Legal AF Full Episode - 12/3/2025

27:52We spent tens of billions of dollars for that investigation. And Donald Trump was, his lawyers were genius in blocking that release while he was running for office. but now there's no reason why and it's a public record and it should be released to the public. So I agree with you. I think she's going to probably find a way to screw it up and then the 11th Circuit will have to bail it out. So we've reached sort of the first segment, first portion of our podcast. So glad to have Dina Dahl here sitting in for Karen Freeman Ignifolo. Thanks for all of your support. Early voting has already started.

28:32I mean, for the podcast. You can show your love for the Legal AF podcast the way you have been. I mean, I really want to embrace our audience, the fervent support of our audience. We are in YouTube's recent rankings. Everything related to Legal AF is doing fantastic because of our audience. number 56 of the top 100 podcasts in all of YouTube is Legal AF. The Intersection, a show that I do on my own, which is on Tuesdays hit number 30, its highest rankings. Wow. Congratulations. Thank you very much. And then on Apple and Spotify audio versions, because we exist there too as well, top 50, top 60, top 70 in news and other things.

29:20We were just kidding around today about Spotify rankings. I learned a lot of things about how Legal AF is doing on Spotify. I also learned that our producer's number one most listened to artist was Taylor Swift, which I appreciated. I don't think he realized that he had set that around. Or maybe that wasn't his.

29:40Michael Popok:I don't know. Anyway, it was funny when I saw it. And then there's a lot of different ways to support what Legal... I see. Oh, I see. Our audience... Oh, he said... He's trying to bail himself out. he's at the audience's number one i would say oh interesting is everybody's number one audience yeah so we have a taylor swift audience that's very very good i appreciate that uh legally off the youtube channel another way to support what we do dean is over there with me doing unprecedented i got 10 other contributors 11 10 11 videos a day because we need it at the intersection of Law and Politics. We're at, I don't know, 975 ,000 subscribers.

30:17Michael Popok:With God's will and your help, we're going to cross the one million barrier by the time Christmas and Hanukkah roll around and Kwanzaa and whatever else is out there. So we appreciate that. It's all for free. That's a completely listener-supported, audience-supported channel. And then we've got Legal AF Substack. I just ran a sale. I ran a forget Cyber Monday, forget Black Friday. It's Popak birthday Tuesday. And we got almost a thousand people to become paid subscribers. Yeah. Over the Thanksgiving weekend of my birthday to support what we do. And that is a way to really support financially what we do.

30:59Everyone's like, God, with all the editors and the thing, and when you Adam Klassfeld this and how do you do all that? Well, this is one of the ways we do all that through Legal AF Substack. And then we have some exclusive content available to our subscribers. It's like seven bucks a month. I appreciate it. And that's where we're at. And then we've got these amazing pro-democracy sponsors. What I mean by that is they know what our show's about. They know kind of from big picture what our viewpoint is and what our analytic tools are and what our opinions are. And yet they are here week in and week out.

31:40It's the way that keeps us on the air. And we really appreciate our pro-democracy sponsors. They never censor us. They never would. If they don't like what we do, they move on or we move on from them. But these are sponsors that are very, very important to the ecosystem around Midas Touch and Legal AF, and we appreciate them. And here's a word from our sponsors.

32:01Michael Popok:This episode is brought to you by IQ Bar, our exclusive snack and hydration sponsor. IQ Bar is the better for you plant protein based snack made with brain boosting nutrients to refuel, nourish and satisfy hunger without the sugar crash. And I'll be honest, when you cover law and politics as intensely as we do on Legal AF, you need fuel that actually works. IQ Bar has genuinely become part of my everyday routine. I love starting my mornings with the toasted hazelnut IQ Joe. 200 milligrams of clean caffeine, zero jitters. My go-to bar is the mint chocolate chip IQ Bar. And if I need hydration without sugar, blueberry pomegranate IQ Mix is my number one.

32:45Michael Popok:It really keeps me sharp without that midday crash. If you want to try it all, the ultimate sampler pack is the Move. It comes with nine IQ bars, eight IQ Mixed Sticks, and four IQ Joe Sticks. Basically, a greatest hits bundle. And the best part? Everything IQ Bar makes is totally clean. Free from gluten, dairy, soy, GMOs, and artificial sweeteners. The bars pack more fiber with less sugar and fewer carbs than the alternatives. plus brain-boosting ingredients like magnesium, lion's mane, adaptogens, and more. With over 20 ,000 five-star reviews, thousands of people are upgrading to the smarter stack.

33:27Michael Popok:Literally. And 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 LEGALAF to 64 ,000. text LegalAF to 64000. That's LegalAF to 64000. Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details. You ever notice the signs of getting older creeping in? Poor sleep, low energy, maybe a little brain fog or stiffness that didn't used to be there. Same here. And healthy aging is something I've been thinking about more than ever. That's why I'm so excited to share with you guys C15 from fatty 15, the first emerging essential fatty acid to be discovered in more than 90 years.

34:17It is an incredible scientific breakthrough to support our long-term health and wellness, and you guessed it, healthy aging. Fatty 15 co-founder Dr. Stephanie Van Watson, she discovered C15 while working with the U.S. Navy on aging dolphins. Over 100 studies now show that C15 strengthens our cells and helps slow biological aging at the cellular level. When our cells don't have enough C15, they become fragile and age faster. That's called cellular fragility syndrome. The first new nutritional deficiency in 75 years, one in three people worldwide may have it. Fatty 15 is a science-backed, award-winning, patented, 100 % pure C15 supplement that repairs cellular damage, boosts sleep and brain health, and helps your body feel younger from the inside out.

35:03I've been taking Fatty 15 for a few months now, and I really started noticing deeper sleep and more energy throughout the day. I wasn't expecting much at first, but I've actually seen a difference. And that's saying a lot when most supplements don't deliver. And it comes in a beautiful, reusable jar with easy refills sent right to your door. Fatty 15 is on a mission to optimize your C15 levels to help support your long-term health and wellness, especially as you age. You can get an additional 15 % off their 90-day subscription starter kit by going to fatty15.com slash Legal AF and using code Legal AF at checkout.

35:40Michael Popok:Welcome back. You're on Legal AF at the midweek with Dina Dahl sitting in for Karen Freeman-Ignifolo and me, Michael Popok. All right, Dina, let's get into the law and politics side. We've got a number of things that have happened involving US attorneys, none of them good for Donald Trump. You've got in the last two weeks, some of which I'm going to talk about with you, in the last like 48 hours, You've got Lindsey Halligan fired as the U.S. attorney in Virginia, the prosecutor for James Comey, former FBI director, and Letitia James. And with her, the indictments are bounced as well. Then you have a week or two later, Alina Habba, as the District of New Jersey U.S.

36:28Attorney for the entire state, get fired by a unanimous panel of the Third Circuit sitting in Philadelphia for similar but different reasons, but very, very similar.

36:38Michael Popok:Now you've got this Thursday, Letitia James, in her capacity as the New York Attorney General in her office, arguing to a judge in Manhattan that John Sarconi in the Northern District of New York should be bounced and his grand jury subpoenas against the New York Attorney General's office be quashed because he was illegally appointed. He also is a liar, by the way. He lied and said that the judges of the Northern District of New York extended his term when they did not. I mean, how do you lie about that? Anyway, you've got all of this going on. And then you've got the DOJ talking tough about we're going to appeal right away.

37:24Michael Popok:But there's some new reporting about their chosen strategy may be to reindict first and then appeal second. What have you heard kind of piece this together for our audience? Letitia James, James Comey, Alina Haba, this and what they're doing next. So our audience is not surprised. Yeah. I mean, all three of those are really similar in that their appointment expired. except for Halligan, basically Siebert, who was in the position before her, appointment expired. And then the attorney general wasn't able to, let's say, appoint a substitute. And so all of the actions, HABA, and then the reason why, obviously, Halligan's indictment of the two, Comey and Letitia James, is because she wasn't valid the appointment.

38:16But I think that this is interesting. And I know we're, maybe this is my theme, maybe our theme for the show is the executive power, the unitary theory, you know, of this expansive power. Because the fact is, Trump says over and over, I have a mandate, I have a mandate. They control the Senate. He could have put his Siebert through. He could have put, you know, Hobba through. He could have put Halligan through. I mean, maybe they wouldn't have gotten approval by the Senate, but he's supposed to control the Senate. I thought that he could do whatever he wanted. The fact that he didn't even try to get Senate confirmation, but instead had people stay in it.

38:56Like for instance, Cochran was, they just tried to change his name. So instead of being the attorney, U.S. attorney, they tried to change it to like special attorney. They tried all these fancy ways that basically just meant keeping somebody in there beyond the 120 days that they were allowed to be appointed. You could say this is complete incompetence, or you could say this is part of the plan to try to get the Supreme Court to allow the president to not get Senate approval. You know, I mean, this is where this is going, right, Popak? This is all going to get appealed. And I'm sure the Project 2025 Heritage Foundation people would love the Supreme Court to step in and actually allow the president to just completely bypass the Senate.

39:48That would be huge, monumental shift in the separation of powers. So we really hope that isn't what's happening. But why didn't they even try to get Senate confirmation? But that's the point. They didn't even try to get some confirmation. All three of them, you know, they went past the 120 In terms of the actual Comey, Letitia James, it sounds like they are planning on re-indicting them. Comey, as we know, there's an issue with the statute of limitations because it has now run. There's a federal provision that allows the re-indictment if the dismissal is based on certain procedural issues. So the government is going to argue that that federal provision applies and try to indict Comey there.

40:31So we will see how that is handled. And Letitia James doesn't have that statute of limitation issue, so they will be going forward, it sounds like, with trying to reindict her. Yeah, the James Comey one, I mean, there's reporting that they're considering a different statute that would get them out from under the statute of limitations problem of the perjury under what we call a 1001 charge for lying to Congress. I just don't see it. Now, I'm not privy, of course, to all of the evidence. But there's a new motion that's been filed by Professor Richman of Columbia against the main evidence and documents used in the Comey case, which could blow a giant hole from which the indictment or the prosecution may not be able to recover on the perjury anyway.

41:26You know, Richmond was the lawyer for James Comey, a friend of James Comey. They had worked as prosecutors together in the Southern District of New York when Comey found himself up against a corrupt president named Donald Trump the first time asking him to do corrupt things like, why don't you just end the criminal investigation of Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. Like, what? And then Comey decided to write some CYA memos, then leak them or give them to his lawyer to leak to the New York Times. But that's all public. And Comey is very forthright. They asked him, why'd you do it? He said, because I wanted a special prosecutor to be named to go after Donald Trump.

42:08And I wanted to get out in the press. And I thought I was about to be fired. I mean, he was very honest about it. And so Richmond, like eight years ago, had a search warrant against his records related to Hillary Clinton and the Arctic Hayes email investigation about what happened to her emails and what happened to James Comey related to those emails. So he already turned over a lot of documents, but there was supposed to be segregation so that his attorney-client communication with James Comey and with others would not have been read by FBI agents and people in the Department of Justice. And that didn't happen.

42:46See, they did not use new search warrants and new subpoenas for the current indictment or the now dismissed indictment against James Comey. Oh, no.

42:56Michael Popok:They went back and used a new FBI agent to go back and look at the old documents sitting in a box from prior search warrants. And apparently, because Lindsay Halligan is a, what's the word I'm looking for? A moron. She did not know or wasn't sophisticated enough to tell the FBI, hey, you can't, if you see something that's related to James Comey communicating with his lawyer, Richmond, you can't look at it. So there was no segregation. There was no control wall. So the FBI agent who testified for the indictment of the grand jury was tainted. That's the argument by all of this. There wasn't a taint team to make sure that didn't happen.

43:36So we know all of that because Judge Fitzpatrick, the magistrate judge in the case, excoriated Lindsay Halligan before she was fired by Judge Curry. He, as the magistrate reporting to the trial court judge, Nakbanoff, he said, we got a number of problems here.

43:54Michael Popok:Lindsay Halligan, you violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendment during your grand jury proceeding, the way you presented the evidence to the grand jury. That's a problem. And you, Lindsey Halligan and FBI, you ran roughshod over the Fourth Amendment rights of both Comey and Professor Richmond. And right on cue, Richmond files a motion to not only get his stuff back, but to prevent it from being used in the Comey case at all. And now that's going to be in front of Judge Kolarkitelli, a Clinton appointee in D.C., and she's going to make that decision. So we have a lot of judges involved with it, right?

44:41Michael Popok:We've got Judge Curry who handled whether Lindsay Allegan was properly appointed. We've got Judge Nachmanoff who's the trial judge, day-to-day judge in the Comey case. We've got Fitzpatrick who's his magistrate. We've got, you know, Judge Walker, who's the judge for Letitia James. We've got Kohler Catelli, who's the judge to decide if the Richmond docs are going to be quashed or not. A lot going on. So much going on. And you talking made me think, you know, thank goodness that our criminal justice system is so resilient. Right. Because we have rules over how evidence is collected, how is it tainted, how is it presented, because our founders were worried about the fact that the government has so much power.

45:30It has its own law enforcement agency. It has the money. It has the wealth. And they put in these checks. And so the irony is that Trump and Halligan and whatever, they all think that they can do whatever they want and they come right into really stringent criminal you know rules that help a criminal defendant in this country uh and interesting since we talked about mar-a-lago you know lindsey halligan has been around trump for quite some time she was part of the lawyers involved in the mar-a-lago classified documents case you know so she was running around with jim trustee when jim trustee he had like three sets of lawyers down there um and but one of them was Lindsay Halligan.

46:13And you're so right, because one of the ways we know that is Anna Bauer, friend of the podcast,

46:19Michael Popok:who I interviewed, who writes for Lawfare, she met with Lindsay Halligan at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach near Mar-a-Lago when she was covering the Mar-a-Lago proceedings. So you do wonder what Lindsay Halligan knows, right? And the fact that Trump was so confident she was going to do his bidding. She has been with him for quite some time. You know, we talk about him being her, his personal attorney, but when you talk about it and, you know, it's not just she was helping maybe with some corporate deals with his Trump Tower, you know, this classified document case. But anyway, it makes me feel good about at least they have this criminal, you know, as much as you don't want to be a criminal defendant in this country, you actually, if you're coming, Letitia James do want it because it seems to be the only area that's actually strong enough to defend against these kind of revenge tactics by Trump.

47:17Well, because as you said, when politics takes over legal, that's when bad things happen. I mean, Jack Smith, just to end it with that, he wants to testify in open before the American people about his special counsel work. He relishes the opportunity. We've already seen clips of him being interviewed by Andrew Weissman and others who used to work with him on the Southern District of New York about his approach to being the special prosecutor.

47:50Michael Popok:And, you know, we finally get to hear from Jack Smith. Of course, the MAGA House is scared of Jack Smith. So now they're ordering him to appear, but he's going to appear only behind closed doors and we'll get a transcript of some other time because they're cowards, right? Yeah, for sure. he would be fantastic for the american people to hear and maybe he will still get a chance we'll see right um but that yeah he he he's a weapon for uh you know those of us care about the rule of law for sure we need another shadow hearing we need like you know blumenthal in the senate jamie raskin in the house judiciary committee ranking members to call shadow hearings and bring in doj whistleblowers eras ruveni who's now working for democracy forward bring in Jack Smith.

48:38Yeah, that's amazing. Yeah, absolutely. We're going to end up there. So speaking of when courts work well, we got a new ruling coming out of Judge Talwani in the District of Massachusetts in favor of Planned Parenthood and to block the efforts of the Trump administration and MAGA, you know, playbooks, you know, pages right out of Project 2025, to defund Planned Parenthood and all of the great work it does around the country for reproductive health, reproductive rights, family counseling. Yes, on occasion, abortion. But, you know, the bill, the budget bill, they actually wrote a provision that the only

49:25Michael Popok:entity that could possibly fit the bill to be defunded was Planned Parenthood. It was like, if you're providing, you know, reproductive health and family planning and abortion, you've taken more than$800 ,000 in fiscal year 2023. I'm like, oh, okay. Every Planned Parenthood affiliate, effectively, won't you say Planned Parenthood? And so Planned Parenthood, people might be thinking, oh, I know about this case already. Judge Talwani has been blocked by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, right, Popak? Not exactly. Because when Planned Parenthood sued and got Talwani, they argued that they were improperly targeted and had their due process rights and other rights violated.

50:09Michael Popok:She agreed with that, and that got blocked by the First Circuit. But this is a different group of plaintiffs, right, Dina? And they have a different argument to make as being the 22 blue state attorney generals. Why don't you pick it up from there? Well, exactly. And these are your best friends. I know you've just spoken to most of them lately. But basically, the 22 state attorney generals sued because the idea was that they depended on this money. Right. And by the way, Planned Herald, the vast majority of their patients go in there not for abortion, but for health care services. And federal law already exists and no money could go toward paying for abortions.

50:52But so the state's argument was that this denial, they didn't get enough notice. They didn't have enough time to be able to adequately respond to it. Basically, you cut off funding in a way that was arbitrary, capricious, and essentially unconstitutional. It violated their due process rights and that Congress had the power of the purse, not the president. Congress authorized this, and the states are being denied those funds in a way that violates their due process. And she agreed with them. She agreed with the states. Absolutely. The states are in a unique position, right? Because Medicaid is funded by Congress, but is administered by the states.

51:36So every state has a program, all 50 states, and they get the funding from Congress. That's the spending clause of the Constitution. And then they rely on that to allocate their budget, right? And, okay, we got money for Planned Parenthood. Okay, we got reproductive health that's taken care of and then put money over here somewhere

51:57Michael Popok:else. And if you deny the money last minute, then they've already spent it for the fiscal year and that therefore harms many people in the state because they were relying on and did not have time to plan around a last minute pull of the carpet out from under them about funding. So the argument that only states can make is that it violated the spending clause and the notice, therefore due process argument is you can't take away the thing that Congress funded with no notice and then left leave it to us to scramble to go try to fill the hole. That is a violation of many constitutional principles.

52:35Michael Popok:She issued a preliminary injunction. That's a great thing. Some people may remember the Judge Telwani was also one half of the judge duo that helped Americans, 42 Americans, get their food supplemental payments under SNAP. You know, again, 22 attorneys general got a filing before Judge Telwani. It's randomly, it is randomly selected by a clerk, but she does seem to come up a lot for the 22 attorneys general. The other case was Judge McConnell in Rhode Island, and that was on behalf of public interest groups. So Talwani has been battling it out with the Trump administration. As you said, federal courts are our saviors right now.

53:21And then we see what happens at the Supreme Court. I got a chance to ask the attorneys general when I was able to be invited into their world and sit with them for a day or so to interview them.

53:33Michael Popok:And they said, look, we just have to continue to chop wood and continue to file the lawsuits and continue to win at the lower court, continue to win at the first level of appellate court. And then we just roll the dice at the Supreme Court. But they also reminded us that in many cases, the Trump administration chickens out. You know, it is Trump always chickens out. They bail after they've been challenged. They released the funding. Billions and billions of dollars of funding have been released after they originally said they weren't going to. And that's all the product of these lawsuits. So you can't just sit there and wring your hands and say, oh, we always lose at the Supreme Court.

54:14Michael Popok:First of all, we don't always lose the Supreme Court. And second of all, not every case gets to the Supreme Court. Justice is done for 99.9 % of the cases at the trial court level or at the first level of appeal and or the Trump administration chickens out and folds up their cards and releases the money or stops doing the bad thing just in response to the lawsuit. So that's why these lawsuits are so, so important. You know, 50 of them filed by the attorneys general and hundreds or more that have been filed by public interest groups. One last point, the judge issued a preliminary injunction in favor of 22 blue states.

54:53Michael Popok:The other 28 states, you're SOL, because your attorneys general don't care about you. They care more about fealty to Donald Trump. So you know you're not going to be getting Planned Parenthood or reproductive rights in your state because your red state attorneys general don't have the balls or the gravitas or the brass ones to follow suit. And because the Supreme Court last year in a case involving birthright citizenship questioned universal injunctions and doesn't like universal injunctions, no longer can the red states just sit back and go, oh, we hope the blue state attorneys general get this for us because we'll get the benefit of the universal injunction without the politics associated with it.

55:36Michael Popok:F that, you're not getting it. And we do have a tremendous divide in this country, you know, between the blue states and the red states, and you're seeing it in cases like this. So if you live in a red state, it's because your attorney general and your governor did not join in this lawsuit to get a similar relief for you, whether we're talking about food stamps, or we're talking about reproductive rights, or we're talking about immigration rights, shame on them, vote them out. That's exactly what I was going to say. Most states attorney generals are elected position. It's yet another thing that we have to keep an eye on if we're only paying attention to the governor's race or the presidential race.

56:17Now, take a look at who your state attorney general is because that absolutely makes a difference. And this reminds me, you know, him taking away the Medicaid with the he's good at destroying things, Trump, right? Like, yeah, let's just cut like millions or billions of dollars, whether or not it's to USA aid or to women's health care in the country, knock down the East Wing. It's the building that he cannot do, right? The East Wing building is stalled evidently because the architect, he can't figure out the plans. Or if you wanted to really care just about abortion, but you did care about people who can't afford health care or specifically women who can't afford health care, come up with an alternative plan, but they can't.

56:58It's easy to destroy things. It's much harder to build things. Absolutely. And thank you. That's a perfect way to put that. We're going to take another break for our pro-democracy sponsors. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for supporting all things legal AF that keeps us at the top of the ranking. That is important. The bigger we are, the more street cred we have, the more informed we can be, the more we can support your First Amendment rights by expressing our own. So you can watch the podcast, as you know, on YouTube. That's why we ended up at the top 50, 55 of all YouTube podcasts. Listen to us on audio versions on Spotify and Apple, which helps.

57:42Leave five-star reviews and rankings. Come over to Legal AF, the YouTube channel. And there, early voting has already started. We have no outside investors. We have no paywall. Become a subscriber. Figure out whether you are now. And if you're not, hit the subscribe button and your job is done. and our job is just starting. We really want to get to that 1 million. It's very, very important for us for many, many reasons and therefore to you before 2026. And we will with your help. Legal AF Substack, amazing opportunity for you to learn more about the law and politics. We've got contributors, we've got writers, we've got live reporting.

58:17We've got, if you become a paid member, you get the legal filings that I talk about and our other commentators talk about all over on Legal AF Substack. And now a word from our pro-democracy sponsors.

58:34Michael Popok:You know, where I live, December starts to feel like the holidays. The weather gets perfect for holiday events, family gatherings, rooftop hangs, and enjoying being outside. I've been looking forward to all of it. And this time of year always brings more moments that call for comfort you can count on. And that's why Mack Weldon's got all the essentials for the fall. Comfortable, easy to layer clothes designed for cooler days and timeless style. Their new Ace line, inspired by their best-selling sweatpants, combines everyday comfort with long-lasting and confident looks. Explore new hoodies, half-zips, sweats, screwnecks, and more at MackWeldon.com and get 20 % off your first order of$125 or more with code LEGALAF.

59:22Michael Popok:Look, I've been wearing pieces from their Ace collection around town, and the comfort is next level. Soft premium materials, a clean fit, effortless style, and that built-in confidence boost because you look good without thinking about it. They've quickly become some of my most worn pieces. To add some comfort and flair to your layers this fall, Mack Weldon balances classic style with modern details. Not flashy, just timeless and made from the world's most comfortable performance materials. Easy to style and versatile. Mack Weldon is effortless by design. With the Ace Line ease and self-assurance, has never been more comfortable.

1:00:05Michael Popok:Crazy comfortable, but elevated sweatpants, shorts, sweatshirts, and even blazers. Looks like a blazer, feels like a sweatshirt. Get lost in comfort with their half zips, pullover hoodies, bomber jackets, and crewnecks. All new relaxed sweatpants, carpenter sweatpants, and classic sweatpants available in five new colors. The go-to choice for guys who want to look great without even trying. Mack Weldon clothes are designed to fit your style and the demands of modern life. They look like regular clothes, but feel like the latest in modern comfort. For over 10 years, Mack Weldon has designed timeless, innovative menswear to help you move through the day with confidence.

1:00:49Michael Popok:Fall into comfort with Mack Weldon's Ace Collection. Go to MackWeldon.com and get 20 % off your first order of$125 or more with promo code LEGALAF. That's M-A-C-K-W-E-L-D-O-N.com, promo code LEGALAF. I don't usually gush about skincare, but one skin genuinely impressed me. I assumed it would be like most moisturizers, you know, decent, but overhyped. Then I tried OS1, and yeah, I get it now. My skin just feels smoother, firmer, and hydrated, without that heavy or greasy vibe. And the biggest surprise? Zero irritation. I've got sensitive skin, and this one just works. At the core of one skin is their patented OS1 peptide.

1:01:35Michael Popok:The first ingredient proven to target, senescent cells, a major driver behind wrinkles, crepey texture, and loss of elasticity. And the wild part, this science has been validated in five clinical studies. Their cult favorites include OS1 face, body, and eye, all designed to layer seamlessly and replace multiple steps in your routine. One Skin just launched their limited edition holiday sets, including the nightly Rewind gift set. It comes with their best-selling face moisturizer, the brand new peptide lip mask, and a sculpting goo-a-shot tool. It's luxury, but backed by serious longevity science.

1:02:17Michael Popok:Now listen up, this part matters. For a limited time, try One Skin for 15 % off using code LEGALIF at oneskin.co slash Legal AF. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them that we sent you. Welcome back to the midweek edition of Legal AF, and thank you for being here. Dina Dahl, my good friend and colleague on Unprecedented, where we talk about the United States Supreme Court. We thought it'd be a good idea to talk about the United States Supreme Court here at the end of the show. Things are going on. Things are kicking off. and on the 8th of December, there's going to be a major oral argument.

1:02:57We will cover it live on Legal AF in a case called Slaughter versus the U.S. And the question is, is she going to be

1:03:04Michael Popok:slaughtered, Rebecca Slaughter, or is the Humphreys executor line of cases going to die a permanent death? What this case is about, and it links to two other cases, is whether once Congress creates a federal office, an administrative body like the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, the other entities, National Labor Relations Board, whether once turned over to the president, he can, regardless of what Congress wanted in the law, can fire at will anybody in a congressional created executive office. So we have the union. Congress is the only one that can create these offices.

1:03:58Michael Popok:But if you are a subscriber to the unitary presidential model, and I'll let Dina kick that off, then you say, well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Congress for giving us this great board or federal office, but it's ours now. And we don't care that you want it to be bipartisan or you want to have firing only for cause because that infringes on the president's power and the president's going to fire at will. So we got a major case here, right, Dina, with Rebecca Slaughter on the Federal Trade Commission, which was actually part of the case, part of the Humphreys executor case from 90 years ago.

1:04:36Michael Popok:And you've got the Supreme Court recently ruling that they're not going to make a decision about the Library of Congress person, Shira Perlmutter, who's our head of the Office of Copyright until they decide about Lisa Cook in January on the Federal Reserve and about slaughter on December 8th. Put all that, smush all that together in a jambalaya of Supreme Court analysis. Okay, I'm going to break it down so it makes sense and why they're all connected. As you know, there are three different positions there as we're talking about. the Library of Congress person that doesn't yet have a case, but depending on how the Supreme Court will rule, it will apply to that role as well.

1:05:19Lisa Cook, as we know, is on the board for the Federal Reserve chair, and Trump tried to fire her, something again related to mortgages, and even though she could only be fired for cause. So she's arguing, one, I was fired, this is not actually for cause. And one, and two, I got no due process. The other case has to do with Slaughter, who was on the federal FTC, right? And that is exactly the Humphreys executor, which I know people who have been following Unprecedented on Legal AF and this show have heard of Humphreys executor. And Trump did the same thing there. He tried to fire her, even though she could only be fired for cause.

1:06:06The reason why the heads of these positions have only been fired for cause is the idea is we don't want a new president coming in and replacing the person with their own person. It was to insulate these very important agencies from political pressure, from exactly what Trump is doing, sweeping the agencies and replacing them with their own people. So what the Supreme Court decides will apply not just to the FTC, not just to the Federal Reserve. As we hear they're talking about the Library of Congress, but it'll apply to the EPA, the SEC, so the Securities Exchange, the Environmental Protection, every single agency that governs the day-to-day regulations that really we all count on and we don't see, but it is kind of what makes our lives function under the rule of law with the government.

1:07:02And so these are two very significant cases. As we know, the slaughter is coming up just around the corner of December 8th and Cook is in January. The difference is, is that they're, so they're both looking basically at separation of powers. And that really is what slaughter, the slaughter case just comes right out and says that they took this case on the cert, which means it is a full review. It's not the shadow docket. Cook is a shadow docket. Whether or not to keep the lower stay in place, which kept her in the job. Slaughter is different. They're really looking at the issue. And the question presented to the Supreme Court, which is what the Supreme Court needs to look at, is, is it a violation of the separation of powers, basically, for there to be this for cause?

1:07:48And should Humphrey's executor be overturned. That's explicitly in the question presented. It's not just us as legal analysts saying, oh, Humphreys executor may be overturned. The Supreme Court is literally deciding whether or not to remove it. So what will happen if the Supreme Court decides that slaughter could be fired despite there being no cause? It will allow not only Trump, but any president to be able to replace the heads of these agencies with their own people. This, as we know, is in line with that executive unitary theory, the Heritage Foundation, that believes that the office of the president should be more powerful.

1:08:34This will be a dramatic increase in the power of the office of the president for Trump and for future presidents, which I know Popak always likes to warn, means that, hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So it could mean that, you know, the next president, Democrat, could replace it with all of their own people. The problem, however, is it's also just bad for consumers and business to have the heads of these agencies just flip-flop every four years. And that's essential argument specifically with the Federal Reserve Chair, Lisa Cook. The idea, they say, is that our financial system is supposed to be something that's stable and not so subject to the chaos of political pressures.

1:09:16And it is possible because the Supreme Court doesn't seem to care so much about civil rights, but they care an awful lot about business interests. As you can know from hearing the tariff case, they seemed more likely to rule against Trump in the tariff case than perhaps any other case. There's a slim possibility that they may decide that in every other situation but the Federal Reserve, the president can replace the Federal Reserve chair because it will cause so much chaos specifically for businesses. But that's what we're going to look at. And if Popak and I talk about the Supreme Court in particular every week, the show usually goes out on Saturday mornings.

1:09:58We will definitely be previewing this more and also summarizing it more the week after, after the oral arguments. But that is crucial in this fight over how powerful is a president. going to be is these separate cases and why they're all connected. They're basically looking at the same issue. I'm so grateful to be a guest here on Legal AF. Popok, since his birthday, got called away by his family, Natasha, Francesca, the sweetest people. I've had a chance to meet them. And he was called away. So I just want to say happy birthday again. Hope he's having a great time with his family. So grateful to be able to sit in and help break down all that happened.

1:10:49As he said, in even the last 24 hours or today or 48 hours, there's so many legal updates to get on and follow and subscribe to the Legal AF podcast. I know he's trying to get his subscribers up there and the sub stack. I put out some articles on that too, and it's so great. All of his articles and videos and the filings that he puts on there are so great and really excited to be able to help break down these news so important right now with our democracy.

1:11:30Seriously, why aren't Democrats in Washington doing more to stop Trump? I know. Have you heard about Phil Weiser in Colorado, though? No. Is he different? Yeah. A.G. Weiser sued the Trump administration 65 times. He's beating Trump in court again and again. Things like protecting Obamacare against Trump's illegal tariffs. And he even won against Ticketmaster. So he actually gets results. Exactly. As Governor, Phil will fight for Colorado. Paid for by Phil Weiser for Colorado registered agent in N.N. Moschese. Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. The message for everyone paying big wireless way too much.

1:12:06Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just$15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of$45 for a three-month plan, equivalent to$15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only. Then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See full terms at mintmobile.com. Shipping, billing, admin, payroll, marketing. You're managing all the things. So why waste time sending important documents the old-fashioned way?

1:12:39Mail and ship when you want, how you want with Stamps.com. Print postage on demand 24-7 and schedule pickups from your office or home. Save up to 90 % with automated rate shopping. That's why over 1 million small businesses trust Stamps.com. Go to Stamps.com and use code PODCAST to try Stamps.com risk-free for 60 days.