Legal AF 8/12/26

25:49He's the judge who presided over the case of Michael Flynn, who said to the prosecutors, have you considered charging Michael Flynn with treason? He later walked that back, but he really showed that he was indignant about the crimes that Michael Flynn was charged with and pleaded guilty to. And he's been very systematically setting up his ducks in a row. He ordered the government to hand him the Epstein files at issue to inspect in camera. So all of this is following that. He's read the documents. He's seen their rationalizations. And he's said to the Trump DOJ, wait a minute, you're still not in compliance with my order.

26:29You are telling me that you can't redact handwritten documents. Why? And also, why is it that you're months late to filing your rationalizations for not releasing these documents on the Federal Register as federal law obligates you to do? As you said, Michael, it's very even keel in its delivery in this order, but those are read in their proper context fighting words.

27:00Popok:Oh, absolutely. When you put it in the context of knowing this judge and what he's previously ruled in this case and how strong he's been in favor of the First Amendment and Katie Fang and the arguments that her lawyers from Public Integrity Project are making. We're going to, for those that are joining a little bit later in progress, this is the Legal AF podcast. Don't adjust that dial. That is Adam Klassfeld of All Rise News sitting in as a guest anchor with me today, Michael Popak. All of his fine reporting and commentary can be found on All Rise News on Substack and his video work on Legal AF YouTube channel.

27:40Popok:Just go to the playlist that we have, the playlist tab on Legal AF YouTube channel and look for Adam Klassfeld and you will find him there with all the work that he's done. He really is a can't miss type commentator out there at the intersection of law and politics. and so many different ways to support what we do here on Legal AF, the podcast. One, download the audio. I know that sounds slightly antiquated, but to be frank, it's the audio that still drives the algorithms and the ratings and keeps us at the top of the shows on law and politics. And if that's where you want us to be, that's how you can help by free downloading.

28:23Popok:We made it easy for you with a QR code there as well. Then the Legal AF YouTube channel is sort of devoted to all things Legal AF. We just crossed 1.2 million subscribers. That's a big thank you to you because without you, frankly, we would not exist. and we're at about 740 million views of our content, including Adam Klassfeld and me, Michael Popok, 1.2 million subscribers in less than two years. Really, we're just completely overwhelmed by the generosity of our audience, their time, the money, where it's appropriate, and the rest to keep independent commentary and journalism alive. So we got, those are two things.

29:07Popok:We got a Legal AF sub stack. There it is. We're now in the top, regularly in the top five of US politics rising and top 30 overall. Move us into the top 10. You'll get 10 new pieces of content every day, including a live report that I do on a daily basis only on Legal AF Substack. And all of the filings that we rely on, court opinions, Supreme Court opinions, motions, this kind of thing, are under legal AF sub stacks. We call it filings AF. So those are a number of ways to support what we do. And then we've got our pro-democracy sponsors. We're going to take a break for them right now. Now, when we come back, I've got a fascinating interview and exclusive briefing with the ACLU's Cody Wolfsey, who runs the Immigration Rights Project for the American Civil Liberties Union, about a real-time event.

30:02Popok:the ACLU rushing into court the last 24 hours up in New Hampshire with Judge LaPlante about birthright citizenship again to declare unconstitutional and in violation of the Supreme Court's ruling back in June in the case of Barbara versus Trump that established once and for all that birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution in the 14th Amendment. Donald Trump apparently didn't get the memo, didn't read the opinion, doesn't want to acknowledge it, and issued new executive orders that violated the Supreme Court ruling already. So you're going to want to hear from Cody Wolfsey when we come back from our commercial break.

30:41Popok:Thank you to our pro-democracy sponsors. And here's a word from them. Have you ever actually looked at the ingredient list on your dog's food? Well, after the first ingredient, good luck. Most kibble is made using extreme high heat to keep it shelf stable, which means brands have to add back synthetic vitamins and minerals with ingredients you can't even pronounce. Sundays for Dogs is different. They start with more than 80 % all-natural meats, then add superfoods like kale, ginger, and blueberries, and gently air dry everything instead of using high heat. It doesn't look or smell like dog food.

31:19Popok:It looks like high-quality, human-grade jerky. No fillers, no nutritional blends, no chemicals, just simple, complete nutrition. Founded by veterinarian Dr. Tori Waxman, Sundays was created to meet her high standards as both a veterinarian and a dog parent. And there's no fridge, no freezer, no prep, no mess. Just scoop and serve. With over 100 ,000 dogs already eating Sundays, it's easy to see why so many picky eaters are excited for mealtime. Make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to Sundays for dogs dot com slash legal AF50 and get 50 percent off your first order. Or you can use code legal AF50 at checkout.

32:01Popok:That's 50 percent off your first order at Sundays for dogs dot com slash legal AF50 or use code legal AF50 at checkout. 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. And 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.

32:47And 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 Honey Love Crossflex Activity Bra as the solution you've been searching for.

33:42So 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. Honeylove doesn't just make bras and shapewear. They've built a full line of tanks, bodysuits, 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.

34:28Treat 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 and comfort and support with Honey Love.

34:52Popok:Welcome back to Legal AF, the podcast, and thank you to our pro-democracy sponsors. And again, thank you to each one of you. It's your generosity that defines the Midas Touch and Legal AF community. I mean, as I've joked ad nauseum with my close friend and founder, Ben Mysalas, you know, we would just be, you know, two reasonably old guys, one older than the other. sitting at a park bench, you know, feeding the pigeons and yelling at them if it wasn't for you and this community that we built that is so committed to the rule of law and defending our democracy. And I'm so honored to have our collaboration that we have with Legal AF and the American Civil Liberties Union so that when a bombshell of a new filing happens or a new action by Donald Trump gets announced, such as his second run at attacking birthright citizenship just hours after the Supreme Court issued its mandate to make final the ruling at least five to four in the Barbara case from June that birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and not in a statute and certainly cannot be affected again by the executive orders, no matter how many they number.

36:19Popok:He could do 100 of them, I believe. The ECLU wrote each one of them would be equally deficient under the Constitution. And right after he issued his two executive orders as diversionary tactics to try to take away from the fact that the Supreme Court after 60 days issued its mandate, oh no, oh no, you know, make me, apparently is what Donald Trump believes his next response should be. And he issued two executive orders, one coming up with like a dozen new exemptions to birthright citizenship, missing the point of the five to four decision on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship written by Chief Justice Roberts, which was, no, we are effectively adopting a 1898 ruling from the Supreme Court in which we said there were only a couple of exceptions, because birthright citizenship is sacred and sacrosanct and goes back before colonial period, back stretching back to England.

37:21Popok:And so the Wong Kim Ark case came along and we like those two exceptions, which are ambassadors and other foreign entities, children and a couple of 19th century Native American tribes, but that's it. Oh no, Donald didn't hear that. He said, I'm gonna come up with a dozen more, people I don't like and people that I declare to be foreign terrorists and people that are participating in birth tourism, whatever that's supposed to mean, penalizing the babies that result from that and taking away their birthright citizenship. So right away, of course, two groups, two groups of plaintiffs that had cases, one in New Hampshire led by the American Civil Liberties Union, and one down in Maryland in front of Judge Bortman sprung back into action.

38:05Popok:I said, wait a minute, we got preliminary injunctions in these places against him doing exactly what he just said to do, that he's going to do? How do you map these exemptions onto our class of people that have just had babies or are about to have babies? And so when I saw that the American Civil Liberties Union in the lead case, you know, because this jurisprudence now under the Supreme Court is known as the Barbara case, Barbara versus Trump, went back to Judge LaPlante, I immediately leapt into action and said, I got to get Cody Wolf see you on from the American Civil Liberties Union to join us here on Legal AF.

38:41Popok:So let's bring in Cody. Hi, Cody. Hi, great to see you. Thanks for having me back. Absolutely. People love you giving your exclusive briefing here on Legal AF and with the Legal AF YouTube channel. Cody being the Deputy Director of the Immigration Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. And you came out really strongly about what the president just did in public statements. Why don't you catch our audience up about why you've returned to Judge LaPlante, what you're seeking, and how you, on behalf of your clients, the ACLU, interpret these two new executive orders? Yeah, absolutely.

39:22I mean, if people are feeling kind of a sense of deja vu, haven't we already been here? You are not imagining things. You're absolutely right. The president, look, taking a step back, made his case to the Supreme Court. He said that he should be able to come up with new exceptions to this fundamental constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship. And as you say, the court said emphatically, no, it confirmed what's been true, what we have always known, that if you're born in this country, you belong here. And that the only exceptions to that are narrow ones that go all the way back to the framing of the 14th Amendment that are laid out in that landmark decision that you referenced, Wong Kim Ark.

40:07And today, essentially, practically, the only exception is for children of ambassadors who have full diplomatic immunity. But here we are again. The president is trying again to create new exceptions. And as we laid out to the court, the answer is the same. The president cannot rewrite the Constitution. So what we've asked the court to do is we already have a certified class of all the babies who were subject to that first executive order. That is babies born after February 20th of 2025, who don't have a parent who has legal immigration, excuse me, permanent immigration status in the United States.

40:56And we just asked the court to say what the Supreme Court has already said. Those babies are citizens. President Trump cannot do anything to take away their citizenship. It is guaranteed by the Constitution. That is the motion we've put in. And, you know, that reflects exactly what the Supreme Court declared just weeks ago.

41:21Popok:Yeah, I mean, there's a certain amount of fatigue, but we are so pleased that the ACLU and the other groups have let back into action. I mean, it was the cleanest and fastest track back into a court to challenge those executive orders without having like to amend your lawsuits. Because you have class members, you have a preliminary injunction, as does the other group, the CASA Incorporated group. And this is something that I wanted. I think this is a nice way for you and I to get a little inside baseball and give our audience something, a little bit of a mini law school class. If there's a violation of a Supreme Court rule, the law of the land now, the Supreme Law of the Land, some people might be thinking, well, just file a motion for contempt with the Supreme Court and point out on the record how these people aren't complying with it.

42:15Popok:But that's not how that works. And that's not how the Supreme Court likes things to come up to them. You got to start at the district court level and say they are violating your law. And then it ends up at the Supreme Court, right? Yeah, that's absolutely right. And, you know, I think what we're talking about here is that the government may have some, you know, arguments it wants to make, technicalities about this or that. But as you say, it's very clear. This new executive order is trying to strip away the citizenship of members of our class. And so, you know, we think it's well within the court's discretion to say, no, you can't do that.

42:59It doesn't matter if it's based on Executive Order 1, Executive Order Number 2, or as you say, Executive Order Number 100. The rule the Supreme Court laid out is very clear. And so that's right. We're back in district court and, you know, we're hoping and expecting that the court will make very clear to the government that this is just as illegal.

43:22Popok:Yeah, I mean, we've had members of the ACLU actually argued the case before the United States Supreme Court. And the thing that the takeaway for our audience is, look, some news outlets reported it as six to three, because the great concur, Brett Kavanaugh, concurred in the ruling, but not in the jurisprudential underpinnings, because he said, no, it's not a constitutional 14th Amendment thing. It's a nationality act, Congress act thing. And then he had that very curious footnote, which obviously people in the Trump administration took to mean they could issue executive orders, which was Congress, Congress can create new exceptions that are not yet before the court because his argument is it's not constitutionally protected.

44:14Popok:It's a statute that can be changed by an act of Congress. Whenever Donald Trump hears act of Congress can change it, somehow he always conflates that with, I'll do it by executive order. Yeah. You know, it's interesting. I do think, you know, that the administration may be looking for some solace in Justice Kavanaugh's opinion. Obviously, on the constitutional question, that was a dissenting opinion. The majority took the opposite view from his. But I actually think when it comes to this executive order, there's no solace to be found in Justice Kavanaugh's views. And that's for a couple of reasons.

44:51So one is, you know, he's very clear of what we're talking about. He says, you know, I get it. Wong Kim Ark held that there is, quote, a closed set of exceptions to the citizenship clause. That's essentially today just children of ambassadors. And he also says, I think that very same rule, closed set of exceptions was baked into the statute that Congress passed in 1940 and 1952. And that very statute guarantees the citizenship of, for example, the members of our class. And so on Justice Kavanaugh's view, this executive order is entirely illegal because of the statute. Now, it's true Justice Kavanaugh thinks, you know, it disagrees with Wong Kim Ark and thinks that there should be more exceptions under the Constitution.

45:47But he doesn't think there can be more exceptions under the statute. And he recognizes the Supreme Court majority disagreed with him on the constitutional analysis and accepted that there is a closed set. So any way you slice it, this executive order trying to come up with new exceptions outside that, quote, closed set is illegal.

46:12Popok:No matter how many times he pulls the handle for Trump, it comes up lemon, lemon, lemon. And you've got five justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts, who aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Certainly not Amy Coney Barrett. five justices say that it is a constitutionally protected sacred right birthright citizenship. And if it comes back to that five, it may be five to four again, but five to four, he doesn't have the votes yet. That doesn't stop him from either pandering to his base for political reasons. Why do you think he, just to get into the mind of your adversary for a moment, why do you think Donald Trump issued those two executive orders on birthright citizenship?

47:01I don't know. I can't get into the head of another person and certainly not the president. I will say, it may be that either the president or Stephen Miller or others in the administration are unhappy about the Supreme Court loss. Obviously, they've expressed that and that they disagree with the Supreme Court decision reaffirming Wong Kim Ark and that fundamental right to birthright citizenship. But at the end of the day, that doesn't really matter. It doesn't give them any more power to inject themselves into this, you know, really fundamental question of who counts as an American. And, you know, just to take a step back, what are we talking about here, the point of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause, the reason that, you know, those who fought and died in the Civil War, that the free Black communities who advocated for the reason that they pushed so hard to get this into the Constitution was because that they recognized that there's really two visions of America.

48:14There's an America in which if you're born here, You belong here. This is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic democracy. And then there's a vision that's reflected in the shameful Dred Scott decision, that's reflected in the anti-Asian racism that led to the Wong Kim Ark decision, and that is reflected in these executive orders that is attempting to exclude entire swaths of people from citizenship and full participation in our country because of who their parents are and most fundamentally as a way to try and change the demographics of this country, make it whiter. And I just think the majority on the Supreme Court looked at this and saw it for exactly what it was.

49:00And the court said that the Citizenship Clause put, quote, the question of citizenship once and forever to rest. It was taking this out of the hands of politicians, whether they're in the White House or in Congress, and putting it in our most fundamental document, the Constitution. And that's why it doesn't really matter which actions the president decides to take or how he decides to slice and dice this. He has no power here. The The Constitution is clear and the Supreme Court has already spoken.

49:36Popok:Now in your case, and before Judge LaPlante in New Hampshire, tell our audience what you've asked, what you filed and what you've asked for and the status of that. And then I can contrast that with what's happening in Maryland with Judge Boardman. Absolutely. So, you know, we filed a few things, some procedural motions, but the primary thing we filed is this. We said, we think that this executive order already violates your injunction. That injunction bars the president, the executive branch from taking away citizenship from anybody in our class, who, again, is all those babies subject to the first executive order.

50:14But we said, look, if there's any question about that, you can clarify that that's what the injunction means. You can modify the injunction to change the wording slightly to make sure that it is protecting these class members from any sorts of attacks from the executive, whether or not they are sort of grounded on that first executive order. Or you could issue a new preliminary injunction. Whatever you do, the point is our class members are facing the exact same threat they've always faced in this litigation, which is President Trump denying them their birthright as U.S. citizens. The court has already decided the preliminary injunction.

50:55The First Circuit agreed and affirmed it in another case. And the Supreme Court obviously has now agreed and affirmed as well. The legal questions are done. And so, you know, all that really remains is to make sure that our clients' rights are being enforced.

51:13Popok:And so in Judge Boardman's courtroom, they've already gotten a little bit of information out there because the plaintiffs there reached out to the government and said, we can't make heads or – I'm paraphrasing – we can't make heads or tails of your executive orders. They're very ambiguous and murky at best. Can you clarify what some of these terms mean and whether so we can map it on to our preliminary injunction lawsuit? And the response was sort of like, we're not going to clarify. We think it's too early to have to do that. It's prospective only. So don't worry about babies born before. And we're still working on guidelines.

51:58Popok:What did you make of this sort of new color and intel that they got in that case and how it impacts yours? Yeah, I mean, I think that we completely agree that the executive order raises a thousand and one questions that it doesn't answer. And we've laid out some of those to the court as well. For example, the original executive order from last year specifically said this is going to apply moving forward to babies born February 20th, 2025 and forward. So it's not going to apply to people, say, who were born last year, 10 years ago, 50 years ago. But the new executive order doesn't say that. And so it opened up the obvious possibility that actually what they were saying is we're going to strip away citizenship from who knows how many people who have lived their entire lives as citizens, not just attacking babies moving forward.

52:54So, you know, it's not surprising to me the government is going to take some positions attempting to narrow this executive order to make it less cruel and extreme. We'll have to see kind of how that shakes out in terms of what the ultimate scope of this new executive order is. Obviously, that is going to matter for the twists in terms of this litigation. But I think the thing for people to understand is really two things. Number one, ultimately, you know, these questions about the scope don't matter for the merits of this executive order, because for all the reasons we've laid out to the court, the order's illegal under the Supreme Court's decision already.

53:39And whether it applies prospectively, retrospectively, what have you, it's illegal. But the second point is, you know, I know that there's a lot of folks who are confused. There's quite a few folks who are scared about what this order might mean for their citizenship, their children's citizenship, their families. And, you know, as I said, there's a lot of questions raised by the executive order. And we and the other groups litigating these issues are working hard to get clarity and answers and protections in place. But ultimately, we already fought the big fight here because the Supreme Court has already confirmed that the citizenship clause means what it says.

54:25And so part of this is just about how are we going to get, you know, to a place where there's court orders, you know, protecting everyone who is a birthright citizen from these lawless actions, as opposed to where we were, say, a year ago, where the goal was really, you know, the government was trying to get this issue up to the Supreme Court and rewrite that fundamental rule.

54:51Popok:Absolutely. And even the one on birth tourism, which panders to his base, I mean, this is just my view. You want to make illegal this industry to the extent that it's even a real problem in America. I'm not sure how many dozens of people actually come to America in order to have a baby. But let's say you want to criminalize that in some way. That's different than criminalizing it, than stripping away. If there is a baby born from whatever you have deemed to be birth tourism, and good luck with that, the baby can't lose his or her birthright citizenship because of this illegal conduct. You can make it illegal, right?

55:34Popok:You can try to police it, but you can't, if despite all of that, there is a baby born, that baby's a U.S. citizen. Yeah, that's absolutely right. I mean, a few things I'd say on this. So one is, I totally agree. This is a red herring that is used for political purposes. You know, all the data show that this idea of people coming here specifically to give birth on a tourist visa or whatever is a, you know, tiny, tiny fraction of all births. The second thing is it's already barred under federal law. There's a federal regulation speaking directly to this. And in fact, you know, a DHS representative told the New York Times that this executive order really doesn't do anything.

56:20It just repeats what current law already is. But number three, I think you're you're completely right. You know, so much of the first and second executive order is about trying to blame children, babies, for what the administration perceives as sort of the sins of their parents. But that is actually really fundamentally contrary to American values. There was a doctrine about, you know, sort of imputing crimes of the father to children under, you know, English law. And that's one of the things that's explicitly rejected in the U.S. Constitution, because in this country, every person is their own person.

57:05Every child born here is a citizen. That's why the Citizenship Clause doesn't say anything about people's parents. It says if you're born in this country and you're subject to the jurisdiction of the country, you're subject to the country's power, unlike, say, a child who has diplomatic immunity, then you are a U.S. citizen.

57:25Popok:Really appreciate, Cody, you coming on with us on a regular basis to make what appears at first blush to be complicated really easy to understand. and make our audience feel great about the fact that the American Civil Liberties Union and all of its different divisions, I know you're working with the ACLU of New Hampshire and the ACLU of Maine and all different parts of the ACLU. As we end here on this segment of Legal AF, just talk to our audience about what your immigration rights project does and sort of explain how the ACLU, kind of the national umbrella organization, works with its local affiliates in cases like this.

58:06Yeah, absolutely. I'll start with the second part first. You know, our affiliates are really the engine that powers our ability to do the work that we do across the country. We have affiliates in every state, as well as D.C. and Puerto Rico. So and, you know, they are doing the work day in and day out, litigating on all the different issues that the ACLU works on, whether it's immigrants rights, reproductive justice, criminal justice reform, racial justice, voting rights. The list goes on and on and on there in state courts and federal courts. They're in our state legislatures lobbying and they are in the communities kind of building coalitions.

58:52And so we work with them hand in hand in cases. I think this is a good example of what that partnership can yield. I can't say enough good things about our affiliate colleagues. We at the Immigrants Rights Project work on a wide range of issues in terms of the constitutional and civil rights of non-citizens and their families. Right now, we are fighting back against the most anti-immigrant administration in our lifetimes and possibly ever. And so in the thousand and one ways, we are trying to push back against the anti-immigrant and anti-mixed status family agenda of Stephen Miller and the rest of the administration.

59:42I'll just name a couple of things that we're doing. We are fighting back against the Shameful Alien Enemies Act invocation, which is trying to completely eliminate any semblance of due process for people and shove people out of the country without a hearing based on the flimsiest of evidence. We're fighting back against mass detention, which the administration is trying to use in order to, you know, essentially bully people into giving up their chance for asylum or other kinds of protection by keeping them in horrible conditions in immigration detention indefinitely without even so much as a bond hearing.

1:00:23And we're fighting back against various state laws that are trying to bolster the Trump deportation agenda, as well as set themselves up to fight against, for example, the next Democratic administration, which might have a different view on immigration policy. So we're doing it all. Our affiliate colleagues, our colleagues in communications and advocacy are doing it all, as are our partners across the entire movement. And, you know, we welcome people joining our efforts in any way that they can. Visit our website, ACLU.org. Go out and join those protests. Give to local organizations working on immigrants' rights issues and immigration representation.

1:01:10We need your help.

1:01:12Popok:Yeah, we'll put actually the link below for the ACLU for those who want to help and join. There's so many different ways to do it, not just money and donations, which is great, But also, you know, getting involved and joining local affiliates or the national organization. I know there's so many different ways for people to get involved with the ACLU. And we're so honored to have you regularly here and collaborating with us on Legal AF. Cody Wofsi of the American Civil Liberties Union, thanks for joining Legal AF, the podcast tonight, to brief our audience about birthright citizenship. Thanks so much for having me.

1:01:46Popok:And thank you to Cody Wolfsey and the American Civil Liberties Union. We so appreciate their collaboration on the Legal AF YouTube channel. Whenever we have the opportunity to get the ACLU on and talk about their cases, they've got hundreds and hundreds of cases that they have filed to defend American values, to defend the First Amendment and the Constitution, immigration rights, civil liberties, civil rights. ACLU is on the front lines in the courtrooms. And when we get their lawyers to come on and others to talk about their cases, we jump at that opportunity. Let's bring Adam Klassfeld back on as well.

1:02:21Popok:Adam, you do a fair amount of ACLU interviews as well. Absolutely. They're behind some of the biggest cases that are out there. You know, we were talking about in your conversation with Mr. Wolfsky, it's the Trump executive order in birthright citizenship, and they were behind the original Trump v. Barbara case. And I was there in New Hampshire when that was going down. So I'm constantly - You're going back to New Hampshire, my friend. Well, yeah, we will see when that comes to a head. But Judge LaPlante. Judge LaPlante. I'm sorry? Talk about LaPlante, because you've been in the courtroom. Yeah, I mean, he ruled from the bench that time.

1:03:06I think that this is going to come to a head before him. I think he's a tough judge. And reading their papers in this, I want to read a line that just kind of gets to the heart of it. They wrote, if the president issues 100 orders seeking to create new exceptions to the sacred guarantee of the citizenship clause, all 100 will be equally illegal. And nothing requires this court to countenance the continued assault on this foundational constitutional principle or issue an endless string of EO-specific injunctions. I don't think, yeah. They're not going to do better with Boardman either in the Casa case.

1:03:48Absolutely. This is just a sort of thing where it's what Trump always does. He loses in the Supreme Court on tariffs. So he tries to wriggle it around with a different legal rationale. Here, there's not even a different legal rationale. He's trying to define words differently and try to relitigate an issue that has been resolved. It's unconstitutional. So here we are again. Yeah.

1:04:18Popok:Now, Adam, you know, you're in the business of reporting and breaking stories and investigative reporting and bringing your commentary. Have you ever thought about scraping up$100 ,000 a month so you can get insider access before the rest of us to postings by the press secretary and Donald Trump, J.D. Vance and the FBI and the Treasury Department, RFK Jr. So you can get insider information so you can trade on it. You can invest around it and you can make business strategic decisions. Have you ever thought about doing that? Well, you know, when I sleep on a bed of money that I could shovel to Donald Trump like that, you know, of course not.

1:04:58It's, you know, and I know what that transition is, Popak, and it's a good one. This lawsuit against this scheme where Trump is, through Truth Social, offering access to Wall Street insiders to get, in his words, market moving posts, advanced access to that. Wait, stop right there.

1:05:23Popok:Back in the day, that used to be called front running and insider information, tipper tip B. And that's a bad thing. The fact that Trump is selling just through his truth social official government information early to people on purpose so that they can. And imagine if you and I knew that the transportation department was about to announce a new contract to make an investment in this, build a new bridge in fill in the blank. Okay. You and I would, if we had that information, we would buy up all the real estate around that area. Or we would invest money in the contractors. or if we knew that he was about to bomb Iran or take over Venezuela early, we would shift our portfolio towards industries that support that issue, which is exactly what Trump is.

1:06:17Popok:He's basically admitting that he's been front running all this time, and now he's offering that to the average$100 ,000 a month paying subscriber. The thing that calls me, and then I'll turn it over to you to complete the whole lawsuit that's been filed is that he's the first one to come out and say that Jack Smith was wrong about why he kept the Mar-a-Lago documents. Because there was a working theory that Jack Smith had as special prosecutor, independent prosecutor, that Trump kept all of those top secret classified documents and war plans because he wanted to sell them and make money off of them.

1:06:55Popok:Isn't this effectively an acknowledgement that that's exactly what Donald Trump thinks is okay? You know, it's an admission that's a great tie there, Popak. I think they are related issues that he does think that information can be profitable. And he's right about that. We have we there's public reporting that there are 10 people who took him up or took Trump media, which owns Truth Social up on that offer. And they're paying, in effect, more than a million dollars a year. and I think the statistic is more than 10 people. So at a minimum, it's tens of millions of dollars at the very beginning that he's getting, selling early access to public pronouncements.

1:07:43And he's contractually obligated to make those official announcements on his social media website. So as you said, if there is a military action, if there's a domestic policy, if he's making an appointment, that goes there and his Wall Street buddies get access to it first. And so this lawsuit that was filed that I find really interesting and is a perfect way to open it the way you did, Popak, is that the lawsuit says this is a First Amendment issue. One of the plaintiffs is the Intercept, a news organization. The other is the Freedom of the Press Foundation. And what they're saying is these Wall Street buddies who cannot buy early access to public announcements from the President of the United States before the press and public does.

1:08:33So they're making a First Amendment case about it. And in the meantime, you have Capitol Hill taking action. You have Congressman Jamie Raskin going ahead and saying that he's launching an investigation which would have a lot more teeth if he gets subpoena power after the midterm elections, but we can talk about that later. We have a proposed bill in the Senate by Senator Reid. And again, if the Democrats take the Senate, then we can talk about even the possibility, the question of that advancing. But this lawsuit goes from the fundamental premise is that set aside the self-dealing, set aside the corruption, set aside the insider trading.

1:09:19There's a core First Amendment issue. They also say the Fifth Amendment is one of the basis of their claims. And they filed this in my backyard in North Manhattan, the Southern District of New York. I think this is going to be one of the big First Amendment legal battles. And it's the same court where Trump faced a lawsuit in his first term about blocking people on Twitter. If that was a First Amendment issue and it was determined to be a First Amendment issue in that court, I don't see how he's going to avoid the conclusion that this is a First Amendment violation to hope to make the press and public pay$100 ,000 a month to get early access to what should be public information.

1:10:09Popok:And how about when we talk about the stock market and how you could trade on that information and make strategic investments? What about all the predictive markets? What about Polymarket? What about Calci? What about people that made money because they got tipped off that we were going to take over Venezuela and bet on that and made millions of dollars? Now, for your$100 ,000 a month, you can go into all these predictive markets, right? Because you've got the earlier information than anybody else. And the fact and look at the list of people. This is what I loved about the lawsuit. They were like, Trump sends out information on his social media, on his own truth social about foreign policy, domestic policy, military policy, economic policy.

1:10:53Popok:policy, in this case, RFK Jr., public health policy, transportation policy, the press secretary. We know that Carolyn Leavitt is, what she did, she came back off like a maternity leave and now she's already quitting, but whatever, she's going to spend more time with her family. But whoever the press secretary communications director is, right? And the FBI director. And think about this FBI director, Kash Patel, who is so like a bull in a China shop with information. You get this information early. I don't understand what the defense is going to be by the lawyers. I'm sure it's going to be Sullivan and Cromwell.

1:11:36Popok:Get ready. Representing Truth Social or this lawyer at DLA Piper, Chris Operson. One of them is going to be, you see, will be representing Donald Trump's interest in this case, might be Operson. But maybe the Department of Justice intervenes? I mean, how are they going to justify to a judge the selling and front running of insider public information early to people that pay for it? I just don't understand. Well, they'll try to find some sort of procedural dodge. That's what they always do. It's going to be, oh, you filed too early or you filed too late. We will see what they try to throw at a federal judge to try to avert injunction blocking them.

1:12:25But to your point about predictive markets and the whole Wild West economy surrounding that, I remember the days when we just called those gambling sites and there are people who have been prosecuted for within, you know, who had early access to government information and tried to bet it on some of these gambling sites. And, you know, we're speaking a day after an unexpected result in the Wisconsin gubernatorial elections where one of those quote unquote predictive markets thought that the losing candidate had a 95 % chance of winning. So what we have here is a recipe for anyone who has a spare$100 ,000 a month to shell out can use that information to get an edge on the stock market, to get an edge on the gambling market.

1:13:23It's, you know, it's a kind of thicket and bog and septic tank of conflicts and corruption. And, you know, who knew that the first lawsuit against that wouldn't be about insider trading, wouldn't be about emoluments, wouldn't be about corruption. It's about the fundamental issue, the First Amendment. You know, the president of the United States using his private website and using it to and through contractual obligations, he's giving it early to the public there and that he's setting aside the advance access for his Wall Street buddies.

1:14:06Popok:Absolutely. Well, that is a business model. It's just not Legal AF and Midas Touch's business model. We don't try to charge a small group of people$100 ,000 a month for early access to our videos. We just ask for support in a completely different way and one that I hope that everyone feels is comfortable and appropriate and consistent with our ethos and our values. So many different ways to support what we do here on Legal AF, starting with the audio downloads for this particular podcast. Then you've got the Legal AF YouTube channel. And thank you, an early thank you. We just crossed literally in the last few hours, 1.2 million subscribers.

1:14:51Popok:We rolled the odometer all because of you and your generosity of spirit and commitment to what we do. Our First Amendment rights are stronger because you are protecting your own by supporting what we do on Legal AF, the YouTube channel. Legal AF, the sub stack is another great community. You can get it on the ground floor. Some people might be thinking, oh, wow, I just recently joined Legal AF YouTube channel. I'm on the one millionth person. Well, you can come. We got about 165 ,000 people or so that have joined Legal AF Substack. You get about a dozen new pieces of content every day, including our videos.

1:15:27Popok:You want to catch, you like Adam Klassfeld of All Rise News. He's my co-anchor tonight. You're going to love him when he joins us on a regular basis on my live reports on Substack and only on Substack. And then we've got our, of course, our pro-democracy sponsors, some of which have been with us from the very beginning, like six years ago when Ben and I co-founded Legal AF. Some are new, but they have something in common. They know what our, they don't know what we're going to say, but they know what our point of view is. They know what our viewpoint is and our commitment to honest commentary.

1:16:04Popok:They know what our audience is all about, and they want to be here in support. So disposable income is a tough thing to come by these days with Donald Trump in office. But these are products that Jordy and I have vetted. Jordy, one of the brothers, of course, for the Legal AF. And these are things we think are interesting. And if you think they're interesting, take a shot. And that's another way to support what we do here on Legal AF. So let's take a break for our pro-democracy sponsors. 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.

1:16:49Popok:I like having convenient, better-for-you options on hand, and IQ Bar makes that easy. The Ultimate Sampler Pack is a great way to try everything. You get nine IQ Bars, eight IQ Mix sticks, and four IQ Joe sticks, Plus, all IQ Bar products are clean label certified and entirely free from gluten, dairy, soy, GMOs, and artificial ingredients. With over 20 ,000 five-star reviews and counting, more people than ever are fueling their busy lifestyles with IQ Bar's brain and body boosting bars, hydration mixes, and mushroom coffees. Their ultimate sampler pack includes all three. 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.

1:17:36Popok:To get your 20 % off, text LEGALAF to 64000. Text LEGALAF to 64000. One more time. That's LEGALAF to 64000. Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details. Have you ever thought I should really be doing something to protect myself from stalkers, scammers, and hackers, but you're not sure what? Here's what to do. Go to www.joindeleteme.com slash legal AF and enter code legal AF. You'll get 20 % off Delete Me. Delete Me removes your personal information that's being sold online. Look, I have an active online presence, so privacy is really important to me. Knowing Delete Me does the hard work of removing my information from hundreds of data broker websites gives me real peace of mind.

1:18:26Popok:Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners, get 20 % off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeleteme.com slash LegalAF and use promo code LegalAF at checkout. The only way to get 20 % off, though, is to go to www.joindeliteme.com slash LegalAF and enter code LegalAF at checkout. And thank you to our pro-democracy sponsors. Welcome back to Legal AF at the Midweek with Michael Popok and guest anchor Adam Klassfeld of All Rise News. If this is your first time hearing or seeing Adam Klassfeld, you can follow him on Substack on All Rise News.

1:19:14Popok:He regularly appears on Legal AF YouTube channel. You can look for his playlist there. And in the notes below, we'll give you the links for all of his social media and Substacks that you can consider becoming a subscriber. I think it's must-see YouTube, must-read Substack whenever Adam Klassfeld's name's attached to something. Really appreciate you being here, Adam, with us today. Why don't we bring it home with John Brennan, John O. Brennan, former CIA director for Donald Trump. Apparently, the subject of not one but two federal grand juries. One that I know of in particular is what we refer to as the grand conspiracy grand jury, which is presided over by your friend and mine, Aileen Cannon, the judge in the northern hinterland of the Southern District of Florida in Fort Pierce, Florida, famous for, infamous for presiding over the Mar-a-Lago case and chastising Jack Smith whenever she had the chance.

1:20:16Popok:and turning the tables and proving that somehow the prosecutors were the bad people and Donald Trump was the good people and has locked away forevermore the report of Jack Smith related to the Mar-a-Lago case. Putting that aside for a minute, that's also being apparently prosecuted by a special employee appointed by Todd Blanche named Joe DiGeneva, who's an 82-year-old former Reagan U.S. attorney. He was the Janine Pirro of the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office in the Reagan era. And so he's been, just put in Joe DiGenova or his wife, Victoria Tenzing, and just put that into Google. And you'll see these crazy clips of him on Newsmax and Fox News attacking John Brennan, attacking Comey like a decade ago about their involvement with a mass conspiracy to have Donald Trump defeated at the polls in collusion, I guess, with the Russians or whatever.

1:21:21Popok:So he's in charge there. Blanche appointed him. And John O. Brennan is not waiting around to see if he's going to get indicted or not. He keeps filing motions with the district court judge of the D.C. accusing the Trump administration of potentially destroying evidence. I love the fact that he's not sitting idly by and just waiting. I wonder if I'll be indicted today. He's actively suing first before the indictment, setting up his future motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution, et cetera. Let me turn it over to Adam Klausfeld about the new filing that we're reporting on. That's a great introduction, great setup, because like others who were targeted by Trump, you have Brennan being proactive.

1:22:11Remember when Jay Powell saw that there was this grand jury investigation, he went to quash the subpoenas and succeeded. And so what Brennan is doing, he's not trusting that the Trump Justice Department is going to dutifully preserve evidence to protect his due process rights before an inevitable indictment as he sees it because Trump demanded it. If Trump demands it, if you're on his enemies list, if this has been openly declared, we know where these investigations are going, especially if they're in the courtroom of Trump's favorite judge, Aileen Cannon. So he, as you said, Popak just came out with a new filing.

1:22:51I'm going to read from the introduction of it, 32 pages long, but the introduction kind of lays out the basic point that he is asking the court to have the government honor its obligations, which is to preserve evidence that could be used against him at trial. And he makes a very simple point that if the government is fighting this hard against him in that effort, that's more of a reason for the court to take action. Here's what he says. Former CIA Director John Brennan is currently the target of two federal grand jury investigations, which are demonstrably motivated by President Trump's effort to use the criminal justice system to seek retribution against Director Brennan for his lawful conduct while serving as CIA Director and for his criticism of the President in the years since to ensure he can effectively challenge any unconstitutionally vindictive and selective criminal charges, Director Brennan has sought injunctive relief, ordering the government defendants to preserve the internal government records and communications that they will demonstrate the retributive motivations behind an eventual prosecution.

1:24:04In filing this action, Director Brennan seeks nothing more than to ensure that the government does what it is already obligated to do, preserve all records and communications relevant to the government's preordained decision to investigate and prosecute him. Rather than simply stipulating to uphold that constitutional obligation, however, the defendants devote their responsive pleadings to arguing the limits of that obligation and disputing when and how Director Brennan has the right to enforce it. So that's where the rubber hits the road here. You have Brennan pointing out that the entire premise of his legal action is government preserve your records.

1:24:49That if you are going to go ahead and do this vindictive prosecution, I'm going to have a fair trial and I need a judge to protect my rights because you can't trust this administration to do it. And what does the government do? It fights it tooth and nail. And he argues in this 32-page motion that their recalcitrance is the reason the judge has to take action.

1:25:13Popok:Absolutely. I mean, this is a precur... I mean, there's a number of ways if you're on the receiving end of a vindictive prosecution of the Trump administration and Department of Justice that you can conduct yourself. You and I have covered many of them. If you're Kilmer Abrego Garcia, that poor guy from Maryland that became the poster child for civil liberties abuse by Donald Trump and being sent to the torture prison of El Salvador without due process and then having a trumped up criminal charge against him in order to bring him back to the United States. If you're him and you're those lawyers, you just, you don't preemptively file anything.

1:25:53Popok:Although in a way you do because they They filed their civil rights case in front of Judge Zinnis, although that led to the criminal case. But when things are developed more, then you file your motion for vindictive prosecution. You don't file preemptive motions. That's one way. If you're James Comey, the first indictment that was brought by Lindsey Halligan, you don't do anything to cut off Lindsey Halligan at the pass. You just let it play out. And then once it plays out, you immediately go for the grand jury transcript and you file your motion for vindictive prosecution and you get judges to rule on it at that time.

1:26:32Popok:That's a way. And if you're James Comey the second time, you, you know, you don't file early, you know, you file it when the grand jury indicts and then you start building your case again to get your case dismissed. But what I love about John O. Brennan is rather than sit around for this amorphous, you know, rogue grand jury, Lord knows what Joe DiGenova is telling the grand jury in order to get an indictment. I mean, given the track record of this Department of Justice in abusing the grand jury process, in suborning perjury, in sending in false testimony, in misstating the Constitution, in sending in fake documents, Lord knows what crazy Joe DiGenova is telling a grand jury.

1:27:22Popok:And so rather than wait around and find out and to have this shadow, this shade over him, John O. Brennan, he filed first. This is now like the second or third motion that he's filed in a different court arguing against indictments. Lord knows where they are. So I like the tact. It's not for everybody. It's not for the faint of heart either. It's a strategy that they develop that it's bespoke. It works for John Brennan because of the nature of the double indict, the grand juries and the Genova and all. It works. And it's really real. But it's not for the faint of heart. If you ran that strategy past a dozen top flight criminal defense lawyers that do work like this, at least 10 of them would say pass.

1:28:11Popok:That's not how we're going to do this case. So I give them a lot of credit. Right. And it's also not for folks who can't afford the crushing expense to litigate on multi fronts. And, you know, there's that expression. You can beat the rap, but can you beat the ride? There's a ride going on where he's having to litigate in civil court. He believes that it's inevitable that he's going to have to litigate in criminal, well, I mean, you know, federal court in a criminal case. And that this strategy in saying that I don't trust the Trump Justice Department to preserve records and give me information that is exculpatory and necessary for my defense.

1:28:54Well, there's a history behind that. You know, right now, around the same time that this is going on, the Southern Poverty Law Center is saying that the Trump Justice Department is withholding evidence of its longstanding cooperation with the FBI using information about it from its informants program to share cooperatively with the federal government years and decades of this cooperation that's memorialized in government files that the government isn't sharing. So I think Brennan knows that this is necessary to defend himself. And to take a step back from all of this, you know, we've talked about the grand conspiracy investigation, quote unquote, and it's worth emphasizing just how ridiculous this Joe DeGeneva investigation in the Southern District of Florida and Fort Pierce is.

1:29:50It's based on this conspiracy theory that dating even before Trump's first term, there was some sort of coordinated conspiracy between enemies of Donald Trump from before the Mueller investigation, spanning through the Mueller investigation, spanning through Trump's criminal prosecutions after his first term against him. And that this somehow thwarts the statute of limitations because it's ongoing with different actors that are in the deep state. Now, this is something that is in the kind of crazy waters of Mike Lindell podcasts, but now it's actually in a federal court. Now it's actually in the courtroom of Judge Aileen Cannon, where it's for anyone who's been there in Fort Pierce, and I was there covering Trump's criminal case, it's a tiny courtroom.

1:30:47You're not allowed to bring electronic devices. It's basically a black box that will have a pretty limited audience if this grand conspiracy case gets off the ground. So he has to be aggressive because in a circumstance like this, even a crazy investigation like this, the deck appears to be really stacked.

1:31:10Popok:Yeah, two quick observations. One, I've tried a case in that Fort Pierce courthouse. I used to practice out of West Palm Beach and I covered the entire Southern District early in my career. And then secondly, if you're talking about the crazy water, you and I have done separate hot takes about Donald Trump's, you want to read about the deep state and you think this is batshit crazy? just read Peter Tickerton, Donald Trump's former military academy roommate from high school, who's one of their go-to lawyers. He's represented Tina Peters, all sorts of things. He just filed a Federal Tort Claims Act case on behalf of a dozen Jan Sixers, including a proud boy who was convicted of seditious conspiracy, looking for money from the government.

1:32:04Popok:But it's not just like a plain and simple under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure statement of the claim. Oh, no. It's 30 pages of deep state QAnon already debunked 80 times in federal courthouses, just mad as a hatter shit about globalists and anarchists and the Democratic Party and the grand conspiracy. all and this is the reason why Donald and the election was rigged and the and the software companies and the hardware companies like if you thought Sidney Powell was was mad as a hatter wait till you read what Peter Tickerton has wrote I have it up on Legal AF Substack on behalf of Jan Sixers to try to get their money but this is the problem this these are articles of faith for those that surround themselves and make money off of Donald Trump.

1:33:03Popok:So whether it's Joe DiGenova or it's Peter Tickerton or it's people now inside the government that were once outside the government, like Stan Woodward and Todd Blanche and all Donald Trump's personal criminal defense team or his outside criminal defense team, they have all taken, they've all drank from the Kool-Aid jar container that relates to Donald Trump And they believe at least most of the gospel of this bullshit about the 2020 election and Donald Trump, you know, being crucified by something called the deep state. So if you ever, you know, sort of, you know, can't go to sleep at night, you got to read Peter Tickerton's complaint.

1:33:50Popok:But these are the people that Donald Trump has empowered who enable his worst instincts, right? Right. And to your point, they filed this in the District of DC, where I can guarantee you, there isn't a single judge on that bench. These are the judges that presided over the January 6 docket, who saw all the videos of the rioters beating up cops. They're the ones who presided over the seditious conspiracy trials. Even every Trump appointee, every Biden appointee, Every single appointee in that court knows that this kind of conspiratorial nonsense peddled in this complaint is malicious garbage. They did not file this complaint thinking that this is going to be a winning lawsuit.

1:34:45They filed this complaint because this is the administration that wanted to do the payout pot for punks, as Tillis called it. And that they know that if they file the complaint, the Trump Justice Department is going to roll over because any judge in the court where they filed this that looks at this complaint will have to suppress his or her gag reflex.

1:35:13Popok:So, so well put. One of the many reasons I was looking forward to doing the show tonight is just having your insightful wit and analysis. Adam Klassfeld, All Rise News, joining as a guest anchor today. the legal af podcast thank you for taking time out of your day adam to brief our audience and um for those that know adam i'm sure they've been thrilled for those that are just being introduced to adam in the links below you'll find links to all rise news and different ways to support his independent commentary and journalism thanks for being here on legal af the podcast download the audio so many different ways to support what we do download our audio qr code is up there for you It sounds antiquated and analog, but audio podcasting is still one of the drivers for ratings.

1:36:02Popok:So even if you're a YouTuber like I am, go over to the audio podcast and do us a favor and hit subscribe and download. Leave us a five-star review. Come over to Legal AF YouTube channel. Thank you to everybody. We hit 1.2 million subscribers right on time, less than two years up and running. And that's a compliment to our audience and their fervent support for what we do. 12 new videos a day, call them 12 hot ones a day over on Legal AF YouTube channel. Cost you nothing to subscribe, nothing to subscribe, but it means the world to us and what we do here on supporting independent journalism. So you've got those two major ways.

1:36:39Popok:Of course, we've got our pro-democracy sponsors. And you're talking about supporting independent commentary and journalism. you can you can i can't think of anybody finer to help support than adam klasfeld of all rise news thanks for being here again with us um adam you get to be here it's sort of like saturday night live when they do that whole intro then they go live it's saturday live we have we have an ending you get to be a part of here on the legal layout podcast you ready here it goes yep shout out to the mightest mighty and the legal afers

1:37:15Thank you.