Popok and Don Lemon Analyze Trump DOJ Tactics, Media Pressure, and Newsom Probe

0:00Michael Popok:Seriously, 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 Anna Noskezi. This summer, FanDuel is the best place to bet on goals. Including equalizers? Uh-huh. Balls?

0:35Yep. Headers? Every goal is worth more on FanDuel. So, let there be goals. New customers get$350 in bonus bets guaranteed when you bet$5 for seven days. 21 plus in present and select states. First online real money wager only. Minimum$5 wager required for seven consecutive days. $5 first deposit required. Bonus issued as non-withdrawable bonus bets, which expires seven days after receipt. Restrictions apply. See full terms at fanduel.com slash sportsbook. Gambling problem? call 1-800-GAMBLER or 1-800-MY-RESET. And we're live from the living room as Doug eyes up the matchday spread. He's reaching for the Buffalo wing.

1:06Perfect. Hang on, what's this?

1:08Michael Popok:Oh, he's going for a can of Pepsi too. Incredible. What a finish. Sensational combination. Look at the delight on his face. There's no doubt about it. It just tastes better. Matchdays deserve Pepsi. Food deserves Pepsi. Grab a pack of Pepsi Zero Sugar for today's match. It's poetry in motion. I didn't think the pain from the shingles rash would affect simple everyday tasks like bathing, getting dressed, or even walking around. I was wrong. Though not everyone at risk will develop it, 99 % of people over the age of 50 already have the virus that causes shingles, and it could reactivate at any time.

1:49I developed it, and the blistering rash lasted for weeks. Don't learn the hard way. like I did. Talk to your doctor or pharmacist today.

1:58Michael Popok:Sponsored by GSK. Seriously, 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 Nan and Noschazi. Welcome to a special edition of Legal AF. There are so many things in the news right now that involve the media.

2:38Michael Popok:In particular, the White House is reportedly running around like a chicken with their heads cut off because of reporting that suggests, at least indicates, that Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan of the New York Times, for instance, had a mold, had a leak, or perhaps had a recording, a verbatim recording of conversations, not only about the Epstein cover-up in the Situation Room, but perhaps about the Iranian War. And they courageously published that story. And now we've got to talk about the repercussions. Similarly, we've got in the Gavin Newsom, a frequent political target, an enemy of Donald Trump, because he's the presumptive, at least one of the people running for office in 2028.

3:20Michael Popok:He's come out in front and said that he and his wife are being investigated by the Department of Justice. We've got judges that are looking carefully and with John DeStuy at the Jan 6th Anti-Weaponization Fund. One judge in particular wants to get to the bottom, whether there's been fraud on the court and deceit that would completely overturn that settlement agreement involving Donald Trump. And then we've got in Chicago, we've got grand jury prosecutorial abuse and calls that the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Andrew Boutros, resign and step down. And when I think about all of those things and how those can be woven together in a brilliant tapestry, I think my next guest, I think Don Lemon.

4:05Michael Popok:Hi, Don. How are you? Thank you for thinking of me in such high esteem. I do. The legalities that are going on. Absolutely. And thank you for taking time out of your travels to join our Legal AF audience. And we're all big fans, the Don Lemon Show and everything that you do in independent journalism and commentary over there. And you and I made a commitment that we do more collaborations together. So here we are. So when you read The Freak Out in the White House, is a chapter from Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan's book that's about to come out called Regime Change. And you saw the footnote that the writers, the journalists put in that said thousand interviews inside and outside the government.

4:49Michael Popok:If we quoted it directly, we have a transcript or a recording or notes. If it's a paraphrase, we did something else. And then you see the description, dozens and dozens of direct quotations from people like Dan Bongino, J.D. Vance, James Blair, Susie Wiles. and you're like, who's the leaker? Who's the leaker? And now the government is going to try to get to the bottom of it. I may just be interested and curious, but I also know that Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan have to protect their sources. And yet this government, in your case as an example, has no problem in retaliating against people exercising their First Amendment freedom of the press.

5:31Michael Popok:So what is Haberman and Swan up against now that they've published this and the White House is trying to get to the bottom of what happened. Well, let me just say that I appreciate you for what you do, for your legal expertise, and I appreciate Jonathan Swan and especially Maggie Haberman, who is my former colleague at CNN, and what they do. Maggie Haberman is just a – she is a lightning rod. She is the gold standard of reporters. Her reporting on Donald Trump has been spot on since the very beginning. As you know, he relied on her a lot to try to get his messages out, but also she developed him as a source.

6:15So when you say leaking, Donald Trump could very well be one of the people who leaked to her and he doesn't even realize it. What are they up against? They're up against the Justice Department of the United States. They're up against the government of the United States. They're up against the United States government that does not run out of money, a Justice Department that's been weaponized against Donald Trump's political enemies or anyone who threatens Donald Trump, a Justice Department that has become Donald Trump's own law firm. And the proof of that is that the Attorney General of the United States was and still is, I believe, Donald Trump's personal attorney.

6:49They're up against the possibility of a legal lawsuit or even worse than that, being arrested or charged or indicted by the Donald Trump Justice Department, which I know a lot about. So they're even sort of indicating that when they say, Michael, that they are concerned that when they say that they obtained situation room tapes for their book regime change, they're going to say that this is, I believe, information that is classified. And so whoever is releasing it needs to be prosecuted and whoever is publishing it needs to be prosecuted. And we can do whatever we want in order to subpoena or get, what do you call it, warrants to be able to find out who did it.

7:40Whoever is involved, whether it is, it should be journalistic, you should be able to source material, attorney-client privilege, or reporter-subject or reporter-source privilege. They're going to try to go around that because they don't believe in the freedom of the press. They don't believe in the First Amendment, and they don't believe in the rule of law. So I think they're up against the full Justice Department, and there's going to be a big shakeup. So look out to see possibly some indictments coming for them. I hope it doesn't happen, but that's what I think.

8:11Michael Popok:Well, you and I are on the same page. That's my fear. I did a Substack Live today and I said, that's my fear. But let's put ourselves and you particularly in the shoes of Maggie Haberman. Well, let's just go through process. She is writing this story with Jonathan Swan. And when they're about to publish, it goes through with, it's vetted to within an inch of its life by First Amendment lawyers inside and outside the New York Times, right? Yes. Okay. And then at some point, somebody says to Maggie, although we know she knows this already, are you prepared? This is like the movie The Untouchables, right?

8:49Michael Popok:What are you prepared to do? Are you prepared for after we publish this with all your journalistic integrity baked into this article? Are you ready, though, for the Trump administration to come after you with everything that they have, including not just intimidation, but indictments and the rest? And so if you're Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, what's going through your mind when you make the decision that I'm going to not only turn this in to my editors and publisher, but I'm going to have it published? Well, what's going through their mind, I would imagine folks like Haberman and Swan have prepared for this, hopefully by having representation already.

9:29They work for the New York Times. So what I think is that, I think it's good that they work for large news organizations because their attorneys, the New York Times attorneys are their attorneys. and as swan's not still with axios but swan has worked for other news organizations so i think that they are well represented especially if the times and others if their lawyers um have fact checked this to within an inch of its life and what they call standards and practiced it through within an inch of its life so it's going to be tough for the justice department to get anything done um or to make anything stick but as you know michael that doesn't mean that they're not going to try it doesn't mean it doesn't mean that they're not going to put the full weight of the government behind them.

10:14And so I think that they should brace for that. And I think that they, when you go into something like this, and Donald Trump is no stranger to any of these, to either of these guys. And so they, I think they know what they're up against. But this is what I think they should be thinking, is that, okay, go ahead. Because that is going to make the sales of their books go, that book go through the roof. And especially if there's an indictment You talk about the Streisand effect. If they just shut up about it, perhaps nobody will, I mean, well, people will pay attention. Perhaps not as many people will pay attention.

10:52But I think now more people are going to pay attention, especially if they start trying to indict them and so on. So I would be thinking I could not get better publicity for this book. That's what I would be thinking.

11:03Michael Popok:Or the Robert De Niro counseling, shut the F up and stop talking. And they did something like that, just to put this in context, when at the beginning of the administration, Mike Waltz accidentally, on purpose, added the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic magazine to a signal chat about war plans in Yemen. And the guy published the article, which he had to, and follow-up articles, including war plans that he was sent in the signal chat. They never went after the Atlantic because they had egg on their face from the signal fiasco, right? Here, it's a little bit different. And then if you're trying to figure out who the sources is, I mean, the quotes are so exquisitely precise about Dan Bongino, Susie Wiles, and the rest.

11:51Michael Popok:You got Dan Bongino is no longer in the government, who is famously noisily quit, went back to being a podcaster, hated every minute of being there, especially them trying to make him complicit in a continued Epstein cover up. The guy made his whole career about the Epstein conspiracy. So you want to be a part of that. And so you've got Bongino. You've got it buried. I don't know if you know, I know you've been traveling a little bit. Buried in Haberman and Swan's report when she outlines who's in the sit room. She says, this is the nine that are in the room. And then she says, there are two that phone in.

12:30Michael Popok:First of all, you already got security problems. You got people phoning in to the situation room, which is supposed to be like hermetically sealed on purpose from the outside world so you can make those decisions. And it's Pam Bondi. Yeah, it's Pam Bondi and Kash Patel. Now, is there a good chance that Dan Bongino is sitting in with Kash Patel and one or both of them are recording or taking copious notes? Yeah, of course. But I also think, look, some folks have said that, look, some folks have said, many people have said, and according to some of the reporting, that J.D. Vance is like the biggest leaker of them all.

13:06Or is the biggest source for people of them all.

13:09Michael Popok:And he looks good in the story. well relatively well that's like when what do i mean well no no what i mean among the liars in the room he looks like he's the one that says let's get the story out about donald trump with attacking this woman's nipples you know we need to we need to be over inclusive i'm like among those people in the room that was like the best thing to say yeah well and but also what was the other reporting oh the the iran war remember yeah the reporting was that jd vance was the only one in the room who was against it and it's like well how does jd vance always come out looking right like the hero better than anyone look the better for the worst he's better than the worst of them but not necessarily great always come out with the one i agree with you it could be jd vance and then suzy wiles has to be looked at.

14:05Michael Popok:There's direct quotes from Susie Wiles. Remember when we all scratched our head when she went and spoke to Vanity Fair for three days, three sessions, and ended up throwing everybody under the bus, including Pam Bondi, including J.D. Vance, including other. We were like, what is Susie Wiles who never speaks? She spoke to Vanity Fair for three interview sessions? Are you kidding me? Yeah. Wasn't there some reporting, Michael, that she was going to step down? She's stepping down soon? Well, she's got breast cancer. I think that's been reported and that, that, that was going to be her exit, her exit out.

14:39Michael Popok:Um, but of course, you know, they rallied around her with some social media posts, but sure. I mean, you got, look, it, it, we know that somebody, there's a recording. I mean, there's a recording, but there's just amazing transcripts. I've been doing this for 35 years. I've taken, I've taken notes. They're not, they're not anywhere near an AI agent or a recording. And she said, if I quoted it, that's what was said. If I paraphrased it, it's because the person confirmed the thrust of it. And so that's really great reporting. And then while we're on the journalist versus Trump topic or enemy versus Trump topic, self-proclaimed enemy, self-identified enemy, no, that's the the right way to put it.

15:25Michael Popok:The person that Trump considers his enemy. That's the right way to put it. You got Gavin Newsom. You got Gavin Newsom. Yeah, being investigated and his wife. Right. And he feels he has to. What did you think about the strategy of Newsom getting out ahead of the story? Okay. One thing before I go into this, before I go into this, can I say this, Michael? There is a part of me as well where he said that they're going to probably try to do something, look out Jonathan Swan, look out Maggie Haberman. And there's another part of me that says, Maybe not, because can you imagine if this is litigated in court, the discovery that will come from this?

16:06The people whose devices would have to, that the defense would have to get their information from their devices. A thousand people. A thousand people, and all of this information will be made known to Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan's attorneys. and then eventually some of it will come to light publicly. I don't think the administration wants it. So there will be a lot of bluster about this and that, but they will never get to the point where there is discovery because they stand to lose too much.

16:36Michael Popok:Agreed. That's great. I think you're perfectly right about that. So what did you think about - Gavin Newsom. I think he was smart to get out in front of him because the whole point of it, as I said to you, and as you know, when they went after me, when they came and arrested me, is that the punishment is a process. You think about the events that happened to me. Is that event a big enough deal to indict a prominent journalist for someone who is just reporting? No, it's not. And we all know that it's BS. And I tried to get out in front of it and I said, look, I was doing my job as a reporter, as a journalist.

17:20There is no conspiracy there. There's no evidence of the conspiracy. They will never find any evidence of conspiracy because there's none. And that's the whole crux of the case. Something was conspiratorial. There's not conspiratorial. Doing my job as a journalist. Gavin Newsom is doing his job as the governor of California. His wife is doing her job in whatever charity or whatever it is that she is doing and shouldn't you're you're the attorney shouldn't they be looking for um when there is some evidence of a crime that's when you investigate but what should you be investigating people just to find a crime they have not been charged with anything and usually you know like with comey and with others and um with um bolton john bolton There was evidence.

18:11They charged them with something. Evidence of a possible crime, at least as they said. But there is no evidence. They're just kind of fishing now. So it's beyond bizarre. And you're the legal person. I mean, have you heard anything like this before?

18:23Michael Popok:Yeah, in this particular Department of Justice, Robert Jackson, a very famous attorney general and then on the United States Supreme Court and eventually became the Nuremberg prosecutor, said this, and it's been quoted by judges now in the Trump era, the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power occurs when a prosecutor picks a person first and then looks for an offense rather than finding an offense and then identifying the offender. And that's what you're watching. They just want to go after Don Lemon. They just want to go after Gavin Newsom as opposed to evidence of a crime or probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, which is in the Department of Justice manual, which is in the principles of federal prosecution, which are all but ignored by this Department of Justice and Todd Blanche and Donald Trump.

19:17Yeah. Yes, of course. And it was ignored by Pam Bondi as well. Yeah. Yeah. And now Todd Blanche. But is it surprising to you, especially look at what's happening around the country? And I think we're going to discuss this later. Look at what's happened in Chicago. Look at all the evidence that they found of, you know, I guess you would call it prosecutorial misconduct with their, the misconduct with the grand jury that was admitted to in Illinois, the cases were thrown out and in other places. And so I think we're at, we're at a point now where the grand jury process used to be secretive and it was held close.

19:48But I think under this department of justice, you really need to look at that because the whole thing, you know, the whole thing you can indict a ham sandwich with this department of justice, you could indict, you know, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, an ear, you know, an earpiece holder. You can indict anything because they're not following the rules. If they go to a judge, the judge doesn't, you know, the magistrate, they go to somebody else, as they did in my case, they go to another judge. That judge says, no, they go to someone else. And then they keep trying until they take it to a grand jury.

20:17And then they take whatever information that they want to give to the grand jury, and they make it fictional enough. and that it is perceived somehow to be believable or so hyperbolic and over the top that the grand jury goes, oh my gosh, we must indict. And so I think that you have to look at, in this particular case, at least the judge, the judge needs to take a look at the grand jury process themselves. And I think that they're going to have to do that. I think they're going to try to do the same thing with Gavin Newsom. They are fishing for something and they're not going to stop until they find it.

20:52Michael Popok:Yeah, Judge April Perry in Chicago, when she tossed the Broadview 6 indictment with prejudice, she said, talking about the prosecutorial misconduct that was spotted in the transcript, we have the jury transcript that's up on our Legal AF Substack. She said it was the worst abuse of the grand jury process that she had ever seen. She also said that the prosecutor under Boutros, and Boutros was participating in the process. He was not just, they act like, well, we're apolitical. Then what is the U.S. attorney that's handpicked by Bondi and Trump doing in a regular grand jury, sitting there with his assistant U.S.

21:34Michael Popok:attorney and giving a speech to the grand jury, apparently Boutros did, that was not recorded by the – like he made sure that his words were not as if he wasn't there. And the judge says, you as prosecutors, you have one client and your client is justice, right? And you've breached it. So what you're talking about, just to tie it into your Minnesota case, is that not just apparently this assistant U.S. attorney who's been fired from a couple of jobs since then, Sherry Mecklenburg, who was there for 12 years. She was there before. She did a series of things with a regularly meeting grand jury that met for 18 months, Don.

22:18Michael Popok:This was the end of 18 months of her meeting regularly every Thursday with this grand jury for various indictments. And then at the end, she just, either the pressure of her boss being in the room or main justice, Department of Justice, she violated all of her ethics, all things that she knew well. She spoke to grand jurors outside the jury room and had to admit that she did. She dismissed grand jurors who indicated they weren't buying what she was selling. And she vouched for the evidence. She said, I only bring you good cases. I want to get with my Thursday grand jury because you know me. We've been together for 18 months.

22:57Michael Popok:You can't do that in presenting your case to the grand jury. And everything was polluted in that grand jury. all the indictments, not just, it turned out, get this, Don, they not only had to dismiss the Broadview Six, the First Amendment protesters, they had to dismiss an$800 million COVID testing fraud case with prejudice. I don't know whether those guys did or didn't do it, but they got the benefit of getting dismissed with prejudice by the Department of Justice to try to cover up for the prosecutorial misconduct. And the judge, Judge Coleman said, yeah, that's Pandora's box. You think dismissing this indictment with prejudice is going to end the inquiry?

23:37Michael Popok:You're not. I'll see you tomorrow on the 17th for an evidentiary hearing about whether there's been prosecutorial abuse by Boutros. He's hanging on by his thumbs right now. And just to – I'll make the point my way as a lawyer. If you're a defense lawyer and you're not asking right now under the Department of Justice for a federal grand jury transcript in your cases, you're committing professional malpractice. Yes, and keep fighting for it. Even if one judge denies it, keep going, keep going, keep going. Do what they do. You know what's interesting, Michael, is that, you know, I worked in Chicago.