Legal AF - 2/11/2026

22:11Michael Popok:Agreed. Well, there's other examples of that, but I agree with you. Let's look at her reaction to Representative Neguse reminding her that somebody who was part of the Jan 6th insurrection and chanted for the death of the police now works in the Department of Justice. Let's play the clip.

22:42Attorney General Bondi, that man works for you now, right?

22:48Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Who was that, Congressman? The man in that video, the one who was in the police-worn body cam footage, the one allegedly yelling, kill him, at police officers on January 6th. His name is Jared Wise. He does work for us. He works for you at the Department of Justice. He does. This is an individual whom a federal grand jury indicted for two felonies and four misdemeanors related to his participation in the attack on January 6th. One of those charges was forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, and interfering with police with the intent to commit another felony. This is who you choose

23:29Michael Popok:as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America to hire at the Department of Justice.

23:34Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Someone on video yelling kill him at police officers, right? I believe he was pardoned by President Trump. Oh, he was pardoned. You're right. You're right. Pardoned by President Trump for his offense, pardoned for yelling, kill him, at police officers. And yet you expect hardworking police officers across the country to believe that you take law enforcement seriously. You could imagine the reaction of so many folks across the country hearing the chief law enforcement officer of the United States refuse to even condemn what that individual whom you've now hired did but in any by the way keep an eye on representative joe negus uh this is this is a

24:27Michael Popok:star in the democratic party rising he's he's a plaintiff in uh in successful cases against this administration uh i yeah put put put put a star next to his name because you're going to be hearing a lot more from joe negus especially the way he's handling himself in these hearings um jan 6th insurrectionists that said kill the police now work in the Department of Justice? And all she says offhandedly is, well, he was pardoned.

24:58Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Honestly, it's outrageous. And I thought it was really effective how he asked that question and showed that clip. But everyone needs to understand and know who they're hiring and what they're doing. The Department of Justice doesn't look anything like it used to. People are leaving in droves. Career prosecutors are leaving in droves. And they're putting out job openings, like they want to hire people, job postings for lawyers to go work at the Department of Justice. And the job qualification is that you believe in Donald Trump and that you basically serve him as opposed to the Constitution of the United States.

25:38Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And it's just unbelievable that what is happening there and what they're doing. And these are the people they're hiring. These people who had to be pardoned by Donald Trump for yelling, kill him, the cops. So I agree. He was excellent. He asked good questions. And I think the American people need to understand what this Department of Justice consists of at this point.

25:58Michael Popok:Absolutely. And for those here tonight, leave your questions in comments. We will try to answer them right before we take or some of them right before we take our commercial break. Let's go to Howard Lutnick. People know I used to work for Howard Lutnick a number of years ago. is back in the news because his days of magical thinking and hoping that nobody would know what was in the Epstein files is now over because it looks like he had a much closer financial and business relationship, personal relationship, than he revealed just four months ago during a podcast where he said, I was so disgusted by his massage tables in his dining room that I would never be in that person's presence ever again for anything social or charitable.

26:46Michael Popok:It's funny, it was like a tell because he was involved with him socially. He was involved with him in business and he was involved with him charitably. Seriously, it was like a major tell for the guy. So of course, after he had to come forward yesterday in his own appropriations committee hearing, hoping he dodged the Epstein bullet and had to admit that he had, and it was really disgusting too, because he brought his wife, Lutnick brought his wife to the hearing. Seriously, you got to embarrass your wife and bring mommy to your hearing? It just shows you the depravity of this administration. They'll use any political prop, even their wife, to try to get out from under their own poor judgment, to put it that way.

27:31Michael Popok:So Bambandi, of course, needs to be prepared to answer questions about members of the cabinet that have a closer relationship with Epstein, besides Donald Trump. And here's Representative Ballant talking about Lutnik and Bondi's response to it, which is, again, over the top and ridiculous. Let's play it.

27:48Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Who is Chris May. Was the president aware? Please stop talking. It is not your time to ask questions. It is not your time. I'm reclaiming my time, Mr. Chair. One second.

27:58Michael Popok:Time belongs to the JLA from Vermont.

28:00Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Was the president aware of Secretary Lutnik's ties to Epstein when he chose him to lead the Department of Commerce. Was he aware? Chris Malin was a Border Patrol agent. Okay, so I'm going to conclude that the president, in fact, did know about his ties because he was the next-door neighbor. Shame on you. Oh, for goodness sakes. This is pathetic. This is pathetic, Mr. Chair. I am not asking trick questions here. The American people have a right to know the answers to this. These are senior officials and the Trump administration. Right.

28:38Michael Popok:And her response is to talk about some state trooper in her district in order to distract attention from the questions. And that person you hear in the background struggling to keep order and always siding with the members of Congress because he has to is Representative Jim Jordan who chairs that committee. So when you hear, oh, the time belongs to the gentlewoman from wherever. Right, because he has to do that from a parliamentary procedure. And you know what? The next time, if Pam Bondi even makes it to the next hearing, why don't we have her bound and gagged? Why don't we have the sergeant at arms, yes, to keep decorum for an out-of-control witness?

29:19Michael Popok:Yeah, this is where this is going, everybody. I mean, Karen and I have been in courtrooms where there's been acting out inappropriately. And what do federal judges do? If you have one more outburst to breach the decorum of this proceeding, we're going to have you removed, and even criminal defendants have you removed from the room. And that's what's going to happen here, except the Democrats don't want that because they want more of Pam Bonney, because the more she talks, the more she acts out, the more she lashes out, the better it is, frankly, politically for the Democrats, because you see the mask is off from this administration.

29:59Michael Popok:You know, this whole, remember, we don't have the videos, but remember when she was in her confirmation hearings? I will be an independent, a head of the Department of Justice. I will not use it to weaponize, really, all the lies that RFK Jr. told during his confirmation hearing about vaccines, all the lies that Pete Hegseth told, all the lies that Pam Bondi told, right? We don't forget on Legal AF, on Midas Touch. Congress doesn't forget. And we don't even have time to show you like Jamie Raskin taking her down. Let's show though one of my favorites, which is Congressman Moskowitz. The Moskowitz burned about her prep for him.

30:46Michael Popok:And also how many times Donald Trump is in the Epstein files by name. Let's play it.

30:52Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Now I'm at a return journal. I have like 25 seconds left. So because I'm curious and I just I'd like to see you flip to the Jared Moskowitz section of the binder. I'm interested to see what staff provided on the on the oppo on me. And because we're in the Olympics, I'm going to give it a grade. I just want to see how good it is. So give me your best one. So, first of all, nothing is funny about mocking the Bible and holding up a Bible. That's what you did. You made a joke and I find a sense to that. That's all I have to say. I want it from the burn book. Shame. I want it from the Bernberg, which is the best one.

31:25What you got has expired.

31:27Karen Friedman Agnifilo:The gentleman from Wisconsin's recognition. Thank you.

31:32Michael Popok:Earlier, he said that heard that Trump's name appeared more often than Harry Potter in the Potter series of books. And his name appeared more often. I guess he said Jesus in the Bible. And of course, she thinks she's in some sort of long lost episode of Game of Thrones where she can just say shame, shame her way through her responses on the way out. I mean, if Donald Trump thinks this is effective for anything other than the most MAGA of his MAGA base, which is now down to about 30 percent of the country, because I'm trying to figure out what, you know, we got to think like the other side, right?

32:14Michael Popok:Karen and I are trained litigators, trial lawyers. You'd be remiss if you didn't think about how the case from the other side's perspective. That makes you a more effective advocate. But when I think about, what is the audience for this? 70 % of America believes this is a failed presidency. That means 20 to 25 percent of MAGA and red moved over into the Donald Trump's a loser category. The number is even higher for independents and even higher still for voters under 30. They all want their vote back. and continuing to trot out insubordinate, unethical, and unhinged cabinet members and put them into that hot seat is not doing Trump and his numbers any favors.

33:10Michael Popok:So Karen, who's the audience for this?

33:12Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Yeah, I can't imagine that anyone thought she did well. I mean, even the most MAGA of MAGA, she really did not. I mean, she did not come across as well as as a as even for MAGA. I thought she came across horribly. So I think she was trying to be, as you said, kind of Carolyn Levitt, you know, really sort of aggressive and and and answer questions like that. But I did not think she did well at all. And she did not look professional. She did not look lawyerly. And so I think what the picture that Salty just put up was crazy because so what that is, what you see there is she essentially she what she did was she went into the computers that the Department of Justice set up for members of Congress.

34:00Karen Friedman Agnifilo:This was one of the most outrageous things that we learned today. So in addition to all the files that were released to the public, they set up, I think, four computers in the Department of Justice for members of Congress to be able to go in and look at the files unredacted. And so they went in there and they went in to look at the files, et cetera. She then, her people went in to those computers and looked at the search history of each member of Congress to see who they looked up. And they made charts and diagrams. And she was using that against the members of Congress. That is outrageous. I mean, I cannot believe they are doing that, that they are doing surveillance on members of Congress who are legitimately trying to represent the American people and frankly do their job.

34:54Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And their job is to be a check, OK, a check against the executive branch. And they are doing surveillance, computer surveillance and looking up her search, their search history. Outrageous.

35:09Michael Popok:sorry folks absolutely absolutely we have some uh we're going to take our first break here in a minute but we do have some questions uh kathy hoffs 3166 can't says can't those attorneys in the white house working for trump and against we the people be disbarred yes now the florida bar where pam bondy will crawl back under her rock when this administration is over it's not a two-term administration. It's not like these people can go, well, for the next eight years, I'll be working in the White House. No, you won't be. Okay. We're down to the sands of time here. You know, and if Donald Trump doesn't make it the whole way, it's even shorter than that.

35:50Michael Popok:So when she goes back to Florida, Florida Bar, because I'm a member of the Florida Bar, has taken the position, which I don't agree with, that they can't do a thing about somebody in a federal office, even if they're using their bar license until they leave federal office. Okay. Like Lindsay Halligan, also a member of the Florida bar. Now would be a great time to reopen the investigation about Lindsay Halligan and her professional malpractice. Same thing with Pam Bondi. So those that hold the law license, JD Vance, by the way, has a law license. At least he passed, he went to law school. I have to look into that.

36:25Michael Popok:So yes, just as a half a dozen or more of the first round of Trump lawyers, first wave were indicted, disbarred, and convicted, you know, some all three, it's going to happen to this group too. You know, we thought as lawyers, frankly, and the bar, the big B bar thought that it would have taught a lesson, all the indictments and disbarring and convictions of the first wave of Donald Trump lawyers for the next generation. Nope, didn't, not at all. You know, power is a drug. It's an aphrodisiac, right? They're drunk with power and they think they enjoy the same superhero powers that Donald Trump has, you know, superpowers, which is immunity and they don't.

37:23and the sooner we can either get Republicans.

37:28Michael Popok:And every time something like the tariffs for Canada get struck down, when six Republicans go pound sand, Donald Trump, we're going over there, we're one inch closer to having impeachment proceedings start even before the midterm elections. At the midterms, at the rate we're going with 435 members of Congress, this is how we do it, everybody around the world, every two years, 435 members of Congress all up for election at the same time. When that happens, we just need 218. Polling right now, the prediction, the predictive models, 225, maybe higher in the House. We won't even need a Republican to do the impeachment proceedings.

38:09Michael Popok:But along with a lot of other things that will help the American people, you know, like passing bills that will help the American people. This organization hasn't, the do-nothing Congress under Mike Johnson hasn't done a darn thing. The Senate, you know, we'll have to see. You need a lot in the Senate. You need two-thirds in the Senate to remove on a conviction for impeachment. But all right, so that's what happens there. Sassy Granny, 01P1 says, wonder what the victims will do next? Yeah, I mean, we're working with some of the victims, some of the survivors. They're working together. They're working on state and federal legislation to get rid of statute of limitations to bring civil lawsuits against their predators.

38:51Michael Popok:That's one major thing they're doing. They're working on the next round of Epstein laws because the one that passed is not enough. We need another one to go after the documents of the executive branch that are with the Treasury Department, the IRS, banking. There's lots more piles of documents that are not just DOJ and FBI. They're working on that as well. That's the two major areas that I know, I know Lisa Phillips in particular is working on that. One more. This one's for you, Karen. Margaret Wilson wants to know if there are state charges that can be brought against these Trump officials for abusing states' rights and the people of the states.

39:35Michael Popok:So state criminal laws or civil laws that could be used against Trump officials.

39:42Karen Friedman Agnifilo:I mean, sure. If they absolutely violate, if anyone who commits a crime, other than the president who has immunity while he's in office, anyone who commits a crime and commits a state crime can absolutely be prosecuted against this, you know, if it happens in that particular jurisdiction. That's the difference between state and federal law is in a state, it has to happen in that local jurisdiction. And so as we saw, that's why Donald Trump was prosecuted by the Manhattan DA's office and he was convicted and other crimes that people commit that are in that particular jurisdiction absolutely can be prosecuted by state prosecutors.

40:23Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And I think that's what we're going to see a lot of. For example, the ice shootings, et cetera, that are happening and killings. And if we see that the Department of Justice isn't going to do anything, I think we're going to see the local officials who are going to do those investigations and, if appropriate, prosecutions for those offenses. So absolutely, I think that this is where the states are going to step up and you're going to see justice being done at the local level.

40:51Michael Popok:Great. Now's your chance to ask questions of Karen or me or both. Put them in the chat. We will collect them at our commercial break and our sponsor break, and we will answer them when we come back. so many different ways to support what we do on Legal AF podcast. Always a great start. Keep us in the top of the rankings because that gives us the street credibility we need to continue to meet the moment and defeat the Trump administration with this audience, with this community. Come over to the podcast on audio, leave five-star reviews and comments, bring people to the audio and the podcast to grow the audience.

41:28Michael Popok:And then, of course, we've got this YouTube channel. I mean, last week's show Karen did with one of our colleagues, Lisa Graves, 400, 500 ,000 people watched that show. We got 12 ,000, 13 ,000 people watching tonight. And so we have lots of people that can help us attain these goals to grow. And then you've got the Legal AF YouTube channel, which is at 1 ,050 ,000 subscribers with your help. And so becoming a card-carrying member of Legal AF means coming over there and watching the 12 videos that we do over there every day and new content and lives. You know, Supreme Court's going to be doing oral arguments soon on birthright citizenship.

42:10Michael Popok:Where to go for that? One-stop shopping? Legal AF YouTube under the live tab, just like we had the Pam Bondi. You want to watch the full Pam Bondi right now, you can go, well, not right now, but after the show's over, you go over to Legal AF YouTube and pull it up. You'll see her face there and you will be able to watch it. And then we've got a Substack. If you know what Substack is, you got to be a part of Legal AF Substack. And to encourage you, we're running a 35 % off sale on annual membership, 10, 11, 12 new pieces of material every day, essays, writings. I do two lives a day, two live recordings and reports a day with an audience with questions that I'm able to answer.

42:52Michael Popok:And if you don't know what Substack is, Go check it out. It's an amazing world. Any interest or hobby that you may have, regardless, somebody is an expert and is writing about it and doing some amazing page like ours, the Legal AF Substack. And then, of course, we've got our sponsors, some of which have been with us forever since like five, six years ago. Some of them are new. All of them know who our audience is. They know our point of view in terms of what we talk about, and they are here for it, and we're here for them. And here's a word from our sponsors. This episode is brought to you by IQ Bar, our exclusive snack, hydration, and coffee sponsor.

43:30Michael Popok:IQ Bar protein bars, IQ Mix hydration mixes, and IQ Joe mushroom coffees are the delicious low sugar brain and body fuel you need to win your day. The new year means a clean slate. Time to power your day with IQ Bar. Their ultimate sampler pack is a great way to try everything. You get nine IQ Bars, eight IQ Mix sticks, and four IQ Joe sticks, and all IQ Bar products are packed with clean ingredients that keep you physically and mentally fit, like magnesium and lion's mane. The new year gives us all a chance to reset, maximize your brain and body's potential with IQ Bar's protein bars, hydration mixes, and mushroom coffees.

44:09Michael Popok:Their ultimate sampler pack includes all three. I keep an IQ Bar in my bag for a clean, no-sugar snack, start my morning with IQ Joe, and use IQ Mix to stay sharp and hydrated after a long day. And right now, IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20 % off all IQ Bar products, including the ultimate sampler pack, plus free shipping. To get your 20 % off, text LEGALAF to 64000. Text LEGALAF to 64000. That's LEGALAF to 64000. Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details. Feeling sluggish? Bloated. Not like yourself. Life bombards us with silent threats. processed foods, artificial light, and modern stressors disrupt your gut and drain your energy and weaken your immune health.

44:57Michael Popok:Your body isn't broken. It just needs the right inputs. That's why I've been using Armra Colostrum. I've noticed less bloating, steadier energy, and overall, I just feel more like myself. Armra Colostrum is nature's original blueprint for health. Colostrum is packed with over 400 bioactive nutrients that fortify gut health, fuel fitness recovery, and strengthen immune health, supporting your best performance every day. Take back control of your health. We've worked out a special offer from my audience. Receive 30 % off your first subscription order. Go to armrud.com slash legal AF or enter legal AF to get 30 % off your first subscription order.

45:41Michael Popok:That's A-R-M-R-A dot com slash legal AF. And welcome back. And thank you for being here. We got a really strong audience here tonight. And we do appreciate it and honor each of you for being here. I want to switch gears, Karen, and go to. Let's see what let's see what what looks good. Let's do the grand jury. Let's talk about because you have a background, of course, on the prosecutor's side. I've never been in a grand jury room. I've only been on the, you know, when a client gets indicted, I've had to deal with that occasionally. But grand juries are ultimately, and I want to hear your perspective as the prosecutor, conscience of the court system.

46:30Michael Popok:They're the ones that will decide at the very beginning whether there's probable cause for a crime and indict somebody, but also a gatekeeper to decide whether the evidence is sufficient or not and keep the prosecutor on their toes. Now, I've been doing this for over 35 years. You can count on two fingers the amount of major cases where a prosecutor and a federal prosecutor particularly doesn't get an indictment returned. We've had, forget that, we've had 50 or more grand juries look at the Department of Justice under Donald Trump and say, nope, we're not doing it. Letitia James, New York Attorney General, they've tried three times to get her indicted.

47:16Michael Popok:One time, the grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, actually returned the no bill of indictment in open court. They wanted it known that they would not indict her. They did not have have to do it that way. In fact, the government, Department of Justice, so freaked out, they asked the judge, demanded that the judge seal it. He said, listen, they didn't have to return that no bill in open court, but they did. And I can only speculate why. And I'm not sealing it so the American people don't know what happened. And which brings us to this. We knew they were working on a criminal investigation led by Janine Pirro against the six members of Congress, including Senator Elisa Slotkin of Michigan, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, about their 90-second video to remind members of the military not to follow illegal orders.

48:18Michael Popok:They took a constitutional oath. They need to follow their own. It's not asking them to break the chain of command. It's reminding them that it's no defense, just as the Nazis found out in the Nuremberg trials, to say, I was just following orders. And that's the reason that they did it. But this led to a, because Donald Trump said, hang them, treason, George Washington would have hanged them. And Pete Hegseth labeling them the seditious six. There was this investigation. Now, Mark Kelly ran off to court and is about to get, I believe, an injunction against him being censured by Pete Hegseth as a retired Navy captain.

48:58Michael Popok:At the same time, Alyssa Slotkin was, quote unquote, invited to come to the Department of Justice and meet with Janine Pirro prior to this week to, I don't know, talk about the criminal case. Her lawyer said no. Stop the criminal case, just like you should stop the criminal case you've brought against the Fed Reserve Chairperson Jay Powell. And now we got the new reporting, Karen, about last night and a grand jury and what they did concerning the attempt to indict sitting members of Congress. Take it from there.

49:37Karen Friedman Agnifilo:So let's take a step back and have a little mini legal AF law school, especially for our Canadian and other international viewers who don't necessarily live in the U.S. So there are basically two ways to charge someone with a crime in the United States. One is by a criminal complaint, and one is by the grand jury. Now, for felonies and serious crimes to proceed, typically most jurisdictions, but the federal government as well, require you to have the grand jury charge you. And the way that works is it's like a jury of your peers, you know, 12 jurors who sit at a trial. But in the grand jury, there's 23 of them.

50:23Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And you need a quorum. So you need at least, you need more than 12 to show up to be able to vote. But you really need more than 12 to vote an indictment. It's a majority rules system. And there's only one side that goes in. It's the prosecution. And the prosecution presents their case, and it's just, is there reasonable cause or probable cause to believe that a crime was committed? It is so easy to get an indictment that a judge once famously said, you could even indict a ham sandwich. That's how easy it is to get an indictment. It is not hard, especially federally, because federally, you can put hearsay in.

51:09Karen Friedman Agnifilo:So you don't even need the victims of crimes or the actual witnesses of crimes to go in and testify. In certain states like New York, you do need that. So it's a little bit harder because you have to have live witnesses come in and say, this happened to me and this is what I did, et cetera. But federally, you just have an FBI agent come in and who basically says, this is what happened. This is the evidence. This is what they said. And it's almost like a rubber stamp. And it is, I think, 99.9 % of cases that get presented to a grand jury get an indictment because prosecutors don't bring cases where you don't have not only probable cause to believe a crime committed, but up until this Department of Justice, every prosecutor, especially, federally, wouldn't bring a case to the grand jury if they couldn't prove their case ultimately beyond a reasonable doubt, because getting an indictment was so easy that you could indict anybody.

52:15Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And so rather than, you know, once you get an indictment, you have to live with it. So you have to be able to approve your case. So the fact that they are not getting indictments in these cases is astounding. Okay, it's absolutely astounding. And what that tells me is, you know, we talk a lot on Legal AF, Popok, about how judges are being the great check on this unitary executive. And the judges are the ones who are, because Congress is doing nothing, right? Congress is essentially the lapdog of President Trump, unfortunately, and they'll do anything he says. And so we really have one check on this government, and that has been the judicial branch.

52:59Karen Friedman Agnifilo:But we actually have a second check, and that's the American people. Those are the everyday people who are getting jury summonses in the mail, who watch the news. They see what's happening. They see exactly that this Department of Justice, rather than investigating Epstein, rather than investigating all the different co-conspirators of Epstein, rather than bringing justice to the survivors, where they have millions of pages of documents, tons of leads, and real crime. What are they doing? They're going after Trump's enemies. They're trying to, you got Janine Pirro, who was an actual lawyer. She was the district attorney of Westchester County here in New York, the elected DA.

53:39Karen Friedman Agnifilo:She ran a whole prosecutor's office. She knows very well what a grand jury is. She's not like Lindsay Halligan, for example. She is a real, or was a real prosecutor. And she cannot get an indictment against these six people, that's because the grand jurors sought for what it is. This is nothing more than a revenge prosecution against six heroes. These are heroes. These aren't just members of Congress public servants. These are people who served in active duty in wars in Afghanistan. You have an ex-CIA agent. These are people who put their lives on the line for the American people and who are going out and telling the American people, which is actually their duty as members of Congress to tell the American people what the Constitution says and what they're required to do.

54:29Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And their job is to act as a check on the executive. And their job is to tell people in the military, you don't work for one man. You work for the Constitution. And so that's what they did. And thank God we have these grand jurors who are going in, and they are not just indicting cases because they're being brought to them. They're actually evaluating them. They're applying the law to the facts and they're upholding this Constitution. These are regular Americans who are unsung heroes. And thank God they're doing it.

54:59Michael Popok:It might be another good reason why they they didn't just reject. Jeanine Pirro, Jean Pirro decided to go against and to obtain a indictment against senators and congresspeople. She would send in an inexperienced federal prosecutor who on the side, not even on the side, during the day, runs a dance photo studio. A guy by the name of Stephen Vander Veldin, who has an active photography studio. He's the one. He worked with her in Westchester County. But as you know, state prosecution and federal prosecution are not the same things. I assure you, when he was a Westchester prosecutor, he never brought a case against members of Congress under the First Amendment and the speech and debate clause.

55:51Michael Popok:The guy was so preoccupied, apparently, that within hours of not getting the indictment, he was posting up on his Instagram about his photo studio. What this demonstrates is how completely hollowed out and bereft of talent the Department of Justice is, so much so that she had to use a crony friend of hers that's effectively a part-time prosecutor and a part-time dance studio photographer to bring this major indictment. Okay. So this is also a gift that keeps on giving. The fact that the Trump administration, Pam Bondi, who we spent half the show on already, can't hire and retain any talent because nobody wants to work for this administration.

56:39Michael Popok:So when you take the Department of Justice and you subtract, it's like a math equation, 7 ,000 talented prosecutors and staff, and you don't replace them, then you've got to use a dance studio photographer to be your prosecutor for a major case. And it wasn't even Jeanine Pirro. I mean, I would at least be like, all right, Pam Bondi went in to try to get that indictment against Letitia James or James Comey. She didn't go anywhere near it. janine piero maybe she went to get the salami subway sandwich guy uh no she doesn't no she janine pier there's a reason that um uh cecily strong used to do an amazing impression of janine piero drinking wine on saturday night live it was like dead on because she's a at this point her career she's an actress playing a prosecutor she think that she's not going in to actually get, she just likes standing, that's what Trump wants.

57:38Michael Popok:She just wants her standing at the podium saying, oh my God, violent crime is down. I can't believe it's down because of Donald Trump. Another political hack. Masquerade, and it must burn your ass, Karen, as a 30-year prosecutor, you know, a career prosecutor who headed your office, headed units, started units, a prosecutor's prosecutor to watch this shit show at the Department of Justice.

58:07Karen Friedman Agnifilo:It's really sad. It's sad and it's terrifying, to be honest. And even the prosecutors who are still there, who are holding on, who are excellent, won't go anywhere near these these prosecutions that are politically motivated because they can't, they have their reputations, right? As a lawyer, Popak, you know, the only thing you have is your reputation, right? Before a judge, before a court. And these are people who aren't willing to stake their reputations or their bar licenses or their morals to go after these people who, who are nothing, who've done nothing wrong other than they are not Trump supporters.

58:50Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And that's what it means to, to get prosecuted today is if unless you're, cause we all know you can commit the most heinous crime in the world. It doesn't matter. You can be the president of a country who supplies, you know, traffics cocaine, but you, you tell Donald Trump that, you know, I like you and you know, you, you're handsome and I was persecuted and here's your pardon, or you give him a million dollars. Here's your pardon. Or Jan six, it doesn't matter what you do. You know, you can, you can, you know, attack police officers, threaten to hang your vice president and, you know, poop on the floor of Congress and break in.

59:29Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Doesn't matter. You know, here's your pardon. It really is atrocious and outrageous. And he's going after people who don't deserve to be prosecuted. Letitia James, the attorney general, does not deserve to be prosecuted. She's not a criminal. Right. James Comey was ex FBI director. It's not deserved to be prosecuted. Not a criminal. These six members of Congress absolutely do not deserve to be prosecuted. I mean, it's, and thankfully the grand jurors are standing up because otherwise you're going to find the dance photographer or the insurance lawyer or whoever else they're trucking in there to try to indict these cases.

1:00:07Karen Friedman Agnifilo:But it's just outrageous what, what is, what the department of justice is turning into. And frankly, I'm concerned about how they're going to make up for lost ground once this, this nightmare ends because there's such a drain of talent. Yeah.

1:00:21Michael Popok:And the good news is for the American people in our audience, a lot of that talent is ending up at the state attorneys, generals offices, the Manhattan DA's office, the democracy forward public interest groups, the ACLU. They're hiring these people left and right. I mean, and in private practice, Don Lemon just hired one of the major prosecutors in the Minnesota U S attorney's office who led the immigration prosecutions. He just hired him as his defense lawyer. Really so smartly done. So smartly done. You should always hire people that you think are well-connected to the system that you are up against.

1:00:59Michael Popok:Don't you think, Karen?

1:01:01Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Of course. I mean, they know where all the bodies are buried. They know the secrets. They know the judges. They know what does this mean when they do this or don't do that. It's not the way people think. people think, oh, you used to work there. So someone's going to do favors for you. You know, that doesn't work that way. Right. Prosecutors. It really does. I mean, it typically doesn't. I mean, maybe in the Donald Trump world, but real prosecutors, you know, it's not that that people are going to necessarily give you a better deal because you once worked there, you knew them. The difference is these people work there.

1:01:31Karen Friedman Agnifilo:They know exactly what things mean. They know exactly. okay, you put this prosecutor on it. Okay. That's how you're thinking about this case. Oh, you didn't do this strategy. You did that strategy. Okay.

1:01:43Michael Popok:You know what resonates over there and what's going to ring a bell over there and who's going to be involved and how to get the attention, right? Exactly.

1:01:50Karen Friedman Agnifilo:All of that.

1:01:51Michael Popok:All of that. That is incredibly valuable.

1:01:55Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And that was really smart of Don Lemon to hire the guy who just left. He was the one at the podium, right? Talking about the immigration cases. And then he left because they refused to prosecute the ICE agent and instead wanted them to go after Renee Good's wife. And he left in protest. And Don Lemon was very smart to hire that guy.

1:02:19Michael Popok:So why don't we do one more thing that dovetails with what we're talking about before we take our next break. And I see questions. We'll do the questions in a moment, but keep putting them in. I see two or three we're going to cover. Trump... He has wanted to get out from under the 34 count felony conviction of his of him in the Stormy Daniels election interference case. You know, the one with the bribery to Stormy Daniels through Michael Cohen in order not to let Stormy go public with the sex act that she participated in with Donald Trump right before the election. So it wouldn't be an October surprise in with Donald Trump.

1:03:03Michael Popok:you have to give like dates because people are tuning in late, like which sex act with which person outside of his marriage? Okay. This is the one right before the election with Stormy Daniels and others. He hated the conviction. And the way the timeline went, the Manhattan DA's office, Karen's old office, got the conviction. Between conviction and sentencing, the immunity decision came out by the United States Supreme Court, which led the lawyers to go back to Judge Mershon and try to argue about getting the conviction overturned and or not to sentence him. The weird thing here is, which came up in federal court, is why didn't they run with the immunity decision in their hand and try to argue somehow that the case again belonged in federal court?

1:03:53Michael Popok:You see, they want to take it to federal court in order to try to get a federal judge to reverse and vacate the conviction by the jury, throw out the sentencing, and if he won't do it or she won't do it, take the case on a direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court. 99 % of what happened in that case, what a jury convicted him of, was about a conspiracy, business record fraud, tax fraud that happened before he was president. Maybe a half of 1 % was some evidence they put on after he was president, talking to Hope Hicks and talking to Michael Cohen in the White House and whatever. But they didn't run to federal court.

1:04:34Michael Popok:They kept banging away at state court trying to get Judge Bershon to rule on it. Before I turn it to you, Karen, the other interesting thing is why they've never really appealed a parallel case that happened a year earlier where Donald Trump's companies were convicted by the same Manhattan DA's office, which was like the dress rehearsal for this case, of 17 or 18 counts of business record fraud and tax evasion involving very similar players. He's never cared about that, that that's on the record, those 17 counts. Take it from there. What are they trying to do with Judge Alvin Hellerstein, and what do you think Judge Alvin Hellerstein is going to do about it in federal court, if anything?

1:05:21Karen Friedman Agnifilo:So they went to after they went to Judge Mershon to try to remove it to federal court before sentencing. And Judge Mershon rejected that. They went to Judge Hellerstein after that. And Judge Hellerstein rejected it. They then appealed that. And it went up to the Second Circuit and the Second Circuit sent it back down to Judge Hellerstein to say, we need you to make findings. We need you to hold a hearing and make more findings before we rule on this. And so that's what just happened was he had that hearing. And essentially what he's trying to do is what you just said. There's no way Judge Hellerstein is going to remove this case to federal court because this was entirely a personal matter, right?

1:06:10Karen Friedman Agnifilo:This was a personal, this has nothing to do with his presidency, which is what he'd have to show to get this removed to federal court. This was him in his personal life cheating on his wife when she had just given birth to Barron Trump with Stormy Daniels. And he didn't want that coming out because he was going to run as a candidate, right, a politician. That's, again, still your personal life. It's not presidential. And so what does he do during that time? He cooks the books and pays off Stormy Daniels by essentially making it look like lawyer's fees and lying in the business records. And so there's no way anyone's going to find that to be in the scope of presidential immunity.

1:06:54Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And frankly, I'm not even sure this Supreme Court will find it in the scope of presidential immunity. I think, and I could be wrong, but I think at least Roberts and maybe one or two others might actually regret their immunity decision. I don't think they ever thought it would unleash the monster that it is unleashed. And so I think they would even this is even a bridge too far for them. But maybe I'm just too optimistic. But they're trying to get it removed to federal court so that, you know, that way they can appeal rather than appeal in state court, which he's definitely going to lose. This is an ironclad, rock-solid conviction that will stand until the end of time in state court.

1:07:36Karen Friedman Agnifilo:But he thinks his best hope is to appeal in federal court, appeal this conviction, and get it thrown out. So that's what's happening there. I think Hellerstein's going to reject it. That's my opinion. He'll appeal it to the Second Circuit, get it to the Supreme Court. But I predict that this is even a bridge too far for the Supreme Court because, A, it's his personal life. does not fall under the presidential immunity rubric. And B, I do think they must be having some regrets. There's no way they can't.

1:08:06Michael Popok:Which takes us to a question from our audience earlier. Let me see if I can grab it here about the immunity decision. Let's see if I can find it. State charges talking about tens of thousands. Hold on. I'm just looking through our list here of questions. There was one in particular about what, oh, here we go. Netzona asked, what sort of legislation could be passed in the future to reverse the Supreme Court's decision that gave Trump immunity? None. Because the separation of powers, Congress doesn't have the power to clip the wings of the presidency and to take away immunity. They could try, But I think ultimately the Supreme Court would find that that is a violation of the separation of powers.

1:08:54Michael Popok:They have interpreted from the Constitution that there is immunity for the president. And only when they get a chance to revisit, which sometimes they do, on a topic that is related, can they start rolling back. And it's happened in the past. They think they went too far. They want to clarify. The question is, are there five votes to roll this back without undermining their primary goal, which was to establish the executive branch as the preeminent branch among the other three, the other two, including their own, the judicial branch. um so congress nothing supreme court could in terms of interpretation start to roll back and walk this back because we are on the precipice here i think we're beyond the precipice with and you can and they see the real world implications that that decision in the hands of a madman with no moral no morals no scruples and a criminal convicted criminal what he would do with it, which is to stretch, forget about stretching the immunity decision beyond its outer boundaries.

1:10:08Michael Popok:If this is like, you know, it's like outside the box thinking, there's no box. This is just lawlessness of the first order, to paraphrase Ketanji Brown-Jackson of the United States Supreme Court. When we come back, Karen, let's do a deep dive to round out our episode about what's going on in Fulton County, Georgia, and the new revelations, now that we've got our hands on the 50-page FBI affidavit about what's really going on here as the conspiracy theorists have run amok, the inmates have taken over the asylum, and yet the FBI has no problem under Kash Patel to file affidavits with federal magistrate judges in bad faith to tell them that there's missing ballots in Georgia that we have to get to the bottom of.

1:10:58Michael Popok:Although when you read the affidavit, Karen, he basically admits he does not have probable cause, that there is no probable cause to issue the search warrant. He says it throughout the affidavit. And then we'll get to talk about zebra duck, one of my most favorite aspects of any of the research I've done lately for my hot takes is just, you'll have to remember zebra duck. Remind me if I forget. But we're gonna take another break support the show. You know how to do it. The podcast on audio, Spotify, Apple, all that. Tell your friends about us. YouTube, your support consistently keeps us in the top 20 or 30 of all YouTube podcasts, all YouTube podcasts.

1:11:43Michael Popok:And that's really a great compliment to you. And we love you for it. And then we've got Legal AF YouTube channel, subscribe, keep hope alive, keep us alive. I hate to be like morose, but like if we lost our subscriber base, we lost our audience, we lost people contributing to us in that way, we're off the air. It'd be like, hey, wasn't this where Legal AF used to be? Yeah. So continue to do the support thing, become a card carrying member and we appreciate that. And then of course, we've got our Substack. Yeah, just, I never knew about Substack. Like a couple of years ago, I was like, what Substack?

1:12:23Michael Popok:People were like, is that like a blog? No, it's an amazing world that opens up when you get into Substack and hopefully you'll find Legal AF Substack there and our paid membership, which pays the bills and keeps the editors and the question takers paid and all that good stuff. And then we've got our pro-democracy sponsors. And here's another word from them. Delete.me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Delete.me does all the hard work of wiping your and your family's personal information from data broker websites so you don't have to chase it down yourself.

1:13:04Michael Popok:As someone with an active online presence, privacy is really important to me. There's so much personal information floating around out there, and you often don't even realize it until you go looking. If you've ever worried about identity theft, harassment, or doxing, or you know someone who has, Delete Me can help by removing that data from hundreds of broker sites. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me, now at a special discount for our listeners. You can get 20 % off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeliteme.com slash Legal AF and use promo code Legal AF at checkout.

1:13:47Michael Popok:But the only way to get 20 % off is to go to joindeliteme.com slash Legal AF and enter code Legal AF at checkout. One more time, joindeliteme.com slash Legal AF, code Legal AF. Scaling a business, that takes the right expertise at the right time. Upwork helps growing teams quickly bring in specialized freelancers so you can move faster and take the business to the next level. Upwork is a one-stop platform to find, hire, and pay expert freelancers across web and software development, data and analytics, marketing, business operations, and more. Upwork helps grow your business by giving you fast access to specialized talent across more than 125 categories so you can fill skill gaps, launch projects faster, and scale support up or down without committing to full-time headcount.

1:14:41Michael Popok:You can browse profiles, review past work, and get help scoping the role so you can hire with confidence and get started quickly. Upwork also cuts down operational hassle by handling things like contracts and payments in one place, so you can spend more time running the business. It's free to sign up, and posting a job is easy. With Business Plus, you can access the top 1 % of talent on Upwork, and with AI-powered shortlisting, you'll get matched to the right freelancer in under six hours. No endless searching required. Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That's Upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow.

1:15:26Michael Popok:That's U-P-W-O-R-K.com, Upwork.com. And thank you to our pro-democracy sponsors. All right, we're going to go to Fulton County. Put on your prosecutor hat, Karen. So in the affidavit of the FBI agent, in which he summarizes the quote-unquote evidence that he has from a dozen unredacted name witnesses, he says more than one time the following. I'm going to paraphrase. If the things listed in here were done intentionally, they may be crimes under federal law. That's it. Have you ever seen an FBI agent, law enforcement, tell a federal magistrate judge that they're not sure that crimes were committed?

1:16:20Michael Popok:They're not sure that there's probable cause for a crime. But if they were done intentionally, crimes may have been committed as sufficient to support a search warrant application?

1:16:32Karen Friedman Agnifilo:This is the biggest head scratcher for me is this particular affidavit. I've never seen anything remotely like this. And the biggest head scratcher is how did it get past a judge? And so again, let's take another legal AF law school course, a little mini course on what is a search warrant and what do you have to show for a search warrant? A search warrant allows you to go in and search for evidence and or seize evidence, right? And so because we have something called the Constitution, right? And then the Fourth Amendment that basically protects you against unlawful searches and seizures. And so to get a search warrant, to go into someone's home or to go into a place, any place where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, you need a search warrant.

1:17:21Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And so what this particular, this is a business, right? This was a storage unit. And to go in there and seize records by force, meaning you can't say no, is that you have to go before a judge and you have to write an affidavit and swear, you have to raise your right hand and swear under oath that what you're telling them is the truth. And in that affidavit, you have to establish by probable cause that both a crime was committed and you have to spell out the elements of that crime and why you have probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. And two, that there is evidence of that crime, that you believe, there's probable cause to believe that the evidence of that crime exists in the place that you are trying to search.

1:18:08Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Now, the second part of that are those records in that place. There's a lot of people who said, well, the election was in 2020. How do we know the records are still there. That's a slightly easier threshold to get to here because there are rules and laws that require Fulton County and Georgia in particular to keep records for a certain amount of time. So the fact that they were able to know that the records were there and get in, I think I have less of a problem with that than I do. What's the crime? What is the probable cause to believe that a crime occurred and that there is evidence of the crime contained in those documents.

1:18:49Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Not that the documents are there or the records, right? It was everything from computer tapes to ballots to envelopes to all sorts of things that they wanted to seize that was in there. Where was it in this affidavit that there was probable cause to believe that a crime occurred and B, that there's evidence of the crime in there. And I didn't see either of those things in that affidavit. In addition to the fact that a search warrant affidavit often relies on informants, right? In a drug case, you can rely on a drug informant. In other cases, you can rely on, you know, white collar case, you rely on other informants.

1:19:32Karen Friedman Agnifilo:So the fact that they relied on numerous informants in here. It doesn't surprise me. What surprised me is the quality of those informants. I mean, you had people in there and it was shocking to me. You had people in there who are making assertions that have been either debunked, right? You have people in there who are looking things up that aren't experts in these things.

1:19:56Michael Popok:Can I give you an example? Yeah, exactly. I want you to comment on it as a prosecutor.

1:20:01Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Okay.

1:20:03Michael Popok:We get to zebra duck finally. Okay. Now listen to this. I'm going to try to read it straight so people don't think I'm making this up. This is witness informant number five. The person is a data analyst who reviewed and analyzed original ballot images and recount ballot images. That person stated that he downloaded the data. Leave Karen up on the screen. I want her to react to this in real time. He downloaded the data online from ZebraDuck and believed, he believed, that that was obtained from an open records request from Fulton County. He believed. But he wasn't, it gets worse, but he wasn't positive as he was not part of acquiring the data, he received it secondhand.

1:20:58Michael Popok:And then he used a computer program to do a review of the images like DIY. That is an appropriate confidential informant, a guy who got a database where they don't know where they got the data from and did his own analyst?

1:21:14Karen Friedman Agnifilo:So when you have someone like that who has a questionable background, you have to prove why they would be reliable. You have to actually assert that. And there was nothing in there. I mean, you know, witness number one, a chemical engineer and taught at a technical college. OK, that's what they're saying. He's a Georgia resident. This is a different one. Witness number one, a chemical engineer and taught at a technical college, began conducting his own research and analysis on elections. A chemical engineer. Right. What does a chemical engineer who conducted his own research know about election, you know, about how is he someone who you can rely on to say that there might be, not that there is, but there might be irregularities here.

1:22:01Karen Friedman Agnifilo:and if there are irregularities they certainly did not prove that they were intentional that they were knowing willful or intentional which is what you need for there to be a crime because otherwise it's an accident right it's an accident which is not a crime fbi agent concedes he doesn't

1:22:18Michael Popok:know whether it was intentional look you need to have probable cause to go wait can i just read one more wait wait don't you need probable cause to to to in order to get a search warrant that a crime has been committed? Where is it?

1:22:31Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Yes, exactly. But I want to just give one more of these witnesses. Witness number two, the Republican appointed member of the Georgia State Election Board was an obstetrician, okay? An obstetrician, like an OBGYN prior to serving on the election board. Right. And she comes forward and says, prior to this, she'd never worked on an election, but as a member of the election board, she's tasked with listening to state election board, you know, investigator reports. And she's coming forward and saying, you know, therefore there might be irregularities. And therefore, I mean, again, these aren't experts.

1:23:11Karen Friedman Agnifilo:These aren't people who know anything, you know.

1:23:14Michael Popok:If you think we're being mean, I will tell you that the entire 12 led by a lawyer who's so fringe, but is in the Trump administration now. He was one of those waves of lawyers that Donald Trump grasped straws to try to cling to power. He's so nuts, sorry, that he couldn't even make the varsity squad of Team Crazy. So even Giuliani and Sidney Powell and Ches Burrow were like, no, this guy's too far about seizing voting machines. He's been whispering about seizing voting machines for Trump for six years. Trump let him in to the administration. He's like in charge of election integrity. This guy makes a referral.

1:24:00Michael Popok:He's so bad that he represented Carrie Lake in her challenge against Hobbes for the governor race. And got sanctioned by the Arizona Supreme Court for fraud on the court pushing these conspiracy theories. This is the guy that made the referral to the FBI, right? And then who else is in there? Oh, a computer scientist that used to work or works with Mike Lindell, the pillow guy, who also works with this guy that I just identified, and so on. And you'll see if you want to, you know, if you can't sleep at night and you want to read something, you'll see this constant reference to 17 ,852 digital images of ballots that are missing.

1:24:49Michael Popok:It's said by the person who's the Republican obstetrician. It's said by the data analyst with Zebra Duck. It is a debunked falsehood that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, the cybersecurity unit, independent of the federal government, all rejected. And yet they continue to bring these QAnon down the rabbit hole conspiracy theories. And that's all there is, except it's given the imprimatur of credibility by this FBI agent in the public integrity unit in Fulton County, Georgia. How they hoodwinked this federal match straight judge is beyond me. But we're going to get to the bottom of it.

1:25:36Michael Popok:Yeah. But here we're going to get to the bottom of it because Judge Bully, J.P. Bully, who's the actual Article III lifetime appointed federal judge, because Fulton County brought what's called a 41G motion under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which is what you do. Give me back my records. Which is what you do when you're on the bad end of a Fourth Amendment violation. You could be Daniel Richman, the lawyer for Comey who says, I want my stuff back. You can't be roaming through it without a search warrant against James Comey. 41G is very, very powerful when you're in private practice.

1:26:13Michael Popok:and so Fulton County has has Fourth Amendment rights and they said give it us give us it back unsealed unsealed the affidavit that's why we're talking about the affidavit the last couple of days and then the judge is going to hold a hearing and we'll of course report on it about what happens next but when I saw it was it took my breath away the the fact that this was just I suspected it, just a dozen of the craziest lunatic fringe of MAGA election deniers all strung together, you know, hoping that by volume it would make the whole thing more persuasive. But I do think the FBI agent, almost like a hostage, was blinking and signaling with his eyes that even he doesn't think this thing works.

1:27:01Michael Popok:Because why would he include two paragraphs that says, well, if this was true and if it was intentional, it may be violative of crimes. That is not the standard. Who is this? This magistrate judge should be impeached. You know, the scary thing about this, Popak, is what the Republicans are doing is they're gathering information about how, like, they're testing, right?

1:27:29Karen Friedman Agnifilo:They're testing, okay. They know the midterms are coming up, and they know that there's going to be certain midterm races that are close to call. and they're testing out what are the levers we can pull to try and essentially steal this election. And so it's almost like they're just trying to, you know, like machine learning. Okay, let's try to do a search warrant and let's try to do a search warrant in Fulton County. And, you know, let's see how it goes. Can we get it? Can we not get it? And what are the pushbacks going to be? How are they going to act? and what are the things so that we can prepare to do this?

1:28:08Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Because what has Trump said? We're going to nationalize elections, right? We're going to federalize elections. This is all gathering data on how to do this nationwide, how to do this at scale when it really matters. And so a lot of these things that they're doing is testing it out so that they can be ready during the midterms and then again in 2028. So we have to be smart about this and realize what they're doing.

1:28:35Michael Popok:Totally agree with you. This is all a dress rehearsal. Like you said, it's like a child testing the limits of parental control. You know, can I do this? Can I put my hand on the stove? Can I put my face on the stove? You know, eventually, the good part is the American people are wise to it. Congress, Democrats certainly are. Voters are becoming, federal judges are becoming, and grand juries and juries are becoming wise to all of us. And so, but you're totally right. We got to be on our toes. We got to be bouncing on our balls of our feet, like you and I do naturally, from now until the midterms and beyond.

1:29:14Michael Popok:And that's why we always talk about the show being, like, what is our competitive advantage as a podcast, right? There's plenty of law podcasts out there. There's plenty of politics podcasts out there. But we saw early on that at that intersection of law and politics, that that was where we would live. That's where we would find our audience. That's where we would serve our best purpose, our highest and best use to, one, build an audience, build a community, build a fellowship where we vibrate on the same frequency. and that we would do the most good there. I mean, I was, and occasionally as you often do, you know, you get to bump into people who love what we do and feel it fills a void in their life, especially now.

1:30:09Michael Popok:I was in West Palm Beach today, which I hadn't been in like 10 years. And I took a lunch break from some meetings that I had up there. And I went to an area, frankly, that I used to live in 30 years ago that I wanted to see how it had developed. And I stopped in City Place in West Palm Beach, if anybody knows it. And I popped into Italy to go grab a sandwich. And there was a couple about my age. And I was walking by them. And the woman said, popak, like that. And I knew at that moment that they were just tremendous supporters of Legal AF. So the couple that I met today from Stewart, Florida, appreciate you.

1:30:53Michael Popok:And they just said out loud what you and I hoped when we developed Legal AF, which is that they love everything we do. It provides them tremendous comfort knowing that there's a community out there, knowing that they're learning about these things that they can take into their own life and into the streets and social media and activate and motivate them. And they don't feel so alone. And so we're really glad that everybody's with us. We're growing, we're building, we have the momentum, we all feel a big wave election coming, historic one, and we will continue to give you the fodder and ammunition and knowledge that you need in order not just to pull the lever for yourself, but to convince people how important this midterm election is, the most important election in my lifetime.

1:31:44Michael Popok:I've never said that phrase before. And so that we get the fill in the blank, seven to 20 million people that sat out the last election and sat on the sidelines of our democracy. We get them back. We have to get them back and engaged. And the Democrats have to close the deal with the American people, which they're working on doing with like things we talked about today, like the oversight hearings and things like that. Karen, such a pleasure to always get together with you. Thank you for all that you do for the Legal AF community. And last word, Karen Freeman.

1:32:17Karen Friedman Agnifilo:I want to give a shout out to two of our biggest fans who are with us every single Wednesday. My dad and Grammy who are watching from home in Palm Desert. So I love you and thank you for being here and for being here from the beginning. So I love you.

1:32:36Michael Popok:Yeah, that's very, very, very sweet. We love you all. We'll see you. We'll see you Saturday. Ben Mycelis and me for Saturday Legal AF and, of course, all the other places in our ecosystem. Until then, shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal AFers.

1:32:58Karen Friedman Agnifilo:That's the sound of a big deal. At Wayfair, that sound happens a lot.

1:33:02Michael Popok:Dream sofa for half the price? Big deal. New dining table you've been eyeing for months? Big deal. Finally, picking up those last few pieces and finishing that bedroom? Now that's a really big deal. Whatever your home needs, Wayfair has the selection, the savings, and over millions of five-star reviews to back it up. Shop Wayfair.com today before someone else snags your big deal. Wayfair, every style, every home.

1:33:27Karen Friedman Agnifilo:You know what's wild? Most people are still overpaying for car insurance, just because it's a pain to switch. That's why there's Jerry. Jerry is the only app that compares rates from over 50 insurers in minutes and helps you switch fast with no spam calls or hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over$1 ,300 a year. Before you renew your car insurance policy, do yourself a favor. Download the Jerry app or head to jerry.ai slash Lipson. That's J-E-R-R-Y dot A-I slash L-I-B-S-Y-N.