Legal AF - 5/2/2026

29:57And then, you know, it starts, if you want to do the funnel, if you will, there's the kind of the national organization, the American Bar Association, which has always been apolitical and it's not a lefty Marxist organization, especially since its founding. And then you have sort of other bars that promote the values and interests of different people, usually around, we call them specialty bars, county bars, state bars, city bars, and then these specialty bars. Let's say you're a Caribbean American, the Caribbean Bar Association, Black American, the Black Bar Association. I mean, literally in Miami where I live, I am a member of the, and I have been for 36 years at least for the ABA, the American Bar Association, the Miami-Dade County Bar Association, the Coral Gables Bar Association.

30:57I'm not even Cuban, but I'm a member of the Cuban-American Bar Association, CABBA in Miami, and so on. And I've been to all the events for the Caribbean Bar Association and different things. Because they have, while they're all in favor of the profession, they also have individual interests for their members, depending upon where they're from or what their commonality is. At the American Bar Association, they're much broader, macro. And they do things that Donald Trump hates, like ranking and rating the qualifications of judges. And almost all of Donald Trump's judges, especially in his first term and now especially, that he's putting on a whole series of election deniers are being put up for life or have been confirmed for lifetime appointment in federal judge positions.

31:51At least eight former, recently former criminal defense lawyers for Donald Trump have been put up for or confirmed for federal judge positions at the appellate level like Emil Bovee. But not just Emil Bovee. We just had a guy from Sullivan and Cromwell who's handling Donald Trump's appeals in New York. He's just got nominated for the Second Circuit and so on and so on. But depending upon their background and their expertise or their body of work, the ABA would rate you. Acceptable, not acceptable. And Donald Trump is always on the wrong end of that rating because he picks people that aren't qualified.

32:34Like if you ever picked Alina Habba and try to kick her upstairs to a federal judgeship, she's going to get – I predict she's going to be unacceptable to the ABA, not because of her politics, but because of her lack of independence, her lack of mature qualities that are necessary to be a reliable, independent, apolitical, trusted, neutral, which is what a federal or any kind of judge needs to be. Trump's been going after the ABA since he's been back in office. He's tried to defund them, and that's led to lawsuits. The ABA is fired back and has sued the Trump administration when all of those law firms were getting blacklisted by Donald Trump to have their security clearance has taken away to cut off their livelihood, their ability to handle client matters before the federal government.

33:31The ABA brought one of the early cases. So they're no shrinking violet either. They know that it's an existential threat to the legal profession and to the ABA, and they have been fighting back. Now it's gotten down to a few days ago, an executive order where Trump's going to try to go after the ABA for their sole role or the sole ability to be the accredited, to give the credentials. It's called accreditation for law schools. You can go to a law school that's not accredited, but it doesn't mean you're automatically going to be able to sit for the bar. So you go to like, if you want, like you want your doctor as you, for your prior example, you want your doctor to go to an an accredited medical school.

34:19You know, listen, I don't know where that is. It could be outside the country, but you want it to be accredited. You want him to pass his boards. You want him to be board certified in an area. And the same thing with law. Now, Trump would love to make a whole crop of MAGA lawyers who go through some sort of MAGA curriculum and are not diverse, not involved with equity or inclusion, just a whole bunch of white, deeply red MAGA lawyers. We already have a law school like that, by the way. It's called the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason. If you want to be right right wing or you want to go to a Catholic university like Amy Coney Barrett was a professor at Notre Dame, I'm not bemoaning that, but they've got to be accredited.

35:04And the problem Trump has is that the Bar Association, as an independent First Amendment rights, the ABA is saying to be accredited, you've got to be focused on equity, diversity, and inclusion. And those are four-letter words for Donald Trump because there's value in American society to have somebody like you and me come out of law schools where we were surrounded by people of diverse backgrounds. Even 40 years ago when I started law school, wow, almost 40 years ago when I started law school, It was reasonably diverse. You know, I went to Duke Law School. We had a huge international student population that came over for master's degrees.

35:47So people from China and from Eastern and Central Europe and Central and South America. And then we had a, I wouldn't say it was an overwhelmingly large black student population, but in fact, I just recently ran into at my reunion, one of my classmates, Mo Green, who's now the superintendent of all schools in North Carolina. He ran for office, but he reminded me there were only eight men, black men in my class. I was like shocked that it was that low. But anyway, we tried for diversity. And that is important as we take up our role in society as counselors, as lawyers for the downtrodden, for the underprivileged.

36:34Not everybody goes into corporate law. People are also on the right side of the angels and do civil rights and constitutional law and other things. And some do it for free and pro bono to represent people who are the most disadvantaged in society. And that's important. And the legal system, if we've learned anything on Legal AF, is so important to the day-to-day lives of people, whether it's an accident case or a civil rights violation or what Trump is doing or your constitutional rights. I think people now understand that a good lawyer is a necessity in this country. And this is a fight now for the heart and soul of what our legal profession is about.

37:15So shout out to the ABA. We love you and support you here on Legal AF. And we will do whatever we can to platform these issues here so people know what is happening. But this is what's happening. He's trying to yank the ticket of the ABA to make law schools. When we come back, I want to talk about the Newsom lawsuit proceeding to discovery, Trump's$10 billion lawsuit backfiring in his face, and Trump trying to block discovery into depositions, his role regarding the January 6th insurrection. election we'll talk about uh you know these major developments why you got to fight in litigation it's why you gotta make sure you're always pushing back and um you know and and look these trump tactics that we're going to be talking about you know are always uh you know things that are certainly discouraging but there's a way to win the win the ways to fight to be relentless and the way newsom did you know newsom sued fox there were lots of people who said ash did he file that lawsuit.

38:16Why file? Now he's going to get a treasure trove of discovery as a result of this big win in the initial motion to dismiss phase. All right, let's take our first quick break of the show. A reminder, if you or somebody you know has been injured in a car accident, a trucking accident, if you've been injured by the negligence of somebody else, reach out to the Popak Law Firm. Michael Popak has lawyers across the country and he's got a team ready to take your phone call. Call or text 877-POPOC-AF or visit thepopocfirm.com. They're available 24-7. The consultation is free. And also make sure you subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel and the Legal AF sub stack.

38:54Check that out. Let's get those to continue to climb the charts. We'll be right back after our first quick break of the show. All right, let's be real. Who likes wearing a bra? Nobody, especially when you're working out, right? Sports bras are terrible to wear most of the time, whether it's that they dig into your shoulders on the straps or the band rolls up and feels too tight around your rib cage or whatever it is. They're a pain to put on, they're a pain to take off, and they're so uncomfortable. But Honey Love has this sports bra that is different. And they have this wonderful new product called the Honey Love Cross Flex Activity Bra.

39:38And it immediately felt different from every other sports bra that I've worn. It feels like a sports bra with a support, but it's also designed for all day wear. And it's supportive without feeling too tight, too stiff, or suffocating. It has easy to take on and take off and it's wireless using their technology called CloudFuse. So there's no poking or digging or pressure points, which is actually what I love the most about it. And it gives you, of course, great shape and separation instead of that uniboob look that sports bras can often give you. So if you find yourself reaching for a sports bra on a daily basis and you are because you need the coverage and you need the support, but you're looking for something comfortable that you could also wear all day, I highly recommend the Honeylove Crossflex Activity Bra as the solution you've been searching for.

40:33So it's really fantastic. They are now offering a crossover triple bra bundle. So if you want a full refresh on your top drawer, you can get a huge savings by buying three at once. They are an independent female founded brand with products designed by women who actually wear them, including the founder, Betsy. Honey Love doesn't just make bras and shapewear. They've built a full line of tanks, body suits, and underwear with supportive structure, smoothing fabrics, and premium finishes. And they recently launched their new crossover contour bra, which features their best-selling wireless crossover bra design, plus built-in molded light foam pads for extra support and beautifully contoured shape.

41:19Treat yourself to the most advanced bras and shapewear on the market. Use our exclusive link to save 20 % off Honey Love at honeylove.com slash legal AF. That's honeylove.com slash legal AF. and after you check out, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them Legal AF sent you. Experience the new standard in comfort and support with Honey Love. You ever notice how drinking, it just hits different as you get older. Like once I got into my 30s, even a couple of drinks, and the next morning I'm feeling less than 100%, you know, my sleep's off, the energy's low. It just lingers more than it used to.

41:57That's why I recently tried Cheers, health restore after alcohol aid. I was definitely skeptical, but I took it after my last drink and the next morning surprised me. I felt at least 50 % better, like way more normal than I expected, and my sleep didn't feel nearly as wrecked. What's interesting is that it's not just about hydration. It's really about what's happening in your brain and liver overnight. Cheers helps your body process alcohol more efficiently while you sleep and supports your liver so you'll wake up feeling a lot closer to yourself. Take Cheers Restore after your last drink or before going to bed and wake up feeling at least 50 % better or your money back.

42:42For a limited time, our listeners are getting 20 % off their entire order by using code LEGALAF at cheershealth.com. Just head to cheershealth.com and use code LEGALAF for 20 % off. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them our show sent you. Welcome back to LEGALAF. Thank you to all of our sponsors. They help support this show, help support our sponsors, support the show. Discount codes are in the description below. Michael, Popak, and Jordi spend a lot of time with those sponsors, working with them to ensure we get you good products, good services, good discounts, good discount codes.

43:23All right, let's talk about three big cases that are happening. And they kind of all relate to, I think, Donald Trump running scared, Donald Trump blocking discovery, the importance of discovery in litigation, why it's important to fight back and to make sure, you know, we assert ourselves with formal authority, legal authority, and never, you know, never back down from a fight. So let's talk about California Governor Gavin Newsom's lawsuit against Fox. He sued Fox for$787 million. He sued in the Delaware Superior Court system there. Why'd he sue in Delaware? We'll talk about that. What was the ruling by this Delaware state court judge and the ruling, an important one in terms of opening up discovery.

44:11We'll talk about that. Let's talk about the$10 billion lawsuit that Trump filed against the government or against really the taxpayers. He sued the United States government. He wants to take our taxpayer money. It's really against us, right? And he sued for $10 billion. He was trying to enter into a collusive settlement basically with himself. We previously reported how a federal court raised the issue of whether there's even jurisdiction in the first place because there has to be adverseness to have what's called Article 3 standing, Article 3 of the Constitution requires there be a case in controversy, an actual plaintiff against an actual defendant instead of like two partners who just want a judge to rubber stamp a settlement.

44:55And so the judge said, I'm not sure I have jurisdiction. The judge ordered briefing before anything can continue in that case. But then the judge made a very significant move this week, appointing certain law firms to help guide her in the case. We'll talk about that. And then let's talk about what's going on in the J6 cases. Yep, those are still around. The civil cases brought by members of Congress and Capitol Police officers and Metropolitan Police officers against Trump. Trump dragged this thing out for five years, trying to make every claim of immunity, staying the case. He went to every level.

45:29He lost by claiming that he should be entitled to all of this immunity for his involvement in the insurrection on a civil case, that is, a civil case. And that cases preceding. Judge Mehta opened up discovery and then Donald Trump rushed emergency order. We need an emergency order. And then he had the DOJ make filings. Emergency, judge, emergency. Stop the discovery right now. Donald Trump is way too busy. He's doing too many things. You can't force the president of the United States to have to sit through all of this discovery. So, Popak, I think that's a nice bundling of those three topics. I'll let you take them in any order, but let me pass it to you to break down those three developments.

46:08I like the order you set him up. And let's start with Gavin Newsom. I always love the suit and I always get tickled when we start talking about the$787 million. For those that are joining the story late, he purposely picked that number because that is the amount of the settlement that Fox News, the same defendant in his case, paid to Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation case in Delaware before another Delaware Superior Court judge for their platforming the big lie through Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and others. And so he picked it on purpose. And the heart of Governor Newsom's case was about a phone call and the timing of a phone call between Donald Trump and him just before Donald Trump sent in the jackbooted National Guard into California.

47:07And depending upon the timing of the phone call, if it was accurately reported, that'd be one thing. But the way it was reported by Fox, John Roberts and Jesse Waters, it not only made Gavin Newsom look almost complicit with like he agreed to the National Guard being called out, but actually went further when Jesse Waters did his show and had a chyron at the bottom, you know, we call it the lower third at the bottom of the screen, that said, Newsom lies about phone call with Donald Trump. And that is untrue. That is untrue. And the question is whether actual malice has also been properly alleged in a complaint, the initial thing that kicks off a lawsuit, yes or no, because Gavin Newsom is obviously a public figure, and you have to prove actual, you have to allege actual malice.

48:00Eventually, you got to prove it. We're only at the motion to dismiss stage. So Fox filed a motion to dismiss. First piece of paper in a lawsuit is always the same thing. It's a complaint. That's what we call it. Broken down by claims or causes of action, and you have to have operative facts to support it. Depends if you're in state or federal court. Here we're in the Delaware courts, but it's always a complaint. The next piece of paper is either an answer or it's a motion of some sort. Motion to dismiss, motion for judgment on the pleadings, maybe right to summary judgment, you know, it depends.

48:37Usually a motion to dismiss. And in the motion to dismiss, the other party, in this case Fox, argues that the elements are not present on the face of the complaint, because you have to accept everything on a motion to dismiss. You have to accept everything as true that's alleged. If I wrote in a complaint that the moon is made out of cheese, for the purposes of that motion to dismiss, it has to be accepted as true. I might be in trouble later on for making false statements, but that has to be accepted as true. And then the complaint is also reviewed in the light most favorable to the party that filed the complaint.

49:16So you get two benefits of the doubt. Fox comes in with, suit should be dismissed. We accurately reported the issue was not about the time of the phone call. It was about whether a phone call took place or not. And forget the chyron that said Gavin Newsom is a liar. It's opinion. It's fair reporting. You can't make out a defamation case. And actual malice isn't made out. Their first argument was wrong court. Don't sue us in Delaware. Or apply a different body of law. not California's, apply Delaware's or New York or whatever. The judge quickly dispatched the motion to dismiss. He said, first of all, you're a Delaware corporation.

50:09So suing you in your home state of incorporation can never be a hardship for you. That's one. And secondly, he said, we're going to apply Delaware procedural law. Okay, great. Now let's get to the merits. Here's the timing. On June 6th, it's hard to believe it's almost a year ago, this is a fact. Gavin Newsom has a 16-minute phone call with Donald Trump about, we don't know the content of it, but we know it took place. On June 10th, Trump is interviewed in the White House and says, yesterday, meaning the 9th, I had a phone call with Gavin Newsom. And leaves the implication that, because that was the rollout of the National Guard, that almost like Gavin Newsom was okay with it.

51:05Problem with Donald Trump's story is the phone call took place three days earlier. But when Trump, when Fox reported it and John Roberts reported it, John Roberts apparently got Trump on the phone on Air Force One and he showed him his call log to try to show that the call took place the day before, except the call log was for the three days before. But Roberts reported it as, we've talked to the president. He's shown me his call logs, proving that the phone call took place as the president said it did, meaning the day before, which made Gavin look bad. Jesse Waters then runs with it. Now we're like, you know, this is telephone game.

51:49He runs with it, and they actually are ballsy, and they put a line at the bottom of the screen. I mean, Gavin Newsom, why is Gavin Newsom lying about the phone call? Gavin Newsom admits there was a phone call for 16 minutes. He just says it happened on the 6th, and there's proof of that. And Fox ran with it happened on the 9th. In the motion to dismiss, they said it doesn't matter when it happened. We thought Newsom was upset because he said there was no phone call, and so we reported that there was a phone call. The judge said no. The issue at the heart of the defamation is that you misreported when the phone call took place and you branded him a liar.

52:30And that's a statement of fact that's untrue, at least as alleged. And I'm letting the suit continue. As for actual malice, he said, for now, in the pleading stage, all the things that Gavin Newsom wrote in his pleadings about how Fox has it out for him. Fox has a political agenda against him. Fox has animus against him. And knew or should have known that the call took place three days earlier and yet ignored all of the countervailing facts to run the story. Judge says that's enough for circumstantial evidence that there's actual malice. We'll get down later on whether that's actually proven at trial.

53:09Now, what is putting aside all the inside baseball about how a motion to dismiss works. What's the importance of this? It's that the floodgates of discovery now open, meaning the thing that led Fox to settle for$787 million against Dominion is that they had lost the motion to dismiss against Dominion suit, were forced into depositions, and to have all their emails, all the insider emails between on-air talent and each other, producers and each other, executives and on-air talent about all those issues, all got produced. They then got used in a motion for summary judgment by Dominion. That got filed on the court docket.

54:01They never anticipated this. I don't know why. And all of the emails came out in the open. You and I had a field day, we had content for months of the emails of Tucker Carlson calling Rudy Giuliani crazy, but also saying we need to keep him on the air because it sells products, et cetera, et cetera. We're now in that same moment. Emails about the relationship between Donald Trump and Fox, John Roberts, the phone call, the messaging, what they said internally before they went on the air is all now fair game. To answer the question that inevitably will come up, can the Trump administration take an appeal?

54:43I've done Delaware practice before. It is very difficult to get what's called the interlocutory appeal on a motion to dismiss to stop the case, meaning it's not going to be appealable or stop the discovery process right now. And so Fox's loss is Gavin Newsom's gain in terms of his suit. Now, is he going to be able to ultimately prove $787 million worth of damages? I don't know. That's for another day. But for right now, discovery is open. We're going to talk a lot about discovery and what it means when Donald Trump sues in a case and ultimately is going to have to pay the price and sit in a chair and not argue that he's the president of the union.

55:28He can't be both a plaintiff and a lawsuit and argue you're too busy and too important as president to participate in the process that you started. So we're going to this is where a lot of in Trump 3.0, this is where a lot of this is going to go. As as the Trump administration has been trying hard and has been successful so far in dodging having its key people sit for deposition. Pam Bonney sit for deposition. She gets fired. Todd Blanche sit for deposition in a case involving Abrego Garcia. Yeah, we're not going to put him on the stand at all. You know, we'd rather lose the case than put him up on deposition.

56:04Todd Lyons for a deposition? Oh, no, he's no longer the acting director of ICE. So this is an Achilles heel for the Trump administration and Donald Trump. He does not. He knows he doesn't do well in depositions or as witnesses in a witness box. And just one last thing, Ben. And it reminded me, and as a reminder to Donald Trump, Elon Musk just had a terrible day testifying up in your neck of the woods, the Northern District of California, in a case involving Chatt-GVT, where he took the stand and was cross-examined. At one point, I'll just leave this on this anecdote because this would be Donald Trump.

56:42At one point, he didn't like the question that was being asked of him by the opposing lawyer. And Musk himself said out loud leading objection, leading question, to which the federal judge presiding over the case said, Mr. Musk, repeat after me, I am not a lawyer. And he said it out loud. And then he added, because he can't help himself, he has got to get the last word in. He said, but I did take law 101 technically. And everybody in the courtroom burst out laughing. Trump's not going to do any better in those situations. You and I have seen him in deposition and in testimony in various cases.

57:24And so the more we can get closer to that moment, the better it is for justice. And that moment is truth. That moment is discovery. It's under oath. It's actually the reality, not the bending of reality that exists on propaganda TV. It's why you and I became lawyers ultimately and why we started this program and this network. It's not cheerleading a particular political party or a specific politician, though it's cheerleading the truth and the facts. And in a court of law, the rules of evidence govern. You can't just throw anything in a courtroom. There has to be evidence that is credible. It can't just be hearsay or rumors or innuendo.

58:07And there's ways to assess, is the evidence credible or is this evidence purely speculative in nature? And if it is speculative in nature, then make it credible before it gets to, you know, to a jury. And in this case, the audience, the American people, when we had a somewhat healthy fourth estate, there was a filter. There was a credible evidence check. And then Trump and MAGA and corporate news bending the knee and a broader authoritarian movement internationally kind of broke that and spread their propaganda using these various outlets. And it's time we flood the zone with the truth and get that in front of the people.

58:46So it's a good example, though, Popak, because with Newsom v. Fox, that shows that these parties are clearly adverse, right? They're fighting each other, you know, in a courtroom, right? Fox wants to have the case dismissed. Fox wants it thrown out. Newsom is pushing to assert his rights to get before a jury. There's conflict. There's a controversy, right? Right. Contrast that to what's going on in this 10 billion dollar debacle where Donald Trump sued the government, the taxpayers for 10 billion dollars. And then Trump requested of this federal judge in Florida that he get 90 day extension for the defendant, who's also basically Trump, the Treasury Department, Besant and the IRS, which is under the Treasury Department.

59:35So they can spend 90 days to settle. Judge, we're going to try to do a little settlement here. Can you just allow this? Let's give a 90-day extension. The judge is like, I was waiting to see if the defendant was going to respond because in a normal case, they would do what Fox did in a Newsom case. They would fight. And when Trump's suing them, the government, for$10 billion, there's so much defenses that exist, especially with the government entity, immunity, statute of limitations, just failure to state a claim in general. And the judge is like, no, I'm not going to bless a collusive settlement in a case that probably isn't a case at all.

1:00:14So we previously reported on the Midas Touch Network how the judge said, I can't proceed right now until there's jurisdiction. So I want Trump as an individual and the defendants, the Treasury Department, separately brief the issue that there's truly separation and that I have jurisdiction. In the meantime, the judge says, I'm going to hire three of the top law firms in the country that are well-skilled in the most complex areas of law, and they're going to give me guidance. So, Popak, talk about this because these appointments, I think, were noteworthy. The fact that it was three law firms, not one law firm, the fact that the judge is doing an amicus curia.

1:00:55It's what you and I said. Go to the back of the episode. It's exactly what you and I said should happen. The judge is now doing it. Talk to us about it, Popak. Absolutely. And to your point about adversary process. If you're lucky enough to go to London, I'm talking about our audience, and you go and do a tour of legal London, and you go to the royal court, at the entrance of the royal court, carved in stone since the 1800s, we'll try to put a photo up, is a dog fighting with a cat on the way in. And it was done as a whimsical reminder of the adversarial nature of the suit that is supposed to be administered by the Royal Courts of London.

1:01:42You can't have two cats. You can't have two dogs. Well, I guess you can have two dogs, but that is what we're talking about. So when, and I know Judge Williams well, when Judge Williams in the Southern District of Florida and Miami, who's not to be, most of the federal judges are not to be trifled with, and she's, You know, just really, really brilliant. And had been the long time, as she got there, she had been the long time federal public defender for years in Miami and also in Orlando in the middle of the state. That was her background before. And one of the few federal public defenders that actually has been has taken the bench.

1:02:24And as you and I said, she figured out right away that I don't have two adversary parties here. I've got Trump on one side and his IRS on the same side. And that is a problem. So the problem for Trump is if there is not a real legitimate lawsuit, then there can be no settlement of the lawsuit because there's no exchange of consideration, which means if he wants his$10 billion, he's going to have to rob the IRS to do it because there won't be a lawsuit to use as a cover for settlement. That's why he's fighting so hard to keep this lawsuit. Some people might be asking, why does he just have the IRS stroke him a check?

1:03:13Because that is just broad daylight robbery at that point. That's just grand theft auto. Okay. So he has the lawsuit, you know, brought by his, you know, he brings against his own entity. So she wants to get to the bottom of it. Now, the UNI had covered before, for instance, the inherent authority of a federal judge when they sense that the fix is in to bring in an outside party to advise. Judges do it in different ways. We talked last week or so about Judge Ho in New York, who when he sensed there was a problem with the dismissal of an indictment against Mayor Adams of New York, that he didn't have an adversary party on the other side, with the Department of Justice coming in to dismiss it, and people arguing that they're doing it in order to coerce Mayor Adams into following their immigration policy, he said, you know what?

1:04:09I'm going to bring in a special counsel to advise me and write a brief to me about whether this indictment should be dismissed or not. And he did. He appointed a former solicitor general under the Bush administration to handle that. In Florida and under Florida law, they also recognize another method, equally as good, I think, which is that a judge can appoint friends of the court, we call them amicus curi or amici, to advise the court. Now, when you're in a regular lawsuit, a judge doesn't have to invite amicus briefs. They just come in on important topics. And they could have just come in on this important topic.

1:04:52Or she could take the lead in the initiative to say, I want briefs to guide me. And she didn't just say one, like the way Judge Ho said, I'm going to appoint this former Solicitor General. She said, I want a broad spectrum. And she was smart. I know these firms and so do you. Debovoise and Plimpton, major white shoe firm out of New York, a boutique firm that's very well regarded in Salende Gay, which I've litigated with before. And they all spun off from another major firm, but are very, very well respected in this area. And then a third firm And they're going to they have a deadline. She still has an she still has made it an obligation of the IRS and Donald Trump to do their own briefs.

1:05:41Don't do a joint brief. That would be that would be the death. That would actually prove the point. But now she's going to have the benefit of the wisdom of three law firms that don't have an axe to grind, that are not connected to Donald Trump or the IRS or to the judge to give her independent evaluation. The interesting thing is going to be these three firms, I participated in a situation where my firm and another firm were up for a beauty pageant to see if we were going to be selected. That's what it used to be called to handle a client. And to test us, they wanted both sides, each firm to submit kind of a white paper about how they would handle the case.

1:06:31And I saw the other sides after. But these three are going to be working completely independently. They're not going to be sharing. They're not going to be setting drafts around. And it's going to be interesting to see how the three come out in terms of can a president, while he's in office, sue his own executive branch agency for money damages or otherwise. Now, if I'm a betting man, I think it's going to come up three cherries against Donald Trump on the slot machine. I think they're going to find that that's not appropriate and that it would never survive Supreme Court review. But we'll have to see, and it'll be very interesting.

1:07:13This is the first time, just to put us in context, first time in six years that you and I have been doing the show, that we've ever had this method be used by a judge concerning a Trump issue. And I think you and I are both curious and slightly excited to see what the result's gonna be. And then what Judge Williams, she'll have five total briefs, right? She'll have the one from Trump, the one from the IRS. She'll have the three amicus briefs. You don't get an opportunity to comment on the amicus briefs. And the way she set them, I have to look at the deadlines. I don't think Trump's gonna have the benefit of them.

1:07:46So she's gonna have five briefs giving her some opinion, but she's the one in the black robe. She's going to make the ultimate decision. But what hangs in the balance, and I don't want to make this too, I don't want to lose the point. If she rules that he can't sue, he just lost his lawsuit subject to an appeal. And he just lost his ability to shake down the IRS for billions of dollars. And look, I think that we all know that that's what he's doing. I think what the federal judge is doing right here is making sure she does due diligence and that if ultimately that's the decision that's reached, she gets a number of perspectives and she can make a record that when this goes to the 11th Circuit or to the United States Supreme Court, which is what Trump will inevitably do, that there is a significant record because there isn't a record when there's no adversity.

1:08:41There normally would be a record when plaintiff sues defendant and they fight each other and they're trying to get in front of the judge, the law, the facts, the evidence, and they're trying to persuade and convince and have all the information, but that doesn't exist. So if the judge just says, I don't have jurisdiction, then that's going to allow Donald Trump to try to use that and go, ah, you just are partisan and you're an Obama appointee and that's why you're doing it. And the judge, I think, is going to say, look, I've brought in this wealth of knowledge. And I think she's going to make the ruling appeal proof.

1:09:12And that's what I think is happening. Now, since we all know what Donald Trump is doing, Trump is on video and audio bragging about settling with himself and that there is no adversity and that he's already won the case before it started. He's on audio saying that. And that's how Donald Trump and dictators and authoritarians want the system to look like. It is a foregone conclusion, the outcome because you're on both sides of the case. Just very, very briefly, because I've touched upon in the first segment, I've touched upon it right now as well. Those J6 cases that were filed against Donald Trump for his involvement in the insurrection, civil cases, they were proceeding.

1:09:48Donald Trump using the Justice Department to try to block discovery there. He's saying that he's too busy. There's so much going on that the proceedings need to be stayed. He's kind of recycling arguments that he already made where courts have found that he's not entitled to immunity for purposes of this case. And, you know, I just think it's worth noting here that Donald Trump, who's brought so many lawsuits in his individual capacity, including a$10 billion lawsuit that was brought against the government, whether he wants the taxpayers to pay, in a normal situation, you bring a lawsuit, you're subject to discovery.

1:10:23You have to sit for deposition. You have to go through the process. You don't get to file a lawsuit and go, now you don't get to question me because I'm the president of the United States. No, you brought it in an individual capacity. You're being sued in the J6 cases as an individual capacity. Just sit for a deposition and stop being pathetic. You go in front of, you do these weird speeches across the country where you make your noises and you grunt and you lie about everything. You call up state regime media where you lie about everything. Tough guy. Go under oath. No one wants to be deposed.

1:10:54It's not fun having your deposition taken or being involved in litigation, but you're in it now. So sit there. stop whining, stop complaining, shut up, and just let the facts be what the facts be. You know, and it's just, again, as a former practicing lawyer, someone who watches it, just so pathetic to see someone like that who acts all tough and sues everybody, then he squirms and refuses to even sit for a deposition. But that's him, a paper tiger. You hear him always saying, paper tiger, paper tiger. This is a paper. NATO's a paper tiger. NATO's not a paper tiger. What are you talking about?

1:11:28NATO defended the United States after 9-11. And NATO has been the opposite of it. Your whole life is being a paper tiger and having people bail you out. And you're exposed right now, once again, in front of the American people and in front of the world, frankly, with this naval blockade that you think is working in Iran, which isn't, as oil prices at record highs. All right, let's take our last quick break of the show. When we come back, I want to talk about the voting rights ruling by the Supreme Court. And then I want to combine the topics of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Comey indictment into one, because to me, what it's really showcasing, and this will be the way we frame the topic, Popak, is acting Attorney General Todd Blanche trying to endear himself to Donald Trump to become the Attorney General by bringing prosecutions that even Pam Bondi wasn't going to do.

1:12:16I mean, this idea of indicting Comey for a social media post of seashells, Bondi didn't want to bring that. Similarly, the Southern Poverty Law Center case wasn't brought for a reason under Bondi. I mean, and she brought some horrific cases because the Southern Poverty Law Center was working with the prosecutor's office, working with the DOJ to get the bad guys. So in order for you to indict, you'd have to essentially lie to the grand jury and say that the Southern Poverty Law Center wasn't doing that. And that's apparently what they did. They showed up apparently to a grand jury and told them incorrect information.

1:12:48We don't have the grand jury information yet, but Southern Poverty Law Center is saying, federal judge, we should now get, even though normally their secrecy, we should be getting this because we should be getting this grand jury information because the only way they could have indicted on these facts is if they lied because it's just not true, any of the things that they're saying, and they know it. All right, let's take our last quick break of the show. A reminder, if you or someone you know have been injured in a car accident, trucking accident, auto accident, negligence of others, make sure you reach out to the Popak Firm.

1:13:20You can call or text 877-POPAKAF or visit thepopakfirm.com. You may know someone who's been injured or another family or someone who had a tragic thing happen. Reach out to the Popak Firm and see if you have a case. Also, subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel and the Legal AF Substack. All right. Thanks, everybody. We'll be right back after our last quick break of the show for the home stretch. Look, magnesium, it's something most of us lack. And if you're taking that drugstore variant, you're still not getting the full picture. Industrial farming, chronic stress, and everyday aging all make it worse.

1:13:56Most supplements only use one form of magnesium, but magnesium comes in many forms that support your body in different ways. That's why you need to try Qualia Magnesium Plus. It combines 10 bioavailable forms of magnesium with more than 70 trace minerals for comprehensive full-spectrum support. Sleep deeper, think sharper, recover faster, support muscle strength, a steadier mood, and balanced energy metabolism. It's not just a sleep supplement. Oh, no. It's a full body magnesium system built for modern living so you can feel your best every day. Since adding Qualia Magnesium Plus to my routine, I'm feeling easier recovery from workouts and a calm, more centered wind down at night.

1:14:44It's been a supportive addition to my daily wellness routine. Experience the most trusted magnesium for purity, potency, and performance. Plus, it's non-GMO, vegan, and gluten-free, making it a choice you can feel good about. Go to qualialife.com slash legal AF for 50 % off. And here's a bonus. Use the code legal AF for an additional 15 % off your order. That's Q-U-A-L-I-A life.com slash legal AF. And then use code legal AF. Thanks to Qualia. for sponsoring this episode. We love our cat Chanel, but for the longest time, we were dealing with, well, the classic scarf and barf situation. She'd eat too fast, throw up, and I just thought, well, that's normal.

1:15:29Turns out, well, it's not. Then I switched Chanel to Small's and the difference was immediate. Small's Fresh Cat Food is protein pack recipes made with preservative-free, 100 % human-grade ingredients you'd find in your fridge, and it's delivered right to your door. Since switching, I've noticed better digestion, more energy, and her coat is softer and shinier. Even the litter box is, well, less gross because more of the nutrients are actually digestible, so less junk comes out the other end. Cats use protein as their main energy source, so more protein means more sustained energy, and you can really see it, and there's real proof.

1:16:09Forbes ranks Small's the best overall cat food. BuzzFeed. It said, my cats went completely ballistic for this stuff. And after switching, 88 % of cat owners reported overall health improvements. So stop serving your little carnivore a bowl of processed shortcuts for a limited time because you're a Legal AF listener. Get 60 % off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com slash legal AF. That's 60 % off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com slash legal AF. Welcome back to Legal AF. Thank you to all of those sponsors.

1:16:52Two topics left we need to discuss. Number one, Attorney General or Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche wanting to become the Attorney General. Brought that Comey indictment against former FBI director for posting seashells. Then the week before bringing that case against the Southern Poverty Law Center in Alabama, saying that they basically kept informants with extremist groups, but didn't disclose it. And that constitutes wire fraud because people were giving money to the Southern Poverty Law Center to fight racism and to fight extremist groups. But I guess the theory of the case is that the Southern Poverty Law Center, They were the racists and they were the ones promoting the they were the extremist group.

1:17:33So they were promoting them and then saying, look, we're fighting the extremist group. And when that criminal case, when that indictment dropped, I was like, this makes literally zero sense. But I want to wait for Southern Poverty Law Center to respond. And of course, Southern Poverty Law Center said, what are you talking about? Everybody knows about our informing program in the FBI and DOJ and local law enforcement because we work with you. We work with this prosecutor's office that brought these charges. is we help you find the bad guys. And then people donate to us because we work with you to help find the bad guys.

1:18:03That's like what we do. And so the Southern Poverty Law Center is now saying, as it relates to the grand jury proceedings, which are usually supposed to be kept secret under Rule 6E, that we have to pierce the veil of secrecy as it relates to this grand jury. This is a theme we've been seeing with a lot of Trump grand juries, including Comey's first indictment, where Comey got his hands on the grand jury testimony. And it turned out there was egregious misconduct taking place there. The Southern Poverty Law Center is saying, it's impossible that you got an indictment based on these facts unless you literally lied to the grand jury.

1:18:36And just for those to note, in a grand jury, there's no judge in the room, and there's no defense counsel in the room. The grand jury is just the DOJ and the grand jury members who rely on what the DOJ tells them. There's no objection. There's really no rules of evidence. And it's based on the ethical behavior of the DOJ bringing meritorious cases, because if you bring a case that's not meritorious in the past one, you'd lose your job. It would shatter the credibility of the DOJ. It wasn't thinking, yes, did the DOJ overreach in the past? They bring some bad cases. Can you say that there was like there was never misconduct before?

1:19:19Of course, there was misconduct before it happened. But the systemic level and the egregious nature that we see under the Trump regime is truly unprecedented. So that was Southern Poverty Law Center's response is, we think that this grand jury proceeding was tainted by false information. And the Southern Poverty Law Center saying, we gave you all, we gave the DOJ the information also that shows we work with you. Even if you want to just ignore it, we put it in front of you anyway that we work with you. Then you had the James Comey indictment by this DOJ based on a thing he posted a year ago where he posted 8647 with seashells and Trump and the DOJ saying 86 was a threat on Donald Trump's life by using the number 86.

1:20:06And 86 is a restaurant bar term, get rid of. You know, you 86 somebody from a bar, you get them out of the bar, you get them out of the restaurant. But there's a criminal case that's filed on this basis. So Popak, talk about this. Then let's pivot quickly to the Voting Rights Act. I know you and I have covered the Voting Rights Act extensively. So I don't mean to redo a whole rehash of that ruling, but talk about, you know, Blanche making his move right here, why these cases are going to collapse. Then you can just pivot right to Voting Rights Act if you like. The Voting Rights Act is simple. We'll get there in a minute.

1:20:38Rather than do the top line, which we'll do in a second, it's what's happening since. It's the starter pistol that got fired for the race to the bottom. But Democrats fighting back as well. We'll get to gerrymandering in a moment. On the Comey indictment, he and Patrick Fitzgerald, his lawyer, used to be the Chicago U.S. attorney, should be lighting candles and saying novenas because if this is the indictment, the best they can come up with is seashell formations on a beach in North Carolina. And having worked in restaurants, including in diners, 86 means remove. It means remove it from the menu, like 86 the coleslaw, 86 the onion rings.

1:21:23It doesn't mean take the onion rings out in the back and assassinate them. And this has always been the problem. There's new reporting that this indictment was so flimsy that even Pam Bondi, yes, Pam Bondi, did not go forward with it. And apparently the only thing stopping it from being let out of the cage was Pam Bondi. Now, Todd Blanch, who has already demonstrated, there is no depth he will not sink in order to try to obtain the permanent role of attorney general, sacrificing all whatever ethics or shred of credibility he had before is now completely out the window. That's why we're seeing a ramp up of all the political enemies of Donald Trump indictments since Pam Bondi has left the building.

1:22:09So the seashore indictment is likely not going to make it past a motion to dismiss, as we've talked about before. There's a body of law out of the United States Supreme Court that defines what a attack on a threat, a criminal threat on a president and what it looks, sounds like. And this ain't it. This is a parody. This is sarcasm. This is hyperbole. This is rhetoric. This is core protected First Amendment speech, but it ain't a crime. And Donald Trump screwed up his own case anyway when a reporter for CNN and the White House during this kind of wide-ranging Oval Office presser asked, Caitlin Collins asked, were you afraid for your life last May when you saw the Insta photo of a shell formation by the shells?

1:23:04Well, I don't know. It's hard to tell. I'm not sure. Well, how to tell? I'm not sure. That does not an assassination attempt make. See, this administration also exploits any opportunity they have rather than try to bring the country together or otherwise. You know, a person breaks in a floor below Donald Trump at a White House press dinner, White House correspondence dinner with malice in his heart. That's an excuse to build a ballroom. And to go after James Comey for a year earlier or, you know, a seashell formation of 8647, forgetting that every other right-wing podcaster has used the term 86 and Biden, 86-46, in the same reference.

1:23:55Or to go after Jimmy Kimmel again because of a joke he made two days before the White House Correspondents' Dinner about Melania Trump and the age difference with Donald Trump. So he never lets a tragedy or an averted tragedy go unexploited. But we're on to him now. I mean, we know the MO. We know the blueprint here. I think the judge up in North Carolina, who's a George W. Bush appointee, is going to make quick work to get rid of that indictment. And Lord knows what was said in that grand jury room. See, normally you don't get the transcripts of a grand jury. They are secret to protect the grand jury.

1:24:38Even defendants don't get them unless you have a good faith argument that something awry went on inside, like the Southern Poverty Law Center. Or James Comey, given the timeline here of their initial attempt to indict him having failed, and now vindictively, at least the argument goes, going after him again. Again, there's last reporting here, Bev, before I turn over to the last story, that even Trump thinks this is not – this narrative of the seashell indictment is so laugh out loud that even Trump's upset about it. And apparently Eastern District of Virginia prosecutors are working overtime to try to bring him on charges, Comey on charges of, again, the classified documents that he already admitted in 2017.

1:25:28He declassified and sent to the New York Times in memos, which he already admitted to eight years ago, or what we like to say is three years after a statute of limitations is run. So even, but Trump, again, let's just say the obvious. Trump doesn't care about the conviction. He cares about the press news cycle. And that there was a news cycle that said, James Comey, indicted. Adam Schiff, subject of mortgage fraud probe. Letitia James, subject of mortgage fraud probe. He got what he wanted. And now we know he's got the attention span of a gnat, of a fruit fly. So he's moved on already in his mind.

1:26:12But those around him have done his bidding as they try out for attorneys general or judges or Supreme Court justices. It's a lot of tryouts going on right now that you and I capture and analyze and synthesize. So you want to move to voting rights? Yeah, because look, this initial dopamine hit of the headline that gets out there, everybody's like, oh, my God, he got indicted. You know, that commands the first 12 hours. And those are your best 12 hours in a case like that. That's been Donald Trump's entire life. You know, you then have to follow it up with with a plan and you should start with a plan.

1:26:50But that's your best day. And then everything else after that is bad headline, bad headline, because the other side, in an adversarial process going to adverseness, they have a say in the matter too, right? Like Iran, they're not going to agree that your fake negotiations are happening. They're not giving up the straight of whore moves. You know, in a litigation, Comey's not just going to be like, okay, I guess I'm just going to plead guilty to the seashell case. No, so they're going to fight. And then what you have to do is you get into this fraudulent escalation trap where, you know, where you keep on doing the next headline to cover up this headline and the next one and the next one and the next one.

1:27:31And then you're flooding the zone with all of these bad moves. And, you know, a simple, you know, I mean, just think I was going to say like a really bad thing becomes a catastrophic thing. I mean, Trump lost the first Comey case. He could have just moved on. Right. I mean, think about it. You know, you had Lindsay Halligan. She got bailed out with ways that she probably doesn't realize because if all of the grand jury stuff came out that she was doing, the best thing probably for her was that she was an unlawful prosecutor who didn't belong in the room to begin with because if you went into her conduct, stuff was going to get really real very quickly about her behavior.

1:28:14So you could have just moved on, but he does it again on seashells. And then it just looks so, you're bringing a case over over seashells. And then you shatter what the FBI is doing, what the DOJ is doing long term. And you think about other cases that the DOJ and FBI supposed to be prosecuting and the lack of credibility the DOJ and FBI speaks with when they show up in federal court on all the other cases that they're dealing with, sex trafficking cases, drug cases, extortion cases, major federal crime type cases, they have no credibility before judges and juries right now. And that's a problem.

1:28:51And finally, though, Popak, it's like the Supreme Court's enabling this when they eventually, when they make these rulings like gutting the Voting Rights Act. But you and I, we talked about at the beginning, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation, along with other civil rights legislation from the 1960s, where Democrats and Republicans did the right thing and came together. And then to 2026, you have federal, you have Supreme Court justices and this right-wing MAGA movement saying, yeah, Congress did all of that in the 1960s, but at the end of the day, all of that stuff is unconstitutional.

1:29:27You know what's really racist? It's racist to focus on creating majority black congressional districts to block the racism of a state that tries to dilute the black vote. The racism, what the right-wing Supreme Court justice is ensuring that there aren't racist maps by allowing there to be basically proportional representation of states to black populations or Latino populations. Factoring that in, the Supreme Court says that's being racist. And it's not being racist to actually do the racist map, but call it political gerrymandering. Then you get away with it. That's what the ruling boils down to.

1:30:08Just call racist maps, political gerrymandering, the Supreme Court essentially says, and you can do whatever you want with the map. Feel free to dilute the vote of Black voters. And if Black voters step up and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is racist. There's 35 % of the population's Black, and now we don't have a single Congress member from the Black community. What does the Supreme Court say? Whoa, you're being racist. Why are you talking about race? We've moved beyond racism in this country, where we've cured racism, and you're talking about black representation, you're being right. That's the gaslighting and the sociopathic nature of this ruling.

1:30:49And that's why Justice Alito wrote for the majority, because that's his whole shtick. There is no racism, except people who call out racism, and they're the ones who are racist. And it's so nefarious to have Alito give lip service to our racist past. He has to acknowledge it first, the virulent racism in America. But as you said, good news, everybody, as he wrenches his shoulder, patting himself on the back. We're in a post-racial world now. And with computers, we can rely on to do maps. We don't need to protect minority representation, especially in the South. Why would we? And then he actually, he almost said, I'm sure it was in a draft.

1:31:37this is a country that elected barack obama twice he came close he said in the opinion in louisiana for instance in two out of the five presidential elections black participation in voting was higher than white participation i'm thinking to myself are you talking about the two years the two terms that barack obama ran for in any event then they do the lip service and then they say we don't need it anymore things have changed and the major thing that changes in 2019 which is them making a ruling that you could never come to a federal court and argue that we have too many Republican districts. Because it's not justiciable.

1:32:16It's a political question. So they barred the door literally to the courthouse to anybody to come in and make that argument, which, as you said, gives license to everything to be couched in terms of red and blue instead of black and brown. Now, there's an interesting data set here that I wasn't aware of until I started really diving into these voting cases. And I had Sarah Brennan, who's the deputy director of the Voting Rights Project at the ACLU, on with me this week. You can find it up on the ACLU playlist on Legal AF. And she said, look, I know there's people, and they're bipartisan and nonpartisan and all that.

1:32:56And she said, she acknowledged there's a group of people who believe, as Barack Obama once did, that we shouldn't have any gerrymandering at all, which is like computers, design all the districts, let the chips fall where they may, little equal boxes, all good, right? She said, here's the reality. There are 19 seats in the South that are held by primarily Black representation because of gerrymandering, because of district creation, to give, to make sure there are minority, majority districts. like the one that was drawn in Louisiana that was at the heart of this the second time around case, which drew a gerrymandered district to it that stretched 250 miles in distance with Alexandria, Alexandria and Shreveport and other places.

1:33:47The reality, she said, is if we go to neutral. Maybe you get six of those seats, but not 19 anywhere near it. So if you if if you're like, Like, let's just do nonpartisan gerrymandering like some states have and some people who are running for office have said you also have to recognize that there is a dirty underbelly of that, which is it could actually lose black representation where it's needed most, which is in the Deep South. We may have it all read generationally. I mean, we just saw Donald Trump brag last week at another press conference about if we can get rid of the filibuster, which even his own party, knowing that he's going to get shellacked at the midterms, does not want to get rid of, which is the only power a party in minority has, a minority party, meaning the party that's not in the majority, has to stop a law is to threaten to filibuster or to procedurally filibuster.

1:34:46You take that away, and Trump said, take it away, and we'll be in power for 50 years. Talk about saying the quiet part out loud. Holy shit. So that's where Trump and MAGA want to be. They want maps to embody it. But then, fortunately, even though Alabama's already run to court to try to get maps that were thrown out, waiting for the Calais decision, the Supreme Court decision to come out, to get those racist maps back up and running. That's all the South is doing right now in places like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana. They're all trying to shove. It's gone so far that in some states, they had a primary that has already started.

1:35:32Balloting already went out. People have already voted, and they're trying to extend the time so there's no May primary deadline. Push it off until June and July so they can remap. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And this is where dummy mandarin comes in, which is a great term of art the Democrats have come up with, which is, A, we can do it too. So let's squeeze out five more seats here and there in all of our districts, if that's what you want. But dummy mandarin also refers to the law of unintended consequences, where you spread, if you're the Republicans, you spread the red so thin of voter concentration that what was once secure districts become less secure and more purpley because you've spread them out to try to create and seed new districts.

1:36:26And when you have a very thin concentration of Republicans that make up a district meeting a blue wave tsunami election, which is what we're predicting with people voting and their interest in midterms, catastrophic things can happen. I'll give you one example in a state that I live in. In Florida, before even waiting for the Supreme Court to rule, DeSantis, who's back to the tryout theory from our episode, trying out to be attorney general of the United States or head of the Department of Defense or Labor or something because he's out of a job soon. Curry favor with Trump went into special session and got a map approved that is 24 Republican districts and five or less Democrats.

1:37:21But that could backfire because of the shift in demographics and support for Donald Trump, like the Hispanic vote, which has completely abandoned him, especially the Hispanic Catholic Pope Leo vote. And if that happens, then it doesn't, it's not 24 Republican and six or whatever. It's more like 16 and 12 or whatever. Even where they think they're getting and creating new seats, they're not because they're pissing off the electorate and they're underestimating changes in just the last year reflected in polling against MAGA and Republicans. So if that blue wave, that tidal wave election meets this kind of last minute, half-baked redistricting, and then redistricting by the Democrats, actually good things could be happening.

1:38:16But again, this is the floodgates that the Pandora's box has been opened by United States Supreme Court that does not care about civil rights and John Roberts finally getting what he wanted from the very beginning of his term as chief justice, which is to completely chloroform and put out of its misery or our misery, the Voting Rights Act. There you have it, folks. My dogs couldn't agree more there with you, Michael Popak, as if on cue. We'll be covering this and more throughout the coming weeks, months, years here on the Midas Touch Network. Thank you everybody for watching and listening to this week's Legal AF.

1:38:52A reminder, if you or anybody you know has been injured in an auto accident, trucking accident, been injured by the negligence of a company or a third party, if you know someone else who needs a lawyer, reach out to 877-POPOC-AF, call or text 877-POPOC-AF, or visit thepopocfirm.com. The consultation, of course, is free and they've got lawyers across the United States ready for your call. Also, make sure you subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel and the Legal AF sub stack. Subscribe to both. Thank you, everybody, for watching. We appreciate you so much, and we'll see you next time on Legal AF.

1:39:29Shout out Midas Mighty. Shout out Legal AFs.

1:39:40Hi, this is Dave Musial, owner of Four Seasons Heating, Air Conditioning, Plumbing, and Electric. With our biggest sale ever. furnaces from just$39 a month, furnace and air conditioning combos from just$57 a month, plus six years interest-free financing. Four Seasons guarantees to beat any competitor's price by up to$1 ,000. With an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and over 30 ,000 five-star reviews, we are Chicago's trusted local experts. For all the right reasons, call 866-FOUR-SEASONS. Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile, with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much.

1:40:15Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just$15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of$45 for three-month plan, equivalent to$15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com.