Legal AF - 4/8/2026

28:04And 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. Well, I was getting ready to talk about the news and politics today, and my cat Chanel decided she was the headline. She doesn't care about politics, but she has extremely strong opinions about her food. If this show ever runs late, it's because she refuses to let me talk about law and politics until her Smalls cat food is handled first.

28:50It's 2026. Do you still feed your cat like it's 1926? This podcast is sponsored by Smalls. Smalls is protein-packed cat food made with preservative-free ingredients you'd actually recognize. Delivered right to your door. And Cats.com names Smalls their best overall cat food. Last time I fed my cat Smalls, she destroyed the bowl and followed me around like I changed her life. I even did a legit taste test. No, not that kind. Two bowls side by side, and she immediately chose Smalls. Her fur is softer, her breath is better, and she honestly handles the news better than I do. And Smalls is so confident your cat will love it, you can try it risk-free.

29:33They'll refund you if your cat won't eat it. Make 2026 your cat's healthiest year yet. For a limited time, because you are a Legal AF listener, get 60 % off your first order plus free shipping when you head to smalls.com slash Legal AF. One last time, that's 60 % off your first order plus free shipping when you head to smalls.com slash Legal AF. We're back. And I failed to mention, and I want to mention this really exciting news that Legal AF and the intersection with Michael Popock, but Legal AF, our show is up for a Webby, which is like the Academy Awards for podcasts or the Emmys. I don't know what would be more analogous.

30:22And it's extremely exciting. Who knew that we were up for this? So please, yeah, vote for us. Press the button. Press on the link because if we can get this award, how fun would that be to get this award and get the recognition? And, you know, again, like on Wednesdays when we do Legal AF, there are times when it's hard because we're not, I'm not a full-time journalist. I'm not even a journalist. I'm a practicing lawyer, right? And I have a full-time caseload. And it's hard to keep up with this information. It's hard to really read all these briefs and read these decisions and do the work so that we can bring the truth to people.

31:07And there are times on Wednesdays when I'm thinking, oh, can I really do this today? I don't have the energy or I don't of the time, but we do it and we do it every week. And I know this is what motivates Popak and you, Lisa, and all the people who contribute to Midas and Legal AF. It's because we really are trying so hard to get the word out of what the truth is and really get people armed with information so that they can make their own decisions and understand what's happening and how important it is to vote and how important it is to have those hard conversations with your relatives and family members that you don't want to have, some who just were full on MAGA, like we all know people, or some who just put their head in the sand because it's too depressing and they don't want to know.

31:57It's still really important to have those conversations because this is like no time in American history. This is, I guess it's fitting, it's our 250th anniversary that we are really, for the first time in our history, facing, I guess not the first time, slavery and the Civil War was, I guess, you know, a kind of really important time too. But this is the first time in recent history, I guess is a better way of putting it, and certainly in my lifetime, where I felt that our democracy is on the line. And really just what it means to be an American is on the line. and what it means to be a kind person and to be a caring person and a human being who doesn't try to make fun of or stomp on those who are either weak or disabled or, you know, marginalized or, you know, just if you're not like a manosphere, you know, alpha male.

32:55And I think that's what's always beautiful about Americans and about this country is we are a melting pot, and we accept and really try to lift up all people. And that's what's at stake here. That's what's on the line here in these upcoming elections because it's really our identity and who we are going forward, not just internally, but also to the rest of the world. And this war, as terrible as it is, I think in some ways, is showing the American people in living color just how bad things are. And so let's just talk about the elections because I do think that's really the key are these midterm elections because we have to take back Congress.

33:43We have to make Congress a functioning body again that will serve as a check against our presidency and against the courts because that's really what our country was founded on was checks and balances and co-equal branches of government and and actually article one of the constitution is congress because uh they didn't want to make the founders didn't want to make it the president right he's article article two and then the judges are article three and and that's because to send a message right that that that the president isn't the most powerful and congress is very powerful and and makes makes the laws and the president's job is to execute those laws and the court's job is to interpret those laws, right?

34:31And that's what the basic roles of our three branches of government are. So what was Trump doing last week? Signing an executive order, essentially creating a suppression contraption between the American people and the ballot box, right? That's what he has essentially did. He basically said that I'm going to put all these agencies, Department of Homeland Security, Social Security, the post office, right? The U.S. Postal Service. They're going to create this voting database machine thing that essentially will take away from the states the ability to set the time, place, manner, and how elections are going to be run, who can do it, who can do mail-in votes, etc.

35:24And, you know, Article 1 of the Constitution actually says that the states control the time, place, and manner of elections. It's in the Constitution, not the president. And so this, him doing an executive order, and, you know, it's taking away, it's violating the First Amendment, It's violating Article 1. It's violating the 10th Amendment, which is states' rights. And it's also violating congressional law that talks about this. So why don't you talk a little bit about where we are, this executive order, and what's going on with this latest voter suppression issue? because we know Trump has been trying to do this through the Save America Act and other ways.

36:15But let's talk a little bit about this executive order and then what's happening in response.

36:20Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Well, I just want to begin by thanking you for what you said about our democracy and the perils we face. And really, democracy is a method for us securing our freedoms. And one of the most important ways we secure our freedoms is through the right to vote. The right to vote is sort of the gateway, the gateway right that helps enable all the other rights, helps us secure the other rights. And so to see a president, any president, asserting that he himself has the power to set the rules for our elections is unfathomably dangerous. It's unconstitutional. It's contrary to the express language of the Constitution, as you mentioned, which expressly says that states are the ones that set the time, place, and manner of elections.

37:06Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And Trump is trying to usurp that power. As he's trying to usurp power in other ways, he doesn't have any authorization in the Constitution in Article 2 to play this role. He doesn't have any power delegated to him to do so to direct these agencies to intervene in our elections. and he doesn't have the sort of the congressional consent. In fact, he's losing. He's a big loser in this area too, where in fact, Congress has failed to pass his really intrusive and outlandish SAVE Act, which I refuse to call the SAVE Act because it's really not about saving anything other than trying to save him from any accountability from Congress by trying to rig the rules against us to make it harder for people to vote, and in particular, harder to make it, make it harder for millions, tens of millions of American women to vote who change their name.

38:02Karen Friedman Agnifilo:People who do not have a passport, for example, who have, may have a hard time getting the documents to show that they are a U.S. citizen, when in fact, in America, analysis after analysis, blue ribbon panel after blue ribbon panel, audit after audit has shown there is not a problem in America with immigrants voting as citizens in elections. This is not a problem. It's fake. It is something that has been invented as a boogeyman to try to push people into these voter restrictions. The fact is, is that if someone who's not a citizen votes, they could face criminal consequences or deportation. It's not a thing.

38:40Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Every single person who's studied these issues knows it's not a thing. And that has not stopped Trump's loyalists in Congress from trying to push this terrible bill, the SAVE Act, forward. And in the face of the fact that they do not have the votes as yet to pass it, Trump has tried to go around Congress, which he's done numerous times in the past year or so. He's trying to go around Congress to get what he wants anyway by declaring it through an executive order. Now, executive orders, these EOs, are, I think in some ways, they're not worth the paper they're written on. They're like as if someone wrote on a paper napkin because just because he declares it as an executive order doesn't actually make it binding law, which is why American Oversight and a group of historians have challenged in a separate section we'll talk about later, you know, another declaration of his or another declaration of his department about power, and numerous of his executive orders have been challenged by other litigants, other advocacy and rights groups because just because he signs an order doesn't make it law.

39:44Karen Friedman Agnifilo:He's asserting a power. And in this instance, on the voting rights, it could not be more disruptive than what he's proposing, which you described, Karen, you know, quite accurately, of course, in terms of trying to direct all these federal agencies to take over voting, take over checking who's on the voting rolls, try to declare that certain people can't vote, put new restrictions on the envelopes and the type of mailers that can be used for mail-in voting. And this comes at a time when Lewis DeJoy, who is his postmaster general, has already massively disrupted the functioning of our mail. Almost every American who's watching knows it takes longer for your mail to get there now under Trump's postmaster general, Lewis DeJoy.

40:27Karen Friedman Agnifilo:That's because he's been consolidating the mail sorting processes into a couple regional areas, basically so he can later try to privatize them. So he or his successor can privatize our mail. So they've been moving the mail away from the local post offices in terms of routing and even postmarking. And so these are efforts that that are, you know, in other ways designed to disrupt the mail and vote. Millions of Americans vote by mail. Millions of Californians voted by mail in the last election. In Oregon, I think almost everyone votes by mail. In many states, voting by mail has become a regular part of the process because it's been a safe and secure way to vote.

41:08Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Again, there's no evidence of any fraud or any election changing problems whatsoever. But Trump is trying to invent problems. And I just would not trust any sort of like 1-800-BIG-BROTHER to have this Trump administration dictating from Washington, D.C., whether you get to vote or not, rather than have your states make those decisions, which they've always made throughout our entire history. So this is another voter suppression effort by Trump. It shows the level of desperation he's experiencing in his fear of any accountability from Congress from having a House of Representatives that is not supine and willing to do whatever he says, like Mike Johnson and his fellow loyalists, with only a few exceptions around the Epstein files.

41:51Karen Friedman Agnifilo:The fact is, is that Trump and the Republican Party are looking exceedingly weak, as we've discussed earlier today, in terms of their electoral prospects for this fall. And so this is another sort of, it's kind of a Hail Mary pass by Trump to assert a power he doesn't have to dictate the terms of who can vote in America. That is extraordinarily dangerous. No president, no one president should have that power. One of the ways our voting system has been secure is because it is the powers to count the vote, the power to register voters, make sure people are registered and the like. These are powers that are dispersed.

42:31Karen Friedman Agnifilo:They're not concentrated in one person or band of loyalists. So I hope when this case gets fully heard by a federal court, it gets struck down, this assertion of executive power by the president because he doesn't have it. In fact, expressly, the other parts of our federal system, the states have that power, not Donald Trump. Yeah, so several groups have already gone into court, into various different courts to challenge this executive order. And P.S., just Donald Trump voted by mail like two weeks ago. So the irony of that, you know, I'm trying to ban voting by mail, but let me drop it in the mailbox.

43:10You know, just such a hypocrite. But anyway, but several groups have rushed into court as soon as this executive order dropped, which, thank God for them.

43:19Karen Friedman Agnifilo:I think is one of the groups and the other groups have come in to say this is counter constitutional. This is an unconstitutional order. Exactly. There's I think two in Massachusetts, one by the ACLU and the League of Women Voters. Um, also, uh, I think the 21 attorneys general also filed in Massachusetts and in DC, uh, the NAACP filed a suit as well that at first we thought was going to go to judge Kohler Catelli, but, um, as a related case, but it, uh, he, the, this, this now it's looking like it's just going to go, uh, and be random, but you know, there's, there's, there's three separate cases and at least three separate cases.

44:07And we'll see where these go. I think they're going to try to get an injunction against this executive order. And, and, you know, let's, let's see where this lands. We've also got the case in the Supreme court that was just heard oral arguments last week. Why don't you talk a little bit about that and just catch everybody up on that case? Yeah.

44:27Karen Friedman Agnifilo:So this is the birthright citizenship case where Donald Trump, again, through executive order has asserted that he has the power to determine who is a U.S. citizen and who is not, even though the 14th Amendment of our Constitution in its very first sentence says that people born in the United States are citizens of the United States or naturalized. And so it could not be clearer. And it's been interpreted that way by courts going back, you know, more than 100 years of consistent precedent about how that clause means that in the United States, we have citizenship based on birth, based on territory.

45:01Karen Friedman Agnifilo:This is based on longstanding U.S. law and common law and the law that the U.S. inherited in essence from England, which also had this condition of if you're born in that country, you are a citizen. Other countries have not followed that practice. Some other countries have had citizenship based on blood or their ethnicity or race, but the United States has not had that practice ever since it became the United States of America. And so just last week, the Trump administration was arguing before the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court should uphold Donald Trump's order, basically asserting that a statute allows them to declare that people who are born in the United States are not citizens if they deem them not to be so based on their parents being here on a visa, a temporary visa, for example.

45:55Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And so that's not the way the law has been written or read in the entirety of this, you know, basically our country. Solicitor General Sauer, that's John Sauer, who Donald Trump chose to make this argument, who was also the person who made the arguments on Trump's immunity claims before the Roberts Court two years ago. John Sauer made a whole bunch of really slippery arguments claiming you had to be domiciled here, et cetera, like inventing basically new claims about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It looked like the Supreme Court justices were mostly skeptical other than Sam Alito, who seems to always be a tool for Trump no matter what.

46:39Karen Friedman Agnifilo:But I would say the skepticism is, I don't want to give them too much credit for skepticism because in reality, this should be a 9-0 slam dunk case against Donald Trump. But what the court has done, the Roberts court has done, has intervened. They took the case away from letting an intermediate appellate court issue a ruling, took the case right out of the district court's hands, had issued orders last year, emergency orders, barring these district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions against the enforcement of this executive order. So, you know, it has to be litigated in sort of individually or on a class basis in district after district across the country or circuit after circuit.

47:20Karen Friedman Agnifilo:So the court has already behaved, in my view, badly in ways that are disruptive of having a coherent interpretation of the law and an interpretation that is fully consistent with the language of the Constitution and the precedents. So I hope that the Roberts court rejects this absurd claim of Donald Trump backed by, you know, Stephen Miller, and also, you know, backed by other lawyers who were at the center of Donald Trump's efforts to overturn, overturn the 2020 election, you know, one of the big advocates, you know, for him is the guy who was the architect of the effort to overturn the 2020 election illegitimately, who's been, you know, subject to criticism by the bar in California and more.

48:04Karen Friedman Agnifilo:I'm not going to go into too much detail about that. But the fact is, is that this was terrible advice, in my view. It's a terrible claim of assertion of power by Trump. It's the arguments by Sauer, I thought were really quite appalling. But Donald Trump showed up to hear them left before hearing the arguments of Cecilia Wang from the ACLU, didn't want to hear the opposition, you know, instead had to go back to the White House for an Easter celebration in which he asserted that we didn't have the money to pay for Medicare or Medicaid. That was his priority to go make that speech. But the fact is, is that if this court rules in Trump's favor, I think there will be no coming back from basically how destructive this court has been.

48:50Karen Friedman Agnifilo:I think this court has been deeply destructive, obviously, in the immunity ruling and the emergency rulings on the shadow docket last year. But this is a case that, but for the level of deference to Donald Trump, the unjustified deference to Donald Trump shown by the Robert Six, this would be a 9-0 decision of summarily affirming the lower court rulings and restraining orders against Donald Trump. Not to mention all the people who think they're citizens, who think they're going to vote. And And all of a sudden, now they're no longer US citizens. It would be such a ridiculously disruptive in the worst possible way decision if they rule in Trump's favor.

49:30And just sticking with the elections for just a second, there's also the Mississippi case that was just heard in the Supreme Court about mail-in ballots as well.

49:41Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Yes. So maybe that was when you're asking me about, Karen. I'll hop over to that. But let me just say, so the order, you know, one of the things Sauer said just briefly on that order, the executive order, was that this would only apply prospectively. But the reality is, is that if Trump were to win this case, they would certainly apply it retroactively. They would go back and try to block people from voting. And one of the people that one of Trump's close allies has targeted is Kamala Harris because she was born to two students who were here in the United States. And so, you know, part of their vision is this perspective vision.

50:15Karen Friedman Agnifilo:But in reality, what they really want to do is strip people of their citizenship, people who've been born here who are clearly United States citizens under the Constitution. But the case you were probably asking me about was... It's all related. It's all related. It is all related. It really is all related, is the case involving mail-in voting. And this is where the Republican Party in a state has sought to get the United States Supreme Court to block the counting of votes, votes that are mailed before Election Day or on Election Day, so they're postmarked correctly. but because of no fault of the voter, they arrive the day after the election or two days after election.

50:53Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And typically those are counted because they were postmarked before the election. And because in general, the states before now have had a philosophy of trying to make sure people's votes count. If you have an intent to vote, to try to have your votes count. And the fact is, is that in the two or three days after the election, you know, usually on a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, there's curing of votes. So sometimes people will vote provisionally if they didn't have their ID and have to come back and show their ID so their vote can count. Military votes occur by mail. So many military members, you know, are working abroad, serving abroad.

51:28Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And so those votes come in. They don't always come in before the election. They can sometimes come in the next day and those are counted. This is an effort to basically say that states would be barred across the country from counting ballots that are postmarked before, or in time for the election, but just arrive a day or two late. And it's possible that if this Roberts court says that the federal government, through a statute, can set election day, and by setting election day, have the effect of barring the counting of votes cast by election day, but that arrive afterward, that ruling could be the basis for saying you can't have early voting either.

52:11Karen Friedman Agnifilo:that everyone has to vote in person on election day, that there could be no early voting. But the fact is, and this really, I think people really need to understand this, mailing voting, the mail of voting has been going on since the Civil War under President Lincoln. And that was in order to enable soldiers in the Civil War to cast their votes in the 1864 election. This is a longstanding practice. It's been going on for 150 plus years. And now suddenly, just because Donald Trump is president and has this irrational hostility toward mail-in voting, except for for himself, now we're contending with actual Supreme Court cases, considering whether we, the people, have the right to cast our votes by mail, which has been done, as I said, for more than a century, and have those votes be counted just because the Republican Party aligned with Trump is doing everything it can to make it harder for the American people to cast their votes.

53:14Not to mention, yeah, and not to mention the fact that Trump, with his executive order, is trying to make the post office in charge. He could just have them slow roll it. Yeah. Right?

53:26Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Or they could slow roll it, wink and nod at his, you know, desire. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah, it's, it's, it's, it's, I think he's going to lose birthright citizenship. And I think he's going to lose this one, too. That's, that's my prediction, because I think these are I'm going to hope so. But you're right, you know, this, this question, you know, it's certainly we've never seen this happen, I don't think in the history of the United States. But it certainly could be the case that there could be political operatives who are, you know, aligned with a party who in districts where people are voting by mail, and they happen to be predominantly Democratic districts, you know, drive those votes, drive those ballots in slowly or, you know, take a long, take a bit longer time.

54:06Karen Friedman Agnifilo:So they arrive after election day. There's so much manipulation that could occur if the court rules in favor of Trump, it would be, it would really be another blow to the integrity of the American electoral system. Yeah. Not to mention the fact that, uh, J.D. Vance is out in Hungary stomping for Viktor Orban, you know, like now that's, that's the model of democracy. I mean, it's just unbelievable to me, the values of, of MAGA and, and this party. Um, okay. So that's where we are with voting. And if you only hear one thing that we're saying in this whole segment, it's you have to vote, make sure you vote, get everyone, you know, to vote and make your vote count because voting is going to be the single most important thing.

54:54And while you're at it, vote for Legal AF and the intersection, the Webbys, while you're voting and help us get to the number one spot. So I want to talk about what's going on with the Department of Justice right now and Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche and really sort of what's unfolding now that Pam Bondi is fired. Will she have to testify before Congress? Who are all the people who are vying for the attorney general job? And this Cassidy Hutchinson investigation from the Department of Justice, I found to be really alarming what's happening to her. If you remember Cassidy Hutchinson, she was in Trump one, in Trump's first term, she was a just out of college, kind of low level staffer for Mark Meadows, the chief of staff.

56:00And she was at the White House or she was there that day with Mark Meadows on January 6th. And she was somebody who was very involved in kind of the conversations that Meadows was having with Trump about the riots and the Capitol. and she was a fly on the wall and someone who was urging Meadows to stop this from happening. She also ended up testifying before Congress about the Jan 6th committee about that day and about what she heard and saw and what somebody told her, including that Trump's driver, his Secret Service driver and the beast, that Trump was trying to grab the steering wheel, that this driver told her, she didn't see this, but told her that Trump was trying to grab the steering wheel to go towards the Capitol, and they were saying, no, it's not safe, and then he went to go grab him around the neck, and it was just this heated exchange.

57:11And she also testified, sorry, and so that's where she testified was there. She's also spoken out against Trump in this last election. She said she was not going to vote for Trump, that she was, even though she's still a Republican, that she's going to, she was going to vote for Kamala Harris. and she also wrote a book. And so all of this, I think, got under Trump's skin and she's on his list of people he's not a fan of, one of his enemies lists. And I think one of Trump's, one of the people, Harmeet Dillon, who's the chief of the civil rights division of the Department of Justice, who rumor has it is also vying for this attorney general job, is now investigating Cassidy Hutchinson and whether or not she lied to Congress.

58:12So I want to talk about all things DOJ, including Cassidy Hutchinson investigation. When we come back, we're going to take our next quick break. We'll come back. We're going to talk about that. And we will wrap it up as well by also talking about the Presidential Records Act and all things involving the Presidential Records Act, etc. 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. Look, as someone with an active online presence, privacy is really important to me. There's just too much personal information floating around online, and I don't have time to track it all down myself.

59:01Delete Me does all the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites. Delete Me isn't just a one-time service. Delete Me is always working for you, constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the internet. 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, get 20 % off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeliteme.com slash legal AF and use promo code legal AF at checkout. The only way to get 20 % off is to go to joindeliteme.com slash legal AF and enter code legal AF at checkout.

59:44One more time, joindeliteme.com slash legal AF, code legal AF. I used to think about food constantly, craving, guilt, repeat. It was exhausting. And I just wanted something that actually works without making me feel like I'm doing a science experiment on myself. This podcast is sponsored by Veracity. Welcome to an all-natural way to slim down, get energized, and sharpen your focus. Veracity is revolutionizing health by tackling the root cause of so many issues. Metabolism. If your goal is weight loss, you need to try Metabolism Ignite, the number one doctor-recommended GLP-1 booster and GLP-1 alternative.

1:00:25It's sold out 10 times for a reason. No side effects, no allergens. Metabolism Ignite is a natural, safe, plant-based aid that results in an 85 % reduction in hunger, and it's clinically proven to lose on average nine pounds in 90 days. I started Metabolism Ignite recently, just two capsules with breakfast, and I feel more in control of my hunger throughout the day. Veracity founder and CEO Ali Egan is a certified hormonal health coach, and her personal experience with metabolic issues inspired her to develop holistic solutions for achieving optimal health. It's made with lemon verbena and hibiscus extracts, green coffee bean extract and magnesium.

1:01:05And even if you're on GLP-1 medications, veracity is safe to take along with them to boost metabolism and appetite control. Since it's made from 100 % natural ingredients and is caffeine-free, clinical trials show no negative side effects. I love that it's scientifically legit and so easy. Just two capsules every morning. So before metabolism ignites cells out again, make the switch to GLP-1s the natural way. Head to veracityhealth.co and use code LEGALAF for up to 65 % off your order. Once again, that's V-E-R-A-C-I-T-Y, health.co for 65 % off. And make sure you use my promo code LEGALAF so they know I sent you.

1:01:46All right, we're back. Let's talk about the Department of Justice first before we talk about the Presidential the presidential records act and this Cassidy Hutchinson investigation. Where do you want to start? You want to start with Pam Bondi gets fired, Todd Blanche is the acting, and who are the people in line for, uh, for, for attorney general?

1:02:07Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Well, let's, yeah, let's start with Bondi being fired because, um, that happened quickly. Um, I think she should have been fired a long time ago, but not for the reasons that Trump has articulated or that his, uh, his, adherents have suggested. The fact is that she is someone who has, in my view, abused the office of the Attorney General in order to advance Donald Trump's personal partisan political agenda, his desire for vengeance against anyone who crosses him. And this is precisely why they're going after Cassidy Hutchison, who I thought testified compellingly before Congress. She was very clear about what she saw versus what she heard, the hearsay part of what she testified to.

1:02:49Karen Friedman Agnifilo:The fact that some others testified to the contrary doesn't mean that she committed perjury at all. In fact, there was incredible pressure, I'm sure, on people close to Trump to not testify, to not affirm what she said she heard and what she saw. And to have the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department involved in trying to prosecute her is really extraordinary. It's just another abuse of power to have the Civil Rights Division deployed that way. The Civil Rights Division is a division that has its predominant responsibility over the years has been to protect voting rights, to protect the right of people to vote.

1:03:25Karen Friedman Agnifilo:In fact, that's not what this Justice Department is doing. That's not what the Civil Rights Division is doing. Instead, by the way, the Civil Rights Division was advertising for getting lawyers to defend gun rights versus voting rights. That was its sort of new priority. But this could be another case where we see a political person, a partisan person, someone who's another Trump defense attorney or former attorney, basically auditioning for the job by showing that they are going to pursue his enemies. And so that's personally my opinion about what Harmeet Dillon is doing. But you just don't have a good cast of characters at the Department of Justice at all.

1:04:03Karen Friedman Agnifilo:You have you now have an acting attorney, General Todd Blanche, who was Donald Trump's criminal defense attorney, who has basically acted like he's Donald Trump's criminal defense attorney as deputy attorney general of the United States when he, in essence, seemingly cut the deal to move Ghislaine Maxwell from the prison that she was rightfully incarcerated in for her very serious crimes, her sexual predation and her work to, you know, procure young girls for Jeffrey Epstein and got her that sweet deal. Blanche, basically, immediately after he interviewed her, and she claimed that Donald Trump was always a gentleman, she was moved to one of these club fed minimum security facilities where she has all sorts of perks and privileges.

1:04:46Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And so, you know, the Department of Justice is ailing. It is really strayed from its mission. I was Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Justice Department in the Office of Legal Policy, the Office of Policy Development. I worked with the Attorney General with Janet Reno and then with Mr. Ashcroft. I was proud to come into the Justice Department on the Pennsylvania Avenue side of the DOJ. Carved in the building is the saying that the place of justice is a hallowed place. I always felt like we were trying our best to set aside any partisan or, you know, anyone's religious beliefs or, you know, particular views in order to serve the American people.

1:05:23Karen Friedman Agnifilo:But now you have a Justice Department that is just serving Donald Trump serving his personal agenda. And that is in no small part because John Roberts gave Donald Trump immunity from criminal prosecution. And in that immunity decision, that despicable, terrible decision that John Roberts orchestrated and wrote in the summer of 2024, he tries to articulate in that opinion, he claims and asserts that of course, the president can direct the Justice Department, direct its prosecutions. And that's because Donald Trump was being charged in part with trying to use the Justice Department to advance his own personal political agenda, his effort to stay in office despite losing the 2020 election.

1:06:06Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And so John Roberts planted language in that immunity decision saying that presidents can direct DOJ. Well, there has been longstanding rules for DOJ agreements between the White House Counsel's Office and the Attorney General and other parts of the Supreme Court about who can be involved in making decisions about prosecutions. And the president is not supposed to be doing that. That's not the role of a president, even before Nixon, to basically decide who gets prosecuted and who doesn't. That's the job of the attorney general, not for political interference, even though the president is the leader of the executive branch under the rules of the executive branch.

1:06:43Right, he could set priorities. He could say, I want you to focus on civil rights or I want you to focus on...

1:06:51Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Exactly. Whatever it is, they can set the agenda, but they're really not supposed to go after individual people for retribution, which is what he's doing. And that's one of the things that there's been a lot of speculation about why Bondi was fired, right? Some people think it's because her handling of the Epstein files. Other people think it's because she was unable to, as the head of DOJ, she was unable to secure these indictments against many of his enemies, like Letitia James, like James Comey, and like the 12 members of Congress who bravely stood up and made that video saying that the military, members of the military do not have to follow unlawful orders.

1:07:39In fact, it's their duty not to. And, but it's interesting because Todd Blanche said, nobody knows why she was fired except Donald Trump, right? God forbid the American people should be given information. And so no one really knows why, but, you know, she couldn't have been more loyal to him. And it's hard to see how any of these other candidates, Todd Blanche included, are going to be able to execute his agenda any better than she was. I mean, the grand juries and the judges are the ones who are rejecting these prosecutions more than anything. And so it's just unclear how they're going to be able to please him and stay in this job.

1:08:32But for some reason, they actually want it. And, you know, this Cassidy Hutchinson one is a perfect example. I mean, why now, right? Why are they going after Cassidy Hutchinson now? She was a low-level person who testified before Congress. And, I mean, as you said, she was very clear about what she saw and then what others told her. She certainly, you know, I feel sorry for her. You know, I just don't understand why they're going after her and why they think that they can go after her. I mean, they have until June of 27 before the statute of limitations runs. It's a five-year statute. And she testified in June of 2022.

1:09:22But, you know, it's just that one seemed kind of weird to me.

1:09:27Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Well, that's why I think it might be an addition, like basically trying to say, look, I can go after her. You should name me attorney general. That could be, you know, that's speculation. That could be part of what's going on, could be other factors as well. And I do wonder whether Donald Trump fired Pam Bondi in order to try to prevent her from testifying before the House because she was subject to a subpoena that was signed by the Republican chair of the committee that was agreed to by the Democratic ranking member of the committee. It was issued to her as Pam Bondi, attorney general of the United States.

1:09:59Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And perhaps they think that because she's no longer attorney general, they will get away with not having her testify. It's unclear whether Republicans will go along with her testifying, even though she's no longer attorney general. She has relevant information. Her relevant information has not ceased just because she's no longer attorney general. But she has said that she won't appear. And in fact, meanwhile, the Democratic ranking member has said that they're going to try to pursue her to appear. So we don't know where that's going to go. But I wonder whether that was also a factor in trying to prevent her from being grilled by Congress, even though she's demonstrated that she's willing to not answer questions and use the Justice Department as an attack machine to try to attack any member who asks her a difficult question.

1:10:44Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And as you point out, she has served Donald Trump with extraordinary loyalty, even in ways that were very disrespectful to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, people who were in Congress when she was testifying, and she refused to apologize to them. And so I hope that she is called to testify. I hope she does testify about what she knew, when she knew it, and more. But the fact is, is that we now have the person at the helm of the Justice Department, Todd Blanche, who had the audacity to claim just a few months ago, that notwithstanding the fact that there were many, many, many more files that had not been disclosed despite the Epstein, the Transparency Act that Congress passed, he stood before the American people and claimed this was it.

1:11:28Karen Friedman Agnifilo:There were going to be no more documents. And by the way, he had made sure to remove any documents showing or documenting people being killed or assaulted. Now, of course, there was a rightful effort to redact images of torture or abuse or to protect the names of the innocent, of the survivors or victims of Jeffrey Epstein and some of the male predators that he was, you know, with in some of these incidents that are documented in these files. But Blanche literally said, we've removed any evidence, basically any evidence of killing. And so no one has been prosecuted other than Epstein and Maxwell for any of the crimes that may be revealed, in fact, may be shown in those Epstein files, including files that they have not released.

1:12:17What was the killing that's in the Epstein file?

1:12:19Karen Friedman Agnifilo:What is the killing? That's exactly right. His statement, when you look at that January press conference, he expressly talks about removing any images of death. So bizarre, because these allegations are sex trafficking and rape and child sex trafficking. Yeah. So, yeah, that's just so bizarre. And, you know, the fact that, let's just talk about this subpoena to Pam Bondi. So if you recall, when Trump ran on the promise that we're going to release the Epstein files and demanded it, right? And everyone was demanding it and release the files. And in the beginning was like, yes, we're going to release the files.

1:13:05Pam Bondi famously said, there's a list. It's sitting on my desk for review. I'm going to release it. and then they slow walked it and they refused to do it and they didn't release it and then suddenly Trump's saying things like why is everyone still talking about Epstein you know the guy's dead and everyone's saying because you've made a promise you're supposed to release these files you didn't do it and so Congress had to take matters into their own hands and they passed a law a bipartisan law that were actually Republicans crossed over and it was the Epstein Victims Transparency Act, and they gave a deadline by which these files had to be released.

1:13:49Of course, they blow through the deadline, and they released victims' names, even though the victims and their lawyers provided the list of names that needed to be redacted. So all they had to do is run it through their database, and it would show up any place it was there, and it would redact that out and same thing with pictures, et cetera. And so they bungled the release of the documents. They re-traumatized many of the survivors by releasing their names, their photos, et cetera. And they haven't met with any of the survivors. They, according to them, according to the survivors, they haven't made any arrests or done any meaningful investigation that anyone knows about.

1:14:39And Congress is frustrated, rightly so. And so they issued a subpoena to Pam Bondi to testify April 14th before Congress. And it said, Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General of the United States. It didn't say to the Attorney General. It said to her, comma, Attorney General. And I say that because the Department of Justice is taking the position that she doesn't have to testify because she's no longer attorney general, that this was a subpoena to the attorney general. And since she's not there anymore, it's not true that she doesn't need to, she doesn't need to comply. But Nancy Mace has even said, no, no, no, she was subpoenaed by name, not title.

1:15:24And we're demanding that she appear because this is an oversight committee about this law, about this Epstein Victims Transparency Act. And we are conducting oversight over that. And why did she, it was her job, but why did she stonewall Congress and refuse to follow the law? And Nancy May said she either shows up or she's going to face contempt. So it's, it's, those are fighting words. So I don't think this fight to get Pam Bondi to testify is going to go away. And P.S., where's the DOJ coming up with this whole, oh, well, because she's not AG anymore, she doesn't have to testify. Gee, I'm sorry, why did Hillary Clinton have to testify?

1:16:09She's no longer, you know, Secretary of State or, you know, whatever. Like, you don't, a lot of people have to testify who are formers. Yeah. That's, you know, who are nevers, right? Right.

1:16:21Karen Friedman Agnifilo:That's the way it goes. And the other part of that that is really, you know, is also, I think, extraordinary in terms of the way this administration has approached this, is that you have, you clearly have Pam Bondi, there's reporting, basically, that Pam Bondi was all gung-ho about getting the files out until she looked at the files and realized that Trump was in those files. His name was repeatedly mentioned. And then she told Trump, this is what the reporting shows, she told Trump that he was in the files repeatedly. And then suddenly it was like, oh, why are we talking about these files anymore?

1:16:55Karen Friedman Agnifilo:So she has a lot to answer for, both the statement that she had, you know, she had these lists, the lists of who were the main predators, in essence, on her desk, that she was going to release them. The fact that she, you know, according to reporting, was telling Trump, oh, wait, wait, wait, you're in them, you're in the files, even though I guess they thought perhaps that he was not. There's actually a Wall Street Journal article on the reporting side, not the editorial page side, but on the reporting side that documented in the previous release, the release from the estate, how many times Trump was mentioned.

1:17:27Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And then I think they did a follow-up of how many times he was mentioned in the known files. And then you had Jamie Raskin, Representative Raskin from Maryland, who reviewed some of the files that have not been released and said that Trump was in there even more than he's in the files that were released. And so this looks like a cover-up, quacks like a cover-up, you know, walks like a cover-up, it's a cover-up. And Congress has the right to know what happened here. And Bondi has evidence, you know, that she has observed that needs to be brought to bear. People, or she can try to take the fifth, I suppose, that's certainly her right to do so.

1:18:02Karen Friedman Agnifilo:But the American people have a right to know what happened here and why still to this day, the Justice Department under Pam Bondi for all these months has done nothing to prosecute anyone who has been implicated in these files for crimes involving sex trafficking or sexual predation or the like. And the only thing this Justice Department has done seemingly is give Maxwell like a slap on the wrist, basically by giving her a cushy place to serve her sentence until or unless Donald Trump pardons her in an immoral act. But there is a lot for Congress to investigate. And it's not just Congress. It's we, the people, have a right to know.

1:18:43We absolutely do. And speaking of Jamie Raskin going through the files, one of the things that Pam Bondi inadvertently or accidentally released was an internal memo that was written by Jack Smith about the Mar-a-Lago case. basically saying that there was a clear business motive for Donald Trump to keep the classified documents, including the one that was so super top secret, it could only be seen by six people and waved it around on a plane. And that was something we had never seen before, right? Because we always wondered, why was he keeping it? And they were saying there's a business motive for him.

1:19:27And that has created, you know, it's no small coincidence that Donald Trump had the Office of Legal Counsel, which is the office within the White House that basically advises the president on the law, wrote a 50 some odd page memo, basically answering a question that I didn't even realize was a question because it seems so antithetical to what the actual law is that says essentially as president these are private records you can when you're president when you can leave you can do with them what you want you can destroy them you can not turn them over to the national archives because the presidential records act is a law that came in the wake of Nixon, when Nixon didn't want to turn over his secret tapes, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act that essentially says the National Archives is in charge of the records, any records, any documents, anything that was from a presidency, right, that belongs to the people.

1:20:38And so, oh, well, that's the law. That's clearly the law. And that's what everyone's thought was the law, including there's a Supreme Court case that also said that's the law. And what did OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel, do? Prepared this detailed legal memo, essentially saying that that Supreme Court case is wrong, that that Supreme Court case is actually Nixon versus the GSA, the General Services Administration, and where Nixon made the same argument. Basically, they're my papers and they're personal. And the Supreme Court rejected that argument. So OLC coming out and saying, oh, no, that's wrong.

1:21:23The law is wrong. The Supreme Court got it wrong. And it's a violation of separation of powers for Congress to try to legislate over the executive branch and their papers. and uh and they also the supreme court also rejected that this was that executive privilege applies so you know it's it's really um it's really not the law it's clearly not the law and out of the blue this memo comes out now when jamie raskin uh happens to expose the expose the mar-a-lago thing i think it's a bit of a coincidence um but yeah but yeah so so i don't What are your thoughts on that?

1:22:08Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Well, I really like how you described it. That history is spot on. And the fact is that these sorts of claims have already been rejected by the United States Supreme Court. Those papers aren't the private papers of anyone. They are the papers of the American people. They are the papers of our government. It's not a private affair. The White House is not private in that way. And the National Archives has a long history of maintaining those records, maintaining the records of the public records that the public has a right to see. And so, you know, this assertion, let me just say about OLC. So the Office of Legal Counsel advises the president, but advises the attorney general and is within the Justice Department.

1:22:51Karen Friedman Agnifilo:and when I was in the Office of Policy Development, the Office of Legal Policy, we used to have buttons that said that basically were countering OLC and they said just because it's constitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea. And that was our way of joking about the fact that OLC, its job, it sees its job as maximizing executive branch power. It is not a neutral entity. It has been led by people like William Rehnquist, who was one of the most regressive, repressive justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. OLC is the entity that John Yoo worked for in the George W. Bush administration when he wrote the memos justifying torture, trying to get around the requirement, the legal requirement that America comply with the Geneva Conventions.

1:23:40Karen Friedman Agnifilo:OLC's reputation has been tarnished by the actions of this administration and previous administrations in terms of its willingness to basically be subservient to a president to try to, in my view, illegitimately maximize presidential power contrary to the will of Congress, contrary to the Constitution, contrary to good public policy for the American people and for, you know, our world and our place in the world, as with the Geneva Convention's issue, where in that case, a subsequent OLC had to pull back on some of those memos that were written by John Yoo. So this is another example of how the Justice Department has been perverted into being not just an executive, a servant of the executive branch, but a servant of this president to assert things that are so contrary to longstanding law, statutory law that's been long accepted, Supreme Court precedent, but to do so in service of Trump.

1:24:30Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And as you point out, you know, part of this is based on the fact that the Mar-a-Lago case was about Donald Trump evading the requirements of law for the archiving of materials, the fact that he did not have a right to retain these very sensitive documents, the fact that there's now information, you know, from those Epstein files suggesting that Donald Trump was doing so in order to use some of those papers for his own personal self-interest, his own financial benefit, which is horrifying and likely illegal. And you also had Donald Trump storing those files in a toilet, in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago that was accessible by an unknown number of people.

1:25:18Karen Friedman Agnifilo:This is another case in which the Justice Department has been basically misused to try to protect Donald Trump from the consequences of his past actions. And who knows what they're trying to protect him from in terms of his current or future actions. Well, we certainly know he's using the entire presidency to further his business interests. So that's consistent. And the American Historical Association, which is an association created by Congress in the late 1800s, was created to make sure that certain things are preserved, right? I didn't even know it existed until they filed this lawsuit. And there's a filing that they just filed, essentially, saying that there's strong reason to believe that Trump will retain records for himself after office.

1:26:12And so they're seeking an injunction against Trump to make sure that he doesn't destroy any documents. And they say that Trump violated the Presidential Records Act in his first term, by refusing to give records over to the National Archives. And, you know, they're preparing in advance, you know, for what he's about to do. And they filed it because they're concerned he's going to do it again. And so, you know, it's just very interesting. So this is all going to play out in the courts once again.

1:26:44Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Yep, that's right. And American Oversight was part of that, is a plaintiff in that suit, along with Historical Society. They're a group that has been really active in trying to defend our rights, defend the rule of law, the rule of justice, and the statutes. And I think that is a well-pleated complaint. We'll see what the courts do in terms of a restraining order, temporary restraining order, and ultimately what they do. But again, this is an instance where the Trump administration is trying to basically vindicate Nixon in its own way, although that only has their primary motive. But the effect is to basically try to overturn almost all of the progress made in the aftermath of Watergate to have checks and balances on the presidency, to have rules, to make sure that a president is governed by rules, to make sure that we have independent prosecutors, special prosecutors like Jack Smith, who can independently review allegations of criminality in order to assert, determine whether to bring a suit and not have that be directed by the attorney general, directed by a president.

1:27:43Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And so this is a wholesale assault on all the progress made toward transparency since the Nixon administration. And I am hoping that the lower courts will hold the line and we'll see what happens ultimately with the U.S. Supreme Court. And in the meantime, it's we, the American people, who also have an obligation to hold the line. Back to your earlier point, Karen, about the absolute importance of people making sure that they are registered to vote, that everyone they know is registered to vote, that they get their votes submitted, and they make sure and help guard to ensure that those votes are counted.

1:28:15You know, it's fascinating to me. You know, growing up, Richard Nixon was such a stain on our presidency, right? He was, no one was a fan of Richard Nixon after, you know, he was a criminal, and he did these terrible things. And yet, there's almost like a fascination with him by this administration, right? And the things that he did and the positions that he took. You've got Roger Stone has a tattoo of Richard Nixon, a giant tattoo of Richard Nixon emblazed and on his back. I mean, it's just interesting that they're citing to things that are frankly shameful in our history as somehow presidential and presidential.

1:29:03So I don't know.

1:29:04Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Yeah. Here we are. 2026. Here we are. 2026. Yeah. But you know what? This just this election, these election victories that we're having in these special elections just give me so much hope, Lisa. It just it just goes to show that that most people are aligned with us and not with what's going on. And we just have to withstand it as long as we can. I know that some people are talking about invoking the 25th Amendment, which, you know, basically declaring Trump incompetent. And I don't think that's going to happen. But if we can get Congress, maybe we can impeach him. Yeah, I mean, there's there's going to be so much need for oversight.

1:29:51Karen Friedman Agnifilo:There is already so much need for oversight that's not being done. And there's a need to have a strong Congress that can reject these efforts to bankrupt us for Trump's folly. And there's also a really important effort to hold people accountable for breaking the law to ensure that we do not have this expansive criminality, this lawlessness that basically Trump has ushered in to allow that to stand. It's inconsistent with American values. It's utterly inappropriate for this to be how America marks the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence from a kingdom, from King George III. We have a lot of work to do together to have these conversations, have these efforts to support each other as we stand up for these values that really have helped America be a light for freedom in our world, even though imperfectly so.

1:30:41Karen Friedman Agnifilo:But right now, you know, I think most people see that America is on the wrong track and we have an opportunity. And I certainly say this in my personal capacity. I'm devoted to do whatever I can as an individual citizen to try to get us back on the right track. And so am I, which is why I do this every Wednesday. And I love doing it with you, Lisa. You're one of the smartest people I know. And I learn so much from you every time you're on this show. So thank you so much for joining. thank you i learned so much from you too and i was going to say karen you are an amazing trial lawyer and you are a journalist we are engaged in this new journalism in 2026 in the world we live in so i'm honored to have the chance to be on the show with you and be part of this effort with the might of such network michael popock and the whole gang um the production crew and more but karen uh i am it's always a joy uh to be with you and learn from you as well well we've reached the end of another midweek edition of Legal AF.

1:31:40Vote for the Webby's. Vote for Legal AF and the insurrection at the Webby's. Please click on the button that we're going to...

1:31:49Karen Friedman Agnifilo:The intersection. The intersection. What did I say? The insurrection. Oh my God. Oh my God. It's okay. That's a 40th slip given the insurrection. I can't believe I said that. Oh, I'm so sorry, Popak. It's all good. The intersection. Let me think again. The intersection. We're all good. The intersection. Vote for the intersection and Legal AF. And, oh my God, I can't believe I said that. And thank you so much for joining us and for being here and being loyal and being here every Wednesday and every Saturday watching Legal AF and being part of the Midas Touch Network and the Legal AFers.

1:33:00Transcription by CastingWords Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com.

1:33:32with confidence. Download the Jerry app or visit jerry.ai slash libsyn today. That's j-e-r-r-y dot a-i slash l-i-b-s-y-n.