mean that Article

1:09:30

3 judges, presiding judges, were

1:09:33

abdicating their responsibility to review government

1:09:35

action and regulation. It's just that

1:09:38

there was deference that was given

1:09:40

in this area of ambiguity. Well,

1:09:43

the right wing MAGA have never

1:09:45

liked that because it led in

1:09:48

their view to an expansion of

1:09:50

the administrative apparatus of the executive

1:09:52

branch. And it was too intrusive.

1:09:54

And it was an improper delegation by Congress,

1:09:56

meaning Congress is now going to have to

1:09:58

write, if we thought there thousand-page

1:10:02

laws were incomprehensible. Now wait till

1:10:04

you see what they're going to

1:10:06

be writing with a combination of

1:10:08

lobbyists who don't have our best

1:10:10

interests at heart always and others

1:10:12

and staffers and wait till you see

1:10:17

this mess that comes out that's now

1:10:19

going to have to be the new

1:10:21

law because what they've said in this

1:10:23

new decision overturning Chevron is that Chevron

1:10:26

is inconsistent with the

1:10:29

Administrative Procedures Act and undermines what

1:10:32

Congress's intent was and it's been

1:10:34

that way since 1984 but we're

1:10:36

just getting around now to throwing

1:10:38

it and throwing it into the

1:10:41

trash. We knew this

1:10:43

was coming. We saw remarks about it in other

1:10:45

cases that if they ever got their hands on

1:10:47

Chevron they were going to rip it up as

1:10:49

a doctrine. Even the

1:10:51

court said well we haven't even

1:10:54

applied it ourselves since 2016. That's

1:10:56

interesting. I also thought it was interesting then that

1:10:59

Chief Justice Roberts who wrote the decision referred

1:11:02

to the Chevron decision as something he could

1:11:04

just toss aside along with the others because

1:11:06

it was only a 6-3 decision.

1:11:09

He actually like he was always like

1:11:11

dismissive. There was a bare majority he

1:11:13

called it. No a bare majority is

1:11:16

5-4. 6-3 is the thing that drives

1:11:18

us crazy every day because we keep

1:11:20

losing on the progressive side, the Democrat

1:11:22

side, 6-3 in this court and this

1:11:24

decision was 6-3. So I

1:11:27

don't even get the whole reference to it

1:11:29

was only six votes in 1984 so it

1:11:31

wasn't as super a precedent as it should have

1:11:33

been and then they decided

1:11:35

in the vein of knocking over

1:11:37

the temple of Chevron or what

1:11:40

they referred to dismissively and derisively

1:11:42

as the Chevron project has now

1:11:44

come to an end. Trial

1:11:46

courts don't have to deal with it

1:11:48

any longer as a doctrine. They decided

1:11:50

the SEC's entire regulatory enforcement power should

1:11:52

be thrown into the trash and all

1:11:55

other agencies. Now look I'm

1:11:57

of two minds on this one. When I worked

1:11:59

in financial services, we thought about

1:12:02

taking an appeal on something because we weren't

1:12:04

sure it was right that we always had

1:12:06

to have an administrative law judge who got

1:12:08

paid by the agency, the security and exchange

1:12:10

commission, be our final arbiter wearing a black

1:12:12

robe. Looked like we had too many men

1:12:14

on the court, right? They looked like it

1:12:17

was somebody had their thumb on the scales.

1:12:20

But do you really want to take on the SEC?

1:12:23

And I was in the financial services business. And

1:12:25

so that didn't really make a lot of sense

1:12:27

at the time. But Jarkezy has

1:12:29

been looming around out there and watched by Wall Street

1:12:32

for a long, long time. And he said, no, the

1:12:34

fine that you're imposing on me, I only get to

1:12:36

go talk to a judge that you pay for. And

1:12:38

I don't get an Article III judge like

1:12:40

every other place in due process. And finally, they

1:12:43

got around to saying, yeah, you're right. And

1:12:45

that $5 billion a year that the Securities

1:12:47

and Exchange Commission basically self-funds by taking in

1:12:49

all these fines is now up for grabs.

1:12:52

And here's what's going to happen as a

1:12:54

result, from

1:12:56

the defendant standpoint, they just gained a tremendous

1:12:58

amount of leverage. Because it used to be

1:13:00

when you and I've negotiated with the SEC,

1:13:03

when you negotiate with the SEC, it can

1:13:05

only go so far. You can get,

1:13:07

you can go. If you can lobby the five

1:13:09

commissioners of the SEC and you win, great. If

1:13:11

you lose and you're stuck with the enforcement leaders

1:13:16

and process, and they

1:13:18

fine you, you got nowhere to go. Now

1:13:20

you can say, well, I'll see you in court. And

1:13:23

as you rightly pointed out, the

1:13:25

SEC doesn't have a lot of trial lawyers

1:13:28

who have done Article III jury trials

1:13:30

laying around like the Department of Justice.

1:13:32

So they're either going to have to

1:13:34

deputize Department of Justice trial lawyers to

1:13:36

come in and help them, because they're

1:13:38

not going to walk away from fine

1:13:40

enforcement. No way.

1:13:43

So they're going to have to

1:13:45

gear up and get a trial

1:13:48

division established quickly at the SEC and all

1:13:50

the other places as well. All the other

1:13:53

agencies as well. That is this fundamental change.

1:13:55

And in the meantime, the pendulum has swung

1:13:57

now, I think, in favor of the SEC.

1:13:59

of people who are violating the SEC. And

1:14:01

who does this help? Who

1:14:04

just went public for the first time in his

1:14:06

life and is having a lot of problems with

1:14:08

the SEC, with insider trading delays in his public,

1:14:11

him going public every time he files

1:14:13

a report. Donald Trump, Donald

1:14:15

Trump can't wait to defang and

1:14:17

dismantle the SEC, the internal revenue

1:14:20

service and everything else, and the

1:14:22

Supreme Court just helped them on

1:14:24

that. And lastly, on the what

1:14:28

I read and what I found in

1:14:30

the decision for a Fisher, which

1:14:33

we were always dreading because we

1:14:35

knew if they got their hands on it and even

1:14:38

Gorsuch in an earlier dropped

1:14:40

opinion a couple of days ago in his, in

1:14:43

his own concurrence, we were like, Oh, here we go. In

1:14:46

some of the comments he made about, it

1:14:48

seemed to suggest that he was definitely going

1:14:50

to be siding with striking this as a

1:14:52

count for the 300 Jan

1:14:56

six insurrectionists that have either pled

1:14:58

guilty to this count, have

1:15:00

been convicted of this count by a bench

1:15:02

trial or a jury, or have

1:15:04

already been sentenced and, or have served their

1:15:06

time already. Although fortunately, almost

1:15:09

all of the 300 were some

1:15:11

of the worst ones out there

1:15:13

and they had multiple other felony

1:15:15

counts attached. And so yes,

1:15:17

they'll have to be. Their sentences will now

1:15:20

be have to be recalculated. If

1:15:22

they got convicted, it will have to be

1:15:24

vacated and expunged for over 300. And

1:15:27

in the future, the department of justice is going to have

1:15:29

to look for something else in their toolbox. Maybe

1:15:31

the count of insurrection to go against these people

1:15:33

and not use the major two that they did

1:15:36

as the Donald Trump, he should not rest

1:15:38

easy. He should rest with one eye open

1:15:41

and shouldn't be popping too many champagne

1:15:43

corks because they took time. Robert's

1:15:46

writing for the majority to

1:15:48

spill ink early on in the opinion. I'm going to read

1:15:51

it to you in which they

1:15:53

reference a decision by judge Sotomayor and,

1:15:55

and the second circuit panel before she

1:15:57

even got on the bench, which

1:15:59

seems to be to be a signal about

1:16:02

Donald Trump in particular and here's here's

1:16:04

how page eight over

1:16:06

to nine of the actual opinion here's

1:16:09

what they wrote and what they referenced

1:16:11

and you could tell this was also

1:16:13

lobbying by Sotomayor as the draft opinion

1:16:15

was being circulated to get this into

1:16:17

the decision and as a reason it's

1:16:19

it's it's her particular decision is in

1:16:22

here here's what they've now said you

1:16:24

can use 18 USC 1512 c2

1:16:27

for and what you can't use it for when

1:16:30

the phrase otherwise obstructs influences

1:16:32

or impedes any official proceeding

1:16:35

is read as having been given

1:16:37

more precise content by that narrower

1:16:39

list of conduct in the

1:16:41

prior subsection subsection c2 which is

1:16:44

the one at issue here obstruction

1:16:46

of an official proceeding makes it a

1:16:48

crime to impair the

1:16:50

availability or integrity

1:16:52

of records documents or objects

1:16:54

used in an official proceeding

1:16:57

in ways other than those

1:16:59

specified in c1 for

1:17:01

example and here's the part that should keep Donald

1:17:03

Trump up at night over to page 9 it

1:17:05

is possible to

1:17:08

violate c2 by

1:17:10

creating false evidence rather

1:17:13

than altering incriminating evidence

1:17:16

see United States versus Reich

1:17:19

a Second Circuit case from 2007 written

1:17:22

by then judge Sotomayor

1:17:24

in which in parenthetical

1:17:27

they wrote prosecution under

1:17:29

c2 for transmitting a

1:17:31

forged court order it

1:17:34

also ensures that liability is still

1:17:36

imposed for impairing the availability or

1:17:38

integrity of other things used in

1:17:40

official proceedings beyond the records documents

1:17:43

or other objects in not in

1:17:45

the enumerated in c1 what does

1:17:47

that mean it means

1:17:49

that Donald Trump's use of fake

1:17:51

elector certificates which was at the

1:17:53

heart of the last gasp effort

1:17:56

to stay in power led by

1:17:58

Donald Trump Ken Chesky John

1:18:01

Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Mike

1:18:03

Roman, and the rest in which

1:18:06

they ginned up in fake certificates

1:18:08

in which we have the receipts because

1:18:11

in seven battleground states fake electors met

1:18:13

surreptitiously in the basement of state houses

1:18:15

or near the state house and signed

1:18:17

and sealed their name to this thing,

1:18:19

claiming it was an it was an

1:18:21

Elector Certificate, the purpose of which as

1:18:23

a forgery was to send it to

1:18:25

Mike Pence so that he would look

1:18:27

at the two competing slates or certificates,

1:18:30

one the real one certifying Joe Biden

1:18:32

as the winner of the Electoral College

1:18:34

and the other being the Trump one

1:18:36

and have him do one of two

1:18:38

or three things, either throw up his

1:18:40

hands and say, I can't decide which

1:18:42

are legit and which aren't. Let's turn

1:18:44

it over to the state delegations which

1:18:46

are led by Republicans majority to pick

1:18:48

the next president, meaning Trump

1:18:51

wins, that would be one to well,

1:18:53

these look more the fake look more

1:18:55

real than the real, you know, it's

1:18:57

like buying a purse on Fifth

1:18:59

Avenue from somebody on the street. This looks

1:19:01

more real than that. I'm

1:19:03

going to recognize the fake collector,

1:19:05

the forged evidence, fake electors certificates

1:19:07

and declared Donald Trump to be

1:19:09

the winner or

1:19:11

variations on those themes. That is exactly

1:19:14

the creation of fake evidence to impair

1:19:16

the integrity of an official proceeding. In

1:19:18

this case, the certification that I believe

1:19:20

is now been carved out. Now, why

1:19:23

didn't they drop a footnote that says

1:19:25

we know that there's a case out

1:19:27

there involving Donald Trump, but that's

1:19:29

because they have to deal with the facts that are in

1:19:31

front of them, in front of them with the record that's

1:19:33

in front of them. But you're right. Even

1:19:36

though when this new law gets raised

1:19:38

by Donald Trump right now, I think

1:19:40

he'll file this motion to dismiss two

1:19:42

of his four claims before Judge Chuck

1:19:45

Ginn, he'll claim that she's allowed to

1:19:47

make this decision now because it, you

1:19:50

know, she can lift the stay for this particular purpose as it

1:19:52

goes to the indictment or some bull. And he'll say the Fisher

1:19:54

versus us, us versus Fisher, you have to dismiss them. The government's

1:19:56

going to say, well, we're going to get this. say

1:20:00

no, see page 8 and 9. Your

1:20:03

fake elector certificates is a course of

1:20:05

a different color and it's going to

1:20:07

stay. But Judge Chutten's going to have

1:20:09

to do a normal, efficient briefing process.

1:20:12

Even if she got the case at the

1:20:14

middle of July, it will know better on

1:20:16

Monday, then she's going to have

1:20:18

to hold this first thing, which will push

1:20:20

us off until end of July or beginning

1:20:23

of August. And she's already

1:20:25

said whenever she gets the case back, if

1:20:27

the direction from what we expect on Monday,

1:20:29

is that she's going to have to take

1:20:31

a razor blade and cut some of the

1:20:33

things out of the indictment, if she's able

1:20:35

to, and sort through the indictment without

1:20:38

having to, or the jury needs to do

1:20:40

it on instruction, then she

1:20:42

can get this trial up and running again,

1:20:44

subject to the motion to dismiss these two

1:20:46

indict, these two issues, and set a trial

1:20:48

plus 90 days, which is what she said

1:20:50

she was going to give the defense if

1:20:52

she ever got the case back. But then

1:20:54

they could appeal the failure to dismiss the

1:20:57

two parts of the indictment. And

1:20:59

we're right back to this, this United States

1:21:01

Supreme Court, which is in summer session by

1:21:03

that point, and won't return to this matter.

1:21:06

And so they, if at all, until they

1:21:08

get back in October. Thorough

1:21:10

analysis there by Michael Popock.

1:21:13

A new father. Congratulations,

1:21:16

Michael Popock. Congratulations to

1:21:18

Natasha. We love everybody

1:21:20

sending their love

1:21:22

to Michael Popock and we love your

1:21:25

photos as well. We're, we are

1:21:28

so happy to have a new Midas Mini

1:21:31

in the family. There's Natasha

1:21:33

and Francesca right there.

1:21:35

I'll let you get back to

1:21:38

the family, Michael Popock. Thank you

1:21:40

so much. Thank you to all

1:21:42

the Legal AFers watching. Again, patreon.com

1:21:44

slash Legal AF. We don't have outside

1:21:47

investors here at the Midas Touch Network.

1:21:49

So that's a major way you can

1:21:51

help support this show is by becoming

1:21:53

a member and Michael Popock and I

1:21:55

will hold a special Zoom

1:21:58

meeting next month. So

1:22:00

if you ever wanted to meet Michael

1:22:02

Popak or myself and ask us a bunch of

1:22:04

the legal questions we perhaps have not answered

1:22:06

on any of the shows or hot takes, that's

1:22:09

a great time for you to do so. And

1:22:11

the last one, I think we pretty much

1:22:13

were able to answer every single

1:22:15

question that was asked and we'll

1:22:17

try to do so again. So

1:22:19

join it, patreon.com/legal. I will also

1:22:21

post updated lectures, longer

1:22:24

form lectures that we don't do on

1:22:27

the Midas Touch YouTube channel or our

1:22:29

other channels. Support our

1:22:31

pro democracy sponsors in the description

1:22:34

below. You'll find those discount codes, support

1:22:36

them. They help this show as well.

1:22:39

And thank you all to the Midas

1:22:41

Mighty, to the Legal AFers. We are

1:22:43

grateful for this community. Let's keep on

1:22:46

growing it together. Thanks for watching. Shout

1:22:48

out to the Legal AFers. Shout out

1:22:50

to the Midas Mighty and shout out

1:22:52

to Baby Francesca. Have a good one.