Legal AF Full Episode - 11/22/2025

27:58Michael Popok:Please support our show and tell them we sent you. This fall, nourish your body and mind with Mudwater, a perfect addition to your self-care routine as the weather cools and the days get shorter. Welcome back to Legal AF. Thank you to our sponsors. The discount codes are in the description below. Support our sponsors. They support our show and they're really good sponsors, really good stuff that we support as well and that we use. And thanks to Jordy for negotiating those great discounts for the Legal AF listeners and viewers. So just the one thing I wanted to mention about Howard Lutnick, he's the Commerce Secretary, billionaire, runs a company called Cantor Fitzgerald.

28:37There are a lot of subsidiaries there. Cantor's now run by his 20-year-old kids who are basically running the company. One of the business lines that they're doing right now to make money, though, is they're going to companies that are cash strapped that may be entitled to refunds in the form of the tariffs that they've paid on the imports because American companies pay the taxes. It's because tariffs are taxes. If the Supreme Court overrules Trump's trade war against the world, these companies in America that have paid the tariffs to the government, paid the taxes, are entitled to a refund, 100 % of the refund, but they've been screwed by the tariffs.

29:19So they're losing a lot of money and many are close to bankruptcy. So they need cash right now. So that's where Lutnick's company comes in and goes to them and says, hey, I hear you're a bit cash strapped by our policies. We think the Supreme Court may overturn our policies. So I know you need the money now because it could be a little tricky filling out these applications to the Commerce Department that Howard Lutnick runs. And he goes, hey, what if we bought those refund rights that you may have in the future? Pull it right now. We'll pay you right now. So even if the Supreme Court doesn't rule against the administration, no matter what, you'll get the money right now.

30:01That's the risk that Lutnick's company is going to take. But we're going to buy it for 40 cents on the dollar or 50 cents on the dollar. So if you were entitled to a$10 million rebate or refund, we'll pay you$4 million right now. And then we'll be responsible for collecting it in the future. And who knows what the Supreme Court's going to do.

30:22Michael Popok:So two quick observations to be perfectly candid with our audience. People know I worked at Cantor Fitzgerald five years ago. I was the global head of litigation. I worked under Howard at one point before he went off the deep end and became a Trump MAGA person. The brother sons who run the company have denied it to Elizabeth Warren that they're still doing that. But I agree with you that I have not seen evidence that they have killed that part of their business. And top of the fold, above the fold, front page New York Times yesterday about the kleptocracy being continued between Donald Trump and people like Howard Lutnick, who go out at glad hand.

31:03Michael Popok:Remember when they used to attack Joe Biden because he talked about the weather on a phone call with Burisma in Ukraine for his son? Forget all of that. Cantor Fitzgerald's up 25 % over last year. They're making money hand over fist. And it's all because while they're making investments in AI and data centers, their father, the Commerce Secretary, is meeting with the very same people, sometimes the very same day, to promote the business interests of the United States, but also of his former family office. And if anybody doesn't think when he's all done here in a year or two, he's not going back to head up Cantor Fitzgerald and he's permanently have turned over the reins to his 28 and 30 year old son, then you got another thing coming.

31:49Yeah. So just the way it would work in theory, assuming the program remains in place, once the tariffs against the world are overturned by the Supreme Court, then Cantor would basically make the claim to the Commerce Department or the Treasury Department. We get 100 percent back now and they would make the money on the Delta. They'd buy the claim. They'd buy the claim. So they'd make off the transaction that I said they would make six million dollars off of that. So that's the way that business line would work. Right. Let's talk, though, about DOJ. Let's talk about Eastern District of Virginia.

32:28Lindsay Halligan. Let's talk about Pam Bondi.

32:31Michael Popok:You can't stop laughing when we say Lindsay Halligan. You know, last week when you and I did Legal AF, I think we set out what the worst case scenario could have been for Lindsay Halligan and the DOJ, which is that if she never presented an operative indictment, the operative indictment that was presented as the indictment never was put in front of the entire grand jury. And that seems to be exactly what took place. There's also a number of other problems of what went down in the grand jury room. Just to be clear, we're talking about the James Comey case. Let me just frame it that way. James Comey motion to dismiss.

33:06There was a hearing on it for vindictive prosecution and some other defenses. But what came out this week as part of that hearing is what went down in the grand jury room when Halligan got the grand jury allegedly to sign off on this indictment. And what we learned is that it was something that really has never happened. As Judge Fitzgerald, who is the magistrate judge, said, this is unchartered territory if what happened actually happened. And just to situate you, the federal judge in this case is a guy named Judge Nakmanoff. The magistrate judge is not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but they're appointed basically by the federal judges.

33:49It's called a magistrate judge and they have a lot of roles, whether it's with grand juries, issuing subpoenas and handling discovery. So the magistrate judge is Judge Fitzpatrick. So Fitzpatrick put out an order earlier in the week talking about all of the things that seem to have gone wrong in the grand jury, including this unchartered territory issue of did the grand jury even see the operative indictment? But Fitzpatrick also laid out issues that the only person who testified in the grand jury, this FBI agent, was exposed to attorney-client privilege documents and should never have testified in the first place because the whole proceeding was tainted.

34:24If he saw the attorney-client privilege information, they should have had another FBI agent testify. Lindsay Halligan misinformed, lied to the jury about the Fifth Amendment and what Comey's Fifth Amendment rights were, and also lied about the burden of evidence in a criminal case, shifting the burden to Comey as opposed to the prosecutors to basically be the ones to prove a trial beyond a reasonable doubt and then probable cause at this grand jury proceeding. And these were questions that the grand jury was asking Halligan. Then there's, of course, the issue of her disqualification or not. But then there was this issue of she first gave the grand jury indictment number one.

35:04Indictment number one had three counts on it. Based on what's written, the grand jury rejected all three counts. It says fully rejected. Right. And then she apparently said, but actually the grand jury was cool with two of the counts, not the full three counts. So she's like, I'm just going to go and copy and paste the two counts. Then we'll just get the four person to sign off on that. But let's be clear. The very first indictment was fully rejected. It didn't say we support the two counts. It said, no, fully rejected. And in any event, under rule six, and I'll toss it to you, Popak, if you're, doesn't matter, even if the grand jury approved the two counts and not the three counts under rule six of the federal rules of criminal procedure, you can't just like put an X next to it or like copy and paste it.

35:51You then have to go and get them to accept your full indictment. So what you would do is you would say to them, hey, everybody, come back. We're going to print out another copy. They already left. They already left. And this was the last day of the statute of limitations. That's why she didn't say, hey, just come back the next day or let's do this the right way. So all we have is one indictment that was rejected. And then the operative indictment was just signed off by the foreperson, but never presented to the grand jury. So Comey's gone back and Comey said, you have to dismiss it. They never saw it under Rule 6.

36:28Michael Popok:There's four separate motions to dismiss. One got filed late yesterday in the Comey case. All of them would lead to the dismissal of the indictment with prejudice and the closing of the criminal case against Comey for failure to properly indict within the five-year statute of limitations. That's the impact. If you're right, and you are, that the indictment is invalid, is not a true bill of indictment on two of the counts, then the clock never stopped on the statute of limitations. It's not a clerical error. It's not a boo-boo. You don't get a mulligan. You don't get to go back. It doesn't stop the clock, and the statute of limitations has run because we're now having this conversation right before Thanksgiving in November.

37:15Michael Popok:Statue of Limitations ran on September the 5th of 2025. That's why the lawyers for Comey are fighting so hard, and he's led by some amazing lawyers. One of the lawyers that argued in the courtroom, I almost had a, like, kind of excited, it's like a superhero within the legal world, is Michael Dreeben. Michael Dreeben has argued over 100 successful United States Supreme Court arguments. He argued in a number of them involving Donald Trump. And when he heard the problem that Lindsey Halligan has and continues to compound it is that they refuse to have a senior prosecutor who knows what they're doing or a senior appellate prosecutor who knows what they're doing sit next to her in the courtroom.

38:03Michael Popok:and she's getting, she's either so nervous that she can't get the testimony out, or she's accidentally confessing and becoming a witness for the defense every time she speaks. So it's her and another novice prosecutor named Tyler Lemons, who nobody ever heard of. He played football at Widener a couple of years ago. Now he's been appointed a special prosecutor to sit next to Lindsay Halligan, talk about the blind leading the blind. There's no Michael Drebens, Patrick Fitzgerald sitting next to them, telling them how they should handle this case. So in the live hearing in front of Judge Nachmanoff, Levin said the grand jury never saw the actual indictment with only two of the counts.

38:51Michael Popok:That is the operative indictment in this case. It was an amazing bombshell, jaw-dropping confession. And Lindsey Halligan sat right there and didn't say anything. Lemons wasn't in the room with the grand jury. Halligan was. So she never got up there. Nakmanov then called Halligan up. He said, your counsel of record addressed the court, which she was not prepared. And she had to admit that the indictment was effectively fabricated and manufactured, cut and pasted, as you said. by a grand jury coordinator on the fly, and the judge says, well, then I don't understand your, she has another problem.

39:34Michael Popok:Because in a related case involving Judge Curry, who is sitting over the issue and will rule before Thanksgiving about whether Lindsay Halligan was illegally appointed or not, she's the first one to point it out, you got a gap in the grand jury proceeding transcript and lindsay helgen what do you mean where is your interaction related to the second indictment where is the court reporter in the room for that where is the hearing where where well no that's the deliberation part judge see judge you've been on the bench for 30 years but you forgot that while there's a grand jury deliberating there can't be your court reporter are we good now no because they then they whipped out to try to save themselves a seven minute transcript to hand in to Judge Nachman off after the hearing because she couldn't get her facts straight during the hearing.

40:29Michael Popok:And she said, see, Judge, there is a transcript. Well, I thought you said there wasn't a transcript for what transpired between you and grand jury. See, she told Judge Curry that all my interactions with the grand jury are recorded and there's nothing missing. No, not true. She had a hearing, apparently, as you and I reported back in the day, back in September, with Judge Vala, who's the magistrate judge presiding over that proceeding, in which she was caught. Apparently, there was a recording of it, and they got a transcript of it, in which Judge Vala said, I don't understand. Why do I have two indictments, both with your Lindsay Halligan signature on them, both signed by the foreperson?

41:12Michael Popok:She said, I only signed one. She says, no, I have two. She said, well, I only prepared one. Well, who prepared the one that has two counts instead of three? Well, so and they submitted that to Judge Nachmanoff after the hearing to say, are we all good now? No. A, you lied to Judge Curry about your interactions with people in the grand jury, like the foreperson, after the deliberations were over. Even Judge Fitzpatrick, who's the magistrate judge, he called out earlier in the week. He said, I thought you went back in to get the second indictment approved by the grand jury. But apparently, based on your affidavit, your sworn statement, you never went back in.

41:57Michael Popok:Now we see the seven minutes, and it's obvious you didn't go back in. Everybody went home. You need 12 grand jurors to approve of the indictment. 11 went home at 6.57 at night. One was left, the foreperson. She grabbed the foreperson, put a document which she alleged to the foreperson was an accurate, true bill of two counts because the third count, the first count had been eliminated and had her sign it. You could see where a prosecutor should not be allowed, after the grand jury has broken for the day, to grab one of the grand jurors, tell them this is the indictment, and sign on the dotted line.

42:44Michael Popok:That would be an invitation for prosecutorial abuse. They could write anything in there and have the grand juror sign it. That's why the seven-minute transcript actually undermines their entire case. Immediately upon that filing, yesterday, right on top of it, You get a brand new fourth motion to dismiss by James Comey's lawyer that says, see, we've they first of all, how can they argue that we don't get the grand jury transcript when they're they've provided you with another seven minutes spoon fed version of the grand jury transcript? Of course, the defense needs it to prove what happened in that room.

43:20Michael Popok:Judge Fitzgerald has seen the grand jury transcript and has pointed out two constitutional violations alone by Lindsay Halligan. Judge Curry has seen the grand jury transcript, and she's about to probably bounce Lindsey Halligan as the appointed U.S. attorney. We need it as the defense. But even besides that, judge, the indictment and the process, just based on the seven-minute transcript, is enough for you to find that such overreach and such prosecutorial abuse is infected within this transcript that you should dismiss the indictment on that grounds alone, giving the judge another yet fourth reason to dismiss the indictment.

44:03Michael Popok:And then we haven't even gotten into, although you touched on it, what happened and transpired within the grand jury itself, which is the subject of another motion to dismiss. And there's two major points. One is the violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments privileges of Comey. But also they focus on this new filing, the Comey lawyers, the violation of the Fourth Amendment and his attorney-client privilege relationship. because they never, see, I didn't learn this until we really started digging in. They never issued a new search warrant or subpoena to the professor at Columbia who served as the lawyer for Comey.

44:47Michael Popok:And they had an attorney-client relationship. They never got a new one. They just went back to the box from five years ago of Gerald Richmond's. Yeah, Daniel Richmond. Sorry, Daniel Richmond. Daniel Richman's documents, and the judge says, you didn't properly preserve the attorney-client privilege. You would let the FBI look at attorney-client privilege documents and then have him testify in front of the grand jury. That's called tainted. That's called fruit of a poisonous tree, which infects the entire indictment process. And if all of that is right, which is the reason, again, I want to leave it on this.

45:27Michael Popok:The reason that the government, sorry, the Comey side is pushing so hard for the infirmities of the indictment is because if that indictment is void ab initio on the day it was rendered, because there is no true bill of indictment, then the statute of limitations is also run and the case should be dismissed with prejudice now. And why are we all sort of breathless about this, including Judge Nachmanov? The trial starts in January the 5th. That's less than two months away. So we're waiting on a ruling from Judge Curry, which we'll report on on Legal AF in here, which is supposed to happen before Thanksgiving, meaning in about four days, about whether Lindsay Halligan is properly appointed or not under 546.

46:12Michael Popok:If she finds that she's not, then she's got to decide what to do with the indictment, which was only secured by Lindsay Halligan. If she doesn't kill off the indictment, Judge Nakmanoff will then go through the indictment and decide whether there's vindictive prosecution, which would kill the indictment as a punishment to the government for abuse of power, or if the whole of the indictment grand jury process is so infected with irregularity and constitutional violations that, again, the indictment should be dismissed. So about five different ways for the indictment to be dismissed between now and Thanksgiving or just after Thanksgiving.

46:52Michael Popok:So if I'm a betting man, there's not going to be a trial in January because I don't think this indictment survives. And notice that Popak and I have yet to even mention the merits of the case because all of these constitutional infirmities, mistakes, errors, maliciousness, That's what's being focused on now because Trump appointed unlawfully someone who's never been a federal prosecutor before in Lindsay Halligan, someone who was a beauty pageant contestant turned insurance lawyer. No offense to beauty pageant contestants. Or insurance lawyers. Or insurance lawyers. But you could have a federal prosecutorial background and then climb the ranks through the DOJ.

47:40And then you get to do that. You get to go in a grand jury room. OK, that's not what happened here. If someone told me, let me center it around me so I don't offend beauty pageants and insurance lawyers. If you told me, hey, Ben, we're going to appoint you as the United States attorney and you're going to go into the grand jury tomorrow, I would say, nope. It's the equivalent of asking me to fly an airplane. I don't know how to do it. OK, so I'm not going to go and do that. You would say no to that, especially in a case like this and especially where you know you're pursuing a baseless case. But let me just pull back a second as well, because this case shouldn't have been brought in the first place.

48:19So let's say that. But what would a competent federal prosecutor have done to not do the mistakes that Lindsey Halligan did? Well, you'd show up in a grand jury room and you would provide the appropriate instructions to the grand jury. If they asked you if James Comey had a Fifth Amendment right not to testify at trial, you would say that he absolutely has a Fifth Amendment right not to testify at trial. And you would not say that the burden shifts to him at certain points. You would just provide the correct legal instructions and you would correct those legal infirmities right there by doing the correct instructions.

48:59And if you didn't know what the correct instructions were, you'd bring somebody else in the room with you who could answer that question.

49:06Michael Popok:Can I ask you a question? I have one question for you. Why didn't they, even to this moment, why have they not pulled from the ranks of MAGA, DOJ prosecutors? There's got to be somebody there that fits the bill. Why have they not sent in to sit next to her and guide her? Some gray-haired DOJ from Washington, even Todd Blanche, who knows what he's doing, or Stan Woodward. Why is no one being sent down from the department? What does it say to you that no one in the indictment process, the hearings, no appellate lawyers sitting there with them? What is that? Why? What does that say to you? It's clearly rhetorical of a question.

49:51And, you know, and it speaks for itself. It tells you that nobody else believes that there's a case here and no one else is willing to risk their bar license the way Halligan was. But then how would you deal with the FBI agent who was exposed to the attorney client privilege information? Easy. Get another FBI agent who's not exposed, not exposed to it. And you have that person be your witness. And the FBI is pretty big and someone can review the file and testify to what they see in the file. But obviously, this one FBI agent hates Comey or has something. I don't know for a fact, but obviously, this is the one guy.

50:27If you're willing to testify after seeing attorney client information, it probably tells me a lot of information about who this person is. So the way you would deal with that is have the right FBI agent. Then you could say, well, Ben, what would you do? Isn't this what if the grand jury rejects one count but approve two counts? How would you deal with this?

50:47Michael Popok:Happens all the time, by the way. Happens all the time. I wouldn't be bringing the case the day the statute of limitations is ending because things can happen where you may need to bring them back the next day. So what you would normally do is not bring it the day the statute of limitations. But if they rejected, let's say it was a 25 count indictment and they rejected counts 2, 7, 9, 11, 13, 18, whatever, you would say, we respect that decision. We'll see you next week. we're going to come back. We're going to trim the causes of actions and complaints. We're going to present it to you. We value your time.

51:24We'll see you in January. Why even rush it, right? We'll see you January. Enjoy your Thanksgiving and holiday season. We'll see you back. Then everybody comes back. You say, ladies and gentlemen of the grand jury, we appreciate your time. We'll be briefer because we presented it last time. As you remember, we'll have the FBI agent just verify the testimony, call the FBI agent. FBI agent, is all your testimony last time still true and correct? Correct. And we've gone through all of the things. Correct. Correct. Great. Ladies gentlemen of the grand jury, we've now present you with a 15 count versus the 25 counter.

52:02Or even do it that night.

52:04Michael Popok:If you knew what you were doing and you knew you were up against the statute of limitations. You'd have a printer in the courtroom. You'd fix your indictment. You wouldn't let them leave. Of course. Twenty walked out the door to go home. Of course. You know, I'm just saying absolutely you would. But the thing is, you're creating a lot of unforced errors by bringing it in the afternoon as the statute of limitations about to expire. But yeah, you would you would have to tell in the situation that she was in and she was probably nervous. She's running out of time. Where do I go and print the paper.

52:37What do I do? And she wasn't thinking, you know, you know, but, and we don't even know, frankly, to be fair, if the grand jury even was okay with those other two counts, because all we know is that they rejected the three counts. So we don't know what they would do if she represented it. They'd be entitled to ask her new questions. And maybe those questions.

52:59Michael Popok:That's a very good point you just made. I think she might've been worried having no experience to fall back on and no phone calls made. I think she might've been worried that if she went back with the full grand jury, that she might've lost, because they were shocked apparently that they lost on count one, which was their heart of their case. And it fell back to the 1001 charge for perjury and obstruction. She might've felt like, oh shit, if I go back and represent, I may not even get any true bill. She's a very, she's nervous. Yeah. And the way people who are in the court and Legal AF has lots of people in the court, they describe her as looking scared, you know, and she bounces and she sweats and she looks at her voice cracks.

53:46And when the judge was asking her, did you even use her title?

53:52Michael Popok:Who's here for the government? And then the judge literally said, sit down, sit down like enough of you because you're not even articulating sentences. And so it goes to this fundamental point. And we'll talk about it more since this episode progresses, though. And this is the thing about Legal AF that I love this show and our programming so much in this community. I'm not trying to talk about, oh, Democrats, Republicans. ends. I just want to let you know the right way if you wanted to do this was this. And the wrong way to do this was this. And the worst way to do it was this. I'm not even a huge Comey fan.

54:35I mean, neither. But at the end of the day, at the end of the day, the issue is, are you going about the procedure? Are you handling it the right way? Are you following the law? Exactly. So anyway, we'll come right back. When we come back, we're going to talk about what else the DOJ is doing in terms of the cover up of this Epstein files. I think Popak and I both agree this Comey case is getting dismissed and one of 15 different ways that could potentially get dismissed before even addressing the issue of whether he lied to Congress, which the question from Ted Cruz was an ambiguously phrased, confusing question.

55:12and we know that the witnesses, both Daniel Richmond and McCabe, are the only two people it could be. They're friends with Comey. It's like, what are they going to say? You think McCabe and Richmond are going to be saying? McCabe leaked it. He said he leaked it on his own report. They did it themselves without the authorization. They admitted. McCabe's like, I did it. I'm allowed to do it. There's nothing wrong with me doing it. And there was nothing to charge McCabe with. Anyway, we'll be right back. We'll take our last quick break of the show. Let's talk about Epstein. Let's talk about these gerrymandered maps.

55:48Oh, reminder, make sure you subscribe to Michael Popak's Substack, Legal AF Substack. Subscribe to Michael Popak's YouTube, Legal AF YouTube. And then also, if you or anyone you know have been injured in an auto accident, a trucking accident, if you know somebody who's been the victim, like in a wrongful death case, anybody you know who has a case, Michael Popak's representing a lot of our viewers and listeners who have been in these accidents, and he's helping them out. The consultation is free. So call 877-POPAK-AF, 877-POPAK-AF, or go to www.thepopakfirm.com. Thepopakfirm.com consultation is free.

56:28We'll be right back after our last quick break of the show.

56:31Michael Popok:I got a secret. I'm obsessed with my Lola blanket. From the moment I pulled it out of the box, I could tell that this wasn't your average throw. The faux fur is unbelievably soft, like luxury level soft. And it just makes my space feel calm and biting and put together. Even here in Miami, I love wrapping up with it at the end of a day. Watching a show with my family, answering emails, or just relaxing. It's become part of my daily wind-down ritual. Honestly, I'm already thinking about replacing every other blanket I own with a Lola. It's no surprise Lola is the world's number one blanket made with ultra soft vegan faux fur and a signature four-way stretch.

57:12Michael Popok:It's machine washable, no pilling, no shedding, and it stays flawless after every wash. It's the perfect gift, personal, beautiful, and something people actually use every day. Give the gift of softness this holiday season with Lola Blankets. For a limited time, our listeners are getting a huge 40 % off their entire order at lolablankets.com by using code LEGALAF at checkout. Just head to lolablankets.com and use code LEGALAF for 40 % off. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them that we sent you. All right, I got a secret to tell you.

57:52Michael Popok:I'm obsessed. With laundry sauce. I've been using it nonstop, and I swear, the second you pull clothes out of the dryer, the scent hits you, but in the best possible way. Himalayan Cashmere is my current favorite. It's their first ever hypoallergenic fragrance, and it's soft, cozy, clean, all wrapped together like slipping into the perfect cashmere sweater by the fire. And yes, people have actually been complimenting how good my clothes smell. Their signature and essentials packages are everything. Pods, scent boosters, dryer sheets, the whole setup. The pre-measured pods take all the guesswork out.

58:31Michael Popok:The scent lasts forever. And honestly, laundry has become kind of fun. And with their subscription, I never run out. It just shows up when I need it. Laundry sauce isn't just about smelling amazing. These pods perform. They fight stains, revive fabrics, and make clothes feel brand new. And if you don't get better smelling cleaner laundry, they offer a full money back guarantee. This holiday season, turn your routine into a ritual with Laundry Sauce. During their Black Friday, Cyber Monday signature sale, you'll save up to 40%. Get$75 in free gifts and free shipping at LaundrySauce.com slash Legal AF20.

59:12Michael Popok:It's the perfect time to treat yourself or gift the world's most luxurious detergent to someone you love. And seriously, if you want to support the show, make sure you use our link, LaundrySauce.com slash Legal AF 20. During the Black Friday Cyber Monday signature sale, you'll save up to 40%. Get$75 in free gifts and free shipping at LaundrySauce.com. Welcome back to Legal AF. I'm Ben Mycelis, joined by Michael Popak. Thank you to our sponsors for making this show possible. The discount codes are in the description below. support our sponsors. They support our show. One other thing I want to mention in both the Comey case and the Letitia James case that I should just say before we move on to the next topic, because Halligan's also prosecuting New York Attorney General Letitia James.

1:00:02In both of the files and in the discovery, there will be documents from the former head of the Eastern District of Virginia, the career prosecutors, who created memos stating that there is no case against Comey and that there is no case against New York Attorney General. Before they got fired.

1:00:24Michael Popok:Before they got fired. Before the career prosecutors got fired. They wrote a memo to the file. And in both of those cases, we've learned that as of now, the Department of Justice, Main Justice, Pam Bondi, has ordered that those be covered up and not produced and to assert attorney-client privilege objections. Isn't it funny that they intruded on the attorney-client privilege of Comey, but they're not producing their own internal documents and discovery asserting attorney-client and work product and work product privileges? And also in the New York Attorney General Letitia James case, you have the Fair Housing Administration, which made the referral because Bill Pulte, Trump's stooge, was the guy who made it.

1:01:10their own investigative team, in addition to the prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia who got fired doing a memo saying there's no case, where the complaint against James originated, the Fair Housing Administration, their internal staff wrote a memo saying there's no case against James. Then all of those people got fired and got pushed out as well.

1:01:35Michael Popok:Wait, wait, wait, wait, And one last thing, because we just did the report on it. If this right wing conspiracy theorist, Christine Bish, is to be believed, who gave testimony to a grand jury last week in Maryland. Yeah. The tables have turned and the Department of Justice is now, according to her, because the way the questions were asked of her, who knows, that they've now are looking at Bill Pulte, the head of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mac and Ed Martin, who led the charge against Letitia James for crimes that they may have committed. I don't fully buy that person's story yet, even though I did see it being reported.

1:02:13But the point I want to make is that the burden on the federal prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Comey's guilty and that Letitia James is guilty. So I just want you to imagine if these cases ever went to trial and whoever was testifying on behalf of the government who was supposed to be reading the file. Imagine you're Comey's lawyer or imagine you're New York Attorney General Letitia James. I'd like to show you this document. Can you read it out loud? We hereby find that she did not commit any crimes. We hereby find that he did not commit any crimes. And this is what your office, the federal prosecutor right there, sitting there, their office said that there was no crimes committed.

1:03:00That's what I said. So not only did they say they couldn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, they said that any claim is frivolous and bogus. Yes. Okay. So ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the instruction is you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that they're guilty. You want to find the reasonable doubt? Their own office said there's no case. So I just want people to understand.

1:03:20Michael Popok:That's classic Brady material. That has to be turned over as exculpatory. But the reality is, just to take a step back, because we like to do that here, Donald Trump doesn't give a shit whether there's actually a conviction. He never did. All he cared about was the headline. Senator Schiff and Letitia James caught in federal probe related to mortgage fraud. James Comey caught in perjury probe. What happens after that? He's already lost interest. They've lost interest. They're putting no manpower behind this case, Obviously, they're sending out a rookie who who who was what I joke as the instant prosecutor with no backup and no support because he already got what he wanted.

1:03:56Michael Popok:He got his pound of flesh. He put he he casted shade on these people. So for political purposes, he can say shifty shift and Letitia James and the. But what really happens in a courtroom? You and I care about that. it's sad that the defendants have to be dragged through the mud related to it. But Donald Trump doesn't give a shit anymore. But you know, I think this is different than when he files those frivolous$18 billion,$15 billion lawsuits as a plaintiff, or even when he gets sanctioned, he pays the million dollar sanctions, but he's fundraised the$20 million off of it. So for him, that's part of his strategy.

1:04:37Now we're dealing with criminal cases, DOJ, Pam Bondi, AG, Lindsay Halligan, federal judges who are used to a certain way that the DOJ behaves. And what we are going to see is, I think, graver consequences than what he was expecting for all of these individuals that will make what Trump's January 6th lawyers who were involved in those cases. What we're going to see here, I think, is something far more severe and swift. Now, to me, Lindsey Halligan is someone whose accountability will happen sooner, swifter. I think you'll start to see state bar referrals happen once these cases get dismissed in the next 12 months or so is just my prediction, my opinion.

1:05:34Michael Popok:Well, the only thing, let me just comment on that. She's a Florida bar member, as am I. They've taken the position, as they did with Bondi, that until she's no longer in federal office, they are not going to investigate her underlying license. Now, if she gets bounced, then she's fair game for the bar. And after she leaves office. Yeah. Now, and Pam Bondi, as the attorney general, there's a different set of circumstances there. But when Pam Bondi tried to defend Lindsay Halligan in the disqualification motion aspect of this case, the way Pam Bondi did it is by saying, I've reviewed the grand jury.

1:06:11You should treat it as though I was there with her because I bless all of this. I ratify everything that happens. And so Bondi was trying to do retroactive DOJ endorsement in the event Halligan gets bounced and disqualified. Bondi's like, I'm basically the person who did it. And now, because of the separate proceedings, it's like, oh, you're the one who did it? Great. So you are now endorsing the constitutional violations. You're endorsing the fake grand jury indictment. you're endorsing the tainted attorney client privilege. So you and Halligan are the same. You've ratified her conduct. That's why we say this is now imputed to Bondi, whereas before she could have kept the distance.

1:07:00All right. But let's stay on Bondi and let's stay on the fact that Trump signed into law the discharge petition turned bill turned release the Epstein files. So we're already seeing what this cover up looks like. Right, Popak? Elaine Maxwell is saying that she's done testifying in proceedings. She spoke to Trump's, you know, former criminal defense lawyer, turned number two at the DOJ, Todd Blanche. She gave that interview where we know she lied through her teeth basically the entire time because we saw the emails. Who would have thought a convicted child sex trafficker looking for a pardon would lie?

1:07:36But we saw the emails from the Epstein estate where she knows a lot more than what she said she knows, obviously. And Blanche never cross-examined her on anything that we knew about her. But she's saying that if the House of Representatives, the Oversight Committee wants her deposition now, she won't testify. She'll invoke the fifth. She previously said that she wasn't going to sit for a deposition with the House because of the Supreme Court appeal that she had, but the Supreme Court rejected her appeal. So now she's saying, well, I still may argue in what's called the habeas corpus petition, which you and I called Popak that she was going to do that and use that as an excuse not to testify.

1:08:15I still have my constitutional rights to invoke my Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination because there's new evidence. The new evidence she's going to argue is Trump said it was a hoax. So if it's a hoax, shouldn't that have come in at trial? That's how she's kind of got Donald Trump, you know, kind of cornered because Trump said it was a hoax. So she'll argue to the federal judges, look, if the president of the United States says it was a hoax, that should have come in at trial. which will argue, at least I believe. But she says she's not testifying. Now, James Comer, MAGA Republican in the House Oversight Committee, he says that why would we even go to Texas if she's going to invoke the fifth?

1:08:50Why even show up in the first place? Let's just just let's take her at her word that she's going to invoke the fifth. We don't need to get her on camera invoking the fifth while questions are asked to her. Hey, what's your relationship with Trump? Did you see Trump ever with underage girls?

1:09:04Michael Popok:But but it's an improper invocation of the Fifth Amendment. Let's just talk about the Fifth Amendment for a minute. You can only invoke the Fifth Amendment if you believe if you're in a courtroom, if you if you have a reasonable belief that what you're saying will incriminate you in a future or current criminal investigation or prosecution. Let's unpack that for a minute. She has queen for the day immunity. So she's either admitting that she lied and blew her immunity that was given to her by Donald Trump when Todd Blanche did that disgusting softball seven-hour interview where she lied through her teeth.

1:09:44Michael Popok:And Todd Blanche wanted her to lie through her teeth, so he didn't challenge anything that she said, including the lies about Donald Trump. But she got immunity. She's either worried that she blew her immunity, although the Department of Justice has not said that they believe that she, there's no comment at all, even after the emails came out, that she blew her immunity. And she's already serving time for the underlying child sex trafficking five-count conviction. She's in year two of a 20-year sentence. So what is the crime that she's worried about where she has to invoke the Fifth Amendment?

1:10:26Michael Popok:If MAGA wasn't running the House. The new crimes that she committed with the Trump regime, she's going to use her lying with Blanche as the grounds for new crimes being charged because she just committed new crimes in Tallahassee. 1 ,000 % and blew her immunity. Now, if the House was controlled like it will be in midterms by Democrats like Jamie Raskin, I would file a case to a judge to declare her invocation of the Fifth Amendment is improper. You just don't. I mean, we all listen. We all know it from television and movies. Oh, the Fifth Amendment. We all we all think we know it. But there has to be a legitimate fear of prosecution.

1:11:05Michael Popok:And I would have that sorted out in a federal courtroom about her improper. It happens all the time in federal court the way when you and I handle it. A federal judge will say, let's have a hearing about the exercise of the Fifth Amendment. What is your legitimate fear? If a statute of limitations has already run on something, the judge is not going to let you. It's just going to strip you of your Fifth Amendment right. If the judge doesn't find that you could be legitimately prosecuted for something, or the judge will often turn to the prosecution and say, give her immunity. If you give her immunity again, then she'll be able to testify.

1:11:42Michael Popok:So if you either give her immunity or she testifies or you don't give her immunity and I'm probably going to let her keep her Fifth Amendment privilege. But all that would get hashed out in a courtroom. Problem is the MAGA is not going to go through this exercise. And so they're just going to say, like you said, oh, she took her to Fifth. Why bother going to the Beverly Hills Hotel version of the prison in Texas? And we'll just let her take the Fifth. But this is, again, we're trying to point out whether you're a Republican or Democrat here, on Legal AF, that we're talking about due process, constitutional rights, and things that are right and wrong.

1:12:18Michael Popok:We would not be having the same discussion if the House was controlled by adults that had had D next to their name. So let's also, by the way, I would want to have the video of Ghislaine sitting there and saying, isn't it true that you spoke with Donald Trump's DOJ a few months back and you lied to him the entire time? I invoke my Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. OK, isn't it true that what you are afraid to share? Isn't it true what you are afraid to share is that you observe Donald Trump with underage girls? I invoke my Fifth Amendment right against self-increasing. You're not going to answer that question right now.

1:13:03You were willing to speak with Blanche as I'm asking you, if you observe Donald Trump doing appropriate things with underage girls, you're not going to answer, based on the advice of my attorney, I'm going to invoke my Fifth Amendment. So you see how that would go. And then let the public see that. That's what MAGA Republicans are terrified to say.

1:13:22Michael Popok:In a courtroom, just to round this out for our teachable moment, in a courtroom, in a civil case, not criminal, you're allowed to take the Fifth Amendment privilege in a civil case, but it is held against you. The judge will give an instruction at the request of the other party to the jury that says, we are in a civil matter here. This is not a criminal matter testifying before the House. We're in a civil matter in a courtroom. Them taking the Fifth Amendment, you can make the adverse inference that their answer would be unhelpful. In other words, did you see Donald Trump have sex with girls? Fifth Amendment privilege.

1:13:58Michael Popok:You can assume that the answer to that would have been not favorable for Donald Trump. That is an actual instruction that goes to a jury when it's invoked in a non-criminal proceeding. That's the little side gig about the Fifth Amendment outside of a criminal context when the person, yes, can't be compelled to testify against themselves if there's a legitimate fear of prosecution. But in all other matters, it's an adverse inference against them. Exactly. Just other things to mention. We expect that the DOJ will invoke national security, that they'll invoke in current investigations and they'll invoke any other.

1:14:39Oh, it's going to re-victimize the victims, which we know the victims have said release the files. And then their other argument is that it's a privacy violation and it creates new victims that the wealthy men who are in these communications with Epstein or at the house or or there or at his place, that they would now become the victims, that the men involved with Epstein are the new victims. And that's an exact terminology used by Megan Mike Johnson. And it's sick and disgusting. but that's what it is.

1:15:11Michael Popok:Is that sick and disgusting? Did you hear what Megyn Kelly said? That unless it's an eight-year-old, if it's a barely legal, these are girls who were raped. Let's not stop beating around the bush. Some of them as young as 14. And she actually ran on a show the theory that maybe it wasn't pedophilia because of their age, 14, because they're not eight-year-olds. And even though one testified, definitively that she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump. There's no one that ties Donald Trump to rape. I'm like, this is where MAGA is right now. Yeah. So we expect that to happen. Also that the DOJ, I think maybe they'll wait until 30 days.

1:15:59They'll drop 10 ,000 documents that aren't relevant. Then people be like, what's this? Don't worry, we've got more coming. and then they'll drop more and more and more. And I suspect what they'll try to do is within the batches of documents they drop, they'll find people so that they can give people some red meat. Like they'll focus on Larry Summers and they'll focus, and they'll be like, look, we found it. And by the way, great. I could care less.

1:16:25Michael Popok:You should go to jail if he did something like that. I could care less. But we want all of it out there. And so I expect that that's what they're going to do. We'll keep you posted, though, every step of the way on that. And we'll make sure that our coverage, you know, holds them, holds them accountable. As we always have, finally, Popak, before we go, they'll just talk about Trump rigging the midterms. There was, of course, the ruling earlier, although, you know, every week I feel like I'm aging dog years or I'm time traveling back and forth in this Trump regime. So sometimes I conflate what's even happening in a given week.

1:17:00But recently, a three-judge panel in Texas led by a Trump-appointed judge said that the maps in Texas that were gerrymandered were racist gerrymandered maps. And this Trump-appointed judge in this very long opinion cited as the evidence what would be a smoking gun of smoking guns. The DOJ wrote a letter to Texas saying, we do not want you to do partisan gerrymandering, which, by the way, we all hate partisan gerrymandering, but would be allowed under the current doctrine, you know, doctrine, unless there was a constitutional amendment against partisan gerrymandering in the state. But in Texas, their legislatures did not want to do partisan gerrymandering.

1:17:49So they needed some other hook. So the DOJ letter said, you know, you've got too many Hispanics here. You've got too many black people here. You got to change the dynamics of blacks and Hispanics. You got to do race. You got to do. We need to see some racial gerrymandering because, you know, and part of it also, they say, like, you're being racist to this group or that group, whatever. And so the judge just said, your letter is saying to do racial gerrymandering. You can't do the gerrymandering that is racist in nature that has a dilutive impact on black districts and then shifts Hispanic districts.

1:18:30certain, like that's not, you can't do that. So it's a racist district in any event. The judge cites that. And then it's a big deal. Texas lost Trump appointed judge. They're trying to, the liberal Trump appointed judge. And then what does Trump do? Emergency appeal, United States Supreme Court, Justice Alito. It's like a text message service, right? Popak, Donald Trump has with his Supreme Court. You know, I need your help. Need your help, right wing Supreme Court. Help me. What do you need me to do? Can you just keep the maps in Texas the way they were when they were racist? We had a scheme for the midterms and this Trump appointed judge screwed it up.

1:19:14Alito coming right up. He types out the order in five minutes, you know, and shadow docket and shadow docket restores the racist map. Now, we talked about the Purcell principle also, Popak. The Purcell principle was always though, you know, don't you not make these kind of, don't you keep the original maps in place? Like to me, right before an election, like in this case, wouldn't it be the 20, you know, the 2021 maps and not the racist maps in place, or the federal court ruled already reject this map. Why would the Supreme Court interfere with a federal judge this early? Shouldn't the Supreme Court just say, look, the federal judge ruled.

1:20:02That's going to be the ruling. Come back to the Supreme Court later because the Purcell principles, we, the Supreme Court, are not getting involved in these disputes right now.

1:20:12Michael Popok:You know, so what do you make of it? Well, and we covered it on Unprecedented, a show I do with Dean Atal that's up right now. There's a December 8th deadline for candidates in Texas to kind of sort themselves out as to who's running where. And so there is sort of an internal deadline that's running very, very quickly. I mean, December 8th is going to be right upon us soon. And so the argument there is the judges order the three-judge panel two to one with a very noisy dissent by the one where he attacked the Trump-appointed judge and another judge there. It was like this whole brawl broke – judicial brawl broke out among MAGA.

1:20:54Michael Popok:And coming out of the Fifth Circuit and coming out of a Trump judge was quite extraordinary. but just as I expected they were going to run right away to Alito who as you said is the Supreme Court justice that sits over the Fifth Circuit the ruling is by the lower panel that they should go back to the 2021 map pre the elimination of the five seats which as we all know was also the the event that led Gavin Newsom to Prop 50 that and other states but not not just that. It's not as tied to Texas as people thought it was. Like, well, what happens now? If the Texas maps go away, do Prop 50 go away? No.

1:21:37Michael Popok:I've worked on enough ballot initiatives and challenges to ballot initiatives. So no, that's not baked into the ballot initiatives or the proposition that was proposed to the voters about it. And they voted to have the maps redone now. So the 2021 maps, of course, had five more Democratic seats than the others. And for me, I agree with you, that should have been the status quo, not the new maps that just popped up. But because, you know, talking about that Purcell doctrine, getting close to the election, December 8th is a date for them to declare and to start the campaigning. And so I knew there's another shadow hanging over this, is that we are waiting, and I'm not optimistic for a ruling to come out from the Supreme Court in a case called Calais, which arises out of a Louisiana map and MAGA Mike Johnson.

1:22:32Michael Popok:And based on the oral argument a month or so ago, I don't think it looks good. I think we're going to have a Supreme Court MAGA majority that's going to rule that it's okay as long as what you're doing. Now, I know you have the racial letter there that is big evidence, but they're going to say, as long as it's blue and red and not black and brown, you want to have more Republicans and you're in charge, you can effectively eliminate all of the black and brown people under the guise of political gerrymandering. This sticky little fact that you just outlined that was latched onto by the majority of, what about this letter that says you should do it racially?

1:23:09Michael Popok:I think even the Supreme Court, MAGA 6, would find that violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, But we're still waiting for Calais. They're not going to, so none of the states have guidance. So I knew that Alito was going to stop, hit pause, setting up a briefing schedule as they continue to work on the ruling in Calais, which we thought would come in the first quarter of 2026, which would still be plenty of time for maps to be redone in advance of the midterms. It's not they're not going to issue Calais, this ruling of the Voting Rights Act, to allow for new maps effectively. They're not going to do it like at the end of the term in June for the November election.

1:23:51Michael Popok:They're going to do it in the first quarter, probably early first quarter, beginning of second quarter of 2026 to give MAGA plenty of time to try to grab 10 or 12 more seats by remapping the red states. Although, and you and I reported on this, there seems to be a lot of resistance in the MAGA statehouses about doing the remapping so soon. They all remapped off the last census in 2020. The only reason they're doing it now is for transparent partisan purposes to back MAGA. But Trump's, as we said at the top of this podcast, Donald Trump's grip on power is slipping in such extraordinary fashion, the lame duckness of Donald Trump on full display, that he's losing his ability.

1:24:47Michael Popok:to get state houses to follow his lead, just as we saw with the Epstein vote. I mean, he eventually had to blow the dog whistle to get all of MAGA to support the Epstein bill because he had lost in the court of public opinion and had lost even Mike Johnson. And so he had to get on the bandwagon and say, sure, let them all out. Pam, don't let them all out with the active investigation you started a week before the bill was signed. So his grip on power also has an impact and a domino effect in the state houses. So I'm not sure even if Calais goes south for voting rights, which it will, that that automatically means that he's got control of grabbing 10 or 12 or 15 more seats by having them redistrict.

1:25:34Michael Popok:I'm not sure about that. We'll keep everybody posted there every step of the way. And what's notable is that, you know, the Supreme Court gutted a concept called preclearance, which used to require approval in the first instance of a three judge panel in the DOJ of the maps in order to determine if these maps were racist or not racist. Now, with the elimination of preclearance, and we've been covering that for many years, how they were gutting the Voting Rights Act by removing some of the teeth that it had, it's allowed the states to, on their own, come up with the racist maps. then you have to challenge it versus the states having to justify it in order for it allowed to take place in the first place.

1:26:27And so this was also a project of right-wing extremist Heritage Foundation, Project 2025, dating back before it was called Project 2025. And it was just kind of the Federalist Society concocting these ideas, you know, they thought that this was a way to control the country from a perspective of basically non-majority views of things, knowing that, you know, these Republican right-wing ideas are actually not popular with a majority of people, but they wanted to impose their will on people. You know, and it's why Prop 50 to me was so important as well, because, you know, for such a long time, Democrats would just allow the Republicans to do these things.

1:27:20And Democrats would be like, well, we can't do that. That's not appropriate. And we did it. It's like they're doing it and they're destroying the country and they're controlling all of these levers because they're not playing by the rules. And we got to fight back and then restore law and order. And that's what I think is happening now. You know, at least a recognition rather that that needs to happen now, which is important. We saw Newsom do it in California. We need, I want to see Virginia do what it needs to do. And I'd like to see Illinois do what it needs to do in Maryland. It's not time.

1:27:55It's not time to, you know, to, to, to, to not do anything other than save this freaking democracy while we still have some semblance of it right now. So we'll do our small part every week here on Legal AF. We're grateful for you, the Legal AFers. We're grateful for everybody who watches this. The best way you can help us to share this show with as many people as you can, especially, um, before Thanksgiving or during Thanksgiving, let people know about Legal AF, tell them at the Thanksgiving table. This is where you get your legal news from because the more people who are turned on to this show, the more ways that we can just get accurate information.

1:28:32And that's so critical right now. Also a reminder, Michael Popak's law firm is called the Popak firm. And if you or anyone you know has been injured in a car accident, auto accident, if you know someone who's the victim in a wrongful death case, you want a free consultation, just give a call to Popak's law firm. It's thepopakfirm.com, 877-POPAKAF, 877-POPAKAF, or go to thepopakfirm.com. Also check out his sub stack. Sub stack is on Legal AF and the YouTube channel is Legal AF. Covered a lot on today's show. We always love covering a lot on these shows and it's always great spending time with you all.

1:29:14On behalf of myself and Michael Popak, thank you, Legal AFers. We'll see you next time on Legal AF. Shout out Legal AFers. Shout out Midas Mighty.