Legal AF - 6/10/2026

24:59And so Donald Trump is repeatedly referenced in these files. And there are some stories that were reprised in this new New York Times report showing that there were allegations, again, against Donald Trump. Some of them, you know, some of the allegations have been covered in other reporting. There's the reprise of the statement of a prosecutor in 2020 that Donald Trump had taken far more trips on Epstein's jet than was previously known. And there was a very sad story about coming through from Sarah Ransom about one of the women in Epstein's sex-dropping ring, a woman named Jen, who, according to this claim, Jen was someone who Donald Trump had sexual relationships, sexual relations with, and was very, I don't know if I can say this on the air, I guess I'll just go for it and say it.

25:56I mean, it's shocking to see a description that Donald Trump purportedly was so rough with this woman's nipples that they were raw and red and swollen and had made other statements about women's nipples, among other things. And another part of this investigation that we've seen from the reporting, this particular part from NPR, not from The New York Times, was how the 302s, which are the write-ups of the FBI when they interview someone making an allegation, how those pertaining to Donald Trump had been removed in sequence. And NPR helped break that story. So there's a lot of great investigative journalism going on.

26:36We have a lot more to learn from the book. This is just an excerpt of this whole book that Maggie Haberman did. And I think there are going to be more revelations to come.

26:45Popok:Absolutely. And it's their worst nightmare. There's a reason it's called the freak out because they were in the timeline, the way you presented it, they were freaking out because it was just one bad story for them after another. But it all starts with Trump. If Trump wanted to do the right thing, which he obviously didn't, and he just he should have released everything and appointed, had his Department of Justice appoint an independent special counsel to go after wherever the files led. Right, but of course they don't believe in independent special counsel. And let me just say this, it's interesting, like the speculation of the leak is, you know, who the leakers are.

27:20Oh, you're speculating about the leak already?

27:22Popok:Who is it? Yeah, I mean, is it Dan Bongino? You know, who could it be? But, you know, one of the things in there is, you know, I think, you know, I'll just say this, I'll say this on the record, I think JD Vance was right to say they should just release the files, you know, they should just be released. But I'm sure that someone in the White House is going to read that as betrayal, that the second in line for the president, the first in line for the presidency after Trump is saying, let's release all this into the wild. You know, I think Marco Rubio is good. I think Vance just bought himself being a vice president again.

27:56Popok:I mean, running for vice president again on that one. But we'll continue to cover that story. And then lastly, I think we all know now that once again, Donald Trump for the eighth time, ninth time, I told the American people that the Iran war and the ending of it was just around the corner. And now we're firing off new missiles again tonight, and Iran is retaliating by firing on U.S. assets in Bahrain and Kuwait and other places. And we're no closer to this endgame because this Iran war will end not when Donald Trump says it'll end. It'll end when the Iranians say it ends. And they're not done yet.

28:45Popok:And they've realized they can withstand the awesome firepower of the American military and survive that because they're on a different scale. They're on a hundred year. They look at things in a hundred years, not in how is this going to affect the stock market. And, you know, right. And as a result, the best case scenario, and this is terrible, but best case scenario is that we get the Obama treaty deal that Trump pulled out of. Probably a worse version of it. And we have to spend billions of dollars in reparations to rebuild Iran without also obtaining regime change. It's one thing to do the Marshall Plan.

29:25Popok:Right. But, you know, we took out Japan and Germany. Right. But like we're going to rebuild the Islamic Republican Guard. I don't understand. And then he's there, you know, and then cue the confetti cannons on Fox. You know, mission accomplished. What was the mission? Yeah, it really, really, I mean, in some ways, the mission looks like Wall Street manipulation and people getting rich off of this war and also Benjamin Netanyahu getting what he wants in terms of the U.S. being pulled into this war of choice when it wasn't necessary. And it really was predicated by the utterly foolish withdrawal from the agreement that the Obama administration had negotiated, just like sort of a de facto rejection of whatever the first black president of the United States had done in Iran.

30:12We are worse off than we were in that agreement. We're worse off than we were last year. Iran is holding many of the cards. And like you said, we're in a position with Trump's claims that we're going to end up paying, we the taxpayers are going to end up paying to rebuild Iran. And also Iran is getting more revenue because it's able to now put a tax and a toll on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which was not happening before. So we're definitely in a worse position because of Donald Trump's reckless policies, his erratic behavior, his inability to actually negotiate an actual resolution and his inability to accept that a previous administration did anything right and had and had a good a good agreement in place that would have held back on Iran's nuclear program, had more inspections and not had us paying them, you know, paying them to rebuild the country that we have attacked.

31:04And so it really is basically an unmitigated disaster. All that is not funny, but I did hear comedians say that Donald Trump has won and lost and won and lost and won and lost the Iran war more than any other president in U.S. history. Sorry.

31:20Popok:That's true. I counted it was seven until this week. So now it's probably up to about nine. I'm so happy to have you here. And I'm sure our audience is thrilled. When we come back from a quick break here on Legal AF, we're going to get in to the weeds and the molecular of all things voting, voting protection, voting mobilization, data protection and voter information protection, the Postal Service. and what we're learning by watching Donald Trump attack the California vote. We can talk about why that's taking a minute with 16 million votes, 13 million of them mail-in ballots. And then, you know, sort of a winning and losing, right?

32:03Popok:We're winning on data protection and maybe on the federal databases and probably on Trump screwing around with the Postal Service, but we're losing in maps and gerrymandering. And I can't think of anybody better to kind of sort all this out for us in the post-Calais world than Democracy Docket's Mark Elias, which we'll bring in after our break. And he just wrote a great piece on Democracy Docket about how Calais, the ruling in which the United States Supreme Court gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and said, yeah, but the last pin standing is intentional discrimination. If you've got intentional discrimination, come back to us.

32:47Popok:And then two weeks later, there was a case of intentional discrimination in the Alabama maps. They said, nope, no, no, you're not giving enough credence and enough deference to the legislature who said it's not intentionally discriminating. And now Mark pulls it forward and says he's starting to see in his cases and in cases that they're using Calais to say any restriction on voting, meaning voter suppression, any hurdle that they put up before you vote, the only way you can tear it down is if you show a Calais-like intentional discrimination. So you see how already they're trying to benefit from the Calais decision to argue about that intentional discrimination.

33:29Popok:So I want to bring Mark in so many different ways to support what we do here on Legal AF, the YouTube channel, and Legal AF, the podcast. We've got a YouTube channel. That's what I was trying to say. Come over to Legal AF YouTube. We've got 1.12 million subscribers right now. Amazing content, about a dozen contributors, including Adam Klasfeld, All Rise New, Court Accountability Action, and True North, along with Lisa Graves and Alex Aronson. Dina Dahl is there as well. And in addition, we have the new Monday Night Live, MNL, yeah, Monday Night Live, of Legal AF. So if you can't get your fill of Legal AF Monday night, that one's hosted by Dina Dahl and Lisa Graves, 5 p.m.

34:13Popok:Eastern time on Legal AF YouTube. And we have Legal AF, the sub stack. We come in all, you know, it's like candy bars. We come in all different shapes and sizes for your viewing pleasure. I do a live report every day. I just did one today with Adam Klausfeld. And we have this content, like filings that you can read for yourself on Legal AF sub stack. And then, of course, we've got the podcast. Thank you. We, we, oh, I can show it. We won the Webbys and we, I finally got them here. They're in the back. That's what these coils are. Those are the way they are. I didn't know what those were. They look great.

34:47I mean, I seen them. I think the Webbys. Yeah. That is three of them. Three of them.

34:51Popok:So we swept them for best news podcast. And really that's all because of your generosity of time and commitment to what we do here. So keep the podcast afloat. Um, listen to us wherever you get audio podcasts, five-star reviews and comments, of course, and then tell people about the YouTube, the YouTube versions. And then we've got sponsors and that keeps the gas in the tank, frankly, and keeps the lights on. And, uh, you know, they're pro-democracy sponsors. They know what our show is about and they want to talk to our audience. So let's take a quick break when we come back. So, so don't, don't change that dial.

35:28Popok:They got dials anymore. here on Legal AF Podcast. Mark Elias, Democracy Docket, right after this quick break. This episode is brought to you by IQ Bar, our exclusive snack, hydration, and coffee sponsor. IQ Bar protein bars, IQ Mix hydration mixes, and IQ Joe mushroom coffees are the delicious low sugar brain and body fuel you need to win your day. The Ultimate Sampler Pack is a great way to try all IQ Bar products and flavors. You get nine IQ bars, eight IQ mix sticks, and four IQ Joe sticks. All IQ bar products are clean label certified and entirely free from gluten, dairy, soy, GMOs, and artificial ingredients.

36:11Popok:With over 20 ,000 five-star reviews and counting, more people than ever are fueling their busy lifestyles with IQ bars, brain and body boosting bars, hydration mixes, and mushroom coffees. Their Ultimate Sampler Pack includes all three. As someone with a busy schedule, I'm always looking for convenient snacks, hydration, and coffee options that fit into my day. And right now, IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20 % off all IQ Bar products, including the Ultimate Sampler Pack, plus free shipping. To get your 20 % off, text LEGALAF to 64000. That's text LEGALAF to 64000. One more time, Legal AF to 64 ,000.

36:57Popok:Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details. We have an important message to share from our friends at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The Trump administration's excessive Christian nationalist rhetoric is only building as we move toward the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. AU is highlighting a case involving federal workers caught in the crossfire. A multi-faith group of federal employees filed a new lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for violating the separation of church and state and the religious freedom promised in our Constitution.

37:38Popok:Americans United received emails from multiple USDA employees saying the proselytizing Easter email sent by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins to more than 100 ,000 USDA employees is an abuse of power that violates the separation of church and state promised in the First Amendment. They are absolutely right. Government employees signed up to work for the USDA, not attend Brooke Rollins' Sunday service. The Constitution draws a bright line between personal faith and government power. And this lawsuit says she trampled right over it. Well, the hits keep on coming from this administration and Americans United is doing their best to keep up the fight against Christian nationalism.

38:24Popok:If you want to help, head to au.org slash legal AF to learn more about their work and how you can get involved. Americans United supporting everyone's right to live as they choose, so long as they don't harm others. That's au.org slash legal AF. And we are back and I'm wearing the same glasses as what I recorded. I'm so glad you have glasses. I do. Thank you very much. I was walking around the streets of Philadelphia and I got stopped a number of times like Popok. So we're back and let's get to our teaching about voting rights. I want to make, I want to, look, we don't blow smoke or sunshine on the show.

39:10Popok:We never have. I want to be, I want to give honest commentary and analysis, but I also want to give people some hope about the voting day, election day, and what people are prepared, whether it's public interest groups and private lawyers like Mark Elias, or it's the attorneys general of the various states, Democratic, and others, NAACP, ACLU, you name it, how they are ready, have already done tabletop exercises to get ready for the worst. They've already thought of the worst. They probably have out-thought Donald Trump about the worst of the things that he could possibly do. And they are ready for it.

39:52Popok:And we're ready for Mark Elias. Let's bring in Mark Elias. Hey, Mark. Good to see you. Hey, you as well. Thanks, sir. I know you were traveling and busy in your court cases, but our audience is thirsty for your knowledge. I don't know if you know Lisa Graves. You guys probably bumped into worlds in the past. I do. Two of our glasses are not like the other. We'll leave it at that. And for the audio listeners. So, look, I'm a voracious consumer of all things on Democracy Docket. and if people don't know about that they should be going there and subscribing and helping Marx and his cause and all of that but you know why don't we talk about data protection the federal database that Trump's trying to use and the the post office not delivering mail-in ballots we can talk about mail-in ballots because we're about to get a ruling from the United States Supreme Court which for which for instance if they rule against grace periods, what's going on in California, which is waiting plus seven days for ballots to come in, wouldn't be allowed.

41:02Popok:It is allowed for this election, one of the reasons that they are methodically taking some time, taking a minute to count votes in the mail-in ballot votes, especially in California. Then you got the other area that you're very active with where we're not winning as much, which is maps and gerrymandering, including you just posted in Florida, where I live, you know, the Supreme Court of Florida, jurisdiction, we're okay with the map, even though it violates the Florida Constitution, we're not going to enter a writ, which is totally crazy. So why don't I turn it over to you? And you know what our audience ultimately wants to hear is, is my vote protected?

41:41Popok:And what can I do to assist voter mobilization, the protection of the vote? Yeah. So the first thing to know is that Donald Trump wants you to be so concerned that you lose hope. And if you lose hope, he wins because then you don't vote. You don't bother participating because you think it's all futile. So we can't let him win. We have to understand that it is all of our jobs to fight for free and fair elections. It is all of our jobs to stand up for democracy. Some of us do it in the courtroom. Some of us do it on podcasts and YouTube shows. some of us do it by calling our friends, writing postcards to strangers we don't know, registering voters, but we all have an obligation.

42:21What Donald Trump is trying to do in 2026 that is different, right? The usual voter suppression, election subversion that we have become used to, that I became well known for defeating Donald Trump in court after the 2020 election for Joe Biden, right? All of that is still out there. But what is different is what you mentioned, which is that Donald Trump wants to build a national database of voters so that he and his administration can go through it and remove the people they don't want to vote and then send back to the states a list of who they believe should be eligible to get a ballot and cast a ballot.

43:00Now, they have conscripted or are trying to conscript the states into turning this data over. Some states are doing so. Many states are fighting. My law firm and I, we are undefeated in those cases. We're involved in 30 cases preventing those voter files from being turned over. We are so far undefeated. We're a no. Those cases are now proceeding through the courts of appeal. The other thing that Donald Trump is trying to do is to try to get the U.S. Postal Service to agree that if someone is not on the list that Donald Trump and his administration turns over to them, to the states and to the Postal Service, that the U.S.

43:35Postal Service won't deliver that person a ballot or return their ballot. So that is the new sort of scheme that Trump and his cronies are trying to effectuate. And we're fighting them in court. We've already sued them in federal district court in Washington, D.C. That case is now before the D.C. Circuit. There are other cases by the state attorneys general, the Democratic state attorney General that are going on in Massachusetts. So this is all going to be like laid out and played out in court. But what I can't do, what I can't have is for people to just say, well, the system's rigged and Mark will never win or the system is rigged and Donald Trump will always get what he wants.

44:14The fact is, we have a very good track record of beating him in court. He has a long history of losing these court cases. And so while I have eyes wide open about the U.S. Supreme Court and particularly the cases that we're waiting to have decisions on. You know, I have belief and confidence that if we all do everything we can, if the lawyers do everything they can, the voter registration groups do everything they can, the voters do their part by checking your registration, making sure it's up to date, making sure you have a plan to vote, you understand what rules may have been changed, and then voting.

44:48I think if we all do that, I think in the end we'll be okay. Yeah.

44:52Popok:And on that, at least if you don't mind, I'll just kind of kick it off there. I mean, Mark's also being humble. I don't know if you're 10-0 or just the whole group opposing state data being turned. Harmeet Dillon is 0-10, I think. Yes. Right. Okay. We are 9-0. There was one judge in Arizona who didn't let us into the case. So we are one victory. We have not lost, but we are one victory behind the total number of cases that D &D has lost. That's what I thought. And for those that, you know, who are kind of joining our democracy in progress, and it's not something we often think about except when we're here at this critical moment, the elections of federal officers and the president was purposely – that regulation, that process was purposely by our framers of the Constitution and the founding – given to the states because they didn't trust the new federal government.

45:50Popok:government and the power of the federal government to run its own elections. People may forget, if lest they watch like Ken Burns' American Revolution, how corrupt the colonial governments were, right? And governors of states that are now, you know, proud states of ours. But there's a lot of bribery going on in there with the chief executive of some of these states. And they were like, yeah, we're never going to have that happen again. We barely trust the new federal government. We certainly don't want them running their own election. So they divided the labor on purpose. And what Trump's trying to do is say, no, we're going to federalize federal elections and take that power away from the states, right?

46:28Yeah. So the one thing people need to recognize is that the states, as you say, administer elections, right? So a lot of you out there are saying, actually, it's in my state, it's at the county level, that's fine, states devolve the power down. But the Constitution gives the states the authorities at the time, place, and manner of federal elections only subject to legislation enacted by Congress. Now, Congress has enacted very few laws in this area. The one law that people are most familiar with is that Congress set a uniform election day of the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. But there are very few laws that Congress has imposed its will on the states.

47:06The states administer their elections. But here's the most important thing. The president has no role. Like even where there is a federal role, it is left entirely in the Constitution to legislation enacted by Congress. And so when Donald Trump says that he believes the states are his agents for counting and tabulating ballots, something he has said and something he has posted on social media, that is wrong. It is a lie. But it's also just constitutionally nonsense. When he says he can issue executive orders to dictate what the states do, that is wrong. It is a lie and it is constitutional nonsense because the only federal player, the only way that there can be federal role in these elections is if Congress enacts new laws and Congress is not doing that.

47:57Popok:Exactly. And so when I know we quake in our boots when he talks about I think we should federalize the elections. And then anytime I hear the post office involved with my sacred right to vote, you know, the the the entity that can't deliver my my catalog or stuff, my stuff, my stuff, my stuff, my my my ballot box, stuff, my post box with other people's mail. They're going to be responsible for deciding whether I can vote or not in mail-in voting. And mail-in voting, this is the other dirty trick of Donald Trump, one of the greatest tricks, is try to convince people, especially in his party and his base, that mail-in voting is a four-letter word and a dirty word, and it means fraud.

48:42Popok:13 million out of 16 million people in California just voted successfully by mail-in ballot. In states like Washington, up and down the West Coast, all they do is mail in a Dropbox valid. There is no machine that you go for, and they're not rife with fraud. And so this whole orchestrated, I want to turn to California now, this whole orchestrated attack by Trump, hoping people aren't noticing, there's got to be fraud. How is the right-wing MAGA podcaster that I endorse not winning the L.A. mayoral race? Like, are you effing kidding me? You got 13 million ballots. They have a seven-day grace period, which just expired yesterday, to finish the count.

49:26Popok:Plus, they have 20 or 21 days to check signatures. So it takes a minute to open a ballot, double-check it against the book, and clock it in. And they're just doing it methodically. I'm going to have Rob Bonta, the attorney general on, on Friday to talk about it. But what are you picking up, Mark? And then I didn't mean to squeeze Lisa out of this conversation. I'm going to ask Mark in a minute. Mark, what do you think about the blueprint that Trump's using against California and what we can do about it? Lisa, get into it. Get into a dialogue with Mark. I didn't mean to. No, no, it's all good. I just want to say, Mark, it's a real joy to be on this with you and Popak.

50:03And I'm such a fan of the work of you and your team and the Elias group and Democracy Docket. It should be a must read, must subscribe for everyone. And, you know, I do think that, you know, what we're waiting for on this Roberts Court decision on on how votes are counted, it really is extraordinary. The three of us all went to law school, I would say, for me a long time ago. But, you know,

50:28Popok:he and I were in law school together. I might be older than you. But anyway, it's the tried and true reality is that, you know, the post the postmark has been the traditional way for litigation lawsuits. You file your complaint. Is it on time? The postmark has been something that could be trusted. And now Donald Trump is trying to to, you know, erode and destroy that trust by having that be potentially manipulated by the Postal Service that has no qualification in this area, no skills, no training and no proper role by law, you know, by constitution or statute to do that. this. And yet the reality is, is that America's been voting by mail since the civil war, that 1964 election of Abraham Lincoln, the reelection, it was a vote by mail.

51:12And so now you have the Republican party conspiring with Donald Trump in Mississippi to say that you cannot count the ballots, even if they're postmarked the day of the election. And so I guess I'm wondering, A, what your thoughts are about where that case is going. I'm very worried given John Roberts It's hostility to voting rights, as he's demonstrated over and over again as a lawyer and as a judge using his roles as a judge to win what he couldn't win as a lawyer. But also, I'm very concerned about the fact that that case could implicate early voting, too. That's right. So can you unpack that for us?

51:48Yeah. So first of all, I want to make a political point that I think is implicit in some of what you what both of you said, which is that, you know, mail-in voting is not inherently better for Democrats and Republicans. I mean, you know, Michael, you're in Florida. Florida Republicans gained control of that state largely because they invested more in mail-in voting than Democrats did. So like there are lots of states where you could where I could point you to Arizona is another state where Republicans had a huge advantage. And in Florida still do have a huge advantage in mail-in voting. So there's nothing partisan about this.

52:25Donald Trump decided he didn't like mail-in voting because during covid he thought it would benefit Democrats because Democrats were more were more careful about the health risks of covid than he thought than the Republicans would be. But here we are. And, you know, Trump and the Republican Party are now in a war on every aspect of mail-in voting. They try to ban ballot drop boxes. They try to shorten the periods to get mail-in ballots. They've tried to disqualify more mail-in ballots. And the latest thing is you're exactly right. They are trying to say that a federal law, the very federal law I mentioned, that sets Election Day as the Tuesday following first Monday in November.

53:01Their argument is that that means that ballots postmarked by Election Day that are put in the mail before Election Day, postmarked by Election Day, can't be counted even if they come in a few days afterwards. I know if that doesn't make any sense to you, it doesn't make any sense to anyone, but that is their legal argument. I have litigated this issue against Republicans in state after state, and we won and we won and we won. And finally, the RNC decided to bring a lawsuit against Mississippi. Yes, Mississippi, which, by the way, does not have no excuse mail-in voting. And I don't think they sued Mississippi because they thought that, you know, there was fraud in Mississippi or because the elections were closed.

53:36They thought it was a I think they brought the case because they thought they'd get a hometown treatment. Right. They'd be suing the Republican state of Mississippi. Well, me and my law firm, on behalf of our clients, we intervened in that case and we have been defending that case, essentially defending the Mississippi law. Now in the U.S. Supreme Court, we're waiting on a decision. You're exactly right that if the Republican National Committee wins this case and we lose this case, look, they're going to say it's not just ballots in the mail that come in after Election Day. They're going to say it's early voting.

54:08Right. I mean, I mean, they're going to say, well, if it if Election Day means Election Day, then you can't vote early. They're also going to say that you can't cure provisional ballots because after all, the provisional ballots are not counted on Election Day if they're cured afterwards. And so this is just the first step in them trying to institute what Donald Trump says he wants, which is in person on Election Day only voting. And that will disenfranchise lots and lots of people. He thinks that if you disenfranchise all those people, it helps Republicans win elections. You know, this is kind of an insidery point.

54:43But if you look at why it is that the RNC believes it have standing in this case, go back to the original complaint. It's because they said we think that this will disenfranchise more Democrats and help more Republicans. So, like, they're pretty upfront about why they're doing this when they have to for standing purposes. But, you know, we're waiting to see what the Supreme Court rules. Can I just ask you a quick follow up on that, which is, you know, one of those pieces is that Donald Trump, I think, went to court. You may have been on the other side of this in 2020 to try to stop Pennsylvania from from counting the ballots that arrived early ahead of time.

55:18And so that pushed all that counting until after the polls close, like at eight o 'clock or seven o 'clock, whenever it closes. And then there's this surge when those votes are counted. Donald Trump gets to claim he won, but then it was stolen because somehow in the middle of the night things change. What changed was those ballots were counted. Can you talk a little bit just about that component? Because that's what's going on in California, too. This idea that they weren't counted that night and couldn't actually be counted that night, that somehow this is a fraud. Yeah. And this makes my blood boil.

55:49I mean, I got to tell you, you know, the New York Times, people wonder why people don't trust the legacy media. They don't trust the legacy media because the New York Times, of all publications, today had an editorial in which they are basically critical of the state of California and essentially mouth the same talking points that Donald Trump and the Republicans have been mouthing about California. And if you think it ends and begins in California, you are wrong. Because in 2020, when I was representing Joe Biden and the Democratic Party in beating Donald Trump in court more than 60 times, you are exactly right.

56:23Remember the stop the steal slogan? They wanted to stop counting. And the state of Pennsylvania took several days. The state of Arizona took several days. The state of Nevada took several days. Georgia took several days. And so it has been Donald Trump's talking point that we should not be counting ballots past election day. And why the New York Times would associate itself with this crazy argument against California is beyond me. But here's the deal with California. California counts slowly for three reasons. Number one, it is a very big state with a lot of jurisdictions and a whole lot of ballots.

57:00It's got a long ballot because there's a lot of races. It has a multi, it has multi languages and it's got a lot of jurisdictions. Number two, As you point out, it gives people more time to ensure that their ballot has been received and that it is processed. And if it is rejected because the signatures are deemed not to match, it gives voters an opportunity to cure it by proving that, in fact, it was their signature both times. OK, so that takes time. Now, I have argued for years. That state should not be doing that signature matching. In fact, I sued Florida years ago and I won. I sued Georgia years ago and I won because they had very high rejection rates in that signature matching.

57:51And Florida's signature matching program, though I still don't think it's entirely right, it is much better. The rates of rejection are much lower. So my answer to Florida, to California is if Donald Trump and the Republicans want you to speed up, let's stop the junk science of signature matching. And it is junk science. There is no court in America that would allow a person to testify whether a signature on one document matches a signature on another document. And in fact, as you all know, as lawyers, there's actually a federal rule of evidence that prohibits that, that prohibits lay handwriting analysis.

58:25And I don't think not every state does signature matching. I think California should get rid of it. But but why does California have it? They have it to satisfy the same right wing zealots who claim that there's fraud. Right. So they do this whole kabuki theater that takes all of this time in order to contend with the fact that people, say if you don't signature match is going to be fraud and then they get attacked for taking the time to doing that thing so like to me this is something we need to stand tall and not give an ounce not give an inch you know the the fact that the new york times you know thinks there's a middle ground here here's my message i don't compromise with the republicans because there is no middle ground between a firefighter and an arsonist and they are trying to burn down democracy so every time someone says well maybe california could do it a little bit this way or a little bit that way.

59:18All you're doing is making Donald Trump's claims more effective, and it's not going to begin and end in California. He'll be making those claims in all the other states as well.

59:27Popok:Right. And using his, well, he's not the U.S. attorney. He made himself the deputy, whatever he is, couldn't get confirmed. You know, then declaring, well, right on cue, oh, there's fraud. It's got to be fraud. We've opened up fraud investigations. And you saw the U.S. attorney in California. Right. That's what I mean. The most shameful thing is what the hell is Clayton, the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of York? He was on CNBC saying, yeah, he has concerns. I'm thinking, don't you have enough bank fraud? Don't you have enough crypto schemes with the Trump family going on for you to be paying attention to?

59:58What the hell are you opining about California?

1:00:01Popok:Well, let me use my prior life. Jay Clayton was a notorious golf buddy of Donald Trump and Howard Lutnick back in the day. the reason that Jay Clayton became the head of the SEC is because Howard Lutnick wanted him to be the head of the SEC. He really, they first wanted him to be attorney general in the first administration. He didn't want it. He wanted SEC. This time around, he didn't want to be in the government at all. But when they left the U.S. attorney, the once proud U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan in shambles after the Mayor Adams indictment and Emil Bovee, they needed some adult. and he looks like he's from central casting right he does he does got the suits got the voice but he's a political hack and he got he they pushed a button like they do with janine piero he just comes off less greasy and he pushed the button and said jay you got to go on cnbc you got to shit all over california now well okay so that's it is he a big law guy from new york or what where yeah he was a big law guy from new york and he's not suited uh for i think berman when he wouldn't leave the office said out loud i'm not good right i'm not going to leave the office until i don't want no jake no he has no experience he'll dismiss all of my all of my criminal cases and uh he doesn't this this is he's a reluctant war happy warrior he doesn't really want the job and they shove him out to do it but he does it i'm not i'm not making any excuses for jay clayton whatsoever and to mark's point um for those that want to go to see the editorial board today.

1:01:33Popok:California's excuses are damaging faith in government. Here's the line that I'm sure this is where Mark's blood started to boil. There's no good reason that California takes so long to count votes. Most democracies around the world count votes quickly. So do most large U.S. states. California has since adopted an approach to election administration without meaningful benefit and with substantial downside. It makes the state government look incompetent. And we're like, we need that? Right? No. I mean, and Mark's exactly right. The idea of signature matching is not allowed in federal court at all.

1:02:10Popok:Look, look, look, look, look. If the penalty of perjury signature is not enough to make people honest, okay? Yeah. As if they're, Trump wants people to believe there are roving bands of people who want to vote more than once or vote when they're not able to vote. And they want to go to prison for it because we have a way after the election to go after the hundred cases out of 300 million of people that – could you imagine the prison scene? You know, a couple of murderers, a couple of, you know, other – what are you in for? Oh, I voted twice. Well, the reality is, right, 0.000000, maybe one more 0.1.

1:02:50Popok:Right, yeah. Out of hundreds of millions of votes cast. And this playbook is old. I'm old enough to remember the playbook when Karl Rove was trying to peddle it back in 2004 and push those U.S. attorneys to claim that there was voter fraud when there was not, when demonstrably there was not. And ultimately, some of those U.S. attorneys got fired when George W. Bush won election in 2004. And they removed them because they wouldn't play ball and make these claims. But now Donald Trump has surrounded himself with people in U.S. attorney positions and the Civil Rights Division of the United States with Harmeet Dillon, who have no, you know, no business being in those roles because they're not actually protecting our interests.

1:03:28They're just using those offices in an almost, in my view, an almost Hatch Act violation-like way to help Donald Trump's electoral ambitions and his ambitions for retaining power in Congress, despite his utterly sinking popularity ratings.

1:03:43Popok:If I can, Mark, can you indulge us for a few more minutes? Of course. What did you, what have you learned? Because you're the one in the trenches, right? I hung up my spurs. What have you learned from the playbook being run against California right now by Donald Trump and U.S. Attorney and all the others? Because, you know, we're not AI, we're AI. We've learned. What have you learned? Yeah, so I think two things. The first is there's a lot of attention right now on whether the U.S. Postal Service will capitulate and cooperate with whatever scheme that Donald Trump has. I am worried about that.

1:04:20And like I said, we're litigating that. But the thing I think I've learned is that what Donald Trump's going to do is say that if you are voting and you're not on the approved list or you're an election official and you're not disenfranchising voters the way he wants you to, that right off the stage, like right in the wings waiting, will be a criminal prosecutor. Right. I mean, there was a federal prosecutor that was sent to observe the vote counting in L.A. I mean, why on earth would that be the case? Like, why would a federal prosecutor be observing the primary vote counting? And I think that like what we were talking about, about, you know, the Southern, the U.S.

1:05:00Attorney for the Southern District of New York opining here and what we've seen from some of the comments from the federal prosecutors in California and what we've seen from the Department of Justice is I think that we are going to see these soft forms of intimidation, maybe not so soft, that there is a threat of criminal prosecution if the wrong person wins, or if votes are counted that Donald Trump doesn't want counted. I mean, I think Todd Blanche, you know, in some respects, gives away the game. You know, Pam Bondi, when they would say, you know, is Donald Trump misusing the Department of Justice towards political ends, she would say, no, no, no, of course not.

1:05:38And I think she did that because she's like a politician, and, you know, she was a state attorney general, but really more political. And I think Todd Blanche, because he's a criminal defense lawyer, he's used to having to embrace unfortunate facts. Right. You know, like rather than telling the jury, no, my client didn't have a bloody knife. He's used to saying, yes, of course, he had a bloody knife. He should have had a bloody knife. Who wouldn't have a bloody knife? Right. And so his answer is, of course, Donald Trump is is having us go after his political opponents. That's what the president should be doing.

1:06:06So I think Todd Blanche will be quite happy to say, yes, of course we are threatening criminal prosecution for people counting votes that we don't like. And that is a different level of shamelessness.

1:06:18Popok:I totally agree with you. I never thought I'd say this. I want to go back to Pam Bondi. He's doing things that would make Pam Bondi blush. I feel like you probably know Blanche also from New York. Yeah. I mean, and I know people that are friendly with Blanche, and they don't recognize this guy at all. I mean, I did because I read that New Yorker or New York interview where they were like, why would you leave a cushy white shoe firm and take on a single client? Are you kidding? Why would I turn down the opportunity to make a new law? You know, he's been the bridesmaid three times. He finally got the nomination.

1:06:52Popok:He had a kid step over the body of Matt Gaetz. Aileen Cannon at one time was leaked as being right. She was leaked and nobody denied it during the transition, Aileen Cannon. and then also uh also wasn't lee zeldin gonna get it oh then lee zeldin and bondy and then oh oh there he is well how low will you go mr blanche oh you're going pretty low you okay you got the nomination let me ask you though and here to kind of wrap it up for us and for you and i really appreciate the generosity of your time here i know our audience does too um let's be a little hopeful here we're doing a lot of doom scrolling how confident are you that the combination of your law firm, democracy docket, public interest groups that are shoulder to shoulder with you, the attorneys general for the democratic states and the rest are ready, you know, both long game and short game day of election and leading into election to protect democracy and to make sure our audience's vote is counted.

1:07:54Yeah. So I think it's a three-legged stool and I want to make sure I get to the third leg because I think you left out the role that you play and the role that progressive pro-democracy media plays. But on the legal front, on the pure legal front, the private lawyers, the public interest efforts, the state attorneys general, look, I don't think you could ever say that you're 100 percent prepared. I've never felt like I am 100 percent prepared for elections because they are operated at the local level and the hyper-local level and there are always new twists and turns and trying to keep track of everything everywhere is hard.

1:08:29You know, right now, my law firm of 60 plus lawyers, we are litigating 83 cases in 40 states. So like we are already stretched and we will be more stretched. And that is going to be true for a lot of the groups that are in this space, in part because big law firms have walked off the playing field. Like one of the most underreported stories right now is just how cowardly big law firms remain even now and how they refuse to be engaged in these pro-democracy issues in the ways that they have been in past elections. But I feel, but that said, I feel good. I feel prepared, but I'm never 100 % prepared.

1:09:04But I think we will win those battles more than we lose and certainly enough, I think, to protect free and fair elections. The second question, though, is whether or not the institutions, this is the election officials, the government workers, the civil society groups that do voter registration and help people keep educated about how to vote. Like whether or not that process of people feeling confident in the election and feeling like they know where to vote, how to register and that they turn out. I think that that is something that we have to constantly be bolstering and ensuring that they have the resources so that voters feel like they can turn out to vote and that their vote will count so that they go through the trouble.

1:09:47of combating some of the voter suppression efforts. And that brings me to the third leg of the stool. And this is where I don't want you to sell short the work that you do. And it is why I started Democracy Docket in 2020. It is why I do podcasts like this. It's why people subscribing to your channel is so important. So by the way, if you are watching and you have not yet subscribed to Legal AF, go ahead right now and hit the subscribe button, hit the bell that's right in front of you. And that will make sure that you are alerted when there is new content, which is critically important because content is king right now in the democracy arena.

1:10:22You need to know when there are updates. And one of the ways you will do so is by making sure you are subscribed to this channel and that you're a little when there's new content. And the reason why I say this, the reason why I say this is because the New York Times is spewing the nonsense that they do. And they are better than The Washington Post. And they are better than CBS News. And they are better probably than 90 % of the other news outlets. And so what we need to do is we need to have a vibrant pro-democracy, independent media ecosystem. And this is a win-win. Like anybody who tells you, oh, watch this person because they're better than that person.

1:11:00No, we need to support the entire progressive ecosystem. We need to support all of the pro-democracy news outlets. And so everyone can start today with subscribing to this channel. You can subscribe to Democracy Docket, which is the news outlet I founded, puts out great news and information. You can choose any of the other pro-democracy news outlets or you can choose all of them. But we need to have it because that is going to be the place that keeps the public informed when the legacy media decides, you know what, we have an FCC approval. You know what, we want to land an interview with someone in the administration.

1:11:37So we're going to kind of both sides of it.

1:11:39Popok:Our parent company has government contracts. There you go. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, or your children. Or their children. Or that. Mark, I want to make this a regular gig. I know you and I committed last time I came on your show to collaborate more. Yes. Yeah. And we're going to do it. As you said, you and I recognized it immediately about how you just framed it, that it's the entire ecosystem that needs to be lifted up. And I do. I mean, I said before you got on that the way that I orient myself every day and from when I started this legal AF gig is that I consider myself an ambassador for my audience and a fiduciary for my audience.

1:12:18Popok:When I do an interview, when I meet somebody, Lisa and I were just that net roots nation over the weekend in Philadelphia. Anything that I did, anything that I said was always in furtherance of our cause here of protecting democracy and the rule of law. And so that once you have that as your poll star, you know, you really you don't go wrong. And I think that's why people keep coming back to Democracy Docket and Legal AF in this show. So, Mark, a really great what's coming up? Anything we should keep an eye on? Supreme Court decisions right tomorrow and then between now and the end of July and finally go Nix.

1:12:56Popok:OK, I like I like all that, including the booze that rained down from the 500 section all the way to my favor. you'll appreciate this mark i don't know if so i'm reading the new york post because i like the sports section and the new york post says this is how they framed it donald trump salutes crowd right some some booze heard i was like i mean some booze heard he brought his granddaughter as a human shield he's such a coward okay anyhow mark elia's democracy docket if you're not already subscribed and don't read him every day, every hour and get that reminder thing. You're making a big mistake.

1:13:37Popok:Mark, thanks for being here on Legal AF. Thank you. And if you like what we're doing and the kind of content that we do, a couple of things you can do for us. You can become a subscriber to the Midas Touch Network, which of course is our, we collaborate and we stand on the shoulders of Midas Touch and come over to Legal AF, the YouTube channel as well, where there we go. and set as mark i couldn't put it any better no i didn't put him up to it yes hit the reminder but hit the bell and the reminder and become a subscriber we do 12 fresh videos every day if you can believe it um you should and then so you want to become a card carrying member of the legal af community as and and we have some great uh programming senator whitehouse is going to be coming on with me lisa maybe you can join me soon uh rob bonta is coming on with me on friday don John Lemon is joining me on Friday.

1:14:32Popok:You'll be seeing these videos over the next couple of days. I'm going to be joining the weekend show with Anthony Davis for his this weekend version. I'll be the guest on that particular weekend. I got Paul Blumenthal, senior writer at Hothbo and Sidney Blumenthal's son, who just wrote a great scathing piece. Maybe you can join me on the United States Supreme Court. He's going to join me for an interview there. So that's the kind of content that we keep coming. In Substack, Legal AF Substack, you not only get live reporting that I do and bring in other people like Adam Klassfeld, All Rise News today, but you get filings, legal filings.

1:15:11Popok:We call it Filings AF. And you can find all the source material and become a member there as well. And then, you know, of course, the podcast. If you're not already subscribed there on audio and video. And then, of course, we've got our pro-democracy sponsors. We're going to take another quick break for them now. Summer is always better. when you plan ahead, whether it's a vacation or family time or just staying organized, a little prep goes a long way. The same is true for estate planning. A lot of people don't realize that a will doesn't cover everything when it comes to protecting your loved ones.

1:15:45Popok:Trust and will can help ensure that your loved ones are covered when it comes to things like medical decisions and power of attorney. As I've thought more about making sure my family is protected and my wishes are clearly documented, I've come to appreciate how important it is to have an estate plan in place. What stands out to me about Trust and Will is how simple and straightforward the process is. Their website is easy to use and it provides peace of mind knowing you can create a plan that helps protect the people who matter most. We can't control everything, but Trust and Will can help you take control of protecting your family's future.

1:16:23Popok:Go to trustandwill.com slash legal AF for 20 % off. That's 20 % off at trustandwill.com slash legal AF. Oh, have you ever actually looked at the ingredient list on your dog's food? After that first ingredient? Well, good luck. You see, kibble is made using extreme high heat to keep its shelf stable and inexpensive. So brands have to add back synthetic vitamins and minerals in the form of strange chemicals whose names you don't understand and definitely cannot pronounce. Is that really what you want your dog eating? Sundays for dogs is different. They start with more than 80 % all-natural meats and then finish with superfoods like kale, ginger, and blueberries and gently air dries them instead of using high heat.

1:17:09Popok:Sundays doesn't look or smell like dog food. It looks like high-quality, human-grade jerky. No fillers, no nutritional blends, no chemicals, just simple, complete nutrition. Founded by Dr. Tori Waxman, Sundays was created to meet her high standards as a veterinarian and as a dog parent. And the best part, Sundays requires no fridge, no freezer, no prep, no mess. You get the quality of a home-cooked meal with a scoop and serve ease of kibble. It's what dog food should have been all along. Over 100 ,000 dogs are eating Sundays, and the reviews speak for themselves, especially from owners of picky eaters who had never seen their dog get this excited about mealtime before.

1:17:51Popok:Like my Lily. Make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to SundaysForDogs.com slash LegalAF50 and get 50 % off your first order. Or you can use code LegalAF50 at checkout. That's 50 % off your first order at Sundays for dogs.com slash legal AF 50. One more time. Sundays for dogs.com slash legal AF 50 or use code legal AF 50 at checkout. And since I cut that ad earlier this week, I have a second dog. Oh, wow. Yes. We got a Lola to join the Lily. Because my wife decided a toddler needed a puppy. Oh, that's nice. You know, Lola, I always think of the damn Yankee song, what Lola wants Lola gets. Yes.

1:18:40Popok:And the great song by the kinks. Kinks by the kinks. So Lola is something we hope my daughter will be able to walk because it's wonderful. Hopefully comes in at 15 pounds or less. So let's let's pick your let's use let's take advantage of you being on the show with your Supreme Court knowledge. For those who don't know, great new book written by Lisa Graves. The cover of it's right behind her head there. It's called Without Precedent, A Takedown, my words, of the Roberts Court. And Lisa has been sounding the alarm about John Roberts at least since he was on the federal, the D.C. When he was nominated to the D.C.

1:19:24Circuit, yes.

1:19:25Popok:When he was nominated to the D.C. Circuit, which is the training academy feeder school for the Supreme Court, saying, no, you're like Cassandra. Nobody believed you, right? You're yelling out, hey! Somebody believed me because I did ask for there to be no recorded vote on John Roberts because I was convinced that he was going to be the nominee. And Senator Leahy and Senator Reid let that go forward by unanimous consent to preserve the opportunity. But I'm not sure that anyone actually really believed me that he was for sure going to be the one. I was convinced that Roberts was going to be there, not beneath the Supreme Court.

1:20:00Popok:Yeah, he was the Trojan horse, and you've been yelling out about it for a long time. And here we are. So we're at the end of what would normally be the end of the term. No more oral arguments except for the emergency petitions and things, which are still being filed or requests still being made. But the traditional writ of certiorari and the rulings, we're still waiting on, here drips and draps. They announced that tomorrow they're probably dropping some opinions. They're usually by the middle of June. Do they ever go later to the middle of June? Yeah, they went right up to the eve of July 4th for that immunity decision.

1:20:41That was July 4th? That was a July ruling before the July 4th holiday.

1:20:46Popok:yeah jesus christ oh my god all right i forgot that it went that late all right so usually usually ends in june but the torment could continue uh through that first week of july so the ones that i'm looking at you can you can weigh in on of course is the mail-in ballot which is about whether there can be grace periods after election day where votes continue to be counted even if they're postmarked on or by election day you know like when you file your tax return go get the stamp It doesn't have to show up on the 15th of April. It just has to have the postmark on it. Whether any states, including Republican states, grace periods are consistent with the Constitution about setting an election day or not.

1:21:28Popok:So we've got that one, which is Mark Elias is involved with. That's the Mississippi case. We're waiting to see birthright citizenship, whether Donald Trump can rip the beating heart of birthright citizenship out of the Constitution by way of an executive order. We've got the independents of the Federal Reserve. Can Donald Trump just fire Lisa Cook because Bill Pulte, who's now going to be our acting, temporary part-time acting head of national intelligence, because he posted a couple of social media posts using documents he probably shouldn't have had access to, cut and pasted them and said, look, signatures match on these two loan documents.

1:22:07Popok:She's committing loan fraud. She needs to go. Is that going to be allowed? And then there may be some other ones that are near and dear to your heart, too. Why don't we do a little wrap-up of what to expect? Because some of these might be coming out as early as tomorrow by 10 a.m. That's right. This is decision month for the Roberts Court, for the Supreme Court. And tomorrow, on Thursday, there will be some decisions issued. We don't know what they are. They don't tell us in advance. And so it will be a surprise. And as you mentioned, there are a couple of major cases that remain to be decided, including the Mississippi case about whether if your ballot is marked, is postmarked by election day, whether it can be counted.

1:22:46This is in response to a federal law that actually wasn't focusing on this issue at all. It was just setting a uniform day of election so that it is that first Tuesday in November. But no one thought that that would mean that therefore you could not have early voting or you could not have ballots counted if they were postmarked in time. And I think one of the things that doesn't get mentioned enough about this case is that a lot of our service members, people who serve in our military, in the Navy, and the Army and Marines abroad, vote by mail. And the Postal Service is the carrier of that mail.

1:23:20And it does take time sometimes for the mail to get to the United States. We know that Republicans have targeted military ballots. We saw that happen in North Carolina last year when Republicans were trying to stop the votes from being counted for the winner of the North Carolina Supreme Court race. And so this is not new for them, but it is, I think, particularly despicable to try to deny the counting of the vote of people who really do want to have their ballots counted and to do so to take it to the Supreme Court and have the court seriously consider this issue. By seriously, I mean, decide to take this case when I think it's a case where they could have summarily reversed and said, we're not going to intervene in this election process, particularly in the middle of an election year.

1:24:07But all bets are off because we know the Roberts court has been actively, aggressively intervening in our elections while elections are underway to put their thumb or their fist on the scale of justice on the side of Republicans. I think not just because Donald Trump has wanted to change the maps and create some basically cheat to get an advantage in this midterm election, but also because John Roberts has a multi-decade antipathy for the Voting Rights Act. And he's joined in that by people like Sam Alito, who have been opposed to the apportionment cases and more. And also, it cannot go unmentioned by me, that if Congress were to become controlled by Democrats, there would probably be robust investigation of this Roberts court.

1:24:53So they have a self-serving interest as they are trying to move the law to aid what the RNC wants or what Republicans want.

1:25:01Popok:Well, stop right there, because that's going to interest our audience. You believe that if the Democrats get control of the House and the Senate, that there'll be investigations of the United States Supreme Court and John Roberts Court? Yes, because there were significant, substantial investigations by investigative reporters that were thwarted by Republican control in the House and the Senate. And so the full details of the millions of dollars of trips that Clarence Thomas has taken have not been investigated. The tax situation that Senator Wyden and Senator Whitehouse have worked on to try to uncloak whether Clarence Thomas ever even paid taxes on the benefit of that huge, you know, super expensive six-figure RV.

1:25:49And there's more. There are all these trips. There are trips that Alito has taken. There are other controversies that have arisen because of the role of Jenny Thomas in trying to subvert the 2020 election, including she herself emailing legislators in Wisconsin and in Arizona to try to get a fake slate of electors put forward. Then there are bigger issues. Like we now know that Clarence Thomas's wife accepted a 500 ,000 donation from billionaire Harlan Crow just weeks before the Citizens United decision was issued. And he still sat on that case, a five to four ruling. He did not recuse. And in fact, he had the audacity to write a concurring opinion in which he claimed that if money is speech, then anything that chills speech would be unconstitutional.

1:26:35And so therefore disclosure rules would violate freedom of speech, knowing that his wife got a half a million dollar gift from his billionaire benefactor on New Year's Eve of 2009, just weeks before that decision came down. So there's a lot of investigations that need to take place.

1:26:52Popok:For those that don't know, Lisa's not talking through her hat. She's also the founder of True North Research in collaboration and does collaborations with Court Accountability Action. Tell, as long as you're here, sell that a little bit. Tell the audience a bit about what True North, why it was founded, and what does it focus on? Yeah, so I launched True North a few years ago as a follow on to the other nonprofits that I either led or incubated. And I named it in tribute to Frederick Douglass's newspaper, The North Star. He's the great abolitionist. He wrote so passionately about human freedom.

1:27:33And he's one of the men who signed the Seneca Falls Declaration in favor of women's rights. And so I really wanted to have a center, a real North Star. But I didn't want to obviously take the name of his paper. And so I called my organization True North. We're a watchdog group that works to expose corruption. And we've done a lot of investigations around the Supreme Court, including around Clarence Thomas and Jenny Thomas and Samuel Alito and more. And we've also then joined forces a few years ago with Court Accountability, which was founded by Alex Aronson. We've co-founded Court Accountability together, but he spearheaded that because we wanted to join that investigative work, that exposure of what's happening.

1:28:16How do we get in this mess with an exploration of policies and solutions? How can we fix it? And so these two groups work together to really help understand this crisis, this authoritarian, competitive authoritarianism that we're facing with a Supreme Court, a Roberts Court that really is out of control and has been captured, as Senator Whitehouse has described, captured by these billionaires, a handful of billionaires, in order to roll back our rights. and we are not powerless. They want us to think we're powerless. John Roberts at one point, shortly after he was confirmed a couple of years later, gave an interview with C-SPAN in which he said, if people don't like it, it's just too bad.

1:28:58Well, I don't know about you, but I know the Constitution starts with we, the people, not we, the court. And this court was chosen not to interpret the law fairly, but specifically chosen to be no more suitors, chosen to roll back our rights. And it's just intolerable what this court has done with the immunity decision and more, and this Kalei decision and the Milligan case out of Alabama, where John Roberts handed the pin to Sam Alito to use it like a dagger to destroy the Voting Rights Act, an act that was purchased with the blood, sweat, and tears of thousands and thousands of Americans who risked their lives to secure the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to actually secure the right to vote and have that vote be counted.

1:29:45And so that's the origin story there. And as a consequence, we pay close attention to the Supreme Court's docket, what's happening, and also who's weighing in. Because what's happened is that not only did Leonard Leo get chosen by Donald Trump to choose the people that were on the list for the Supreme Court to choose who got on the Supreme Court in the first Trump administration, but he also is fueling a multifaceted set of interest groups, special interest groups that are writing amicus briefs, briefs to the Supreme Court in order to sway the law or justify the law as it's being changed. And these people, many of them have claimed to be originalists.

1:30:23That's a term of art that was created to sort of claim that they're just going to follow the plain language of the constitution or history or supposed intent. But when push comes to shove at almost every turn, they ignore that. So they ignored the fact that the constitution specifically does not give presidents immunity. It has immunity only for one thing, which is for Congress, for their words on the floor, no immunity for presidents. In fact, it's antithetical to our constitution, which specifically says the job of a president is to faithfully execute the law. And nothing could be more faithless than violating that and being, engaging in criminal conduct through the official acts, like pardons if they're given for bribery or to advantage the president or his family.

1:31:10And so anyway, that's probably too long of a summary of what we do. But as a consequence, we're following these cases, including the birthright citizenship case, again, an outrageous assertion by Trump that he can just unilaterally set aside the language of the 14th Amendment, which specifically says that if you're born in the United States, you are a citizen. Trump calls that stupid. I call that constitutional. If he doesn't like it, then he shouldn't have run for president and shouldn't have taken an oath to uphold this constitution. We'll see what happens in that case. There's a real debate about whether the court will go along with Trump or not, since it's gone along with so many things.

1:31:46But I would say to you, Michael, that my concern is that there are no rules left for this court. It's making it up as it goes. And if it decides not to go with Donald Trump on birthright citizenship, I think that will just be a PR tactic, that they don't need to do that, given everything they've given Trump with the Calais decision and with the rigging of the maps or the attempt to rig the maps and make it harder for Americans to vote. They don't need to give that. And they can use that as a talking point, basically to say, look, they don't give Trump everything, so therefore they're not out

1:32:16Popok:of control. I think, you're totally right. I think birthright citizenship, they're not going to. They're not going to rip that apart. We'll find that out. They'll leave that in the 14th Amendment. I think they're going to let Lisa Cook hold her job, at least for now, in the federal reserve. At the Fed. But these other things, mail-in ballots, I think are in jeopardy and the rest. And just let's end it this way with a hopeful note about not just court reform, but the United States Supreme Court reform. Do you think this Supreme Court, by being so rogue and being so reckless about being so rogue, has effectively invited the Supreme Court reform that they so fear?

1:33:01Popok:In other words, you know, in other times, you know, you'd say, well, we have to have a blue ribbon commission. I mean, kind of think about this and, you know, Joe Biden, all this and that. Okay. Aren't we sort of post that at this point? Do you think there's enough momentum that if the Democrats get the Senate in the House, that we can have real Supreme Court reform, including adding a few more seats, having a binding ethics rule, having term limits? Do you think there's political will now and a public outrage, voter outrage, to give these elected officials the backbone to do real reform? And is that the natural consequence of this Supreme Court so out of control?

1:33:45Well, that's exactly right. I think this court has, the Roberts Court has created the ingredients for its reform, for the conclusion of this period with a court that's so out of control. We've never seen more members of Congress embracing reforms. The public is even farther ahead in terms of their embrace of court reform, of a variety of reforms that would boldly address the way this court has been using the judicial power in a way that is contrary to how fair judges would behave. And with that, you know, what we have is momentum, enormous momentum. And that momentum in the next two years could grow and be built upon, you know, through hearings and oversight by the House and by the Senate, as well as other outreach and public education.

1:34:33because a lot of people don't realize, for example, that Article 3 of the Constitution, which is the section that specifically addresses the power of the judiciary, it specifically says that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over a certain set of cases, like when one state sues another state over a common river. You know, so there's a battle between two states. But that Congress can set the jurisdiction of the court in all other respects. And in fact, previous Congresses have limited the jurisdiction of the court. We have that power without a supermajority, without a constitutional amendment in the constitution itself.

1:35:06And of course, there's no number of justices set in the constitution that has changed over time, over many years. It's been eight or nine or 10. And the Republicans were more than happy to have it be eight while they were blocking Scalia's seat from being filled and waiting to put Neil Gorsuch in that seat. So there's a lot of opportunities for reform. And I would just say on the big picture, people know that this system is broken in many ways. And they recognize what this Roberts court has done to voting rights and the type of corruption that it has unleashed through that immunity decision, claiming that Donald Trump can do no wrong in terms of criminal law in his so-called official acts, separate from civil litigation, but actually to break the law.

1:35:47and, you know, people get it. And there is just a real determination and an increasing understanding that if we do not reform this court, it will continue to dismantle our rights and we will not be able to have a new Voting Rights Act survive the gauntlet of this Roberts Court's hostility toward our voting rights. And this court should not have the final say when it comes to whether we can vote and have our votes be counted. We're going to have to retake that field. And the polling is strongly, strongly on our side. But beyond that, the moral call to secure our democratic rights, our rights in our republic, is on the rise and growing.

1:36:28I am very hopeful about where things are headed in that way.

1:36:32Popok:Yeah, and I'm going to butcher it, but when we were watching, on the panel that I watched, you were on with Senator Whitehouse sponsored by a court accountability action at Netroots about the Roberts Court and Supreme Court reform to Harvard authors there with their new book, Supremacy, that's going to be coming out. They'd be great to interview. We should bring them on Legal Layout. And I think it was Alex that put up a slide of a comparison between a quote of Abraham Lincoln, maybe at his second inaugural or first about a democracy that that seeds itself to the Supreme Court compared to a quote from John Roberts.

1:37:15Popok:Do you remember? Can you can you paraphrase? Yes, the paraphrase was Abraham Lincoln contending with the out of control Supreme Court of the time led by Roger Taney that issued the Dred Scott decision that rejected the power of Congress to create rules in terms of territories and which which states would be slave holding and which states would not. But what Abraham Lincoln said, and to paraphrase in that first inaugural address, was that if the people concede that a court, an unelected court, has the final say on its rights, they will cease to be, we will cease to be our own rulers. And then the contrasting quote was from John Roberts, the C-SPAN quote that I mentioned earlier.

1:37:59John Roberts says, if people don't like what we do, it's just too bad. Right. And I'm here to tell you, it's not just too bad. We have a lot of work to do and we have a growing number of allies and friends, both in the policymaker world and across the country, organizers, activists who understand the deep destruction that this Roberts Court is engaged in and who are determined to restore and expand our rights. Great.

1:38:27Popok:We're going to reclaim the democracy. We're going to reclaim Abraham Lincoln and his criticism of the United States Supreme Court. And we're going to march together. I mean, we all vibrate on the same frequency here. That's what Mark Elias said about lifting up progressive independent media. You're on it. You're at the epicenter of it here on Midas Touch and Unlegal AF. And I'm so pleased to have met Lisa Graves to be able to call on your talents, both on the Legal AF podcast on Monday nights. If you love what Lisa Graves is doing and how she puts it, you're going to love Monday Night Live on Legal AF YouTube channel, 5 p.m.

1:39:09Popok:Eastern time. They take questions. They're unplugged. You know, it's Dina Dahl and Lisa Graves. And, of course, to be able to pick your brain about these weighty constitutional issues and have the great Mark Elias join us as well. What a great treat here. Thank you all for joining us. And we did a little bit of longer version because it needed it. You know, we wanted to do this teaching about voting in the United States Supreme Court. But thanks for the generosity of your time, your spirit. And in the case of our sponsors and memberships, your money, where that comes into play as well. you're on Legal AF the podcast hit the free subscribe button here on Midas come over to Legal AF YouTube channel and do the exact same thing set the little bell for reminders and that bell will be going off 12 times a day on Legal AF but you will appreciate each and every one of them keeping you informed and up to date so for Karen Freeman Ignifolo who's traveling Lisa Graves and Michael Popak thank you for being here on Legal AF Shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal AFers.

1:40:42Popok:ticketmaster. So he actually gets results. Exactly. As Governor Phil will fight for Colorado. Paid for by Phil Weiser for Colorado Registered Agent Nanna Noschese.