Legal AF REACTS to Major Legal DEVELOPMENTS in New Year

It's the midweek edition of LegalAef, but more importantly, it's the New Year's Day edition, Happy New Year's 2025 to the LegalAefers and the Midas Mighty. I got a little bit of a frog that jumped into my throat, but I will carry on. We will get through this entire episode. First prayers and condolences to the families and victims in New Orleans for what appears to be a terrorist attack.

and to the community of New Orleans, which of course, along with the German Christmas market and several other places, driving a car through a crowd of people and or using a gun seems to be the new way of causing mass casualty and death. And I'm sorry for that, especially that I have to talk about it here on legal AF at the start.

But we have a lot to talk about. I want to use this episode with Karen Freeman, Ignifolo, my partner, to kind of look back a bit, a little bit of a retrospective, but more importantly, look forward to what we can expect at that hot corner of law and politics going forward into 2025. We're ready for it. We are

tested, we are hardened, we've gotten through our issues since all the stages of grief since November the 5th and we got a job to do and we have a job to do that we could only do together and unified and with a community and that's where legal AF and the Midas touch

family comes in. We're so pleased. I don't know if people caught it on Ben Mysalis' and the Midas' substack, but when the new ratings came out, for most viewed and downloaded podcasts in the world, Legal IAF came in number eight, regardless of genre. Number one was Joe Rogan, but only for a short time. Number two was Midas Touch, the brothers' podcast, and we were at number eight.

And that is a reflection of, yeah, we're doing the content. Sure. Okay. But it's because of this.

tremendous outpouring of support by an audience and almost a family that is like no other on YouTube or anywhere else. And we appreciate all of you. Karen, before we dive into, like, topically, we're going to talk about three big things today. You've had time, I'm sure, to reflect about 2024 and 2025. Spend time with your family. What's your frame of mind? What are you thankful for coming into 2025?

Yeah, look, I mean, I'm thankful for my health. I'm thankful for my family. I'm thankful for my beautiful children and grandson. And I'm just trying to stay focused on that. And my goal for 2025 is to really keep my priorities straight and think about the things that matter. And that for me is really family.

You get caught up in work and we've been working so hard and all the podcasting that you just were talking about to get us to number eight, which is just astounding when you think about the number of podcasts that are out there. A lot of it is because some of us have held multiple full-time jobs, right? Practicing lawful time and podcasting almost full-time.

And it wasn't to get to any ranking. It was so that we could get information out there that's truthful and accurate and helpful given all that is going on in the world. And just the stakes couldn't be higher. And so I'm just grateful to have this platform and this opportunity and this community to really be able to share that and share information as opposed to disinformation.

And I'm just thankful for my friends and loved ones and thankful to you, Popok. And I'm looking forward to going into 2025, trying to have a little more balance in our lives, but it certainly doesn't look like that as things are heating up in various avenues of our lives. But I am looking forward to, hopefully, I was hoping, more peaceful 2025 to start out with these terrorist attacks and

is just pretty horrendous. So I just hope to God that the rhetoric that is out there from the far right, that is really fanning flames, doesn't cost more lives, you know, cost people more lives. That's what my hope is for this year, you know, whether you're left or right or Democrat or Republican or whatever you are.

Nobody should lose their life and nobody should. There shouldn't be danger. There shouldn't be violence. And that's my hope for 2025 is that regardless of your position that we could all live together and live together in peace and respectfully and agree to disagree and move forward. I'm going to break a little news here before we get into our topics in a career move for me. I'm going full time.

with my podcasting, my content making, my mind is touchwork, my legal AF, the election, sort of shape reshaped that in my family, the addition of my daughter.

And I decided to, I'm going to do two things. There's a new law firm that I'm going to be announcing soon here on the Midas Dutch network called the Popok firm that I'm going to be devoting a certain type of cases. I'll talk about that more when I'm ready to launch later in January, but it's really going to just be me spending a lot more time.

focused on the legal AF community, the Midas Touch community, and continuing to bring rigorous analysis and commentary to our audience here on the Midas Touch network and on Legal AF the YouTube channel. Couldn't do that. Kind of holding down a full-time job with having other partners. Time to go out on my own. You know, at 59, it's time to leave home and kind of do my own thing. So I wanted to kind of break that. That news for everybody here.

2025, a lot of lawsuits that are going to be filed. They've already been drafted, I assure you, against Donald Trump, Project 2025, his agenda, and the executive orders that he has already drafted and that will be executed, signed within the first 90 days, if not sooner.

And we're going to talk about the ones that we can expect and how the federal courts primarily are going to be federal courts are going to respond to the, you know, keeping the guardrails of democracy around Donald Trump. And what we're going to watch is this

this abuse of power in real time, this lurching from one constitutional crisis to another. And we're, I'm going to talk about what the lawsuits are going to do about that in 2025. Speaking of Trump lawsuits in 2025.

I want to give everybody with you, Karen, an update on the various things involving Donald Trump, because if Donald Trump thought he was just going to have a victory lap between now and the 20th of January, there's a hard cold rain falling and not just outside my window. There's a hard rain falling on Donald Trump. We're still waiting for Judge Mershan in the New York

Uh, hush money case involving Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen was a big person who testified in that case, the sentencing and the final motion to dismiss. We're expecting any day now, any moment now, at least the decision on the motion to dismiss and when sentencing will take place could we could get a decision on that well before January the 20th, just 19 days away, the New York fraud case.

We'll update you there. The $450 million fraud case against Donald Trump. That's up on appeal. And based on my watch and my internal clock from practicing in that particular courtroom and courthouse, we're there about ready to issue their decision on that. Eugene Carroll.

just won a huge victory against Donald Trump for one of her two defamation sexual assault and punitive damages cases. The $5 million judgment is going to stand and Donald Trump's going to have to pay it. But what about the $83 million judgment that she also obtained? We'll talk about that and update you there. There is a Mar-a-Lago appeal.

that is still going on. What I referred to on a hot take as a couple of laterals made by Jack Smith, one to Mark Kenzie LaPointe, who is the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, to step into the shoes of the Special Counsel in Mar-a-Lago. We'll talk about who are the parties left, what's the issue that's left, and what is Jack Smith trying to do between now and the time that Donald Trump can start pardoning people.

And then, of course, we're waiting on Merrick Garland, who I'm sure already has the two closeout memos, the two final reports by the special prosecutor against Donald Trump. And he has to get those published before the 20th of January, or time is up.

going to talk about that. And then finally, some updates on the United States Supreme Court. Every January 1st, the Chief Justice issues that his final report, his annual report, if you will, we got our head. It's got some interesting observations, including about matters that appear, there it is, the end of the year report, about matters

that you could easily interpret as where Justice Roberts had his at about the TikTok case that's going to be heard on the 10th of January. And if MAGA was all excited because E. Jean Carroll won her case against Donald Trump and they tried to turn lemons into lemonades, then they should read the final end year report by Justice Roberts because I could easily insert Trump's name into a number of the observations that the Justice has made.

And then, of course, we'll talk a little bit in advance of the TikTok oral argument. See, when the Supreme Court wants to move quickly, Karen, they know how to schedule oral arguments really fast and make decisions really, really quickly. It's when it deals with our democracy and immunity and everything else, and they take the slow boat. Let's bring back Karen. Let's get into it.

Yeah, what's going on? Yeah, 2025. Let's talk about the, how do you see the Attorney Generals and Democratic States, the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Unit, CRU, and other organizations that are, you know, fair-minded,

civil liberties, type organizations. They're ready for this. I mean, we've seen plenty of reporting that as early as 2023, they thought that Joe Biden wouldn't win. And if he didn't win, they wanted a plan B. So they're ready to go. When Donald Trump starts entering those executive orders, what do you think we're going to see in the first wave of lawsuits against his actions?

Yeah, so there's two things going on that I see. One is Project 2025, thankfully, is the playbook, right? It's as much as Donald Trump has tried to distance himself from it. He's hiring people who were the architects of it and now they're all basically saying, okay, now we can say it out loud, the thing that they were denying. So, thankfully, we got their playbook, right? We know what they plan on doing. We know what they are going to do.

And so what's happening is it's fairly easy for people who want to protect women's rights, immigrants against mass deportation, whatever the issues are, education, transgender rights, all the things that they want to dismantle.

I think there's going to be lots of organizations, namely the ones you just mentioned and others who are gearing up to protect people and to protect these rights and not let them roll back more rights, which is what they've been doing and been trying to do. I mean, look, what's dangerous is not just the executive orders that he's going to do on day one, but

They're going to control the House and the Senate as you pointed out in multiple hot takes that the House, the margin is getting narrower and narrower, but they still control both and will control both if they can get out of their own way in a point of speaker, of course, a speaker of the House. But that makes them even more dangerous because they can also pass legislation. But there's going to be lots of groups that are gearing up so that they are ready and they can file these lawsuits.

Hopefully, they're probably going to do the same thing that Trump does, right? Forum shop and bring them in places where they have favorable judges. They're not going to bring it to Judge Kasmarek, for example, where he's the one judge, the judge who outlawed Miffa Preston, right? I can assure you that they're not going to bring the cases there, for example. But you've also got a lot of people, especially the sanctuary city,

sanctuary cities and and states are gearing up to protect immigrants against mass deportation and you know that that's a whole fight that's going on as well as you've got you've got people who are going to be part of Trump's government basically saying threatening

mayors and attorneys general, et cetera, if they don't follow the law and really just continue the sanctuary city stuff and don't, their law, I should say, if they don't follow their requirements about these mass deportations. So that's going to be a huge fight that everyone's gearing up for. The other thing that's happening is a friend of mine and friend of the pod, Norm Eisen,

is somebody who is working with a network of people putting together a nationwide web of individuals like an infrastructure that's going to help people who are being unfairly targeted by Trump, whether it's

Whether it's prosecuted, whether it's audited by the IRS, whether it's reputational, all those types of things are putting together a support network to help people so that they don't go into financial ruin to prison, etc.

if they do, in fact, go after their enemies the way they have said and the way Cash Patel has said if he gets confirmed as head of the FBI. So what I see is everybody's getting ready and preparing themselves for all the things that Trump has said he's going to do out loud, whether it's Project 2025 or going after his enemies, et cetera. And I think it's a good thing to do, right, to be prepared. And that's exactly where we should be.

Yeah, I love that Norm Ison network, the state democracy defenders fund and all the other things that he does. Yeah, I think the first round that we're going to see is on immigration because the first set of things that Donald Trump's going to do with Tom Holman, his borders are his separate families, try to challenge. I think we're going to have a birthright citizenship under our constitution issue up to the Supreme Court in 2025.

because Donald Trump and his henchmen are not going to respect the Constitution when it says, who is a citizen of the United States? We, along with Mexico and Canada, we believe if you're born on our soil and you're subject to the laws thereof, in other words, you're not a person who is a born, you're not already a citizen of another country, then you are American.

And that goes back to an 1898 case involving a Chinese American who was born here to Chinese nationalists who were in San Francisco, who were still supporters of the emperor of China, but gave birth to a child on American soil. He grew up 21, left the country, tried to come back into the country, and he was stopped at the border and told he was not an American.

Well, 1898 Supreme Court said he was, and that's been the law ever since. And so Donald Trump doesn't like it. He calls them anchor babies and birthright citizenship, which is another sort of code word for I'm not going to respect the Constitution.

And, you know, you have home and threatening Democratic mayors in safe haven cities saying he's going to put them in jail if they don't follow the federal edicts. Well, if the federal laws and the federal edicts and the executive orders are not constitutional, they're not going to follow them.

And we're going to be in court on a regular basis. And here on legal AF, I mean, someone's like the Chinese New Year. The year of legal AF I think is going to be 2025, when all of these cases are going to have to be filed.

not because i want to just dispel something that that some people write in comments not so much our audience but in general which is that like the democrats want america to fail i don't want america to fail i want america to live by its constitutional ideals and its and its constitutional republic foundation prince foundational principles and therefore

Yes, we're going to go to court every time one of Donald Trump's executive orders in and around immigration policy, a woman's right to choose because that's the other area. That's one. Second area, we're going to see a lot of litigation being filed against Donald Trump and his policies are going to be in the area of protecting women's rights.

You know, Joe Biden got a number of things in place before he came out about the federal power, power of the federal regulation in a certain area as it relates to women's rights and the right to choose. States have now stepped forward. There's more states today than there were four years ago that have as part of their state constitution, either by judicial edict or by a vote amending the constitution. More states now support women's rights and the rights to choose them before.

And it's all going to come to a head. You know, you've got Texas right now suing a doctor group in New York because under telemedicine, they prescribed medication abortions using methapristone into Texas. So all the things that the Supreme Court probably would hope.

that they would never have to address ever again when they opened up that Pandora's box. All those Pandora's boxes are going to be coming back in the 2025 term through cases filed by the norm license of the world and the, you know, there's 17 states.

where they're all blue. They have the trifecta of both chambers of their legislature and the governor are blue and the attorney general is blue. So those are the states are going to lead the charge them in some other places, of course, where it's split ticket. But yeah, it's going to be a fever. And the other reason is because Donald Trump

is on a short track and he knows it. He only has, regardless of his bluster, he only has four years, okay? He doesn't have eight. And so he's trying to do maximum damage in the first two before the midterm election. And so we have to be prepared, we are prepared to shove back against that, pin him down with these lawsuits,

because he can't do everything that he wants to do all at one time. He just doesn't have enough time and he doesn't have the expertise or the mental discipline to accomplish all this. Nor a house that we're down to two. It's a two-seat lead. It could be one in early 2025. They're not going to get anything done again. We just have to stay leaning in.

holding this administration accountable rigorously accountable on a daily basis. And of course, we'll do that here on LegalAF. Let's move forward, Karen, to a Trump update on all the things Trump that have not yet been decided or some things that have been decided. Why don't you kick it off with, if you don't mind, why don't you kick it off with sentencing? We're waiting on Rashan.

And you can do anything else in that group that you feel like grabbing. Yeah, so as you were saying, there's a lot of legal cases that are wrapping up both civil and criminal and that are ongoing. And so for example, Jack Smith, although he dismissed the Jan 6 case against Trump, because he had to, based on the immunity decision,

The Mar-a-Lago case, he had to dismiss against Trump, but that case that's up on appeal in the 11th Circuit, because they are appealing the decision that Judge Eileen Cannon ruled saying that special counsels aren't legal, even though they've been used for years and years and years and years, including by Trump. That case, there's still two other defendants up on appeal.

Walter Nada and Carlos de Oliveira and Jack Smith sent that case over to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Florida to continue that appeal, which would require harder for Trump, it would require him to either pardon them or have his DOJ somehow just miss those cases.

or not pursue the appeal, but at least Jack Smith isn't doing it for Trump. He's going to make that decision. So that's where those federal criminal cases are. And the state criminal cases, the Fannie Willis case, that case, and I'll let you do the civil ones. I'm just pulling the criminal ones, Popak. So the Fannie Willis case in Georgia, the intermediate appellate court in Georgia ruled that she has to be disqualified from the case and that

she cannot continue the prosecution against him and the other defendants. And so that she is appealing that decision. And depending on what the Georgia Supreme Court does, either way, she is either going to be on the case, depending on what the Georgia Supreme Court does, or it will be assigned to another prosecutor. But either way, Trump himself is not going to be prosecuted while he

is sitting president. That part of him as a defendant will have to be put aside while she goes or somebody prosecutes the other defendants until after he leaves off, leaves office because you can't prosecute a sitting president that comes from a office of legal counsel memo and Department of Justice policy.

And if you ask, well, why would that apply to Fannie Willis? Well, because of the supremacy clause in the United States Constitution, it means that if it applies federally, it's going to have to apply in the state as well with respect to this. So that's that case. And then of course, there's the Manhattan DA case where he was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.

He has not yet been sentenced and in this interim period since the conviction lots has happened, right? He was convicted of all 34 counts and then the Supreme Court came down with the presidential immunity ruling. And so Judge Mershan, just I think a week or two ago, ruled on that that case does not affect this case. In other words,

that it was personal conduct, it wasn't while he was president, and any error, any evidence that they admitted that shouldn't have been admitted based on that decision would have been harmless, that the evidence was overwhelming. So he ruled on presidential immunity does not apply in this case. Well, Trump's going to appeal that.

And we'll see where that goes if he files a notice to appeal that and where he would do that and if he files a stay. But what Trump is waiting for is a second before he does that, is there's one more outstanding motion that Judge Marshan is going to rule on any day. And that's the sweeping motion to dismiss in the interest of justice that Trump filed recently as well, where they basically said, look,

Dismiss the case because he's about to be president, and you can't do anything, not just for president-elect, but also because he's going to be president, but also because he's president-elect. You can't do anything to distract him. The prosecution came forward and said, okay, well, if that's true, then let's just press pause until after.

He is president, but he wants it to be dismissed outright. And so we're just waiting on Judge Bershan to decide whether or not he's going to dismiss the case. I don't think it meets any of the factors for the motion to dismiss or whether if he's going to press pause until after he's president because

There is statutory language in the Presidential Transition Act that talks about the role of a president-elect. And there is a statutory role right now. And so there could be a scenario where Judge Mershan says, not only can we not go forward and continue this prosecution while you're sitting president, but also while you are the president-elect. So let's see what Judge Mershan decides there. And then, of course, there's sentencing.

which is not going to happen until this immunity decision is sorted by the appellate courts or after he's president. I don't see any sentencing happening before the inauguration, before he takes office, even if

It gets the imposition of the sentence. In other words, the judge theoretically could say, oh, we're going to have a sentencing hearing. I'm going to tell you what you're going to be sentenced to. And then I'll press pause and you'll do it later. I don't think I don't see that happening prior to the election. So there's a lot that still has to go on there. But any minute now, we're going to get this really important ruling on the motion to dismiss.

Yeah, agreed. And when we come back from our commercial break, we'll talk about the Eugene Carroll case, some of the civil cases. Donald Trump's already intervened in some of the civil cases that are against him. Like in Delaware, he's telling the Delaware Chancery Court judge that a case brought by the people who say they're the founders along with him of his truth social, the two guys that were on the celebrity apprentice.

that that case shouldn't continue against Cash Patel, FBI director nominee who's on the board and Devin Nunes, also coming into the administration under a temporary immunity doctrine. And yet in other places, he's suing, like, you know, he's suing and was prosecuting cases against ABC News and Disney and others. And yet, so he's using it as a shield and a sword. We'll unpack all of that.

The big win, the big loss for Donald Trump in the E.G. and Carroll case, along with the Mar-a-Lago appeal, what's going on there and how Jack Smith's trying to stick it to Trump and get some bad precedent off the books. It's clean up and I'll adjust this before January 20th, and Donald Trump can pardon those two guys you mentioned earlier.

And then Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland, where for art thou? And when are you going to release the two final reports by the special counsel? But first, we've got some amazing pro-democracy, fair-minded sponsors. They know what we do here.

They know who our audience is. And yet they want to advertise here. So we support them. We vet all of these products. We use these products. We like these products. And we're not pushing it. If you got spare change, spare money, disposable income, and you think these things will help you, that's a good way to continue to support the show. Other ways to support the show, you know what they are. Comments, for sure. Thumbs up, yes. We've a five-star rating over where all the audio podcasts.

that all went into the top eight in the world ranking that we got because of you all. We've got a new LegalAF YouTube channel. So over on, there it is, LegalAF M-T-N for those that were asking, M-T-N is my Dutch network. I curate it. We do it in collaboration over there. We've got some great contributors. Karen Friedman, it goes over there on occasion as well. So it was Dean Adal. So it was court accountability action and Sean Wu and all of them.

So go over there, help us continue to grow. We're trying to get to half a million subscribers before first term of 2025 that we're well on our way to accomplishing that. Karen's got her own podcast with a couple of her colleagues and friends. It's called mistrial on Thursdays on the Midas Touch network, Daniel Perry, a Kathleen Rice. I think we're due for a crossover episode, don't you?

I agree. I agree. I love those. We'll do that. I do too. We'll all get together on that. And then we got a Patreon, patreon.com slash legal. If I'm going to be doing more content on Patreon than I have been doing in the past, I was trying to get the channel kind of up and running. So patreon.com slash legal AF as well.

And we got some great things to talk about on the other side of the commercial break, besides picking up with all things Trump updates. Then we're going to talk about the Supreme Court, what Justice Roberts just said, Mike drop against Donald Trump effectively and the TikTok case and the TikTok case. But first, our sponsors. One of the single biggest predictors of how long you live and how good you feel while living is your metabolic health. Now, I strongly believe that you can't manage what you don't measure.

and metabolic health can be difficult to measure. This is why I use levels to track my daily health metrics and habits and ultimately optimize my metabolic health. Levels helps me understand how my food and lifestyle decisions are impacting my health. In the short term, I use levels to optimize my energy levels during the day and manage weight.

In the long term, I'm thinking about the many chronic diseases that are directly linked to metabolic health, including diabetes, heart disease, and Alzheimer's. I use levels with a continuous glucose monitor to get my own personalized data, which I've found to be really powerful to understand my own unique physiology.

But you can also now use levels without a continuous glucose monitor. I never realized how much a simple pizza could really spike my glucose until I started using levels. Levels provides me with powerful, real-time personalized information on how my body responds to different foods and activities. Having access to this data is a critical step to making better choices that will over time have a huge effect.

Levels has recently launched some exciting new features to help you track your macros. Protein, fiber, fat, carbohydrates, and sugar. And to create daily habits around your health goals, they also provide insights based on trends in your health metrics.

to help guide you to make decisions that will have a positive impact on your health. Metabolic health is about glucose and much more, and levels now helps you keep track of it all. Now is a great time to get started if you've been waiting for the right time to join levels to improve your metabolic health.

Right now, levels is offering my listeners an additional two free months of the level's annual membership when you use my link levels.link slash legal AF. I don't know how long this offer will last. So if you've been interested in learning more about your metabolic health, now is the time to get started.

Have you heard about this new bioactive whole food that seems almost too good to be true? It's got thousands upon thousands of five star reviews and literally life changing testimonials from users. Just having witnessed firsthand the birth of my baby daughter this summer, I know that colostrum is the first nutrition we receive in life and contains all of the essential nutrients our bodies need in order to thrive.

Armada colostrum is a proprietary, concentrated bovine colostrum that harnesses over 400 living bioactive nutrients that strengthen the barriers of your body and fuel cellular health for thousands of research-backed health benefits. It strengthens immunity, ignites metabolism, fortifies gut health, activates hair growth and skin radiance, powers fitness performance and recovery.

and confers powerful anti-aging benefits. Armra colostrum is premium bovine colostrum concentrate. And unlike any other product on the market, it is uniquely optimized for human health, sustainable, and was developed with the highest integrity from start to finish.

Armrest starts with sustainably sourced colostrum from grass-fed cows from their own co-op of dairy farms in the USA, and they strictly abide by calf-first sourcing, only sourcing the surplus supply of colostrum after calves receive all the nutrients they need. Unlike most colostrums, which use heat pasteurization that depletes nutrient potency,

ARMRA leverages their proprietary cold-chain, biopotent pasteurization technology, and innovative process that preserves the integrity and bioavailability of hundreds of bioactive nutrients. And ARMRA Colostrums' unwavering commitment to quality control is evident throughout our entire process. They go above and above industry standards and invest in an expensive auditing and third-party testing and analysis pipeline.

to ensure armor colostrum meets the highest bar of purity and efficacy, which includes being certified, gli-phosphate-free armor colostrum, fortifies gut health and ignites metabolism, combats bloating, and you'll feel lighter using it. Probiotics are touted as a gut health solution, but they only address one part of the four-part gut wall, and most products on the market are dead before they even reach your gut.

ARMRA colostrum naturally fortifies your entire gut wall system, optimizing your microbiome and strengthening the gut wall architecture, which guards against irritants that can trigger symptoms like bloating and constipation.

We've worked out a special offer from my audience. Receive 15% off your first order. Go to tryarmra.com slash legal AF or enter legal AF to get 15% off your first order. That's t-r-y-a-r-m-r-a.com slash legal AF. And we're back. Okay. E-gene Carroll. Let me see if I can untangle this, this, uh, this, uh,

conflicted bit of information I've seen all over the internet. There were two Eugene Carroll cases, right? She was the Elle magazine editor who a jury found was sexually assaulted in the dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman department store of the Bergdorf Goodman department store in New York, Catacorna to Trump Tower back in 1996.

And that is done. That is received wisdom. That is a jury 9-0 federal court having made that ruling. There were two cases because she was not able when she initially filed her case.

to file the sexual assault case because the statute of limitations had run as an adult survivor. So she filed what she could. That case is called, we call it Carol 1. That was about the defamation of her when Donald Trump denied a sexual assault that happened. So not for sexual assault per se, but for the denial, the defamation around the sexual assault, while he was president, no less.

That's in 2017. That case kind of got caught up in the whole immunity, you know, scope of his of his office, appeals that went off to appeal world. And I got tied up while all that was getting tied up.

New York passed a new law signed by then Governor Cuomo, which was called the Adult Survivors Act. A lot of states did it like California and New York, which allowed adult survivors of sexual abuse one year from the time the statute started in New York anyway to file their case against their tormentor who assaulted them.

And within that one year time, I think she had like a day to go. She filed along with her lawyer, Robbie Kaplan, a second case, now alleging the sexual assault and new defamation that wasn't covered by immunity because Donald Trump did it again after he was president in 2020. So they had a very clean case in the sense of not a lot of ways for Donald Trump to wiggle his way out of it.

That case, because it was a little cleaner, a little straighter, went to court and went to jury trial first. And in that case, the jury found sexual assault

and defamation and a total damages of $5 million. That case was handled primarily by Alina Haba. Donald Trump did not famously did not testify. Others did. Donald Trump didn't like that result. So he decided he would testify when the second trial came up several months later. In the second trial, the judge had already ruled on summary judgment

that Donald Trump could not argue that there was no sexual abuse because a jury had already found that there was. So that was law of the case, if you will. That was race judicata. He was prevented from arguing something different than a jury had already found in a related case.

So he already lost that going into the courtroom. The issue left was her defamation damages and punitive damages for what he said in 2020 after he was president. He testified in that case. The jury hated him and they awarded her $83 million. The first case, he appealed both.

The first case on the 5 million, he argued, similar to the second case, that the judge, Judge Kaplan, made several evidence rulings mistakes. We call it in the law reversible error, particularly letting other women who had been attacked by Donald Trump sexually testify in front of this jury.

But there's an exception that Congress has established for sex crimes, sex acts under rule 415 of the evidence code that allows in this circumstances, and really this circumstance only for people to testify about bad things that happen to them, to try to prove that this bad thing happened to aging Carol in this case. It's an exception to the general rule that you're not allowed to have what's called propensity evidence come in. That all came in.

The woman who was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump as she testified on an airplane and the People Magazine reporter who was sexually assaulted in a closet or walk in closet or whatever it was in Mar-a-Lago. They testified. Access Hollywood.

video came in, sorry, audio came in. The hot mic moment when he said he could grab a woman by her P word, her genitalia and get away with it. That came in and his testimony about that in a deposition. So when he said he didn't testify, he did testify because there wasn't a video deposition taken. And that was played for the jury on that point. Donald Trump said, all that should have been kept out. And it's all reversible error. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the highest court, federal court in New York said, you're wrong.

No reversible error. We don't agree with everything the judge did, but his heart was in the right place and he got to the right place with the decision making and he didn't abuse his discretion. So that now, we now turn, I think of that three judge panel, which wrote a majority opinion, three zero.

Based on that, I think the next three-judge panel, because it rotates on the second circuit, is going to rule against them on the $83 million one as well. So my prediction is, and on the immunity not to leave you hanging, on the immunity issue, he already appealed the immunity issue once with Alina Haba, she lost. They found that she didn't raise the immunity. She waived it. She didn't raise it at the appropriate time. She never raised it.

during the case. And so if you have an immunity defense, you have to raise it early or you lose it, and they lost it. Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court, did not bail out Donald Trump because he appealed that issue on immunity to the Supreme Court, and they've just sat on their hands. It's been two terms now, and they haven't taken up the case. So I don't think Supreme Court's going to bail him out on civil cases, giving immunity that he has the immunity to defame somebody that he sexually assaulted. They're going to stay out of that one.

So I think when we five, Eiji and Carol is going to get with interest, almost $100 million from Donald Trump. And for those that don't remember, there's, there's bonds behind this. He posted a $5 million cash bond, which I'm sure he's had an increase to cover the interest and the $83 million bond has a surety company behind it. So she is going to get paid through her lawyers for this, for this amount in this particular thing. Karen, what do you think about? What do you think about the Eiji and Carol and the justice here?

I mean, look, this amicus brief that John Sauer filed on behalf of Trump is just appalling because there's no law that's argued in it. And this is from John Sauer, who's going to be the next solicitor general, I assume, of the United States. He filed this, actually, you know what? I'm thinking of TikTok, sorry.

That was bad, too. No, keep going. No, no, no, no, but I'm conflating the two. No, it's all right. Todd, Todd, it was it was Blanche, Bovey and Sauer. It was brand. You were right. It was it was Blanche, Bovey and Sauer, all getting top jobs, the Department of Justice, who just lost the second circuit.

Yeah, that's true. No, that is true. But, you know, look, this whole aging Carol thing, the big question is, what's the Supreme Court going to do? Right? What is the Supreme Court going to do? Are they going to agree with the Second Circuit ruling that upholds this decision? Or are they going to, once again, do Trump's bidding? I mean, that's really the big question to me in the aging Carol case. You know, as lawyers, Popak, you and I can

analyze the law, read decisions, make predictions, et cetera, but really what the Supreme Court's going to do is anyone's bet these days that you can't really just kind of say, okay, this, if you apply the law to the facts here, this is what it is. It's really, they're just seem to be, they want a certain result and then they find the law that will fit that result and those results

more and more seem to be in favor of Donald Trump. And they're losing a lot of credibility with the American people and with a lot of lawyers, et cetera. I mean, it's really gone so far right. And even in the past, when you had left and right leaning Supreme Court, they still followed the law. And so it's just unclear what they're going to do here in the aging Carroll place. It kind of depends on what result they want is really what I see happening here.

you

Yeah, I'm not as concerned about the Supreme Court on this one because we're down to, despite what MAGA like lost their mind, they were like, George Stephanopoulos should read the Eugene Carroll decision. Yeah, I didn't understand that. How did they say that was a victim? Can you explain that to me? Because I don't speak MAGA. No, I can't explain it because they didn't obviously read the decision. The decision wasn't about defamation, which is what the George Stephanopoulos issue was on the issue of rape, nor was it about whether

a rape happened or didn't happen, which is, I guess, why they were jumping up and down like some weird minions. But the case was about purely technical issues about a trial judge's ability to make evidence decisions as the gatekeeper, which is given abusive discretion, broad birth,

to make those decisions. There's no way the Supreme Court is going to step in on whether Judge Lewis Capital was right or wrong about letting it a 415 rule of evidence, 415 propensity witness in or not. I just don't see the Supreme Court finding there to be a constitutional issue on that. And they've been sitting on their hands on the immunity part of it in the second case for a long time. So if they were jumping in, they would have jumped in already. I think he's sunk. I think he's going to have to pay the $100 million.

I mean, nobody should raise up a fundraiser for him. He's got a $4 billion worth of stock in true socials sitting in a trust fund. But she's going to finally get paid. And for what she's been put through and how horribly she's been attacked by MAGA and doxing. I mean, this woman who's pushing 80, she doesn't

She was trying to sort of unburden herself in her memoir and in other places about something that happened a long, long time ago that was traumatic. And she got victimized again by thought, you know, this better than anybody as a former sex crimes prosecutor.

Yeah, totally. I mean, she absolutely deserves to get paid and she gets deserves to get paid now. It's just like Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss deserve to get paid. I mean, just the way these people have been treated and their lives have been ruined, they deserve to get their money from Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump, whoever. You know, one of the things I wanted to say about Alina Haba that you mentioned, how she missed and didn't deserve an issue on appeal. You know, we saw her in this case and we saw her in the Judge and Goron case.

In addition to her being not a good lawyer, she's really also not a class act. I just read that she went to the Marlago New Year's Eve party and she carried with her a purse that had F, J, B in big white letters, you know, F, which is the same F that legal AF stands for. And JB, I assume Joe Biden,

But like, if Joe Biden, like, I'm sorry, she is just really the more she she just.

it gives lawyers serious lawyers in so many ways, just such a bad name. And so I just wanted to mention that because I just, I get so, you know, at least people like John Sawyer, Sauer and, and Miel Bovet and Todd Blanche, at least they're actually real lawyers. I very much disagree with what they, with what they do. But she just really, she's just really. She thinks she's an influence. You know, she, look, she went for representing parking

apologies to people that represent parking garages. She went from representing parking garage, she was doing parking garage law in a three-person office with her husband. I didn't know there was parking garage law. Yeah, I didn't either. Yeah, I didn't either. I caught a judge. You know, in Bedminster, New Jersey, Reno, and she found a way to worm her way in to Mar-a-Lago, sorry, to Bedminster in the golf course, to play golf with him,

take a couple of cases off his hands because she wanted to elevate and change the trajectory of her career as a lawyer and she's now decided she's conflated that celebrity notorious celebrity with being some sort of influencer because let's be honest her her life financially not morally not ethically not character

But financially is a lot better off today than it was before she decided that she was going to try to get Donald Trump to notice her. And so she's got to. This is it, man. I mean, she's making millions of dollars with FJB versus and all of that. It's disgusting. What happened? What happened to the MAGA?

rhetoric of, you know, looks all come together or looks all move forward. Let's take the tone down and all that. And she goes to a New Year's Eve party with a glamorous, you know, whatever, glittery dress. That's a very good point. That's a very John Sauer wrote a letter to Leticia James, the New York Attorney General. I'll just do a quickie on that one too, in which he said to the New York Attorney General on Thanksgiving that she should dismiss and vacate the judgment that she obtained for the people of the city of New York.

because citing Abraham Lincoln's Thanksgiving Day proclamation, JFK and George Washington's farewell address that for the good of the country to come together with Joe for Donald Trump, she should dismiss a $450 million judgment split screen FBJ purse at Mar-a-Lago by his inner circle, right? Right. Well, that's right. Well, that is the rigorous focus that we need to continue to do with the minus touch network and on legal AF.

Now, in Mar-a-Lago, as long as we're talking about these things, we just saw a lateral by Jack Smith. The reason he's keeping that case alive, even though he dismissed Trump from the appeal, the issue on appeal, to remind everybody, is whether Eileen Cannon, remember her? No, they're Eileen Cannon.

against the weight of 200 years of federal jurisprudence, including the United States Supreme Court level, in finding that the Attorney General has no power to appoint a special counsel nor fund it, despite the factors funding already on there since the 1980s in the Independent Council statute.

Attorney Generals have been appointing special prosecutors, independent counsel, and all that for hundreds of years. That has to come off the books. So the 11th Circuit, otherwise, it's the only law of the land right now, because she ruled, she ruled that it was, it was improper unconstitutional and illegal. The 11th Circuit, I assume it's going to be Chief Judge Pryor and others.

have been sitting on this case of whether she's been right or wrong. The only two remaining parties to the appeal besides the Department of Justice is Walt Nauta and Carlos D'Alviera, the maintenance worker and the butler. If they get pardoned, which they will be, come Jan 20.

There's no more case, because you can't have, we call it an advisory opinion. You have to have parties. So if those two go, and I think that case ends. So what Jack Smith did is he's gone out of business. He sent the case over to the Department of Justice's unit in Miami, which is the US Attorney for Miami, who happens to be Markenzie LaPoint, the first Haitian American to ever be a US Attorney, and he took it.

file this notice of appearance and he's going to stay in that case as long as Carlos and Walt are in that case to try to get the 11th circuit to reverse because this is now clean up, right? This is now the Department of Justice trying to take a bad precedent off the books. I mean, we don't blow smoke or sunshine, so let's just call it out here. Jack Smith and nobody has more love, mad love for Jack Smith than me.

But there's a number of bad precedents in the era of Trump that have come out. And part of it is because of the cases that Jack Smith brought. We got a terrible immunity decision that's going to stay on the books for a long, long time, even with people not named Donald Trump involved. We've got a terrible, it's not his fault on the Colorado case, but we've got a terrible Colorado immunity, sorry, 14th Amendment decision.

That's all the rage right now to be talking about. That's on the books. And now we've got this terrible decision by this trial judge about the ability to have the Attorney General appoint a special counsel and have to go in her view and have to go through Senate confirmation hearing in order to get a special counsel, which is wrong. So that's what we're watching happen right now.

trying to beat the appeal, trying to get the 11th Circuit to act. They've got it fully briefed. They can make their decision, and I'm hoping that they do. And lastly, Karen, in this segment before we turn to the Supreme Court, let's talk briefly about, is Merrick Garland, in your view,

It's time I start with Eric Garland. I start to break out like in a small sweat. Is Merrick Garland going to do what he said he's going to do and publish the two reports that statutorily Jack Smith was required to prepare to close out Mar-a-Lago and the Judge Chuck in DC election interference case? Yes or no?

So yes and maybe. So yes to the DC election interference case with Jan 6. The Mar-a-Lago one is trickier because it's going to have a lot of classified documents and classified information in there.

So I don't, I think that one's a little harder. I think we'll see probably a redacted version of it or a summary of it maybe. I don't know that we'll see the actual report because that one, that one has national security classified information in it. So, but yes, I do think we're going to see it. If we don't, you know, Merrick Garland is definitely a brilliant lawyer and

Nice person, but I don't know that in fact I think he probably wasn't the best attorney general for the moment in time that we are in and have been in and many of his decisions I think are going to be questioned and looked back upon in years to come and so we'll see what he ends up doing here hopefully he will.

Yeah, I agree with you on all of that. One thing just to keep us timely and lively here, you and I and Salty were talking before we started podcasting, and then I mentioned New Orleans. There now appears to be, at least according to NBC, a potential link between New Orleans and the Cybertruck blowing up in Vegas in front of the Trump building.

One, it looks like, according to NBC, that they're investigating now the Vegas explosion as a terrorist, potential terrorist attack happened at around the same time. And apparently that truck was rented from the same rental company as the ISIS flagged pickup truck that was used in New Orleans.

So this is an onion that needs to be continued to be peeled. But we're talking about the intersection of law and politics. And soon we're going to talk about Chief Justice Roberts worrying about the level of discourse in this country and how it can lead to violence. And so I think we have exhibit A right here on January 1st of 2025. Let's move into Roberts. So every year,

uh the chief justice and he's been the chief justice for a while issues his report now before we get into it you would think given what just happened in this past year for instance that maybe maybe remember this it seems like so much it seems so long ago but this was the year which Alito and his wife flew upside down flags of insurrection in front of their homes

Right. We had the expose by ProPublica and others about just how many millions of dollars Clarence Thomas has taken without having disclosed it in monies. We had the immunity decision last summer.

which gave rise to effectively Donald Trump's reelection or election. We had the Colorado 14th Amendment decision, 14th section three, which effectively killed any chance of having Donald Trump barred as an insurrectionist from being inaugurated. Should I go on? Yeah, so much went on. What does he decide to write about?

The independence of the judiciary is under attack by four different forces, including foreign trolling, and we should have better discourse and we should respect whatever comes out of these courts' mouth and not have public officials say that they're not going to. This is what he's decided to write 17 pages about. Should you get a chance to take a look at it?

Yeah, it was just, first of all, it was a disgrace. Number one, you're right, 17 pages long. And a third of it was a history lesson on King George and how King George controlled judges and then how John Jay, the first Chief Justice was

I know had gotten to some, I can't remember what kind of injury and then to Alexander Hamilton had to come forward and write the judicial independence. I mean, it was like, what do we, what was this obsession with the old timey days and history and why with all the things you just mentioned, Popok, why is it that I have to spend a third having a history lesson? Okay, I can go watch Hamilton on Broadway if I want a history lesson, you know, the musical. I mean,

It's just unbelievable to me that there's so much going on and so much going on that depends on the judiciary and the Supreme Court and how important it is and all the things that happened in 2024. And this is what he spent a third, a whole third of this very short 16 page report. And then as you said, he points out four areas that threaten judicial

independence, violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy lawfully entered judgments. So when I got to that part, I thought, oh, great, they're going to call out Trump. Because what does Trump do? Violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy lawfully entered judgments. No, doesn't call out Trump ever. And doesn't even call out Trump when you look to the fact that Judge Marshan went through this, right?

violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats. Judge Angorron went through this. Judge Chuckin went through this all because of Donald Trump and MAGA. And he doesn't call him out at all. He doesn't even kind of start to suggest that that's what it's about. And the other thing is they take absolutely, I thought the whole thing was tone deaf because they take no blame. They blame everyone else and not themselves, right? So he has no, he doesn't think that

that he doesn't mention or in any way take responsibility that maybe the drop in public support because nobody supports the Supreme Court anymore. Nobody has faith in them anymore. Maybe it's because of their own conduct. As you said, the hanging upside down flags of the insurrection flags, Judge Lito outside his house or the ethics violations,

or the decisions that they're that they're ruling on that are just outrageous, lawless decisions, right? They abortion-dobs. I know it wasn't this year, but still, like this Supreme Court came down with Dobbs' decision. That is judicial activism in the worst way. And so maybe those, these disturbing decisions and these disturbing

These disturbing things that the justices are doing and ethics maybe that's why people don't trust the judiciary and so it's you know he's just all about protecting themselves and this is why we have lifetime appointments etc you know and then they get to the appendix which is pages of like.

you know, statistics. Oh, we had this many bankruptcy cases and this many, you know, all this other stuff that just is ridiculous. And I thought it was such an opportunity and especially in this moment in time, I could see other times when it's like, oh, what do we write about? It was kind of a boring term. Let's just kind of do it. This moment in time where we are, I thought it was sort of a tone deaf and kind of outrageous report. I was really offended by it.

Yeah, I agree. Let me read some parts of it. Besides, I mean, anybody's a constitutional scholar believes that our founding fathers and framers are rolling in their grave about what this United States Supreme Court did with the immunity decision and with the 14th Amendment decision.

But here's just some quips by Chief Justice Roberts that I thought were interesting. At the end, this is on page four. At the end of the, whoops, lost my camera there, sorry folks.

At the end of the day, judges perform a critical function in our democracy. Since the beginning of the Republic, Robert writes, the rulings of judges have shaped the nation's development and checked the excesses of the other branches. This from a guy who penned the immunity decision, which effectively destroyed the co-equal branches of government and elevated the presidency above the other two branches.

But I digress. Here's what else he says. Of course, the courts are no more infallible than any other branch. In my sight, some judicial decisions were wrong. How about are wrong? Sometimes egregiously wrong. And it was right of critics to say so. In a democracy, especially in one like ours, with robust First Amendment protections, criticism comes with the territory. I agree with that so far.

Unfortunately, he continues, not all actors engage in informed criticism. Well, now he's mocking people. He doesn't think are bright enough to criticize his analysis and his jurisprudence or anything remotely resembling it. I feel compelled to address four areas of illegitimate activity that do threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends.

violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy lawfully entered judgment. So that's how he's framed his entire end of the year report, not on why they're rated at 10% approval rating for the Supreme Court, why people don't trust them, but it's the independence of the judiciary that's under attack.

Then he goes on to talk about attacks on judges. There's only one person, there's only one person that's occupied a position of power and authority that's been attacking judges lately. Oh, what's his name again? Donald Trump. So for him to spend any ink on page six and to say, today in the computer era, intimidation can take different forms, disappointed litigants like Trump.

rage at judicial decisions on the internet, urging readers to send messages to the judge. They falsely claim that the judge had an in for them because of a judge's race, gender or ethnicity, or a political party of the president who appointed the judge. There's only one person that fits that bill. His name is Donald Trump.

Then he goes on on page seven to say, public officials too. This is the Trump again, regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges, for example, suggesting political bias in the judge's judicial rulings. I mean, that's just Trump going after Kaplan, Mershan, and Goron, you name it, down in Florida, middle Brooks, no one else, no other Democrat does it.

You know, you didn't see Hunter Biden attack the judge. You didn't see Robert Menendez, the Senator of New Jersey attack the judge, you know, and here's another thing. He talks about hacking, but he's got a case in front of him we're going to talk about next, which is about TikTok.

and TikTok and the fact that the Chinese Communist Party effectively controls TikTok and undermines our national security. We're not just watching TikTok. TikTok is watching us and that's a problem for national security. And he's got a major case on whether the Biden law passed by Congress to force the sale of TikTok is constitutional or not.

whether the 140 million people that use it have First Amendment rights and overcome national security. So listen to this, for a guy that's going to be sitting listening to an oral argument on the 10th of January, supposedly with an open mind, he said the following. Much more is this on page seven. Much more is needed in a coordinated national scale, not only to counter traditional disinformation, but also to confront a new and growing concern from abroad. In recent years, hostile foreign state actors

I'm looking at you Chinese Republican Party. I mean, sorry, it's merged Chinese Communist Party. In recent years, hostile foreign state actors have accelerated their efforts to attack all branches of our government, including the judiciary. In some instances, these outside agents feed false information into the marketplace of ideas. For example, distorting judicial decisions using fake or exaggerated narratives.

or stealing information. Okay. Well, I hope that same guy that wrote that is the same person listening to the oral arguments of the Chinese Communist government when they come into court on the 10th of January. And then you've got, I'll turn it to you now, Karen, you got Donald Trump, who lobs in a John Sauer special, speaking of a brief filed.

in which he says, judges, judges, do I have your attention? I'm the president coming in January 20th. I'm a deal maker. I'm going to get this thing done. I'm going to come up with a deal. Don't make a ruling on the Constitution. So you got a non-party who's asking for an injunction or a stay of a case that's pending in front of the United States Supreme Court because his name is Donald Trump. What do you think about it all?

I mean, like TikTok's not going anywhere either. And if the Supreme Court rules that somehow that the law stands and rules against TikTok, it kind of doesn't matter because it'll just slow down for a little while. It's not that it's going to go dark. It'll just, it'll be stopping supported in the app store and you can't download the app, et cetera, but it'll still go for

the 10 days from, you know, after the, after the ruling or, or they'll rule on January night, you know, they'll have oral arguments on the 10th and then they'll wait and hold it and wait for Trump to make some deal and then do it after the fact, right? That's how they're going to, that's how they're going to finagle this. I just don't, either way, Trump has got something in the works, whether it's Elon Musk buying it from bite dance or whether it's

True social buying it from bike dance. I don't know. He's got something in the works, which is why he's sort of hinting. He never says anything for no reason. And so his little kind of I have a warm spot for them. You know, he's sort of planting the seeds and he's going to figure out a way to do it.

regardless of what the Supreme Court does, and they'll figure out a way to save it. But I don't see TikTok going away completely. That's what I think. But, you know, John said, the amicus brief that John Sauer submitted, I kept looking for, where's the law? What does he say? Like, what's the legal hook?

There was no law. It was basically a, you know, it was a weird amicus brief to file because he didn't really hook it on the law. He just said, he's going to be president. He's a great deal maker. Trust him and he'll make this work kind of thing. I mean, it was just- That's not how courts work. I mean, he's a non-party to the, I'm sorry that this is when the law was passed so that by the 20th of January, 19th of January, they have to sell the thing.

um because they didn't want it to be you know um partisan and now he's like well no no don't make a ruling i mean that's not a thing a party a non-party a drive-by party to a case going don't make the ruling yet i think i can fix this that's not a thing and i don't think it's going to be a thing for the supreme court either we i haven't seen notice although we'll report back here if it happens and they're going to cancel the tenth of

of the oral argument on the 10th, and they're going to have to rule before the 19th or issue a stay. They have an issue to stay yet about the forced sale. So I think they're going to see how the briefs work out. The Chinese government, sorry, TikTok bike dance, their main argument is it's not their first amendment rights. It's the first amendment rights of 140 million US citizens that use TikTok. Yeah.

Right, except the fact that that undermines our national security because of the way TikTok is controlled by the Chinese government and they use all the algorithms and they use all the links and they use all the information on there to undermine our national security. So that is a major problem. So I think they're going to have to ultimately make this ruling. But let's see, like you said, can't trust the Supreme Court. I don't know what they're going to do. They're going to do whatever helps Donald Trump at a given moment.

Right? I hope when we come back, you know, after the oral argument, we'll have a better sense of what's happening and whether they're even listening to the Amicus brief at all. He hasn't moved to intervene. He can't like intervene in the case. I mean, at all. I think they're going to take, I think the problem is for Trump, it's a short track. They got a hearing and a forced sale. Now, maybe what they do is they take the oral argument, they issue a stay

to give them time to rule so they don't allow to go into effect. Let Donald Trump to come in, they change the sheets, they bring in John Sauer or somebody else's now the solicitor general, they file a brief on behalf of the US government that says the part, you know, that our new official position is not to sell. But the problem is there is a law passed by Congress

Right? And if you care about the separation of powers, which Roberts always says he cares about, it's a law on the books. And until there's not a law on the books, then it has to be sold.

Unless, of course, Trump says, I'm not going to enforce the law. That was another thing Robert's talked about, right? That's one of the things he talked about in this report was there's some discussion out there by people saying, well, you know, that frankly, the judges in some ways are powerless unless somebody, you know, they don't have the power of the person. They don't have, you know, the power of like, they just, they don't have. You can't speak freely.

Yeah, I mean, they just can't, they don't control anything, right? They interpret the law, like Congress passes the laws, right? And the executive branch enforces the laws. And so what does the judge do? They interpret it. But if they say this is the law and nobody enforces it, right, then what happens? And so that's one of the things that he even calls out that people are talking about, that has to be worried about, right?

That's the judicial branch depends on people actually enforcing and following the laws that they interpret. Right. And so, right. That's why we had with desegregation, you know, RFK, the Department of Justice and others forced their way into a state that was blocking children, you know, diverse children from going to school. Exactly. But if you didn't have JFK and RFK,

and you had RFK Jr. and Trump, and they're not going to be enforced. And that is what I guess he's worried about. It's not the Democrats that aren't going to enforce the law. It's Trump in the executive branch and he is. Because one thing we're going to see, we'll sort of leave it on this.

is we're going to see the complete destruction of the independence of the Department of Justice and the FBI under Donald Trump. They are just going to be playthings, lap dogs for Donald Trump. And people from around the world might think, well, they are inside the executive branch. That is true. But we have figured out that it was better to have independence of our Department of Justice and FBI ever since Nixon at least. And everybody has respected that, not Donald Trump.

And the other thing too is this is why just kind of segue, this is why Cash Patel is so dangerous to be the head of the FBI because he's not qualified. He's just not qualified and he wants to just go after enemies and political access to grind, etc.

that just what's happening right now as we speak that what the FBI is doing the FBI is out hunting down terrorists what looks like it's looking like is going to be is a coordinated effort of terrorists both in New Orleans and in Las Vegas is as you said that they're linking the trucks together that's all because of investigation by the FBI and these are career excellent in people who aren't out there doing anything other than trying to save our lives and follow the law

And so when you need to have someone who has that same point of view and that same experience and that same talent, and Cash Patel just isn't that person. But I feel safe for knowing that the FBI is out there and that they've already made these links and that they're going to find these people and protect us and that we're not going to hopefully be under siege because of these terrorist attacks. And they can't erode that. They can't no matter how many times Donald Trump's going to criticize

and really just say terrible things about our law enforcement and our Department of Justice. And I'm talking about the career people. I'm not talking about the political people who are appointed to these positions. He's going to really take away what's great in this country. And that's my concern. And Cash Patel is really up there with why we really need to have someone who's qualified and not dangerous as head, not him.

Yeah, and we won't. And Tulsi Gabbard, who heads 18 different intelligence organizations, we are not going to be safer at all with the people that Donald Trump is going to put these puppets that he's going to put in these various positions. But we'll continue to follow. We're so glad that everybody's here with us on this New Year's Day edition of Legal AF, again, various ways to support us.

Legal AF, the YouTube channel. We're trying to build that up to half a million people by the first quarter of 2025. I think we're definitely on our way. We're over 380,000 already in just two, almost three months. Legal AF, MTN. I'm curating over there. I'm doing a lot of the content along with others and some exclusive shows. You can't find anywhere else at the intersection of law and politics. Oh, so important.

Hit the free subscribe button for that on Midas Touch Network, help them there as well. Midas Touch has a sub stack called Midas Touch Plus with a lot of great content over there run by the brothers and Ron Philipkowski and investigative reporting that's being done over there as well. Got a patreon, patreon.com slash legal AF for some exclusive content. You can only find there. Karen's got a show called Miss Trial on Thursdays.

I've, there you go. Karen Freeman, Nick Niflod, Daniel Perry, and Kathleen Rice at the intersection of law and politics. I got a show I do now called Popok Live on Tuesdays at 8 p.m. Eastern Time right here on The Minus Touch Network. I'm taking questions. I'm giving answers.

It's Popok unplugged, 8 p.m. Eastern time on the Midas Touch Network. And then we've got our great pro democracy sponsors, some of which you saw this evening. And we got a whole bunch that we've, Jordy has worked so hard to line up for 2025. We're so proud of that. So Karen, last word, beginning of 2025. Take us in. Take us in something helpful, optimistic. Haha, optimistic. Look, I'm optimistic because we, this country is founded on hope and

I think most people are good at heart, and I think we're all going to come together and band together and make our country a better place, regardless of who's president. And I think I'm feeling very hopeful. I wasn't right after the election, right? After the election, I was feeling very hopeless, but I'm feeling very hopeful again, and nobody's going to break our spirit and break the spirit of this country.

Love it. Love that sentiment. See us here Saturdays. This coming Saturday, Ben, my cellists and me. Next Wednesday, Karen Freeman, Niffalo and me. Might as touch legal A efforts. Can't do it without you. Love y'all.