Legal AF Full Episode - 10/8/2025

28:09And right now IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20 % off all IQ Bar products, including the sampler pack, plus free shipping. To get your 20 % off, text Legal AF to 64000. Text Legal AF to 64000. That's Legal AF to 64000. Message and data rates may apply and see terms for details. Are you sick of drinking your calories or waking up hungover? Having some drinks can be fun, but I'm glad I found an alternative that lets me feel great in the moment and the next morning. Out of office gummies from Seoul. They give you that light social buzz without the slump or guilt that comes with extra drinks.

28:54No hangovers, no missed workouts, just good vibes. Soul is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious hemp-derived THC and CBD products designed to boost your mood and help you unwind. Their best-selling out-of-office gummies were designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation. The gummies come in four different strengths. So you can find the perfect dose for your vibe. Choose from a gentle microdose, perfect buzz, a noticeable high, or a fully lit experience. With wellness at the forefront, all of Sol's products are made from organically farmed, USA-grown hemp, and are vegan, gluten-free, and low in sugar.

29:37And if you like their out-of-office gummies, you gotta try their new out-of-office beverage, a refreshing, alcohol-free alternative, perfect for summer sipping. Bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to soul today. Right now, soul is offering my audience 30 % off your entire order. Go to getsoul.com and use the code LEGALAF. That's getsoul.com, promo code LEGALAF for 30 % off. Welcome back. And now we must return to war ravaged Oregon and Portland, where people are apparently dropping their lattes over people dressed in chicken costumes and frog suits who are, I guess the frog represents Antifa?

30:21I don't know. In any event, against the backdrop of the Ninth Circuit setting oral argument about Judge Immergut's decision on last Saturday at 4.30, not to be confused with her decision the next Sunday at 10 p.m., There's only one temporary restraining order that is at the heart of the appeal. And there was a request for an administrative stay. We have our three-judge panel. We have the oral argument. The issue that was up for administrative stay was, should the three-judge panel, which is not a great – I'm going to just preface this – not a great panel. Judges Graber, Nelson, and Bade. Two Trumpers and a Biden, or no, and a Clinton, sorry, going back in the time.

31:09And against that, we're going to get into the procedure about tomorrow's oral argument and the briefing around it and the issues at stake. But you had Kristi Noem and her infinite wisdom, I'm sure, in consultation with her other half-baked half-wits like Pam Bondi and Donald Trump and Todd Blanche decided, that's a great time to go to Portland, go check out the ICE detention center. And who better to escort the Secretary of Homeland Security than right-wing podcasters like Benny Johnson, who, side note, took money from Russia television and then started spouting Russian propaganda several years ago and was caught up in a scandal related to that.

31:53But now, Benny Johnson's back. Everybody wants to be on his podcast on the right. And I guess you figure a little free media with them doing their little iPhone recording would be great, except when they went up to the roof to survey all that Kristi Noem could see in downtown Portland. Remember, Donald Trump called it war ravaged. This was the justification for sending in the military and the federalization of the National Guard. Do we have the video of, let's run the video of Christy Noem conquering Portland.

32:48Come on down.

33:01I'm sorry. I'm glad Salty turned off my mic because I literally burst out laughing. She was probably fine until her social media podcaster decided to pan down and show, you know, the upside down flag and a guy wearing a chicken suit. And this is the reason, ladies and gentlemen, that we are going to take over Portland with federalized troops. They should play that at the Ninth Circuit hearing. Then she went inside, Karen, and did a compelled forced prayer meeting. What is going on? Is this the turning point memorial again? What is going on? And why is she doing that? Because that didn't help their case before they argue tomorrow at the Ninth Circuit.

33:44What was your take on all of it? I mean, look, it's so bizarre to me. You know, I'm from the West Coast originally. I was born and raised in Southern California. And my parents actually, when I went to law school, moved to Oregon. And so although I've never lived there, I've spent a fair amount of time in Oregon. I've gone to Portland many, many times. Beautiful, beautiful city. that there is no way they can make a case with a straight face that it is war ravaged in any way shape or form and portland is a very special town it's absolutely stunningly beautiful it has a very free thinking culture you've got people who are very like kind of hippie-ish and hip and young and just it's a beautiful place with amazing people.

34:37Yes, they have a little bit of a homeless problem like so many cities do and drug problem. But to call it war ravaged is really there's nothing you there's nowhere you can say that place is remotely like that. I mean, if you just look at that video that was just shown, you've got like three protesters and you've got cars commuting going to work. I mean, and that's exactly what Judge Immerget said when she was making findings of fact. When she was looking at whether or not they can, they can deploy, they can federalize the National Guard and deploy them in Oregon. She essentially said, look, I'm looking, I live here, you know, I'm looking at the facts on the ground.

35:14They don't support what you're saying. And there's nothing in the record to support it. They're, they're just saying things that just are belied by the facts. So it's just to see her there, to see Kristi Noem there, and to see her bringing troops to sweet Portland, Oregon, which is, like I said, it's such a peaceful, you know, there's lots of rainbows and people dressed up. And, you know, it's just a very free thinking place. It reminds me a little bit of the West Coast version of Vermont. You know, it's a little like that, you know, kind of a lot of hiking going on, a lot of outdoors stuff. But it is absolutely not what Trump is trying to say that it is.

35:52And I'm glad to see a Trump appointed judge, Judge Immigrant saying, sorry, you can't federalize troops and bring the military here. There's no reason for it. There's no need for it. And what you're saying, your justification for it, because there are laws, right, that that say when you can do it. And it's for things like when there's an insurrection and that sort of thing. She's like, there's no facts in the record that support that. Chicken suits. Exactly. Chicken suits. Exactly. I mean, and that's the thing. Like I said, I've spent a lot of time in Portland. So I hear this and I'm like, this is nuts.

36:23This is bananas. This is like, it's like, think like college town, you know, that's the vibe. Portlandia, watch the TV show. Fred Armisen made a whole series. It lasted five years. It's almost like a documentary of life in Portland. Just watch it and think insurrection, military invasion. Are you effing kidding me? So now we take this to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. So Judge Immergut, who's great for this case. And earlier I was like, oh, crap, Trump appointed. Then I go look at her record. Federal prosecutor, assistant U.S. attorney in California, Central District, L.A. U.S. attorney for Portland.

37:06What's the name of the county that Portland's in? Multinoma. Multinoma. She's the DA for Multinoma. Right. Working closely with law enforcement, right? Knows the streets, drinks the water. Lived in Vermont for a couple of years and worked in Vermont. She's been, you know, she's been dancing. What is it called? Strolling to her own drum, whatever it's called. Beat of her own drum for a long, long time. She's not your typical federal judge. She's tough as nails. She doesn't give a crap about Donald Trump and Stephen Miller calling her an insurrectionist and calling her a terrorist. I guess they want to hang her from the highest tree.

37:41She doesn't care about any of that. She issued her first injunction on Saturday at 4.30 p.m., in which she said, no, the grounds under 10 U.S.C. Section 12406 are not present. You can't federalize the National Guard. State sovereignty is at risk. Martial law, you're verging, you're moving us towards martial law. Our founding fathers and framers would not like this. And I say no. Donald Trump takes an appeal. That's what's up on appeal at the Ninth Circuit. He then says, F her. I mean, not, well, he probably said it literally in the halls of the White House, but not in writing. He said, instead he ordered that, he had Pete Hegseth order that the California National Guard, which had only been federalized and mobilized for things related to California, send them on the road.

38:36Like it's an arena tour for a rock band. Let's send them to Oregon and send Texas National Guard and all of that. And she was like, let's have a hearing, emergency hearing. And why is this not? Because we had Rob Bonta, the attorney general from California, on the night of that hearing. That's how much he wanted to talk to our Legal AF audience. And she said, according to Rob, who was in the hearing, tell me how this is not a violation of my order from Saturday. They said, well, you only ordered an Oregon National Guard. She said, you understood the spirit of my order. Okay, let me make it more clear.

39:13I'm issuing a new temporary restraining order. You are not to deploy any National Guard in Portland, Oregon. You're not to deploy them. I don't care where they are right now. Send them back to their bases and their units, and they stay there. So that hasn't been appealed. Now, why that matters is when the three judges set the oral argument, And it's Graeber, Nelson, and Bade. Graeber, Clinton, Nelson, Trump, Bade, Trump. I mean, most of their decisions, Nelson and Bade, have not been good and have been very pro-Trump, even though they were in the first wave of the first Trump administration. I've spoken to people on Legal AF contributors like Lisa Graves, who's very involved with corruption and voting and judges related to federal courts.

40:03And she was like, yeah, they're both not good. They're not good for this. Graber's Clinton, you know, sort of down the road. But they issued an order as we went on the air, and here's what they decided to do. They decide – I'll read you the highlights of it, Karen. They decided that they were going to grant the administrative stay, meaning they were going to allow Donald Trump to federalize the Oregon National Guard but not deploy them. So for now, until they make the final ruling after the hearing tomorrow. And what they said, their logic, for lack of a better term, was that since only one of the two temporary restraining orders were up in front of them on appeal, the original one, which was the federalization, and the deployment has been currently blocked by the second, which is not up on appeal, we'll thread the needle.

40:54will say administrative stay for as long as we need on the federalization, the commandeering of the National Guard troops, but you don't get to mobilize them. So it's like you get to hold the ice cream cone, Donald Trump, but you don't get to lick it. So we're going to see what happens at the hearing. We'll know better. You're laughing at that. We'll know better for the oral argument. It's up on Legal AF YouTube right now. You can set a reminder. It's going to be at about noon Eastern time, 9 a.m. Pacific time. We're going to run the live feed. It'll be audio only. We'll be there for commentary.

41:33And this is what, let me just see if there's anything more interesting in the order, which we will post on Legal AF Substack. Yeah, this is what they say on page three and four, Karen. In the circumstances here, granting an administrative stay, a short-timey stay, will best preserve the status quo, the status quo being he already nationalized them. Prior to the October 4th, Saturday temporary restraining order, the Oregon National Guard members had been federalized but not deployed. And an administrative stay will maintain the federalization of the members because that order prohibited the implementation of the order.

42:10But the second temporary restraining order has not been challenged or appealed, and it prohibits the deployment of the National Guard. Thus, in granting the administrative stay, they're very cute here, aren't they? It preserves the status quo in which the National Guard members have been federalized but not deployed. Administrative stay granted. We'll see everybody 9 o 'clock tomorrow morning. That's just – and you and I are going to know really quickly about who takes the lead and the type of – Because we knew when a different Ninth Circuit, a completely different Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled against the decision of a federal trial judge then, Judge Breyer, Charles Breyer, who ruled that also 12406 had been violated and Donald Trump couldn't federalize the California National Guard under those unique facts.

43:02And then another three-judge panel was like, nah, we're going to let him federalize. But there, at least there were rocks being thrown and a couple of cars burning. You know, it wasn't it wasn't frog and chicken suits. Right, Karen? Yeah. Look, I mean, honestly, if the if they are allowed to federalize and deploy it, if I were there, I just say, you know what, don't protest. Just let them don't don't give them what they want. Don't give them an opportunity to make chaos because they're going to tear gas people. They're going to, you know, you've seen people thrown to the ground. You've seen people really handled poorly.

43:41And then it creates this video of, oh, look, look what's here. I mean, ignore them, you know, let them guard their federal buildings because that's all they're really allowed to do. Right. Let them guard the federal buildings and go about your life. Like it's a joke. It's a total joke. So don't let them, if they are forced to be allowed to have them there, that would be my tactic because they can't really do much, right? That's not what they're supposed to do. And, of course, if they think they're being attacked, then they're going to just draw, you know, they're going to put out those videos and use those things to justify their existence.

44:16I would, you know, see if we could just ignore them because there's really not, they're not worth, it's just not worth it, right? It's not worth it if all they're doing is guarding the buildings, because that's really all they're really allowed to do. Yeah, absolutely. Here's what Oregon's attorney general said last paragraph of his filing to the Ninth Circuit. He says the broader public interest supports the district court's order. The traditional and strong resistance of Americans to a military intrusion into civilian affairs has deep roots in our history, citing the same case that the judge had cited.

44:48As discussed above, defendants have exceeded the scope of their statutory authority and their acting contrary to the constitutional federal state balance. Defendants' nearly limitless conception of the statute about commandeering the National Guard give the president discretion to repeat this experiment in response to other ordinary nonviolent acts of civil disobedience across our nation. The public interest is served by a judicial order preserving the rule of law in the face of unprecedented and unlawful executive action that threatens grave and irreparable damage to our state and the nation.

45:25That's what's at stake. Putting aside all the all the guffawing I was doing about chicken suits, that is what is at stake. I mean, there's a reason Judge Immergut cited to James Madison at the first, you know, convention, constitutional convention, about the problem with having a standing army being used by a quote unquote overgrown president. It's great when you're fighting a foreign enemy outside, you know, but that same standing army could be used for tyranny quickly when used by an overgrown president. It isn't you can call Donald Trump many things, but overgrown president, I think, perfectly, perfectly spots it.

46:07As James Madison said, Karen, I was going to move on to Pam Bondi. What do you think about that? Talk about it. Yeah. Let's do it. We'll split Bondi in half. I don't mean literally, although we'll talk about we'll talk about some of Bondi now. And then we'll pick up with Bondi after another commercial break later. And what happened at the United States Supreme Court. So Pam Bondi gets called in to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Which is routine and normal and is done all the time. Yeah, yeah. This is the same group that confirmed her. This is the same group that she swore that she, as she got sworn in, that she swore would be independent, that she would not take direction from Donald Trump, like social media posts that say, Pam, you're running out of time.

46:54Indite all my people that I want indicted, or whatever he wrote, which she did. and now though we got a whole new version of Pam but you could tell the strain of the office is wearing on her I've said that we're watching the incredible shrinking Donald Trump because he's just shrinking before our very eyes everything he does where he thinks he looks like a strong tough guy and all that it just he the public is rejecting him and Trumpism and he's about three and a half he's like that guy that's four and a half foot tall and he wants to be a starter on the NBA as a center. He just doesn't realize he's tiny.

47:27He's a tiny, tiny little man. And we're all seeing it. And you see her, you know, one way to interpret her body language and her fighting and her, as I said during my podcast yesterday, this clutching at pearls. And she was reached for a fan at one point. Oh, I do declare you're attacking my ethics. I'm like, yeah, sit down, Pam. Yeah, yeah. We're talking about your Department of Justice, which Dick Durbin called effectively the most corrupt Department of Justice we've ever seen that you presided over. And there were there was several key moments in that, you know, about, you know, things that are in the press, like the Tom Homan bribery video.

48:09It's hard to believe there is. There's that face again. We should use that and put that in our library and constantly use that for panponding. The Tom, there's a video. Democracy Forward, who works with us on Legal AF, just filed a lawsuit to get the video. Finally, there's a video. But, you know, she decides, no, I'm going to tangle with Sheldon Whitehouse because Sheldon Whitehouse might have known Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn at some point. And maybe that's connected to Epstein. It's just the sheer madness of it all. Let's play that clip.

48:47Legal AF:Senator, as Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche recently stated, the investigation of Mr. Holman was subjected to a full review by the FBI. Agents and DOJ prosecutors, they found no credible evidence of any wrongdoing. And that was not my question. My question was, what became of the$50 ,000 in cash that the FBI delivered, evidently in a paper bag, to Mr. Holman? senator i'd look at your facts

49:21Legal AF:are you saying that they did not deliver fifty thousand dollars in cash to mr homin as recently stated the investigation of mr homin was subjected to a full review question by the fbi agents that's by department of justice prosecutors they found no evidence of wrongdoing That's a different question. What became of the$50 ,000? Did the FBI get it back? Mr. Whitehouse, excuse me, Senator Whitehouse, you're welcome to talk to the FBI. The report to you, can't you answer this question? Senator Whitehouse, you're welcome to discuss this with Director Patel. Did Homan keep the$50 ,000? As Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche recently stated The investigation of Mr.

50:11Legal AF:Holman I can see I'm not going to get a straight answer from you To a very simple question By the FBI agents and the DOJ They found no credible evidence of wrongdoing You know, you're very concerned about money And people taking money And you rail against dark money Yet you work with dark money groups all the time Senator Whitehouse Wait a second, did you know it's all about the what about is and what about that time that you stood with casa incorporated she accused one of the senators they know antifa i'm not accusing you of being antifa somebody thought this was an effective strategy for responding to u.s senators providing their oversight duties how do you think it went karen i mean i was appalled you should be able to answer basic questions but she had some pre-written answers that she was going to give no matter what the questions were.

51:02And that's all she gave, but she was totally evasive and did not provide they look, the Senate has an oversight function. That is what they do. They have, and the judiciary committee has always had what, whether it's director of the FBI or the head of the, you know, the attorney general, whoever it is, they have them to come in for hearings. And these are basic questions, right? $50 ,000 was given as bait, right? This was a sting operation by the FBI with Tom Homan. So these are marked bills. When you use bills as bait, you literally, you keep track of the serial numbers because you want to see if you recover the exact same ones.

51:47You put them in a bag, but they're real dollars. And you put them in a bag and you go and you do your sting operation, which they filmed or audio taped. I've heard both. And they go in and they record it. But these are pros. They rehearse it ahead of time. What are you going to say? What are the elements of bribery? Let's make sure that we use the proper words. And they go in and they did the things that they were supposed to do. Money was exchanged. changed. Holman accepted the bag of money. And I think it's a fair question to know, where are those dollars that the FBI provided, right? Did the FBI get it back?

52:25Did it go back into the FBI coffers? Is it taxpayer dollars? I mean, where is that money? It's a fair question. And she went on later saying, also saying that, you know, that investigation was closed before I was confirmed. And so, therefore, she knows nothing about it. I mean, that is absurd, right that is appalling this wasn't something that happened 20 years ago this happened like the day before she was confirmed or the week before she was this was very recent and so the fact that i i don't i actually don't believe that she doesn't know more about it and if she doesn't know more about it i think it's actually she's not doing her job and she's not a very good attorney general she should know exactly the facts of the most important cases that have been going on and that have been investigated open or closed and that are of public interest and that are important since Trump took office only a few months ago, right?

53:15It's not like he's been in office for four years and she's a new attorney general and this was three and a half years ago and so she doesn't know. It's only been in office for what, eight months? And there haven't been that many huge investigations. She should know all of the details, all of the facts. And I think she's just stonewalling the Senate. And I don't think that's right. I think that the American people have a right to know that the Senate is doing their job by checks and balances, right? This is what the legislative branch is supposed to do if they're doing their job and their oversight over the executive branch.

53:46And she wasn't answering. And she was, frankly, obstructing their answers. Yeah, we got more of Pam Bonding, not less. And it doesn't get any better when she starts fielding some questions from what's supposed to be softballs from senators like Kennedy. Not that one. The MAGA Republican one. We'll call it. We will cover that. Where am I going with that? We will cover that and the opening of the United States Supreme Court's 2526 term. We're already exhausted by the emergency shadow docket. But, yes, the term is open for the regular appeals. And to answer the question that's come up in the chat before, that does not stop the emergency docket.

54:28That goes on parallel with this. So it's 70 cases or so that will be taken up at the Supreme Court and then another thousand that will be emergency docket applications that you and Karen and I and Ben will have to cover. But let's let's talk about this ecosystem again. And great news as I came on the air, our producer told us that, this is all a testament to the fervent support of our audience that we adore, Legal AF, the podcast on YouTube rankings for this week, is now at, wait for it, number 25. And I'm talking like all genres. Like we're up against like Who's Your Daddy and other podcasts you may or may not have heard of.

55:12It's not like news. And like we were number one law and politics, no doubt. Because if we're 25 with that August body, you know, the Midas Brothers are number two. And then there's a little podcast called The Intersection with Michael Popak that's number 96 that came in the top 100 again this week. But that is, it's working. The hummingbird thing is working. You're watching us here on YouTube. You're letting your friends know about us. You're going over to the audio version on Apple and Spotify, leaving five-star reviews and listening over there. coming over to Legal AF to sub stack the YouTube chat, sorry, Legal AF YouTube.

55:49Sorry, it's been a long day. And subscribing there. That's why we just crossed 270 million views of all the work that we have there. And we can bring on like Rob Bonta, Attorney General, California last minute, and all the alumni from the Department of Justice are now coming over to Legal AF to do a regular playlist along with Democracy Forward and their 90 cases at ACLU. I mean, we want to be under one roof, one-stop shopping for law and politics. And we're rapidly becoming that because of you. Then we got the Legal AF sub stack. And some people, I had a friend of mine write me recently. It was very sweet.

56:25The text was, how do I, I want to make an investment. I want to invest in Legal AF. And she meant like literally like stroking a check. And I was like, I love that. I love what that demonstrates or indicates about you and your commitment. But no, we don't do that. But there is a way to kind of have a piece of the rock and be a full-fledged card-carrying member of Legal AF. Come over to Legal AF, the sub-stack, where we're doing live reportings and 10 different postings a day. And you can become a paid member. It's relatively inexpensive. It's like$7 a month, not a week. And I assure you, I'm focused on the quality of the content there.

57:00So it far surpasses that price. And then we've got our sponsors. And here's another word from our sponsors. If you notice more hair in your brush lately, you're not imagining it. Seasonal shedding and breakage really pick up when the weather turns cooler and drier. I've seen it myself. But OneSkin's OS1 hair can help. This is a scalp serum powered by their patented OS1 peptide. And it works by targeting the cells in your hair follicles that contribute to shedding, thinning, and slower hair growth. OS1 hair can actually reactivate the hair growth cycle and promote thicker, fuller, and denser hair.

57:36The clinical studies behind it are impressive. After six months, people saw a 43 % increase in hair thickness and a 40 % increase in hair density, along with less shedding and more fullness. The science is real and people are seeing results. Born from over 10 years of longevity research, OneSkin's OS1 peptide is proven to target the cells that cause the visible signs of aging. So your scalp and your hair stay healthy now and as you age. go to oneskin.co slash hair. That's oneskin.co slash hair and use code legal AF for 15 % off your first order. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them.

58:17Please tell them we sent you. That's oneskin.co slash hair and use code legal AF for 15 % off. In this crazy upside down world that we're working to make sense of, I have no better judge of character than my lab Border Collie Lily. And having given her her forever home, we take pride in making sure that we feed her healthy, fresh dog food while making sure we don't break our back or the bank doing so. And my family is thrilled to have found Sundays for Lily, having tried other freezer box brands, and we noticed the improved health of our dog almost right away. First, she loves the flavor, and we love what it's done to her coat, eyes, and breath.

58:58And with her weight management, it so much easier to manage your weight with a scoop of sundaes than any other product we tried. And this product is super easy for us to store and serve. It doesn't require refrigeration or the delivery of dozens of pounds of ice packs. Sundaes is fresh dog food made from a short list of human-grade ingredients. Sundaes contains 100 % all-natural meat and superfoods and 0 % synthetic nutrients or artificial ingredients. Dog parents report noticeable health improvements in their pups, including softer fur, fresher breath, better poops, and more energy after switching to Sundays.

59:34Unlike other fresh dog foods, Sundays does not require refrigeration or preparation because of their air drying process. Just pour and serve, cancel or pause your subscription anytime with their 14-day money-back guarantee. Every order ships right to your door, so you'll never worry about running out of dog food again. Did I mention how easy and convenient it is to store the bags insert big wife smile here get 40 off your first order of sundays go to sundays for dogs.com slash legal af or use code legal af at checkout welcome back to legal af the leading law and politics podcast according to the youtube rankings i love saying something like that um let's continue with pam bondy not because we want to but because we have to it's like a train wreck you can't look at it you can't look away whenever she whenever she is is so incompetent, obscenely unqualified for that job.

1:00:30Say what you want about Merrick Garland. You know, he was a little bit slow on the trigger. He was, oh, he's not moving fast enough. But, you know, he was at least an adult. He at least had gravitas. We felt like we may not agree with the direction of every aspect of the Department of Justice, but he didn't preside over the destruction of the Civil Rights Division, the public integrity unit, everything about counterintelligence. He didn't fire 5 ,000 people, the best and the brightest that you could never get back. It's hard to believe. We're looking back at the halcyon days, the golden era of Merrick Garland.

1:01:11I said she was going to be this bad. We all said it. And now it's on full display. So she gets the point, Karen, just to set the stage where maybe she wasn't ready. It was one of these softballs that bounced off her forehead because I don't think Kennedy thought this was going to be a difficult line of questions. Epstein's back, right? And the problem is that somebody I used to work with named Howard Lutnick back in the day decided to go on and give an interview on a podcast. Who in their right mind goes on a podcast? but he decided and the one he wanted to go on was pod force one that's owned by rupert murdoch in the new york post i'm like what could go wrong so he starts admitting things that frankly i not that i would ever know it anyway but i hadn't even heard in the media which is not only did he live next door as we knew and bought the house from jeffrey epstein and they shared a wall because they had adjoining townhouses.

1:02:17But he went into the house in 2005, saw the massage table with his wife, Allison, I'm talking about Howard, and was like creeped out by what was like suspected wrongdoing, and then didn't say anything about it. It's the guy who had children living next door. He saw, it's like you live next door to a serial killer, and you see the hitchhikers going in, but not coming out and you don't call the authorities. So that's a problem. Then he all of a sudden turns in the interview, and I have it up in a video on Legally F YouTube. He turns in the interview to start talking about, oh yeah, everybody that knew Epstein was a participant in Bill Gates.

1:02:59He said Bill Gates, like Donald Trump. I mean, he didn't say Donald Trump. So everybody that knew Jeffrey Epstein, who was his best friend and was socialized, participated in all the depraved child sex trafficking. Is that what you're trying to say? And then he turns to Jeffrey Epstein was the greatest blackmailer of all time. And then continues, Karen, and says, he is sure that, because he's a broker in his mind, there was a trade. He probably traded the videos of important people, like his boss, having sex with raping girls with the prosecutors in Miami to get that sweetheart deal of 17 months?

1:03:40How did he get that deal, Howard speculated? Well, that is completely counter to the FBI's position. Cash Patel swore under oath that there's nobody else involved. The only one that was child sex trafficked, it was only to Jeffrey Epstein, or I would prosecute it. That's not what Howard Lutnick says. So, and you've done prosecution related to this type of thing, right? Oh, yeah. I mean, I wanted to ask him so many questions of that interview, right? Like he was saying, oh, he's the greatest blackmailer of all time. Really? How do you know that? Because you just said after that one time that you went in there with your wife and was creeped out, you never talked to him again and never saw him again.

1:04:18So either you saw something or people told you, right? What was going on? Like he had very specific information that I would just would love to know more of. Where did he get that? And how did he know that? And why didn't he say anything about it, as you said? Well, you might get your chance because here's a clip of Senator Kennedy asking very similar questions as my podcast partner and friend Karen Freeman Ignifilo to one Pamela Jo Bondi. Roll it. Secretary Howard Lutnick on October 1 gave an interview to the New York Post about Mr. Epstein. And he described Mr. Epstein as, quote, the greatest blackmailer ever, close quote.

1:05:04Have you reviewed that transcript of that interview?

1:05:07Legal AF:I have not reviewed the transcript, but I saw the clip of it. Okay. It appears that Secretary Lutnick was Mr. Epstein's next door neighbor. In fact, their townhomes shared a wall.

1:05:28And the reporter that was asking, talking to Mr. Lutnick, she asked how how other prominent men could have been associated with Epstein when Mr. Lutnick could immediately sense that he was a, quote, pervert. And then Secretary Lutnick said, or rather the reporter said, did they see it and ignore it? Do you remember that from the interview? I do. and Commerce Secretary Lutnick said, no, they participated.

1:06:04And then Commerce Secretary Lutnick goes on to say, quote, that's what his MO was. You know, get a massage, get a massage. And what happened in that massage room, I assume, was a video. This guy was the greatest blackmailer ever, blackmailed people. That's how he had money, end quote. Is that true?

1:06:32Legal AF:Senator, as our July memo said, we did not uncover evidence. This case has gone through three administrations, as well as former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. I know that, Pam, but have you interviewed Secretary Lutnik? No, Senator. Do you plan to? If he wants to talk to the FBI or the FBI wants to talk to him, that is more than honest. Don't you think you ought to talk to him after this interview? Senator, if Howard Lutnick wants to speak to the FBI and if Director Patel wants to speak to Howard Lutnick, absolutely. Okay. Maybe we ought to get Mr. Lutnick in here too, Mr. Chairman. Maybe we ought to get Mr.

1:07:13Lutnick in here too, Mr. Chairman. That is not what Pam Bondi wanted to hear. But this is an administration that operates with impunity and has a tone deafness about them, that they're in some rarefied world that they're untouchable because their fearless leader is. If you were to piece together, but they don't have immunity. He does. They might have future pardons in their back pocket, but they don't have immunity. See, Howard obviously was trying to spin the narrative about how he lived next door to what would have been a convicted child sex trafficker for so many years and threw in something nobody knew.

1:07:56Nobody else knew about. The guy is dead. Nobody knew about the visit between Howard, Alice, and his wife and Epstein but Howard. But Howard had to keep talking away there. I was in the house. I saw the massage table. Well, if everybody that knew Epstein participated, like Bill Gates, then why not Donald Trump? So he threw Trump under the bus. He destroyed Kash Patel's under oath statement that they found no credible evidence of anybody being involved other than Jeffrey Epstein. And I think Kennedy did his job, whether he wanted to or not. and Bondi was left looking like a complete and utter nitpump poop.

1:08:42What did you think, Karen? I mean, the crazy thing about that hearing and about Pam Bondi is if she had evidence that absolved or exonerated people like Donald Trump, she would be presenting it, she'd be waving it, she'd be having it on big poster boards, but instead she says, oh, I'm just not going to answer those questions. I'm not going to tell you whether or not we have this or I didn't see the file or I don't know anything. And so all of the different things that she was asked, that she was completely evasive, like the$50 ,000 for Tom Homan in the bribe or all the Epstein questions about was was there a picture with Trump?

1:09:24was, you know, all the different things that they were asking about Levitt, about all the specifics that she just kept deflecting and refusing to answer and instead attacking them and saying things like, Tom Homan is a, he's a, I forgot what she called him, but, you know, she went on about how great he is and how he's protecting our borders and, you know, how he's this loyal, upstanding American. You know, if she had evidence that he didn't do it, you'd be damn. I would I would give you any amount of money. I would say I would bet that she would absolutely be waving that exonerating evidence at the hearing to exonerate all of those people, including Donald Trump when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein.

1:10:10So the fact that she was deflecting, refusing to answer, giving these these canned answers and then saying things like, oh, no, you're the one taking dark, dark money or you owe Donald Trump an apology for defaming him, you know, doing that kind of stuff. I don't it doesn't help her. And it certainly doesn't help Trump or any of the other individuals. It just makes them look more guilty because she is the one who no one believes she hasn't looked in these files. No one believes that she hasn't seen all of the evidence, that she hasn't seen everything that's in all of those files. She's not that she's not incompetent in that regard.

1:10:45Of course, she knows what's in there. And so the fact that she isn't saying that it's not that that they're innocent and that there's evidence of innocence in there, I would read into that in a big way, because that to me is more telling. She is the person in the know. And so that, I just thought it looked so terrible on the administration, her testimony, and I think it really backfired. I agree with you. And she said, well, Secretary Lutnick wants to talk to the FBI. The FBI wants to, what are you effing talking about? Even Kennedy was like, maybe we need to bring Lutnick in and put him under oath.

1:11:16How about that? Exactly. And again, the Epstein stain, the stench of the Epstein cover-up scandal continues to follow this administration around because Donald Trump refuses to level with the American people about his relationship, about their financial ties, if there were any, and to release the files because there are embarrassing things in it. You know if there were nothing in there about him that was embarrassing, they'd already be out. It'd be published in a book by Heritage Foundation Press, right? They'd be doing a rally about it. But no, so we have to conclude, just like we would in court.

1:11:56Look, if a party fails to produce documents or information or spoliates them, destroys them, a judge and a jury can conclude through an adverse inference that the documents that are missing are not helpful and are harmful to the position of the party that's withholding the documents. Okay, nation, Trump is withholding the documents. We can therefore make an adverse inference that anything, they're not helpful, they're harmful. And that's, so let's move on. But no, I'd also like to see the Epstein files. So the Supreme Court opened for business. And two oral arguments already in the books, one involving conversion therapy.

1:12:48Why is it always, it's always Christians that are trying to not bake a cake or not build a wedding website for gays or wanting to do therapy that it's documented by the medical and psychological professions is harmful to people to try to change them back, have them stop being gay or whatever it is or transgender. And the fight was over as First Amendment speech, that the patient has the right to hear the conversion therapy and the Christian therapist has the right to offer their opinions and open up the hood of the person's mind and monkey around in there and make it worse. And the question is, is that true or not?

1:13:38Is that right or not? What was your takeaway from the majority MAGA 6 and how they handled that oral argument? Yeah. So, look, this came about as a therapist in Colorado who, this hadn't happened to her yet, but theoretically, if she wanted to do this conversion therapy or this pray away the gay therapy, as I like to call it, that there's a law in Colorado, like in 20 other states, that says you're not allowed to do this conversion therapy, that it's actually harmful. And the MAGA majority justices basically are reviewing this from a First Amendment standpoint. They're saying, no, that law banning this conversion therapy is infringing on the First Amendment freedom of religion rights and speech rights of this therapist and the patients who she claims.

1:14:38And by the way, this law only applies to minors. So it's really the parents who would have to consent to this on behalf of their kids. And so if it's a First Amendment, if this is a First Amendment right, and that's the analysis they were trying to adopt here, then any law that infringes upon a First Amendment right has to go through the highest level of strict scrutiny. It's a very high standard. standard and and that's where they I think if they adopt that standard they're going to say potentially I think they're going to rule that the law is unconstitutional and but what really bothered me about this is is how is this first amendment right this isn't I just don't see this as a first amendment issue this is medical treatment right this is not speech this is no one's saying she can't go out and speak openly about her religion and her beliefs and that she's anti-gay.

1:15:42It's a matter of her administering a medical procedure. And mental health therapy is medical. It is a medical procedure that you are giving to somebody. And it made me think to myself, it's interesting how they want to give her a First Amendment right or therapist a First right, to be able to try and do this, what has been proven to be a harmful medical procedure on somebody, but yet they won't then for transgender care, when a doctor and a patient make a decision that they want to take drugs or have surgery to change their body, right? Children who want to do that and who make that very difficult decision to undergo that, But it is a decision that is not protected, right?

1:16:31That, no, we're going to regulate that. That's a harmful medical procedure. To me, this is no different and should be treated the same. And the fact that they're going to say, oh, no, no, you can do this harmful thing. Like, you can't have it both ways. But so it's clear to me what's happening is, look, this is the separation of church and state no longer exists. And the Supreme Court, the MAGA right, is bringing their religious views into and their conservative MAGA religious views into the court. and they are going to make legal arguments to fit what their ideological viewpoint is, because it is inconsistent, in my view, to apply one standard for one and one for another.

1:17:19I mean, therapy isn't speech. It's treatment. It's a medical treatment. And so, but I think, I mean, I don't have a crystal ball, but I think that there's a chance that, you know, that, that she wins and that the rights of LGBTQ people are really, really put back. And it's really harmful. You know, it's, it's, there's been, there's been studies that talk about how this conversion therapy has, can be very harmful and create, can, can actually be worse, right. For people who then could want to consider suicide or, or, you know, other, other really harmful acts because you're being told that who you are, there's something wrong with you.

1:18:02And it's really sad. This case makes me sad. Yeah. And there's a MAGA majority to find on First Amendment grounds that conversion therapy bans in 22 states, including Colorado, violate the First Amendment under strict scrutiny. And I think that's what the ruling is going to be, Just managing expectations here. As we roll into the second case, which was a case on its face, the merits of the case is about whether states like Illinois and other places can extend the time for a postmarked ballot, postmarked on the day of the election, but received up to 12 or 14 days later, because the mail sucks, especially overseas mail, is unconstitutional.

1:18:50or not, does it violate, does it fundamentally have a state through its rules change the essence of the election and the day of the election, which is set by Constitution? I mean, Donald Trump wants an election day. He doesn't want early voting. He doesn't want mail-in voting, except when he was using it himself back in the day. Absentee voting, all the things that he sees as an advantage of the Democrats. he wants good old-fashioned stand in line like you know back in the day um yeah because like when i first started voting and you too karen there wasn't early voting there was mail-in there was absentee and there was mail-in it was strict but you had to like go down to the firehouse and stand in line you got to a giant okay kids gather around you it's gonna be a history lesson you went to this giant gray metal cabinet from like the 1960s or 50s that was mechanical, not electronic.

1:19:51You went in, they closed the curtain, you switched the switch, they closed the curtain, and you went down with levers on a paper ballot that was thread through the back of the machine, and you hit your switches, and there was one big giant switch. You sure you're ready to vote at the top? Yes. And then that ballot got dumped into the bottom of this giant machine and locked away until they collected all the ballots. That was voting. And Donald Trump likes to want to go back to a version of that because Democrats always have an advantage of getting souls to the polls and getting ballots and all that.

1:20:30So that's the merits, but that's not what was on full display in the oral argument because there, this was a procedural question as to whether a candidate who didn't lose by a little, but lost by a lot could still have standing the legal right to challenge who has the right, I guess is a better way to put it, and who can bring a lawsuit to challenge things like a state's election laws, which they're allowed to do by federal constitution, about whether it conflicts with another aspect of the constitution or not. Who is the injured party? And you had a couple of people who challenged, you know, MAGA Trumpers, but they didn't suffer any harm on the mail-in ballot problem because they didn't lose by the difference of the mail-in ballots.

1:21:20And Paul Clement, who's kind of come out and helped a lot of targets of Donald Trump as a former solicitor general for George Bush, he was on the side of these people. He tried to frame it as the campaign continuing for an additional 12 days. The postmark has to be the day of the election. It has to be in the bag. Like, you're not campaigning to change the hearts and minds of people waiting for their votes to come in. They should have already voted. But what was your impression of how that's going to go down with the MAGA 6? I mean, I think that's, first of all, I think that's a weird argument, you know, because as the circuit below said, look, that was your choice to keep campaigning two weeks afterward.

1:22:00You know, no one said you had to do that. As you said, it had to be postmarked by the day. I mean, look, there's some interesting questions because on the one hand, you know, you don't want to make the rules harder for bringing election law challenges. But on the other hand, if it make it too easy, you'll flood the courts with a gazillion lawsuits and you'll never have results of any election. So, you know, it's a tricky case. The whole thing about mail-in ballots, I mean, that's just going to impact so many people who are in the military who are overseas. It's going to impact so many people. But this is just the fight continues on, you know, this is all about Donald Trump's crazy assertion that the election was stolen and he's so anti-mailing ballots.

1:22:45So we'll see. We'll see whether the MAGA is going to try to, whether the MAGA right Supreme Court majority, which is really what they are at this point, what they're going to do and whether they're going to continue to do Trump's bidding or not. But I could see them. I could see them here. I think the argument that having too many lawsuits and never having elections be finalized, I could see that carrying the day ultimately, because, you know, well, I don't know. I'm not as trusting as you are. I think they're going to allow, they're going to widen the net of who has standing to bring these types of lawsuits.

1:23:30And they're going to loosen up the reins of injury and not require that a person show that the election outcome for their election would have been different based on the mail -in ballot or whatever election rule that we're talking about. I think there's no doubt in my mind that they're going to instruct federal courts below them to loosen up the ropes about standing, even though standing is the most fundamental thing. You see, we've talked about this before, right, Karen, with our audience. When the administration, it's all reverse engineering. when they don't want to reach something that would be helpful to like the liberal side or the democratic side.

1:24:17They say, well, we'd love to help you, but this case we have to dismiss because there's no standing for the people that have brought it. Sorry, it's a nice case, probably would have helped a lot of people in America, but you don't have standing. And then you got to go scramble to go find somebody who does have standing. But here they're like, yeah, go ahead. No, I was going to say that that could be, that's what they should say to the therapist in Colorado. Yes. Right. There's no case in controversy there. She wasn't, She wasn't, it wasn't like she was disciplined for providing this therapy. I mean.

1:24:44How about the website designer? She didn't even have a company. It was a fictitious company that she didn't even have up and running. She never designed a website in her life. Yeah. They, they, they bend the rules when. Yes. They make them up. And when they can't find one in the toolbox, you know, like when you're in your garage or whatever, you know, and you're looking for something. God damn it. I wish I had that. They just make it up. They're like, oh, I wish there was a rule that we could, who could create that. Right. We can't. That when you're too close to an election, you can't. Okay, the Purcell Doctrine.

1:25:15People are like, that must have come from, sprung from the head of our framers at the Constitutional Convention. Like, no. Originalism, textualism, right? Oh, we must divine the meaning of what our framers said. Oh, that must have been part of the Constitution, right? No, it's made up bullshit that didn't even take root until the 1980s with people like, Robert Bork carried forward by Alito until they got enough MAGA 6 to get a majority. It's all made up shit. That's why people have no confidence in the United States Supreme Court. And then, as we've talked about in the shadow docket, they don't even bother explaining themselves anymore.

1:25:58They've reached the point where they're just like, just take our word for it. This is the ruling. What is it based on? We're not going to tell you. Where's the logic? Well, that's for another day. Where's the analysis? Where's the precedent being used? Well, you know, that's just getting in the way, as the Sam Alito one said during an oral argument. Let's not get bogged down in the facts of this case. I was like, what are you even, are you just admitting out loud that you don't even care to be in appellate court anymore? You're just issuing advisory opinions that try to bind us? I mean, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, all kidding aside, is a serious, serious matter, which is why the next administration, hopefully with a big D next to its name, needs to address that we need Supreme Court reform.

1:26:46There is no, and federal court reform, there is no doubt in my mind now that in order to avoid a future Trump or a series of Trumps, we have to, whenever we grab the reins of power, we're going to have to pack the court to quote, you know, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. We need 15 seats. We need to add six more to balance this out and get a nine to six majority of free thinking people. And then, you know what? Give me and you a shot. We've had generations, three generations of complete Republican control of the United States Supreme Court. You know, the presidency, sometimes we get it, sometimes we don't, the full House, the Senate.

1:27:29We haven't had the Supreme Court led by Democrats in like 75 years. Give us a shot, folks. Let's pack the court. Let's get 15 or more on there and let's return civility to American life. What do you say? I mean, it would be nice to just have also judges who just actually interpret the law. Like, you know, it's just. You cock-eyed optimist, Karen. You're not happening in this world. We just got to play by the new rules and beat them at their own game. I mean, you know, to use a sports metaphor, you know, Florida teams are winning the Stanley Cup. You know, who would have thought ice hockey in Florida?

1:28:16All right, we've been given the rules. We got to beat them at their own game. Yes, keep our ethics, keep our morality, but stop with the niceties and stop with the, I'd like to even see sharper questioning in the Supreme Court. I'd like to see a better job being done by the legal counsel that supply a lot of the cross-examination questions to the senators and the congresspeople. I mean, some of them are former prosecutors, so they know what they're doing. But I could have seen a stronger cross-examination. And the problem with even the senators, Karen, is that they're so like sort of suffused in the traditions of the Senate and all that, that even when they get a lying sack of you know what, like Pam Bonney in front of them, they can't switch gears quick enough.

1:28:59You and I in court, you and I'll come in with our rough outline of how we'd like to do a witness or handle a certain legal issue. And then in the fog of war, you know, it all gets lost. And you've got to quickly, you've got to quickly pivot. You got to throw away your outline, take your legal pad. I once had a case, Karen, where in the middle of my opening in front of a jury, the judge stopped me, called us all up to the podium and said, you can't make the defense that you're making. I said, excuse me? They said, no, I'm going to make a ruling now. I'm going to grant this other motion that had been floating around for years.

1:29:40And you now have to redo your entire opening statement. I'll give you two hours at a lunch break. So I'm there on a yellow pad in a diner in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, like pages were like flying in the air. It was like a Tasmanian devil. But I pulled it together and I gave an F in opening and we won the case. And I want to see a little bit more of that when the Senate and the House get their get their myths and their grips into cabinet members like RFK Jr. and Pete Hegseth and Pam Bondi. We better be learning from what's going on in these rooms just as they are. Yeah, I mean, I hope you're right.

1:30:19But what we've seen so far is all the administration, all they do is obstruct. They do not answer questions. So no matter how good the questions are, no matter how strong and sharp they are, the administration just doesn't, just refuses to comply and refuses to participate and just deflect. And I think we hold it against them. You know, and if I was one of the senators, I would say so I would basically say so if you had evidence that this did not happen, I assume you would bring it here. Right. And, you know, like she's have to answer that. Right. I assume if there if there's no evidence of Donald Trump in the Epstein files, you would tell us.

1:30:55Right. I mean, you know, you have to bait her into into answering some questions. And I agree with you. They have to get better at it, but they have to figure out a way to get the questions answered. They just do. And I hope, you know, a lot of them are fans of Legal AF. Sheldon Whitehouse is going to be on Legal AF tomorrow, being interviewed by Adam Klassfeld of All Rise News with us here on Legal AF. And, you know, we've had a number of these people on and Jamie Raskin's been on with us on Legal AF. And that is... I hope Adam doesn't say, Popak thinks you should ask better questions. No, but I did write a note to Adam that said that I was disappointed.

1:31:35I wanted to tell Senator Whitehouse that I was disappointed when he asked the questions about the photographs that that have been that were in Epstein's house of Donald Trump with girls on his lap, that they didn't also use the Legal AF video that they that Jamie Raskin and Ted Lieu used two weeks earlier in the house. Like, oh, here's our moment. Legal AF is going to be back in the hearing room. No. So no, that was, no, Adam will do a great job. And Sheldon's a friend of Legal AF. He's very close. People may not know this, but one of the great contributors on Legal AF is Court Accountability Action led by Alex Aronson and Lisa Graves.

1:32:13Lisa Graves has a brand, a beautiful new book out. She's been sounding the alarm about John Roberts for like 30 years and finally wrote a book called Without Precedent about John Roberts being a Trojan horse and what he's doing to destroy America. It's a beautiful book. It's required reading for legal affairs that she's with Court Accountability Action. But Alex Aronson was Sheldon Whitehouse's chief legal counsel on Capitol Hill. and they have a very close relationship and he's often with us over on Legal AF as well as we're trying to bring newsmakers and the lawyers that are in the courtroom all together in one place, in one ecosystem.

1:32:51Karen, we're at the end. What do you got? What do you got for the audience? You know, tonight's episode makes me want to go have a glass of Willamette Valley Pinot Noir because I'm just thinking back to my times in Oregon and there's just no bitter wine than from the Willamette Valley. I saw your, I was going to say earlier, I'm wearing blue, you're wearing red, but it's more like wine. So maybe it's more red where you are. But if you're around next, a week from Saturday, I'm going to be in San Diego doing a live Legal AF hot take interview of Rob Bond of the Attorney General on the stage at a thing called La Di Gra, which is a bunch of lawyers getting together.

1:33:37and he's one of the keynotes and I'm going to be doing an interview of him. But the next day, there's a podcast called Bourbon of Proof. Do you drink bourbon? I do not. Okay. Bourbon of Proof. It's run by a lawyer named Robert Simon. And we're going to do a crossover episode. Bourbon of Proof meets Legal AF on a music stage where they're going to have DJs, house music DJs later in the day. I think it may end up being like drunk Shakespeare. It I think it's been fun. I think it sounds fun. Right. So look for that. Look for that starting Dixie. We're actually going to do the Rob Bonta interview, and we'll put it up soon, as a live.

1:34:17So people kind of get used to us doing live feeds like that. And we're so pleased to have people like Rob Bonta coming on Legal AF and so supportive of everything that we do here, as I am of you and all of your great work. We've reached the end of another episode of Legal AF. the number 25 ranked podcast on legal a on YouTube weekly rankings just out today. And that's all a testament to your support. We really do appreciate all of it. So shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal AFers.