Legal AF Full Episode - 10/15/2025

24:56I mean, hours and hours and hours and hours and hours of work. This is a meticulously planned operation that was conducted by the FBI. And they went in. And sure enough, no one's disputing that he took$50 ,000 of taxpayer dollars from the FBI. And why this administration refuses to answer that question, what happened to that money? Does he still have that money? What did he do with it? Did he deposit it, et cetera? Did he give it back? I mean, I would assume if he gave it back that they would have told everyone that, but the fact that they're, you know, the deflecting and, oh, ask him, I don't know.

25:38I don't know where it is. You know, I infer that he kept the money. Now they keep saying, oh, they found no evidence of criminality. I mean, let's just remember two things. Number one, under this FBI and this justice department found no criminality. So, you know, and, and so that's, that's one thing. And, but, but the other thing in, in fairness is bribery is, you know, the, the, it's a very narrow statute that you have to prove that the person took money in exchange for something that they, you know, for, for a tangible thing.

26:10Michael Popok:The reporting is they weren't, they, they decided not to arrest them at the time because they wanted him to get into office and then make good on the quid pro quo, right? Get a contract their way. And bam, they got it. Now, of course, that was the Biden administration, DOJ and FBI. And then, you know, what happened during the election. But if you didn't have Pam Bondi, not only demonstrating a complete lack of independence, completely compromised, completely captured by the president. At one point when she was fighting with a senator, she tried to make it about her to divert attention. Are you don't call me a liar?

26:51Michael Popok:I said, I haven't seen the video. And then she defends Tom Homan. She shouldn't be defending Tom Homan. What you should be doing is appointing a special counsel to investigate this, get it away from her. Let the special you know, if we're going to have I could think of about five special counsels in the first 10 months of this administration. But I can't think of a better one than Tom Holman in the bribery scandal. Appoint an effing former U.S. attorney. Jack Smith's not doing anything these days. And let him go proctologist style and go crawl over this issue. But don't defend him. I mean, you're the attorney general of the United States.

27:33Michael Popok:How do you know? Yeah. No, instead they're trumping up charges against Jim Comey, Letitia James. You know, she checked the wrong box on her mortgage and or, you know, like instead they're coming up with these ridiculous, these ridiculous charges. I mean, Letitia James, the entire allegation there is$18 ,000, right? That she somehow benefited for$18 ,000, even if, even if she checked the wrong box. Over 30 years. Yeah, over 30 years. Exactly. This is$50 ,000 of, you know, I think the American people should demand to know where's our money. Well, the good news is Democracy Forward, who's with us over on Legal AF YouTube and Sky Parabin, have filed their lawsuit.

28:11Michael Popok:They started as a FOIA. You want to do this the easy way or the hard way? Here's a Freedom of Information Act. Yeah. Didn't get the video, didn't get the audio. So they filed a lawsuit. It's going to be up to a federal judge. So all this Namby Pamby backpedaling that we're watching, humna, humna, humna on television and in Senate hearings. You know, that doesn't work, as you and I both know well, in the brown in the wood paneling and leather chaired environment of a courthouse and a courtroom. But also, you know, look, if Pam Bondi is correct and he didn't commit a crime, then they should say that.

28:48Say why he didn't commit a crime. Why was this OK? Why show us the video? What was it, 54? Yeah, exactly. Like explain yourself. But by by by by deflecting and not answering the questions, it's almost in some ways making us assume the worst. Right. So back to adverse inference. Right, exactly. Like maybe he didn't, you know, so tell us. And then you go about defending the border and everything else that she wants us to do.

29:12Michael Popok:because he took the money. It's in his bank account. He has some bullshit story that Blanche and Emil Bovee, before he got on the third, and Cash Podcaster Patel, because the boss told him Clearholman. So they went in with, okay, Tom, what happened? Well, I took the$50 ,000. It's supposed to be for I don't know what, and I never made any promises, and I took myself out of the running of handling federal contracts. We all know that's bullshit. He may not have been in the direct line of sight to make decisions about federal contracts. Neither is Steve Whitcoff. That doesn't mean they can't influence, poke their head in the room and say, hey, who's getting the next ICE detention center construction project?

29:57Michael Popok:What about ABC contractors? Okay, off to coffee now. That's what happened. That's what was going to happen. But you and I shouldn't have to guess. Neither should the American people. Special counsel should be, and she has the more, she's so blinded by her own ambition. It's blind ambition all over again. The title, I think, John Dean's book about having followed Nixon effectively into jail as his White House counsel. You're watching blind ambition with her. She's so focused myopically with blinders on and blinded by her allegiance to Donald Trump. that she can't even hear herself. And everything that she said that she thought was in a way to defend Donald Trump and Tom Homan is actually the very reasons she should be stepping back and appointing a special prosecutor, right?

30:51Michael Popok:So that's where we are. What I want to talk about is this implosion of the Department of Justice Leadership and how Donald Trump is making the people take sides. I think he does it for sport. but what he's doing is he's collapsing his own Department of Justice and destroying it. Of course, we already know its credibility is destroyed in the courtrooms around America. There's an Alex Jones component to it I want to talk about when we come back from a break. Then Jack Smith is back and this is the time that it's a courageous time for him to speak. He's not getting enough credit for it. Many, many people would put their heads down and stay out of the line of fire led by people like Stephen Miller and Donald Trump post-Charlie Kirk, but not Jack Smith.

31:41Michael Popok:I mean, it's consistent with what we knew about him, terms of his values. So he gave an interview. And so we'll talk about that. And then the Supreme Court had oral argument about Voting Rights Act Section 2, Voting Rights Act Section 1 already ripped away in the last 10 years. And now we're going to see what happens with section two. We're at that point of the show where we get to thank our audience, thank them for being here, thank them for helping us be in the top 20 of all YouTube podcasts in America, regardless of the genre. That's amazing. We're regularly in the top 50 to 100 in audio. You can help us there as well by coming over to the audio versions, five-star reviews and comments and all of that good stuff.

32:25Michael Popok:It's all the hummingbird theory. We We don't know exactly what works, so we got to do it all. And then there's other ways to support the Legal AF community and ecosystem. And we've got the YouTube channel, which we're going to cross 900 ,000 subscribers probably in the next 30 days and get to our 1 million target number before Christmas, New Year's, if it kills me. And because the bigger we are as an independent news organization and commentary, the more your voice is heard. And that's really, it's not ego, it's algorithm. It's just, and it steals us against the attacks of MAGA and the right wing and Donald Trump and the rest of it.

33:09Michael Popok:So that's why. And it also allows me to curate and bring on some amazing collaborators there and new collaborators and get some interviews and newsmakers, people that are in the trenches, all on Legal AF YouTube. And it's all for free, no paywall. And then we got this amazing world of Legal AF Substack. If you don't know anything about Substack, any hobby or interest you have, there's somebody doing amazing writing and research and analysis there that you'll want to follow. And for law and politics, I can't think of a better one, not to pat ourselves on the back, than what we're doing on Legal AF.

33:42Michael Popok:We're about to cross the 100 ,000 subscriber base there. There's videos, there's commercial-free versions of things. There's My Lives, where I do sort of updates at the minute, all on Legal AF on Substack. And there's where you can make a contribution. Become a paid member at$7 a month. I promise you, we'll overwhelm you and wow you with our content on Legal AF Substack. And then we've got some sponsors that have been with us. Some of them from the beginning. Some of them knew, but all committed to making sure that our voice, our point of view, our First Amendment expression and speech is protected and stays on the air.

34:26Michael Popok:They want to talk to our audience, and they know what our audience is all about, and they're here for it. So here's a word from our sponsors. 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. As someone with an active online presence, privacy is really important to me. Every week, we're covering stories about data leaks and hacks, people's personal information being exposed, and it really hit home. I've seen how easily your private details can end up all over the internet, and that's why I use Delete Me.

35:00Michael Popok:Delete Me does all the work of wiping your and your family's personal information from hundreds of data broker websites. And it's not just a one-time thing. Delete Me is always working for you, constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the internet. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me, now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20 % off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeliteme.com slash legal AF and use promo code legal AF at checkout. The only way to get 20 % off is to go to joindeliteme.com slash legal AF and enter code legal AF at checkout.

35:39Michael Popok:That's joindeliteme.com slash legal AF, code legal AF. The weather, it's heating up and your nighttime bedroom temperature has a huge impact on your sleep quality. If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend you check out Miracle Maid's bedsheets. Miracle Maid sheets are inspired by NASA and use silver-infused fabrics that are temperature-regulating so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long. Using silver-infused fabrics inspired by NASA, Miracle Maid sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long, no matter the weather, so you get better sleep every night.

36:19Michael Popok:Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands and feel as nice, if not nicer, than sheets used by some five-star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores, causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with Miracle. Upgrade your sleep as the weather heats up. Go to trymiracle.com slash legal AF to try Miracle-made sheets today. And whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, If you order today, you can save over 40%. And if you use our promo Legal AF at checkout, you'll get a free three-piece towel set and save an extra 20%.

36:58Michael Popok:Miracle is so confident in their product, it's backed with a 30-day money-back guarantee. So if you aren't 100 % satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made. Go to trymiracle.com slash Legal AF and use the code Legal AF to claim your free three-piece towel set and save over 40 % off. Again, that's trymiracle.com slash Legal AF to treat yourself. Thank you, Miracle Made, for sponsoring this episode. Thank you to our pro-democracy sponsors and thank you to those that during that break there also subscribed to Legal AF YouTube and Substack. Karen, Donald Trump has made good on his threat to be the chief legal officer of America.

37:45Michael Popok:Nothing like having a criminal be your chief legal officer. And if Pam Bondi thought she was going to be some sort of attorney general or Todd Blanche was going to be the number two, they've been in for a rude awakening. And what we're watching now is apparently we've got a shadow attorney general named Ed Martin, of all things, who's been leading on all of these political partisan hack prosecutions of Donald Trump's enemies list. And he's got an acolyte in tow named Lindsey Halligan. And the New York Times, for instance, did a whole great report about a battle that's broken out between Todd Blanche, who increasingly can't control Ed Martin, who was a Jan 6 criminal defense lawyer, former federal prosecutor, an election denier, a Jan 6 denier, and all the rest.

38:35Michael Popok:Couldn't get confirmed by the Senate to be a U.S. attorney, but is doing a lot of mischief in his role as pardon attorney and head of the weaponization of the Department of Justice Committee. I think that name says it all. Why don't you talk about the Department of Justice? You had a lot of interaction with the Department of Justice when you were the number two in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Talk about what you're seeing and what impact is on the rule of law and justice in America as a result. Look, the Department of Justice has always been known to be above the fray. It has always been independent of the White House.

39:17It has always been the most respected law enforcement entity, I would argue, probably in the world. The top people from the top law firms covet these jobs at the DOJ from the top law schools and law firms. And it's a very, very respected entity. There are tons of Department of Justice policies and procedures. There's a whole manual to make sure that the entire country, because it's obviously a big country with people in all the judicial districts around the country, are handling cases in ways that are uniform, that are above the fray, like I said, that you handle cases without fear or favor, and that you don't bring cases because of someone's political party.

40:08You don't target people who are your enemies. You try to enforce the law in a neutral way. And it's just something that's been respected and a tradition that's been respected, certainly for my entire lifetime. And when I was a prosecutor at the state level, anytime we had to work with the Department of Justice, granted we had a few times that we would bump into each other because we were investigating a case, they were investigating a case, we wanted the case, they wanted the case, but it was always, there was never any issue like what we're seeing now. And it's really, it's hard to watch. It's hard to watch all of the civil servants who I think more than 5 ,000 employees of the Department of Justice have been fired since Donald Trump took office.

40:59Thousands of civil servants, including career prosecutors who have institutional knowledge, who know what they're doing, and who uphold the law. And it's just hard to watch. It's hard to watch it happen across the board. And on top of that, that they're bringing cases that they would have never brought under any administration. Cases like the Letitia James case, the Jim Comey case, cases that career prosecutors told the U.S. attorneys who were sitting, Eric Siebert, who is the Eastern District of Virginia, Trump appointed United States attorney awaiting confirmation. He was told by his career prosecutors, there's no case here.

41:42And he himself reviewed the cases and said, there's no case here. And to watch somebody like Ed Martin, who's not the attorney general, but who is this individual who has been given tremendous authority by Donald Trump to call the shots, it appears, to have him be able to install someone like Lindsey Halligan, who may not be a valid appointment of the United States attorney because of the way it was done, to be able to bring a case the day before the statute of limitations ran and a case, again, that I don't think would pass muster and will pass muster ultimately. It's just, it's hard to watch as a career prosecutor, someone who has that kind of respect for the rule of law and for the Department of Justice generally, and to watch it all shake out.

42:32And the news reporting is that the Department of Justice is not necessarily in control of some of these cases, that it appears that Ed Martin is having an outsized role with Donald Trump in directing some of these prosecutions. So, you know, I don't know how the department recovers from this because again, you don't walk in on day one and suddenly you know how to try a case or you know how to prosecute a case or you know you don't have the judgment how to do it. It takes years of training and learning from people who are more senior than you and FBI agents who've been doing it for decades to learn how to do these cases.

43:16You try smaller cases when you get in to learn how to try a case, right? And to have all that institutional knowledge and all that training, frankly, and that judgment walk out the door, be fired for things. I mean, Maureen Comey was by all accounts, one of the most respected prosecutors at the Southern District of New York, and she was fired by all accounts because of who her father is. I mean, certainly you wouldn't fire her based on her ability. She's very well respected. She's an excellent lawyer, and I know that from personal knowledge as well as her reputation. And to lose her and people like her is just such a shame.

43:57And it's certainly not making us any safer, I can tell you that. And to think that by firing these people and by having them not protect our country and by bringing national security cases, corruption cases, white collar cases, civil rights cases, it's not making us any safer. It is actually having quite the opposite effect. And so this Department of Justice to me is unrecognizable in terms of what I've known it to be and what it looks like now.

44:30Michael Popok:Certainly unrecognizable to James Comey, former FBI director. His lawyer, Pat Fitzgerald, also a U.S. attorney from Illinois, Northern District in Chicago, they've signaled or filed a notice to Judge Namikoff, who's the judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, that not only are they going to be filing a motion to have Lindsay Allegan declared to be illegally appointed, but they are already getting the judge advance notice before the 20th. It's due in five days, the motion to give him time, because if they're right under their theory, and I think they are, that the only group of people that can appoint a U.S.

45:13Michael Popok:attorney, acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia are the judges of the Eastern District of Virginia, all of them. So they're telling Judge Nabcoff, you can do everything in the case, but this motion, you're all going to be disqualified because you need to vote on the future replacement. So we're going to take you out of that problem. We think you should assign this or have it assigned to another court outside the Eastern District of Virginia. And the procedure for that is relatively straightforward. Lord, Eastern District of Virginia sits in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

45:53Michael Popok:The trial judge sends it to the chief judge of the Fourth Circuit, who I believe is Judge Diaz. Judge Diaz assigns it to a judge that's not in the Eastern District of Virginia. Could be another district in Virginia. I think they have a Northern District of Virginia. It could be there. It could be North Carolina. It just can't be in the Eastern District. And they're giving the trial judge time to send that motion off. The other motion they're filing, which is obvious, and they've declared it in court during the arraignment, which is the motion to have the indictment dismissed for prosecutorial abuse, selective prosecution or vindictive prosecution.

46:31Michael Popok:That'll stay with the trial judge. There's no conflict there the way there is with the other motion. But they're coming out swinging. I think they've got an amazing trial team here. And James, people forget James Comey isn't just the six foot eight strapping former FBI agent. He was the U.S. attorney for Manhattan before he became FBI director. And his lawyer, Pat Fitzgerald, was the United States attorney for Chicago. Right. So this is and they're against Lindsay. I've been a federal prosecutor for two weeks. How am I doing Halligan? Now, it's obvious to me now that the reporting has come out that that Ed Martin is guiding Halligan and gave her a script that apparently she didn't deviate from to obtain two indictments.

47:22Michael Popok:I mean, that's pretty heady stuff. I mean, she's got zero experience. She walked in. It's like being shown, okay, Lindsay, you're going to fly this 7777 jet today. Just follow this cookbook. You'll be fine. Put it on autopilot after you do the takeoff. That was what, now I know it's Ed Martin because I thought it was Blanche. Originally, I thought, well, Blanche and Bondi must be giving her the script on how to do it, even though they're not going down to sit with her. That's odd. They gave her Meg Cleary, which was Pam Bondi's original choice to be the Eastern District of Virginia. At least she was young, but at least she had prosecutor experience.

48:04Michael Popok:And that's where Donald Trump sent that now infamous DM, not DM. Pam, we're running out of time. Indite all my enemies. And Lindsay Allegan really likes you. I felt like I was in the fourth grade. Lindsay Allegan likes you. She thinks you're pretty. you should make her, I'm barely, I'm barely parodying this. You should, she should be the one. And then she said, no, I'll do Meg Cleary. And now Meg Cleary just got fired. And I think that's all Ed Martin. So it wasn't, because now we know from reporting, it's leaked out that Bondi and Blanche were against the firing of Eric Seibert and was against the indictment against Letitia James and Comey.

48:44Michael Popok:And so who's, who is the new shadow attorney general? His name, ladies and gentlemen, is Eagle Ed Martin. And when he's not busy doing whatever he's doing, he's putting on a trench coat in August or July and marching around Brooklyn, checking out Letitia James's brownstone. I mean, just ridiculous, ridiculous things. But this is where we are. I have a question for you. So there are these procedural or technical questions that are going to be asked, right? There's the whether or not Lindsey Halligan was validly appointed. The statute says 120 days, and once it expires, the district court can appoint the U.S.

49:27attorney. There's this other law, though, that looks like the Vacancy Reform Act, but that doesn't apply either because you have to have worked there for 90 days at the DOJ, etc so there's been the number two and yeah exactly so so so it's it seems he so so he could be if so if lindsey halligan is not validly appointed that any case she brings is has to

49:53Michael Popok:be dismissed she's the only one that signed the indictment there wasn't even another person exactly so you know the problem with with winning in that regard because that seems pretty clear is that's a that that's still a technical violation and come and they're gonna trump's gonna say Comey's corrupt. That's just a technicality. Same thing with the vindictive prosecution. It's a risk to go to trial in January, but in some ways, that's the only way he's going to be able to really exonerate himself to have a jury say, this is BS because he's not guilty. That's the only... I still want him to win the motion to dismiss the indictment.

50:32I think they're going to win on one of these technicalities because it's not a technicality. I mean, this is so far beyond the pale of what's lawful and legal. But in some ways, I still want him to win substantively, too, just to kind of show that Trump is.

50:47Michael Popok:For me, it's like I often devolve into sports analogies or metaphors. It's like the it's like the weigh in press conference for a boxing match. And the two guys are about to go into the ring like the next day, like, you know, Canelo and whoever, you know, they they they're there. and then they start posing for photos, but then something happens and somebody in one honorage, somebody in the other honorage, suddenly they're about to throw down right there. Now, part of me is like, yeah, kick his ass right there at the press conference. But the other part of me is like, no, let's wait for the actual event, right?

51:24Michael Popok:And have them do the fight in the ring. So for me, I'm not sure. I mean, you're right. Maybe I want them to win on the technicality or maybe I want them to get into the ring and kick their ass at trial. Yeah, I kind of want all of it because it's all so bad that you want to point out each one of them. Like, I don't want to, you know what I mean? Like, I hope that they rule on at least both the valid appointment and the vindictive prosecution. Comment on this before we go to our next break. I know you did the state side, but there's infirmities with the indictment and the way the grand jury. Is it a true bill?

51:57Michael Popok:Isn't it a true bill? Which counts are? Why are there two indictments? Don't they have an argument? She's got there's been a rumor that she's going to try to supersede that indictment. Yeah. I mean, she had. I mean, I think I think they will, because the indictment is just not it doesn't. It also doesn't give you any indication. Yeah. Yeah, it gives you no information. It gives, it doesn't, the defendant has no notice as to what he's being charged with. And so I think it's infirm in that regard too. Aside from the just typos, right? At one point, or no, maybe I'm thinking of Latisha James. No, no, no, no.

52:30Michael Popok:Well, no, there was a typos. They're close. There were two count twos. Oh yeah, she filed two indictments. Two indictments and two count twos. Yeah. That she signed both. That was a problem. in the press release, she spelled the word principle wrong. She said a bedrock principle of democracy. She had the wrong principle. And then you're also thinking, I'm sure, Letitia James living in one of my favorite places on earth, Brooklyn, New Jersey. Exactly. Brooklyn's in New York. Those people who are watching us from Australia, Brooklyn is in New York. No, they know. They know, too. I know. So we're going to talk about what happened at the United States Supreme Court.

53:12Jack Smith coming back.

53:15Michael Popok:And I think the timing of it was on purpose. I don't think the more I think about it, this was a critical moment, just why we're hearing more from the Obamas of the world and the Jack Smiths of the world. This is the time, you know, we're flashing the bat signal. This is the time for these kind of heroes to come back and talk to us and give us hope. And so we have that in the Supreme Court that again takes away, crushes our hope in a oral argument today that I don't think is going to go well for the 22 Democratic seats in a sea of red out there. We might lose 20 seats. And more importantly, black representation may be a thing of the past here in America.

53:57Michael Popok:And that's a sad commentary. We're going to cover all that. But got to pay the bills. Is that what they used to say in the old timey times on television? Got to pay the bills now. Uh, most of what we're talking about doesn't, doesn't pay the bills. It just, just keeps us on the air. It's part of our, a part of our, uh, relationship with minus touch and all that good stuff. We got the legal AF ecosystem. You're here. Uh, listen to us on the podcast platforms like Google and, uh, sorry, Spotify and Apple, Google used to have a thing, uh, leave five-star reviews, come over here, watch us, send the clips to your friends and families go back and forth.

54:36Michael Popok:That all helps, keeps us high up in the ratings. I think we're like the number one law and politics show in America. I really do think that based on the ratings. Then we've got the Legal AF YouTube channel, which is just a year old. I mean, really, we just cry. I mean, I think actually, Salty will tell me if I'm wrong. I think we're two days away from really having turned on the lights for Legal AF YouTube. And we're already at about 850 ,000 subscribers, well on our way to 900. And then of course, that magical 1 million, that unicorn, all because of you, no paywall, no outside investors. So just enjoy our 10 or 12 videos a day, every day.

55:21Michael Popok:As people know, I work around the clock to keep that channel along with my other contributors up and running along with our editor team. Shout out to Two Rivers. Shout out to Salty and Sydney and Nico and all the people that make the magic happen over there on the other side of the camera. And then we've got the Substack. Yes, we do. We need it now more than ever. That's a place where I can jump on with others to live reporting in real time. We've got some written product up there, some commentary. All of our contributors contribute there. It's really a fascinating audience to be a part of. And there you can help us with a paid subscription.

55:59Michael Popok:I think it's seven bucks a month. We kept it cheap. And if you like what's up there and you want to support Legal AF, that is a way to do it. And of course, we've got our sponsors. And now here's a word from them. You know that feeling when your morning coffee is supposed to kickstart your day, but instead your stomach's grumbling, your focus isn't sharp, and by 10 a.m. you're like already craving it a nap. It's frustrating because the ritual matters. But sometimes traditional coffee just doesn't play nice with your body or your brain. And for anyone juggling a busy, chaotic lifestyle or trying to level up focus and energy, this is a common struggle.

56:35Michael Popok:You don't have hours to research ingredients, experiment with supplements, or mix up different powders just to get a clean, productive boost. That's where Everyday Dose comes in. It's coffee plus benefits. Coffee with mushrooms and collagen, nootropics that fuel your brain, support, focus, and provide clean, sustained energy all day long. It tastes just like coffee, but without the crash, jitters, or stomach issues. With ingredients like lion's mane, chaga, and collagen protein, it's a simple ritual that supports your gut, brain, and overall wellness without adding any extra time to your morning.

57:09Michael Popok:Right now, you can get 45 % off your first subscription order of 30 servings of coffee plus you also receive a starter kit with over a hundred dollars in free gifts by going to everydaydose.com slash legal af or entering legal af at checkout that's everydaydose.com slash legal af for 45 off your first order you know we live in an environment our biology was never designed for emfs artificial light seed oils microplastics endocrine disruptors chronic stress These modern assaults disrupt cellular signaling, negatively impacting gut health and accelerating aging. That's why I've been using Armra Colostrum.

57:50Michael Popok:Armra Colostrum revives cellular signaling, bolstering our health from within to defend against everyday threats. Colostrum is nature's first whole food with over 400 bioactive nutrients that work at the cellular level to reactivate your body's innate capacity to regenerate and thrive. And since I started taking Armra, I've noticed a real difference. My gut feels stronger and less bloated. My energy and metabolism are better than ever. And even my skin looks more radiant. Plus, Armra helps strengthen immune health without just boosting it. It balances and strengthens your immune barriers across your mouth, sinuses, lungs, gut, and more.

58:29Michael Popok:Ready to reclaim your health? We've worked out a special offer for my audience. Receive 15 % off your first order. go to tryarmra.com slash legal AF or enter legal AF to get 15 % off your first order. That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A.com slash legal AF. Armra Colostrum. It's pure, potent, natural, and clean. Not a supplement, but a bioactive whole food. I highly recommend giving it a try. Welcome back and thank you to our sponsors, without which, frankly, we wouldn't have the lights on. So I really do appreciate them. I appreciate you supporting our sponsors as well. We're in the homestretch, Karen. Jack Smith speaks and the Supreme Court unfortunately does too.

59:12Michael Popok:So why don't we release the MAGA 6? Let's kick it off. Why don't you take the prosecutor lead and talk about what just happened, what just went down and what Jack Smith said. We got some clips too that we can play for our audience. Okay. Yeah. So look, Jack Smith, the special prosecutor has been silent. He was essentially silent throughout the entire prosecutions of Donald Trump, right? He did exactly what you're supposed to do as a prosecutor, is not make public comments or statements, not try to influence the case. And he did that because that's how he was trained and that's how he is. But he's been noticeably absent from the public discourse in the last, since he, I guess it's been 10 months now since the cases have been dismissed.

59:57and uh but he came out and he was in london he was interviewed by former prosecutor andrew weissman and uh and it was a long interview it was a long substantive interview it was i think more than almost two hours and there was a lot of questions that were asked and and jack was exactly who i know jack smith to be i i worked with jack smith or in his early days at the manhattan da's office which he talked about during his interview, which I loved, about how he and I started around the same time, a couple of years apart. We were in the same small group, small unit. We were trained by the same supervisor and we learned how to be prosecutors the same way.

1:00:37And he said that was the foundation of his prosecutorial experience. He went on to be a very highly respected federal prosecutor. He also worked at Maine Justice. He also became an international prosecutor. So he has experience that runs the gamut. He's done public corruption cases, violent crime cases. I mean, you name it. He has all of the experience and all of the incredible judgment. And I think it's worth watching. It was really interesting what his perspective is and what he said about prosecution. I think we're going to play a clip here that I think he'll say it better than I could. Salty, do you want to play the clip of Jack Smith that we have?

1:01:13Michael Popok:the idea that politics would play a role uh in big cases like this uh it's absolutely ludicrous and it's totally contrary to my experience as a prosecutor if there's rules in the department about how to bring a case follow those rules you can't say i want this outcome let me throw the rules out um that's why frankly you see all these conflicts between the career apolitical prosecutors I worked with because they're being asked to do things that they think are wrong. And because they're not political people, they're not going to do them. And I think that explains why you've seen the resignations.

1:01:49Michael Popok:You've seen people leave the department. It's not because they're enemies of one administration or the next. They've worked through decades for different administrations. It's just they've been doing things apolitically forever. And when they're told, no, you've got to get this outcome no matter what, that is so contrary to how we were all raised as prosecutors. Yeah, so it's so true. And I think back to my years as a prosecutor, I had no idea what political party anyone I worked with was part of. It never factored into any decision you make as a prosecutor. You follow the facts wherever they lead without fear or favor.

1:02:26It doesn't matter whether the person is friends with the DA or donated to his campaign. You know, those lines are kept separately. We never knew if somebody donated money to a particular person or not. I mean, those things were so kept separate from line prosecutors. And that's who Jack Smith is. And I thought it was interesting, the timing of this coming out. And I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Why did he, why is he coming out now? Why is he speaking now? And because he's also not someone, Jack Smith is not someone who's ever coveted the spotlight, never seen him to be that way. He's a very humble guy.

1:03:04And he's not someone who I think goes out and promotes himself in any way. And so for him to come out and speak and to speak about what he talked about, about the rule of law, about the importance of it, about justice being blind, about justice being, about process being important. And as opposed to outcome. And that this administration cares more about, seems to care more about outcome than they do about the process. And the process should apply to no matter who you are, if you are being looked at it with the full force and might of the Department of Justice. And, you know, I'd love to hear your thoughts on why you think he's speaking out now.

1:03:44I wondered, I have no idea, and I'd be totally guessing as to why. But I will say that while I was watching it, what I was thinking to myself and what I was wondering was, does he think he's going to be targeted next? Does he think he is or does he know? Has he been issued a subpoena or has he been? I know that he that that they want him to come speak to Congress behind closed doors. But does he think he's going? Is this an indication to him that he's getting ready, that he is going to be targeted next? And so he's speaking out in his voice now because otherwise there are rules about trying to influence a criminal case.

1:04:27And so and speaking publicly during a criminal case and you could have gag orders, et cetera, if he talks too much. So so I wonder if he's if he's speaking now as as sort of a get his story out now. I don't know. What are your thoughts on that?

1:04:41Michael Popok:I think it's an interesting observation. I think there's a couple of things. First, let's just let's just say something out loud. That's the first time I've ever heard Jack Smith speak in like two and a half years. He took to the podium like twice about his cases, right, when he issued his reports. And the fact that I even can hear Jack Smith again is comforting. I think the timing of it is interesting. I think, one, he understands that we're at a pivotal moment, sort of a hinge moment in our American experiment. It's gotten more critical for opponents of this administration, especially ones that were high up in the Department of Justice to speak out.

1:05:23Michael Popok:Many of them are unwilling to do it. There is an organization of former Department of Justice alum that have come out swinging and issued, you know, like three letters already. But, you know, you don't see them on mainstream media talking a lot. You don't see them even here on Legal AF, although I've invited them. They're a cautious bunch, as most prosecutors are. They're an apolitical bunch, as Jack Smith just laid out. So I think he sees there's a vacuum, there's a void that needs to be filled, and his voice joining in the chorus along with people like Barack Obama and elected official governors and state attorneys general.

1:06:06Michael Popok:I mean, he has a unique vantage point, having been the prosecutor and investigator for Donald Trump and helping to shape the narrative in his own voice. That's one. Two. I mean, they've threatened him with the Hatch Act violation. I haven't seen reporting, nor has it leaked out that he's being seriously considered as a target as as a prosecutor. I think that would be almost a dead on arrival indictment if they could even obtain that kind of indictment. Certainly no career prosecutor would ever violate the Department of Justice manual or the principles of federal prosecution to prosecute Jack Smith or violate all of their ethical obligations to do that.

1:06:49Michael Popok:But we've seen Donald Trump. He'll he'll find somebody, you know, a first year lawyer, an eighth year lawyer, a lawyer with no scruples. He'll find a lawyer. An insurance lawyer. Insurance lawyer, you know, who's doing fender bender before this. And could he be speaking out because there's a fear? Yeah, and the problem that you noted is he'll abide by the law and the rules, and he'll be silent while the White House pummels him. Dirty cop, dirty prosecutor, wife was a this supporter, you know, all the things to tear him from limb to limb, although they did all of that already during the criminal prosecution.

1:07:32Michael Popok:Something stops. I don't know what it is. Something stops Donald Trump from even going after Jack Smith and martyring him. Something stops Donald Trump at the present moment from going after Alvin Bragg. Yeah. Interesting. You know, I don't know what it is, but something there's some force field that's apparently still in place. Has he been tipped off and he wanted to get his word out first? Maybe. I just think it's a timing issue. I think he is stepping forward when others are stepping back. And we need him to speak. I wonder if it's just because Congress, he knows he's going to be subpoenaed to go before Congress and they're going to do it closed doors.

1:08:12And so he's trying to get his voice out publicly just so that people can hear what he has to say.

1:08:18Michael Popok:I think it's all going into it. But you're right to point out that there was a decision that's been made. He said, now is the time. Somebody asked him to speak, or he got placed on that podcast, or CNN interview, whatever it is. But he decided with his kitchen cabinet of advisors and family, I'm going to speak against, and it's a politically and personally courageous thing to do in this time, don't you think? Yeah, totally. What I loved about it too, though, is he didn't go after anybody in this dramatic It wasn't like calling names and using big adjectives. He was just really methodically explaining exactly what it's supposed to be and why.

1:09:01And I think he's exactly who you want to be a prosecutor and a public servant.

1:09:08Michael Popok:I mean, yeah, I think you can contrast. I mean, we used to see Fannie Willis and even Letitia James, when they speak, I mean, they're pretty direct about the attacks on them and who they blame. And Fonny did it, you know, from church and a pulpit. And then we see a lot of videos with Letitia James, who, of course, we support. But that's not Jack Smith. And, right, the person that we knew, that you knew, that you worked with, for those that are kind of joining late into the legal AF game, you know, you work with him as a young prosecutor. and who you see now in his 50s, no different than what you saw in his 20s, right?

1:09:48Yeah, he's exactly the same. He's just a good guy. I think people say that about us. Yeah, he's a really good guy, and he just doesn't get better than Jack Smith.

1:09:58Michael Popok:I'm sure people say that about you and about me. Like if they knew you and you were fresh new into the prosecutor's office, they know you now. It's the same person, same values, right? same and me too you know hopefully i learned a few skills and i'm a little bit better than i was when i first started well no skill wise you're better i'm kidding who you are as a person right oh totally yeah exactly exactly same so let's turn to the our final segment here on legal af youtube podcast i don't know where i am sometimes legal af podcast uh it'll go up on the youtube eventually and uh talk about the i mean i said before and i have a video up on youtube for legal af I said, listen, I don't deal in hyperbolic imagery, but this case is an existential threat to the Democratic Party, to black and brown representation in Congress for a generation.

1:10:57And it doesn't look good.

1:10:59Michael Popok:I said that before the oral argument, even though Roberts and Kavanaugh in a prior case in 2022, 2023, involving Alabama, sided, we were like shocked at the time, sided with the moderates and the liberals to make a 5-4 block to approve a voting map that used race to create a new district. I wasn't confident that they were going to join with the moderate wing again when it related to Louisiana. What was up for grabs in Louisiana was a map that was drawn by the legislature of Louisiana, MAGA Mike Johnson's home state, in which they went back to the drawing board, literally, redrew a map after their first time around.

1:11:46Michael Popok:They only came up with one district out of seven. That's like 14 percent or something. that would be a black minority majority district in a state where one third of the state is black. And it's like, no, I know you keep saying it's politics, but the law says even if you're saying it's partisan, not race, look at the results. Now, the problem is that in, there used to be, you know, blue dog Democrats and Democrats that could get elected in red states, that's like over. We are so polarized that I'm even amazed there are 22 Democratic seats in the sea of red, and most of them are black and brown in states where it matches or comes close to their racial composition in the state.

1:12:47Michael Popok:And then the second map came out. First, Louisiana said, all right, we're okay with this map. We defend this map. And then the Supreme Court made a ruling about affirmative action at Harvard, and it reverberated throughout. It's the reasons the Stephen Millers of the world and others went after every DEI program, every woke program is because of the Harvard ruling, which was the way to stop race discrimination is to stop discriminating based on race. Thanks for that tautology, Magus Scotus. That's it? That's what you're giving me? And so from there, they were like, well, anytime even an ounce of race comes into the decision, that it's invalid under the Constitution, except when it came to the Voting Rights Act.

1:13:32Michael Popok:The Voting Rights Act passed in the 1960s as part of the Great Society, sponsored, if you will, by Martin Luther King Jr., signed by Lyndon Johnson. It was a way to put into practice and action the 14th and 15th Amendments about there should be no law abridging the right to vote.

1:13:55Michael Popok:and ever since Roberts became the chief justice over the last 20, 30 years, he's been trying to get rid of the Voting Rights Act. Now, he found a way to side with the Alabama map, but I didn't think that was going to happen again. And then Kavanaugh, who sided with Alabama a couple of years ago, even then he said, shouldn't there be a time limit on the Voting Rights Act? Shouldn't it sundown after a certain period? Where does it say that in the statute? Congress spoke. It was a major question. They answered it, and they answered it as there's no expiration date on it, on civil rights, on black voting rights, but they keep talking about it Like there's a timer.

1:14:42Michael Popok:Like, you know, you went to the refrigerator and your yogurt expired. I'm like, what are you even talking about? But that became a driver for the conversation today, as did, can race be used at all? It can race be used, but if partisan decision-making can, partisan decision-making always overcome race. What was your takeaway from the two hour, it was scheduled for an hour, two hour oral argument today about the Voting Rights Act Section 2 and lawsuits like it? So, first of all, I think the lawyer who represented Louisiana was excellent. I thought she was great and just was so sharp and made all the right arguments.

1:15:26I found the oral argument very frustrating. It was the biggest gaslighting oral argument. I like listen, watching and listening to the Supreme Court justices who are who lean far right, ask questions. It's like they they they totally gas lit her and it's through softballs to the gentleman who was representing Louisiana. And like, isn't there a case called such and such? Tell us about that case. And he's like, oh, yeah, well, in that case, you said this is not you can do this and you can't do that. Right. And what made that happen in that case? Well, there was this map that was wrong, like just throwing them softball after softball to make the points that they clearly want to make.

1:16:18And it was just really it was depressing, honestly, because they basically look. Louisiana is apparently 57, 58 % white. Yet, and in the census, that's what came out, right? When the census came out and they said, oh, but we only have one black district in all of Louisiana. And so 85 % of the districts are white, essentially, but only 57 % of the people are. And so they redrew the map to give a voice to the black voters. and look, one of the things that came out of the oral argument is black and white voters both aren't monolithic voters, right? That's not like you only vote Republican if you're white and you only vote Democrat if you're black.

1:17:07But what the studies have shown is typically is if you're white, you will most likely vote for a white candidate, Republican or Democrat, and same with black. And that was some of the things that came out of this argument. And what they basically were saying, what Louisiana, sorry, what the appellee was saying was essentially, the Voting Rights Act was supposed to be a remedial statute. It's supposed to be to remedy. It's not like it says, if everything is going swimmingly in your state and you have representation for minority communities, The Voting Rights Act doesn't come into play. It only comes into play when you have things like a census and it shows that there is not representation.

1:17:56Then there's this remedial measure that you can come in and redraw and take race into consideration. It's not the only factor, but you take it into consideration. And what was really depressing to me is the fact that the law allows you to make a partisan districting map. So they could do anything they want to make it more Republican or more Democrat, depending. You're not allowed to take race into consideration. And, you know, when you look back to the history of the Voting Rights Act and why this was passed in the 60s, and you see where we are today and that they are purposely, that they're not even, they're just adding one more district, right?

1:18:36They're not like, this is just literally one more district and that they're going to say you're not allowed to even take it into consideration ever. That race can never play a factor. I think it's just really sets us back a long time and it was really depressing. And the questioning, like I said, was very gaslighting. I just thought, you know, it was just ridiculous.

1:18:55Michael Popok:And Ketanji Brown Jackson and was very frustrated with how the conversation went, which was all about trying to give cover to the MAGA 6 to sleep at night. Well, we're not taking away race. It just needs to be overcome bipartisan. So it's not that there's seven out of seven districts that will result in Louisiana all being white. Is that okay? I mean, let's just take it back. Is that okay? If I would have been an advocate there, I would have said to whoever was asking me the question, If you take away the Voting Rights Act and you find that it's either unconstitutional Section 2 or you find that race can never play a part in drawing the map, are you okay as a United States Supreme Court?

1:19:40Michael Popok:And can you live with yourself if the result is there are zero, zero districts in Louisiana, despite one third of the state being black, being black minority majority district? Are you okay with that? If you're okay with that, because that's where you're going with this line of questioning. See, that's one of my problems with the stuffy air and protocol of Supreme Court advocacy, is that while I agree with you, she did a beautiful job, as did the NAACP counsel, who also argued. But they never, like you and I are more like pugilistic trial lawyers. I would stop a trial judge in their tracks on something like that.

1:20:23Michael Popok:I see you're going down a certain road, Your Honor. Are you okay then with there being zero representation for black and brown people in the red southern states? And if you are, then I guess you'll rule that way. But I'm not. And I think that violates the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. You never see an advocate do that. Why is that? Well, there's a certain decorum, I guess, in the Supreme Court. And there's a certain, I remember I went to go watch a friend argue in the Supreme Court. And the friend, and then they said, oh, do you want to become a member of the bar of the Supreme Court?

1:21:02It's like an honorary thing. Obviously, I don't have the experience, the appellate experience. That's a very particular type of experience to argue in the Supreme Court. I said, sure, I'd love to do that. And they said to me, okay, well, you have to wear a skirt suit. I was like, what do you mean? I have to wear a skirt suit because they know I only wear pantsuits, you know, and for no reason, I didn't even realize it. I just was more, I'm more comfortable in court wearing pantsuits. I always have been. It's just a personal preference. I don't know why I have it. It just is. And I was like, you know, I'm not trying to make a statement or anything.

1:21:38It's just a personal preference. And I said, I don't even own a skirt suit. So I'm going to wear a pantsuit because that's what I wear every day when I go to court. And she's like, you can't, you have to wear a skirt. And then suddenly now I'm offended. I'm like, excuse me, I have to wear a skirt suit. Anyway, I found one, I borrowed one, but I was really, I was irked by this. But I say this because there's this whole, there are all these like old timey traditions when you go to the Supreme Court, you know, here ye, here ye, whatever. Oye, oye. Oy yay, oy yay, whatever it is. Yeah, they like all this weird stuff that just...

1:22:13They were wearing powdered wigs like...

1:22:15Michael Popok:I know, like not too long ago. Not too long ago. Anyway, so I guess there are ways you're supposed to argue in front of the Supreme Court that... Well, that's the ramifications. And the answer to my question is that the MAGA 6 and Clarence Thomas are willing to have 22 seats primarily held by black and brown people eliminated from the map. And now the Democrats are going to have to fight hard to, if this ruling comes out, the other question is, I'll leave it on this. The other question is timing. We'll know if they're really trying to help Donald Trump more than usual based on when they release this decision.

1:22:54Michael Popok:A major decision like this generally comes out in June or July so they can get out of town and go on vacation when they drop like a bomb on us. The only reason the Dobbs decision came out earlier is because it leaked. And then in March of that year, we were like, oh, crap. So we had several months, and then it finally came out a few months later. But if they release it in June or July, it's really too close to the November midterm election. It's only like three months, and that's borderline on terms of what they call the Purcell doctrine, where they wouldn't make the map change for this coming election.

1:23:31Michael Popok:They would do it for 2028. But if they issue it early, that's the big telltale sign. When you said chaos lighting, we see this thing come flying out in like March. Right. And you and I report on it. That means they wanted to help Donald Trump at the midterms because March is plenty of time before November for the new maps, for everything to be redistricted, because that's what they're going to try to do. Donald Trump has been pushing the states to use the census and use whatever comes out of the Supreme Court to redo all the maps to eliminate Democratic seats. That was the fight that broke out between Texas and California over five seats down in Texas, five seats up in California, depending upon a referendum in November.

1:24:17Michael Popok:And but I don't know how we I don't know how we as a party find 20 new seats. Well, maybe what happens is Sotomayor Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, maybe what they do is they take a really long time to write their dissents. And so it's not going to get out in March that it's going to. Closer to. Yeah. At least that's a short term solution, which I which I appreciate. So I'm going to talk, I think just a little bit of a promo here. I'm going to have Rob Bonta, the attorney general, one of the leading the leaders of the battalion, the brigade to protect our democracy in the courtroom since the Department of Justice has abdicated all its responsibility to help people from his perch of being the California attorney general.

1:24:59Michael Popok:I'm going to have him live in person for an interview up on a stage at an event I'm going to be at in San Diego on Saturday. It'll be live streamed on the Legal AF YouTube channel. Yet another reason to come over and subscribe and set the reminder for that. And I'll talk to him about the maps because he's got a referendum that's up on his, goes to the voters in California about whether they want to change the maps. And I will talk to him a little bit more about that campaign. But these are important issues. I didn't mean to leave it for like the last segment. It doesn't indicate anything. If you had to rank the number one thing that you and I were going to talk about today, it would be this particular case and its impact on our American experiment.

1:25:43Saving the best for last.

1:25:44Michael Popok:Saving the best for last. And speaking of saving the best for last, what do you got for our audience? Say hi to my dad who called me right before to say he's so excited to watch tonight. And so I just want to say hi, dad. Yeah, that's great. You and I are so close to our families and we appreciate it. And we got our Legal AF and Midas Touch family. Take a minute, hit the subscribe button here on Midas Touch. Come over to Legal AF YouTube channel, do the exact same thing. Come over to Legal AF Substack, hit the subscribe button there. See if you can swing a paid subscription, really help us keep the lights on and pay our editors to help us do the content that we do.

1:26:21Michael Popok:And, of course, continue your fervent support as only you can of our podcast, Legal AF. The podcast, Wednesdays and Saturdays at 8 p.m. Eastern Time, up on all audio podcast platforms of your choice. We still need help there and audio downloads and listens. And here, of course, on the Midas Touch Network. So until Saturday, I'll be in the same state as Ben. I don't think we'll be in the same room, maybe. And I'm going to be getting, for those that want to get autographs signed, I'm kidding. Salty's going to come to San Diego. Alan, my assistant's coming to San Diego, who's friends with Salty. and we're kind of working together on that event that we just talked about.

1:27:05Michael Popok:So I get to have a nice dinner and a drink with those two. Enjoy, Sandy. It goes lovely. Great weather. Yeah, can't wait. So shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal AFers.

1:27:24Most people overpay for car insurance, not because they're careless, but because switching feels like too much hassle. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side-by-side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over$1 ,300 a year. Switch with confidence. Download the Jerry app or visit jerry.ai.libsyn today. That's j-e-r-r-y dot a-i slash l-i-b-s-y-n.