Legal AF Full Episode - 1/14/2026

28:24Be more aggressive, bring more cases and go after the people that you know I would want to go after and don't run it up through Pam Bondi, which is what they're supposed to do. So it certainly seems at the very least, people feel emboldened. U.S. attorneys who would never do this in any other administration, you have to go through main justice and the attorney general, emboldened to make decisions to please Trump and not necessarily go through Bondi. And it also looks like Trump is growing weary of her, even though, frankly, I think she's extremely aggressive and doing things that are way outside the bounds of what we consider to be normal and lawful activities of an attorney general.

29:13And standing by Lindsay Halligan, who's not a prosecutor, a court who Judge Curry ruled is not the U.S. attorney, but standing by her or going after Letitia James and James Comey, et cetera. You know, she's been extremely aggressive, but apparently not aggressive enough for Trump. So it'll be very interesting to see how this plays out. I think she's I think she's I think she's toast. I think she's gone. She I thought she was gone based on the performance. If that's what you want to call it in the in the House and Senate oversight committees. I thought that Trump would not believe that that was a strong performance.

29:52He held a, she got set up recently at a press conference at the White House where it was supposed to be to give some sort of phony award to prosecutors that are left, like Jeanine Pirro. Trump came out, totally embarrassed her, yelled and screamed at the prosecutors during the

30:12Michael Popok:process, basically saying you shouldn't be getting an award, you should be more aggressive, critiquing her in front of her underlings in public. And every major story that's happened in the last month, she has not been at any press conference related to it. Epstein, that's Todd Blanche. What's happening in Minneapolis, that's J.D. Vance. What's happening in any other major criminal news story, you don't see Pam Bondi any longer. And so I would be shocked if she survives. This looks like the handwriting is on the wall and the handwriting is of Todd Blanche. I'd be shocked if he's not elevated to the U.S.

30:52Michael Popok:attorney. It's Donald Trump's favorite criminal defense lawyer since she was never his favorite. You know, she did terribly during the impeachment proceedings for him. She could barely read off of a three ring binder that she was reading from. And Todd Blanche, you know, like him, love him or hate him, was very, very successful as Donald Trump's criminal defense lawyer. And I think he certainly has his confidence. I don't think he brings in another. He law, he represented him in the Manhattan DA case and lost that case. He lost the case, except that Donald Trump go to jail. No. And on appeal is the issue of whether whatever that little, you know it better than me, whatever that little New York nuance is to all put you down for a felony.

31:36That could be in jeopardy.

31:38Michael Popok:So, you know, the immunity decision, Todd Blanche, along with John Sauer, the Colorado insurrection decision. Todd Blanche, Mar-a-Lago, Todd Blanche, D.C. election interference case, Todd Blanche. If you're looking for a strong winner, it ain't Pam Bondi. But I'm not sure that the replacement is going to, if anybody thinks her out is going to change the lawlessness of this Trump administration's DOJ, it's not. Donald Trump is his own attorney general, as we've seen. And Todd Blanche is complicit just the same way Pam Bondi. In fact, he's at least more competent than she is. But I don't think that helps us.

32:21Yeah. I mean, you have to wonder also the whole Epstein debacle has stayed in the news every single day for months. And it's all about Trump and how they're handling this. And and that's under Bondi as well. Yeah.

32:35Michael Popok:But Todd Blanchard is the one that's constantly making comments about it. It's Todd Blanchard's filings. It's Todd Blanchard's social media post about Pam Bondi being nowhere. You're making the point. There's no Pam Bondi. So I would not be shocked if during a slow news night on a Sunday night, nobody's looking. Pam Bondi is kicked upstairs to like the Trump organization or the Republican National Committee, along with Alina Hava and the other quote unquote losers that we know that Donald Trump hates. So we will pick up with when we return from our break, we'll pick up with the transgender oral argument on behalf of Becky Pepper Jackson and transgender high school students everywhere.

33:16Michael Popok:And what happened during that oral argument? We'll talk about the Federal Reserve criminal prosecution. That's apparently with a grand jury been opened, even though now they're saying, well, we had no choice. when they didn't listen to our emails. Attacks on federal judges, which continue with Pam Bondi as they continue to defend Lindsey Halligan to the death and some new developments in the Epstein files. Many ways to support what we do on Legal AF. One of them is we have a Legal AF YouTube channel. And we've just, for 2026, we've done some major expansion. Two new Legal AF branded podcasts are out now for your audio pleasure.

33:53Michael Popok:They need your help and support. Unprecedented, a show that I do with Dina Dahl about the United States Supreme Court once a week, and a show that comes on multiple times a week called Court of History with Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz. They're up on audio podcast platforms of your choice. They could use some love. They could use some five-star reviews and listening and comments and all that good stuff. So we got that. New contributors to Legal AF for 2026, the American Civil Liberties Union has joined. Their first video will go up, I believe, this week for regular reporting about the cases that they're handling to defend against the destruction of the rule of law.

34:33Michael Popok:We've got some other sort of global contributors because we got to meet the global moment as well. Christy Figueroa, who's a immigration and criminal law expert down in Miami, has joined with her first video going up tomorrow. The way to support what we do, keep our content on the air. We're not billionaires. We're not supported by billionaire corporations. And we get outmuscled sometimes by billionaires, although we punch above our weight because of independent media and the Midas Touch Network and all of that. But the way is to support us is to become a free subscriber or a paid subscriber, a new level of paid subscriber on Legal AF YouTube channel.

35:10Michael Popok:And then we have a sub stack, which if you don't know about sub stack, you got to go there for any of your interests. You'll find an expert who's writing every day with content. And if you love what we do on Legal AF, we're doing all new content on Legal AF Substack as well. I do two lives a day. We do interviews. We post all the filings and all the courts. And you can become a paid member there as well. And then we've got our pro-democracy sponsors, some of which have been with us from the beginning of time. Some have just joined us now. They have one thing in common. They know what our point of view is.

35:44Michael Popok:They know about our First Amendment rights and those of yours, and they want to address our audience. So if you can find a way, we curate these sponsors. And if you can, you know, disposable income is tight these days, but if you can find a way, and this is an item that you're interested in, it's a great way to support the show. So now we have a word from our sponsors. I want to eat better, but I realized pretty quickly that after long days of recording, cooking healthy meals just wasn't going to happen for me. Factor doesn't ask you to meal prep or follow recipes. It just removes the entire problem.

36:17Michael Popok:Two minutes, real food, done. You're not failing at healthy eating. You're failing at having a three extra hours every night in your day. Factor is already made by chefs, designed by dietitians, and delivered to your door. You heat it for two minutes and eat lean proteins, colorful vegetables, whole food ingredients, healthy fats, no refined sugars, no artificial sweeteners, no refined seed oils. My favorite has been grilled filet mignon and creamy parmesan shrimp because it worked even when I was completely slammed. Factor fits your life, not someone else's plan. With around 100 rotating meals every week, including high protein, calorie smart, Mediterranean GLP-1 support, ready to eat salads, and the new Muscle Pro collection.

37:01Michael Popok:Always fresh, never frozen. No prep, no cleanup, no mental load. It's not motivation to eat better. It's elimination of the reason and you don't. I use this, and you should too. Head to factormeals.com slash legal AF50 off and use code legal AF50 off to get 50 % off your first Factor box, plus free breakfast for a year. Offer only valid for new Factor customers with code and qualifying auto-renewing subscription purchase. Make healthier eating easy with Factor. Feeling sluggish? Bloated? Not like yourself. Life bombards us with silent threats. Processed foods, artificial light, and modern stressors disrupt your gut and drain your energy and weaken your immune health.

37:46Michael Popok:Your body isn't broken. It just needs the right inputs. That's why I've been using Armra Colostrum. I've noticed less bloating, steadier energy, and overall, I just feel more like myself. Armra Colostrum is nature's original blueprint for health. Colostrum is packed with over 400 bioactive nutrients that fortify gut health, fuel fitness recovery, and strengthen immune health, supporting your best performance every day. Take back control of your health. We've worked out a special offer from my audience. Receive 30 % off your first subscription order. Go to armrud.com slash legal AF or enter legal AF to get 30 % off your first subscription order.

38:30Michael Popok:That's A-R-M-R-A dot com slash Legal AF. Welcome back to Legal AF at the Midweek with Michael Popock and Karen Friedman-Ecnifolo. Karen, we had an oral argument disheartening for many at the United States Supreme Court about, well, on paper, it was about a 15-year-old named Becky Pepper Jackson and another NCAA, former NCAA athlete, whose last name is Hecox, about whether they're going to have the right to participate based on the sex that they not only identify with, but in the case of Becky Pepper Jackson, that she's taken gender affirming health care to support. She never went through male puberty.

39:15Michael Popok:She's always been a girl since she was 11 years old when the case was started, now 15. I think she wants to throw the shot putt. That's it. She just wants to participate in collegiate sports. And the entire state of West Virginia passed a law to ban her. And MAGA then jumped on board with the Riley Gaines of the world. According to my ACLU contacts who were in the room during the oral argument, because the ACLU handled her case. They were lining up. MAGA was lining up for like three days to get tickets to go. It's like they're super bold. So disgusting. You know, just a group that has no political representation.

39:55I mean, one member of Congress is openly transgender and she's been bashed.

39:59Michael Popok:And no political power to speak of, very small in number. And the NCAAs out of 500 ,000 people in that erring collegiate sport, 10 are openly transgender. You know, they always love to use it as the boogeyman and the wedge issue, show pictures of some Iranian boxer to say, do you want this in the in the in the girls room with your with your five year old, which is not what this is about at all. And so there was some hope about yesterday's hearing oral argument, which was up on Legal AF YouTube channel, and I did a pregame show in advance of it, that based on two competing decisions, maybe they would figure out a way not to crush the hopes and dreams and take away the dignity of people who are American citizens in the transgender community.

40:54Michael Popok:There was a case in 2020 called the Bostock case in which in a six to three decision led by Gorsuch, they decided that transgender people can't be discriminated against in the workplace under Title VII. We're like, yay. But then a year ago in the Scrimetti case, which was argued by an ACLU lead lawyer who is the first openly transgender person to argue at the United States Supreme Court, the six to three went the other way. And they found that Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for children, you know, when I say children under 18, was okay and wasn't unconstitutional. And we're like, okay.

41:35Michael Popok:And I knew it was going to come down to Roberts and it was going to come down to Gorsuch and, of course, Kavanaugh. So the hearing, the oral argument went up. And what was your takeaway from what you heard about the oral argument, Karen? Yeah, I mean, you know, it was a three and a half hour oral argument, so I couldn't listen to the whole thing, but I did dip in and out of it and listen. And the ultimate takeaway is that it's going to be 6-3 and it's going to be not in favor of the trans community. That's what I think just based on what I heard. But a bigger picture is the way they were talking and some of the questions they were asking.

42:19It's like when you, if you were to somehow zoom into the 1800s and listen to a Supreme Court argument back then, and the way they talk about, the way they would talk about people who are mentally ill, or the way they would talk about black people or even women, you'd cringe and be so offended based on just the way they're spoken about and dehumanized and the way, just the language that's used and the analysis that's done in such an offensive, dehumanizing way. And I got that same sense from this argument that that's what history, when it looks back at this, and how they were parsing and talking about inherent differences and pseudoscience and things that just, it just felt so backward to me.

43:15and really such a shame that we are in this place in society. But, you know, look, they're looking at equal protection versus fairness or what is the scope of Title IX and scientific evidence and whether scientific debate about athletic advantages by birth that sex should influence the constitutionality of state laws and all of that kind of stuff. And I think that in the end, they're not going, if I had to guess, my crystal ball is they're not going to make any big sweeping rulings about trans rights. I think what they're going to do is they're going to say, leave it up to the states and the 25 states that, that ban this, that's fine.

43:57And if, you know, and if you don't want to ban it and you want to let, let people play on the, on, on sports, then that's up to you. So that, that's what I think they're going to do, but I don't have a crystal ball, but just from what I, what I saw in the skepticism of the conservatives and their argument that that's where I if I had to guess where I thought they'd land what about you yeah it's going to be six to three against Becky Pepper Jackson and anybody like her and I think you're right they're going to leave it to the states I mean I wanted to strangle um Kavanaugh who started to tell the same story he told during his confirmation hearing how he's a coach of his daughter's team about being the basketball coach was first done.

44:37And then, oh my God. And forget Becky Pepper Jackson and all of the great salutary things that come from being a young person involved with sport. That will now be denied her, but focus instead on what about that poor cisgender person who won't make the team

44:55Michael Popok:because, and again, creating the boogeyman, because they're beat out by the transgender person And, oh, they'll never recover. I'm like, what about the other person? Yeah, exactly. Like, what about the cisgender person or whose parents happen to be both six foot two? And so the cisgender woman happens to be six foot two and someone else's parents are five feet tall and they didn't make the cut. They could say, oh, it's not fair. They have some biological advantage. I mean, that's what it sounded like to me. just the way they were talking about uh about trans people as if they're not you know if you're a trans woman you're a woman and they didn't talk about it like that right no they were yeah and becky would have been a perfect person to talk about it because she went through puberty blockers she never she never went through male puberty and uh if you've seen pictures of her when she was 11 she looked like a normal 11 year old girl you know cisgender girl and 15 the same i don't know how tall she is, but, you know, my daughter's on track to being, you know, 5 '9 or 5 '10 maybe, you know, God willing.

46:04It'll speed up my retirement if we can get her into sport. But I have no problem with somebody who works as hard as my daughter will work to earn a spot on the team just because she was born or he was born of a different identifier at birth. And, you know, So to create this entire, let's be frank, there are not enough transgender athletes to put them in their own league. So what you're saying is it's okay to deny them the ability to participate in sport at the high school and lower level in 25 states. Just deny that experience. And for those of us that have done sport in their life, I don't know what your background is in high school and all, But those of us that have had the, whether you were a medalist or a trophy winner or a champion, or you just got to participate in a sport and learn what hard work and teamwork and self-confidence is all about, this is now being denied to this now marginalized, disadvantaged group in our society.

47:12And there's no recognition. I just wish the ACLU would just speak like normal people sometimes out loud and say the transgender community for political purposes is under attack by MAGA and Donald Trump. That it started with gays in the military and gay marriage and a woman's right to choose. And when they ran out of things to use as wedge issues to put Americans at each other's throats, they turned to the most helpless community that we should be stretching our arms around to protect. and the Supreme Court should too in the transgender community and see it for what it is. Instead of getting into the, well, I coached my daughter's middle school basketball team and wasn't done.

47:57You know, I don't know why I slip into Ben's impersonations and things sometimes. I think that's because I've been around. You know, they say like the dog looks like its owner. I start talking like Ben sometimes. Which one are you, the dog? I leave it at that. Yeah, I leave it at that. People can put in comments. But again, no laughing matter. People know on this, hopefully know in five or six years of this show, that we are tremendous supporters of the transgender community. We're supporters of any community that needs the protection of the rule of law in the Supreme Court. Remember the old days, Karen, when the Supreme Court used to actually step in and spread its wings to protect under the Constitution disadvantaged groups and make sure they had constitutional rights instead of taking them away with stupid anecdotal stories from their own life?

48:46Remember those days? You know, it's hard to remember, but yes, I know. So this is not going to go well. I agree with you. I think in June, one of these controversial decisions that they'll drop on their way out to one of their boondoggles paid for by the Federalist Society overseas. Or another billionaire. Another billionaire on a yacht somewhere. They'll be basking in the glow of their decisions. And we'll get things like the tariff decision and this decision and whatever else that they decide that's controversial that they need to drop. heads up for people a week from about a week from today the supreme court's going to be hearing the case of donald trump's powers to fire and take over the federal reserve because we're going to talk about the federal reserve next and and lisa cook clinging clinging on to her board her board of governor's seat and whether oh they're going to side on a business issue with donald trump here in his takeover of the independence of the Federal Reserve.

49:46Or they're going to follow what they said just as recently as the summer when they said, no, not the Federal Reserve. You can swing your axe, Trump, wherever you want on congressionally created agencies and departments and things, but not our Bank of the United States, not the Federal Reserve Central Bank. Yeah, let's see if they uphold that in how they handle Lisa Cook and due process concerns. but let's switch gears now and talk about Jay Powell. So we wake up a couple of nights ago. It's funny on Sunday nights, I do my recordings for the first video of the day on Legal AF YouTube channel to have it up and ready for people at 8am.

50:27Michael Popok:And, you know, sometimes it's a, you know, it's a little bit of a slow news weekend. I mean, not recently. When was that? Those days are over. And so I was like, I was working on a story. And then the bombshell hit, you know, Wall Street Journal and New York Times. There's an open grand jury led by Jeanine Pirro's office, the U.S. Attorney's Office, and they've issued criminal subpoenas to the Federal Reserve and Jay Powell about the cost overruns, cost overruns, mind you, for the guy that's doubled the cost of a half a billion dollar golden ballroom on the wreckage of the East Wing in Trump. And what Jay Powell told and under oath told the senators like Tim Scott about the renovation project.

51:11Michael Popok:This all stems, let's be frank, this all stems from Donald Trump getting embarrassed by Jay Powell. Not on purpose. Jay Powell is not a guy that goes out of his way like Barack Obama did at the White House dinner 15 years ago to piss off Donald Trump and make him run for office. But this was just Jay Powell pushing back as he was being paddled by Donald Trump in public about cost overruns. And he said, let me see that sheet of paper. Oh, you're adding in an entire other building that we did five years ago in your cost overrun calculation. Well, that embarrassed Donald Trump. He didn't like it.

51:47Michael Popok:So now he's doubled down on it. But in response, and I won't play it again because it's been overplayed. But in response, within minutes, hours, Jay Powell, he of modest, modest demeanor, and I'm sure this led to a miscalculation by the Trump administration, that Jay Powell would never come out and say what he said. He didn't just come out and say, I'm innocent. He didn't just come out and say, I'm a man of high integrity. And the Federal Reserve, you know, did not have cost overruns that were criminal in nature, and I did not mislead Congress. No, no, no. He said, we all know what this is about.

52:21Michael Popok:This is about the attempts by Donald Trump and the Trump administration to take over the Federal Reserve, destroy its independence and take over interest rates. And what that had the effect of doing, leave it to Jay Powell to rescue our economy once again, was to calm the waters of the financial markets who didn't wake up to, holy shit, Donald Trump's going after Jay Powell criminally now? It woke up to Jay Powell saying, everybody pump the brakes and relax. I'm not going anywhere. In fact, I'm really not going anywhere, including until 2028, if you thought I was, and just get back to your work on the financial markets.

53:01Michael Popok:And there was like a there was like a almost no impact on the financial markets. But it did lead to a battle cry. And it led 20 central bankers from around the world led by Canada and the central bank. They're bailing us out once again. Midas Mighty, Midas Maple Mighty. Thank you very much. Central Bank in Canada bailing us out and 20 other central bankers. But more importantly, Senate Republicans coming to the rescue, including Tom Tillis, who's got nothing to lose. He's like, I'm only here on 2026 anyway. Right. And saying, yeah, I'm not going to vote on the Senate Banking Committee for any Trump nominee, especially for chairman, while you still have an open investigation against Jay Powell.

53:43Michael Popok:Just not going to do it. And that alone would create an impasse. Just tell us alone. Doesn't need anybody else, although there are other people that have now come forward. And Karen, did you hear what Janine Pirro just said out loud to try to justify the investigation? Yeah. Give her an out to dismiss it. Yeah, she said, well, they should have just answered our emails that we sent right before and right after Christmas, by the way. It was like December 19th or something and like the 29th. And they didn't answer our emails. That's all they had to do. And then we wouldn't have done this. I mean, she's already backtracking because I think she sees that this was too aggressive.

54:20This has gotten a response from all around the world and Republicans and Democrats here in the United States. And I think she was flexing and trying to show off for Donald Trump and go after an enemy and go around Pam Bondi. And that's why she did this. And, you know, this is her this is her way of of kind of currying favor with Donald Trump because Powell isn't lowering interest rates the way Trump wants him to. Because because the whole point of the Federal Reserve, right, is supposed to be independent. It's not supposed to be influenced by politics. That's the entire that's how it was created.

54:56That's why it's very bipartisan. The leadership and the positions are staggered so that it goes between administrations and you can't remove people without cause. I think this actually will help the Supreme Court case and Lisa Cook next week. The fact that that it's so political and to see what Donald Trump is doing, trying to do to Powell and how Puro is trying to threaten him with a grand jury investigation and criminal prosecution. I think the Supreme Court's going to see that and say that is too far. And that does take away the independence.

55:29Michael Popok:Yeah, in fact, that's a very good point. There were multiple audiences for Chairman Powell's late night video. One of them was to calm the financial markets, which was a success. But the other one, I think, was a signal, as you noted, back to the Supreme Court saying to them, you see, if you empower Donald Trump and you don't clip his wings in the area of federal, reserve independence. You see what he's doing to me. And even though we don't like the Supreme Court when it comes to civil liberties, civil rights, women's rights, immigration rights, and transgender rights, when it comes to business issues, they don't always side with Donald Trump.

56:15Michael Popok:I don't think they're going to side with Donald Trump in the tariff decision when it finally is dropped in the next couple of months. And I don't think they side with him on how he handled the Lisa Cook firing. I don't think firing by social media posts is going to satisfy their requirement of either due process. And I don't think they're going to take off the requirement that when it comes to the Federal Reserve, you got to have just cause and that Bill Pulte's social media tweets is not going to do it. And he's involved in the Powell one as well. So no surprise that Janine Pirro is already kind of figuring out a way to like walk this back.

56:55Michael Popok:Underwater is, I'm sure, of Donald Trump. All, you know, it's just, again, an example of where Donald Trump just can't get out of his own way. All he had to do was shut up, pick his new replacement, announce it next week, whoever that's going to be for the Federal Reserve chairman. Just stop. Don't troll America and the economy and the global economy and don't troll a poor Mr. Powell who's doing an amazing job, go down in history as one of the greatest Federal Reserve chairman ever and how he's navigated the U.S. economy against the crosswinds of an insane Donald Trump and his economic policies.

57:34Michael Popok:It's all he had to do. And maybe, maybe if he acted nice and caught more flies with honey than with vinegar. Maybe Jay Powell not only would have stepped down in May of this year as chairman, maybe he would have stepped down from the entirety of the Board of Governors before 2028. I don't think so, because I don't think he wanted to give Donald Trump an open seat. I think he's going to hang in there. But now he's certainly going to hang in there. And now you've created a situation where your new chairman pick may not get picked and confirmed by the Senate because the Senate Republicans are saying That's a bridge too far.

58:08Michael Popok:What are you doing now against Jay Powell and undermining our economy and undermining our debt and our dollar and the Treasury notes and rates? First of all, this is why the global bankers all joined together to support Jay Powell. It scares the shit out of them. I mean, there's an old line, which is true. If America gets a cough, the rest of the world gets the flu. and we are the bellwether and the standard, the gold standard, for the rest of the world's economies are reactive to our economy. And that's why you've got to get off the back of the American consumer, voter, and, of course, of J-PAL.

58:48Michael Popok:When we come back from our last break, we'll talk about the remaining days of Pam Bondi. We just got note that she has been called to testify before the House and Senate Judiciary Committee on February 11th. I'm not sure she makes it. Circle that date on your calendar, folks. I'm not sure she makes it to Feb 11. We may see somebody else sitting in that chair by that time. But certainly the oversight committees have called her in, which I think is appropriate. But yet they're coming out swinging against another federal judge, this time a Trump appointee in Judge Novak in the Eastern District of Virginia, who on his own initiative entered effectively in order to show cause as to why Lindsay Halligan, she shouldn't just have her name taken off of pleadings and off the indictments, which is what they've created a straw man of their argument.

59:45You know, oh, you're doing an inquisition over the signature block. No.

59:50Michael Popok:You must not have read the second half of his order, which was, explain to me why you haven't violated five or six different rules of professional responsibility and ethics, why I shouldn't refer you for bar discipline, why I shouldn't ban you from my courtroom, and I want you to sign whatever gets filed, because you wanted to see how she was going to sign it. And of course, when we come back, we'll talk about how she signed it, who joined her in signing it, and the arguments that they've made to attack Judge Novak and major updates in the Epstein files matter, including involving two major universities.

1:00:26Michael Popok:We'll cover all of that and more. We're going to take our first break. Remember to become a Legal AF YouTube member and paid member. That's what gives us the resources to continue to grow and expand and add on new contributors and the American Civil Liberties Union, et cetera, et cetera, for 2026 and beyond. And of course, we've got Legal AF Substack as well, where you'll find content like no other. And I'll give you a return on your investment you've never seen before if you come over to Legal AF Substack. And we're running a sale on our paid membership at 20 % off there as well. But now another word from our pro-democracy sponsors.

1:01:06Michael Popok:Delete Me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Look, as someone with an active online presence, privacy is really important to me. I'm constantly thinking about how much of my personal information is just floating around out there. Data brokers make a profit off of your data. your name, contact info, home address, even details about your family. And anyone on the web can buy it. That can open the door to things like phishing attempts or harassment. If it hasn't happened to you, it happened to me.

1:01:43Michael Popok:You probably know someone it has happened to. That's why I like Delete Me. They work to remove your data from hundreds of data broker websites, helping you take back control of your privacy. They've even been named the New York Times Wirecutter top pick for data removal services. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners, you can get 20 % off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeliteme.com slash Legal AF and use promo code Legal AF at checkout. The only way to get 20 % off though is to go to joindeliteme.com slash Legal AF and enter code Legal AF at checkout one more time.

1:02:26Michael Popok:That's joindeleteme.com slash Legal AF and code Legal AF. Magic Spoon is basically the grown-up version of your favorite childhood cereal. All the fun, nostalgic taste without the sugar bomb. It's a wholesome, high-quality, high-protein, zero-sugar cereal that still hits that Saturday morning vibe. Each serving has 13 grams of protein, five grams of net carbs and zero grams of sugar. So it's super fueling any time of the day and great for anyone who's carb conscious. They've got classic flavors like fruity, frosted, hot chocolate, and cinnamon toast. They're also launching new flavors in January this month that lean hard into childhood nostalgia.

1:03:12Michael Popok:Classic marshmallow, reminiscent of a certain childhood favorite enjoyed by all, and S'mores, the ultimate campfire-inspired cereal. Both include real marshmallows and just two grams of sugar. Plus, Magic Spoon Treats are crispy, airy snack bars with 12 grams of protein, and their granola packs, 13 grams of protein with zero added sugar, perfect anytime. Look for Magic Spoon on Amazon or at your nearest grocery store, or get$5 off your next order at magicspoon.com slash legal AF. That's magicspoon.com slash legal AF for$5 off. Welcome back to the midweek edition of Legal AF with your host, Michael Popak and Karen Friedman-Nignifolo.

1:04:01Michael Popok:Karen, what do you make of their continued support at the Department of Justice for Lindsey Halligan? And I don't know if you got a chance to read Judge Novak's order and the response by the Department of Justice in which I'll just summarize it this way and turn it over to you. Their argument is if they don't agree with a federal judge's interpretation of the law, they don't have to comply with it. But they have as an equally, they have as equally a legitimate interpretation of the statutes that are at issue about the appointment of a U.S. attorney. And they don't read Judge. We don't read Judge Curry as having created a vacancy, although her order says she created a vacancy, and that Lindsay Halligan is banned from being U.S.

1:04:48Michael Popok:attorney. And we just don't agree with her analysis. So we're not complying with it. What did you make of their position? And what do you think Judge Novak does next? Never in my career as a prosecutor or as a defense attorney have I ever seen ever a prosecutor or the Department of Justice take that position. The judge gets to decide. That's the whole point, right? It's an adversarial system. You've got the prosecution on one side, you've got the defense on the other, and the judge is the referee. The judge decides what the law is in the judge's courtroom, period, full stop. If you don't like it, you appeal it, but you don't disobey it or say, I disagree with you, so I'm not going to abide by it.

1:05:30So I find it, frankly, astounding and really unbelievable that that is the position that they will take. But they are circling the wagons around Lindsay Halligan. You've got Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi also just signing their names to this and supporting her. And I don't really understand why they're supporting her so much. And it's not like she's, I mean, yes, she's willing to do whatever they ask her to do, but she's not getting results. And she's kind of an embarrassment. And frankly, no one wants to work with her. So it's really a strange situation that they have there. But I've never seen anything like it.

1:06:07You're not allowed to do that. So what do you think Novak does about it? That's a great question. I mean, will the judge hold her in contempt? I mean, I think at a minimum, the judge will refer Halligan to the bar committees, disciplinary committees, potentially risking her law license. Will the judge hold her in contempt? That's kind of the nuclear option. Will the judge dismiss any indictment? Or will judges start dismissing more indictments that her name is on? I mean, my open question is why aren't the judges of the Eastern District of Virginia, why aren't they voting on a new U.S. attorney?

1:06:51Because they have that. That's what's supposed to happen until Trump gets someone passed through the Senate. Why aren't they just putting in their own U.S. attorney and have it be a battle of the U.S. attorneys? I mean, right now, Trump is holding his ground and saying that she's validly appointed and the judges aren't acting. And it's really their responsibility given the state of things, because really what Judge Curry said was the state of the law is you get to appoint someone under the appointments clause for 120 days. And once that expires, you don't get to appoint someone new and then reset a new 120 days.

1:07:28The 120 days is what you get for a temporary appointment. appointment. After that, the next thing that is supposed to happen is the judges of whatever district are supposed to vote and elect essentially a U.S. attorney until the president can nominate someone who is qualified and who is then confirmed by the Senate, which is what the process is for United States attorneys. And so that's the one question I have about why they haven't done that here. And so perhaps is it because they already did that with Eric Siebert and then Trump fired him? You know, that was who was the U.S. attorney prior to Lindsey Halligan.

1:08:14That was someone who was nominated by Trump, whose 120 days expired, but who was, the judges felt was qualified. And so the judges actually voted him in to be the United States attorney. And then Trump went on to fire him when he refused to bring cases against Jim Comey and Letitia James. And so I don't know if they're gun shy because they did it once and Trump fired that person, and they just think it would be sort of a fool's errand. But this is a stalemate that's going to continue to go on. The judge has to press it. The judge can't allow them to basically give the judge the middle finger, which is essentially what they're doing and saying, we disagree with the law, so we're not going to follow it.

1:08:58Well, he has to press that and push that and then it'll be appealed and it'll go from there. But I think that's where it goes.

1:09:09Michael Popok:Okay, we're in the homestretch, Karen. Let's talk about these new shocking developments that have now been reported by the Wall Street Journal about the Epstein files. It looks like, according to details provided to the House Oversight Committee led by Jamie Raskin, pardon me, it looks like major universities, in this case NYU, my alma mater, and Columbia University in New York may have been complicit in money laundering for Jeffrey Epstein, where Jeffrey Epstein not only used the promise, the bait of girls and young women being given seats and have paid tuition at these universities, but then overpaid their tuition and had the money returned to his predatory victims, which was a way to money launder.

1:10:01Michael Popok:And they've now, at the congressional level opened up an investigation. Lisa Phillips, one of those survivors who was offered just such a deal and is featured in the Wall Street Journal bombshell report, is going to be my guest in an interview, exclusive interview, that will be up number one tomorrow morning on the Legal AF YouTube channel. What did you make of that? And then we'll talk about, to round it out, Judge Engelmeyer considering appointing an independent monitor or special master to take over from an untrustworthy Department of Justice the process of continuing to produce the Epstein files pursuant to a law that was signed into law by Donald Trump.

1:10:50Well, these new allegations that that universities may have been used to, frankly, launder money as trafficking victims were being trafficked, certainly has to be investigated. And just like there are so many issues still left to be investigated in that case, and I think that certainly survivors deserve it. And that investigation really needs to continue in so many different, with so many different tentacles, right? Everything that we're learning about the various banks that potentially also helped facilitate Jeffrey Epstein, people who protected him, and other people who victimized the girls, the young girls that were trafficked by him.

1:11:45And so, you know, I think that there's still a lot to be investigated and a lot to be done. But what's happening right now is, just to summarize where we are, Congress passed a law, basically the Epstein Transparency Act, saying you have to turn it over, turn over all the records. And the Department of Justice has missed the deadline and publicly keeps reporting different numbers on how many files there are, right? Based on Midas reporting, it was that Midas found something that referenced over 5 million files. files, and that's a lot more than what was originally represented by the Department of Justice.

1:12:29Now the Department of Justice is saying, well, no, the number's actually two million files. And frankly, what we do know is that the deadline is passed, and they have not complied with this statute. And so you've got this bipartisan, you've got bipartisan and members of Congress basically writing to the judge and saying, we would like to intervene. We would like to be a part of this. And, you know, I think they're going to ask for a special master to be appointed because the Department of Justice isn't getting it done. And they're putting stuff out and then pulling it back out and, you know, pulling it off the website and and not complying with the deadlines.

1:13:12And so at a minimum, it's being mishandled. And I think a special master could, I think, be the thing that brings some legitimacy to this process and some independence and some transparency to this process. And maybe we'll finally get to see all the files. You know, the sticking point is going to be the department, the exception that was created in the Epstein Transparency Act, where they can withhold documents that are part of an ongoing investigation. And that's going to be, I think, the hook that the Department of Justice uses to try to withhold documents and other evidence from the public, certainly about Republicans, but not about Democrats.

1:14:06and there's a lot, the one thing that's clear though, is there's a lot that needs to be done in addition to just releasing these files. There's a lot more investigation that needs to be done. And then you've got Congress trying to call the Clintons before Congress and then they're refusing to go and taking on Congress. I mean, this whole thing is really escalated into a mess. And frankly, the people who are being harmed by this is not just the American people, but it's the Epstein survivors themselves who really, I think, are the ones caught up in this political mess that has been created by the handling of these files, these millions of records, the investigations in general, and all of these files.

1:14:48So there's a lot that still needs to be done for sure. If I'm the Clintons, I don't testify to them in front of this corrupt Department of Justice off in the wings. I mean, but that's what they want. They want the Clintons to have to take the Fifth Amendment to try to embarrass them politically as they try to undermine the Democratic brand and the and the states people within, you know, like threatening to go after Barack Obama and trying to go after Clinton. They're trying to, like, go after our Mount Rushmore of recent history. Do you think they're going to go as far as they went with Navarro and Bannon and and try to do contempt of Congress?

1:15:23I mean, you know, it's an interesting question, right, if they just refuse to come and how far they'll take it. It's a very interesting position. They could. But, I mean, I think the right move, and there's a multi-level chess game going on here. I think the right move for the Clintons was not to appear. Even if they do appear, it would be to take the Fifth Amendment. But I think we're not there yet. I think there'll be negotiations about it. You know, maybe it'll be closed door. Maybe it'll be a statement. Maybe it'll be an affidavit. We will have to see what will happen and how that will play out.

1:15:59But you hit something right on the nail, right on the head. There was so much money around Jeffrey Epstein as whatever he was, some sort of financial advisor, talking hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. And money is a funny thing because it ends up places. It ends up being spent, saved, held in banks, held in financial services, invested, and used to buy and to fuel and to fund the child sex predator international trafficking ring. You know, it went into the island. It went into the plane. It went into the trips. It went into the promises. It went into the bait that was used to get these impressionable girls to be preyed upon.

1:16:50And so now what we're watching, and this is what you and I do for a living, is following the money and where it ended up. That's why oftentimes in the next level or the tertiary level of investigations in the white collar area, it often goes back to the banks and the accounting firms. You know, it starts with the bad guy. Who stole the money? You know, and then it goes to, well, where did he put the money? How often did he put it there? And did they do proper due diligence where if they had shut down the criminal fraud ring, the child predator ring, the deposit of money around that ring earlier, then maybe the entire

1:17:31Michael Popok:criminal enterprise would have been stopped if they didn't have a place to park their money. And that's the argument against Columbia and NYU. Listen, they're innocent until proven guilty. However, if the evidence shows that they knew or should have known about these Epstein checks or credit card or whatever was used or donations to get these a bunch of girls into school. I mean, forget about Varsity Blues, you know, a bunch of parents, including some famous ones who like knew their kids were not good at sport and like paid to get them to be on the badminton team or get a badminton scholarship.

1:18:11Michael Popok:or forget Varsity Blues. This is about whether a university and its relationship with Epstein was corrupted and they knew or should have known about it and shut it down to stop the child sex trafficking ring in its tracks. And are they complicit in it? Or are they innocent? Like, we didn't know Jeffrey Epstein from Billy Epstein. We didn't know who he was. I just don't think that's how it's going to play out. I think we're going to see a closer relationship. And, you know, tuition-starved and endowment-starved universities always looking to bring in cash, and Epstein throwing it around. The question is, did they turn a blind eye that could have protected children from being trafficked in an international child sex trafficking ring or not?

1:19:01And then we got Judge Engelmeyer on the issue, as we said, about special master independent monitor, the victims are going to come forward because Judge Engelmeyer, basically in his order, asked that the victims come forward. And I'm sure there's going to be people, including Lisa Phillips, that will come forward in the next few days to join in with Representative Ro Khanna and Thomas Massey in their request to be recognized as amicus or amici briefs, friend of the court briefs, to argue for the special master and independent monitor to be assigned to take the process away from the Department of Justice that frankly cannot be trusted.

1:19:39They're conflicted, obviously, because they're protecting their boss rather than protecting the victims or the survivors. And so we'll follow that. There'll be developments that we all will turn maybe by this Saturday, maybe by the time you and I get back together again, or certainly we will cover it every hour on Legal AF YouTube channel, Legal AF Substack with my live reports and the rest. So Karen, We've reached the end of our show. We had a great, great, I think, update and briefing of our audience. We always like to give you the last word. What's on your mind? You know, a lot's going on. I'm looking at a lot of international things right now, right?

1:20:19What's going to happen with Iran? There's reporting that over 20 ,000 people have been killed, and Donald Trump is escalating things there and talking about how he's going to take decisive action and reports that the president of Iran said something like, you know, next time the bullet's not going to miss him. I mean, we're in a place right now that is so just volatile. He's threatening to take over Greenland and, you know, what that'll do to NATO and reports about what's happening in Gaza. I mean, there's a lot going on internationally that can't be lost and that we all have to really pay attention to because Donald Trump is not just trying to destabilize our economy.

1:21:03He's trying to destabilize the world. And he is more dangerous than I think anyone predicted or anyone could have thought of. And, you know, I remember when we first started podcasting and we first started doing this, there were some people who were accusing us of being hyperbolic, right? And being extreme and being exaggerating. I don't think, and certainly we weren't, right? Midas are the people who were the only people that were talking about it. And I think that was the frustration and why Midas Touch Network was created originally was because everyone was both sides and everything and no one was talking about this in real terms.

1:21:43And now here we are. We're exactly, I think, worse off than any of us could have ever predicted. And this is really a fight for our democracy. And so I say all this because I'm just so honored to be a part of this this network and part of Legal AF with you, Popak, and this community that comes here and listens to us every week and every day. And this is our way of speaking out and our way of protesting and our way of getting the truth out. But we have to keep staying informed. We can't put our heads down and say things like, oh, it's just too depressing. I don't want to deal with it. I don't want to know.

1:22:19This is truly an identity crisis for our nation and for democracy that we're in. And it's just so important that we all stay as informed as possible and keep fighting in our own ways, however we can do it, whether it's through a protest, whether it's writing a letter, whether it's at the ballot box in November, which can't come soon enough, or just being a part of this community. And don't give up hope. There's a lot of hope. And a lot, I think, is we're going to fight back. We're going to fight back hard and we're going to win because this is just bananas what's going on. So, so I am just so honored to be here with you every week.

1:22:58It's my favorite part of the week. It's the thing I look forward to the most. And, uh, and I, I just love, I love Legal AF and the Legal AFers and the Midas Mighty and everybody else who comes. And that's the bell, everybody. Right on cue. Karen, you've been speaking too long. Great. No, that was just an alarm. I'm moving on to an interview in a minute. But that's a great way to end our show. Thank you, Karen. Legal AFers and Midas Mighty. We'll see you on Saturday with Ben Mycelis. And of course, regular reporting on Legal AF YouTube channel and Legal AF Substack. Until then, shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal AFers.