Trump SEETHING as Blanche FACE PLANTS in FIRST WEEK

0:00Welcome to the legal AF podcast. I was just looking over my list with my guest co-anchor tonight. You can't read my handwriting. I can barely read my own handwriting. But it is a pretty extensive list, which means we've turned the corner in the Trump administration. Now that we've gone past whatever day, 550 or whatever it is. And now we're into that accountability section where Donald Trump is acting out against his political rivals or critics on a regular basis. Now he's got his guy running the Department of Justice. So all the things that even Pambundi held them back from doing, you know, all those barriers are gone. It's all gas and no break and federal judges now having spent two years learning the playbook being forced to learn the playbook, know how to respond. So we're seeing a lot of developments in cases, including in the ones talking about chickens coming home to roost those those

1:00private plaintive cases that Donald Trump likes to bring. Well, I'm the president, but I'm not really the president when I file this lawsuit. And they always files them down on Miami and it's always it's always a dead bang loser. So we we're going to kick it off with first. I'm going to introduce my guest co-anchor. He's he's done legal AF with with me and on the channel before. But never on the minus touch version. Adam Klausfeld of all rise news. How you doing, Adam? Doing great. Thanks. Great to be here and thanks for having me, Mike. You and I have been doing regular legal AF sub stack lives once a week. We made that commitment. We took a little bit of time off while I've been traveling. But and we got sort of a fun little little little little little energy going there. A little vibe going there that we enjoy. And I said, you know, Karen Friedman, Igniflo is unfortunately not is not feeling well today. And I said, let's bring in Adam Klausfeld to sit in and thank you for being so generous with your time in our audience. Well, thank you.

2:01Thank you. I'm looking forward to it. Yeah. And for people who do only read Adam Klausfeld, but don't know what he looks like or aren't following his amazing videos that we do over on legal AF YouTube channel. This is Adam Klausfeld of all rise news. He is one of the leading legal commentators and not just from afar, like from the privacy of his own, you know, Dan or bedroom. He's in the courtroom. He's in the court houses. I can't tell you how many and he and I joke about it. How many windswept remotes I have with Adam Klausfeld out in front of regardless of the weather out in front of some courtroom or some courthouse after having gone in to watch the hearing. I think that's one of your competitive advantages that you bring to my touch at legal AF. And I thank you for it. Yeah, my pleasure. You know, I think it's important for people to understand how the news gets out there. It's by being there. It's by looking at the public record. It's by listening to the parties and the judges and seeing the expression on their faces.

3:05You know, it's history and the making. And I feel privileged to be able to see the history making cases. Whether it's Trump's criminal trials, I was there in Manhattan criminal court when it happened when those 34 convictions came down. I was there in the district of Tennessee, middle district of Tennessee when Kilmar of Rio Garcia got his case dismissed and all of the hearings for vindictive prosecution. You bet I'll be there for James Comey in other cases as well. Well, it's funny that you mentioned James Comey because one of the first down in the tax, let's turn to top lunch from moment, shall we? His first official act was to pick who is going to swear him in. And what a poke in the eye to the rule of law to have chosen a male bovey. His long time puppy that followed him from every position he ever had ultimately set up shop in a two man office to represent one client named Donald Trump at Red Space in

4:08Donald Trump's building on 40 Wall Street, represented Donald Trump in all of those criminal cases, even even touched on the EG and Carol case. And also a guy who before he got elevated to the third circuit court of appeals was accused by a very well respected whistleblower, Eras Rovelli, of having told the immigration litigation department of the Department of Justice at the top of the administration that they should look federal judges in the eye and tell them to what's the phrase I'm looking for, Adam, go fuck yourself if they are trying to provide oversight over Donald Trump's removal policies under the Alien Enemies Act for which he had to answer, email bovey to Adam shift the senator during his confirmation hearing. This is your first official act to have the guy that probably should be impeached himself for what he did in the Department of Justice for the short time he was there. Be the guy that swear you in. Why did you make of that? Well, first off, the fallout of all of that is ongoing. There is still the Judge Bozberg inquiry that was litigated in the DC circuit.

5:15And so to have both of those figures to choose email bovey as the guy who's swearing them in because Todd Blanch was at the time a deputy attorney general when all that was going down. So there's the contempt inquiry wrinkle of it, but also the kind of oddly appropriate side of it. You noted they were both Donald Trump's personal criminal defense attorneys and they were both there to defend him in the Manhattan criminal trial and they both lost. Their advocacy resulted in 34 criminal convictions against Donald Trump. So that was the symbolism they went with, the losing team and Trump's criminal trial at the swearing in ceremony. It's like a black stock scandal. It's like it's like bringing back, you know, Shulis Joe Jackson's just wearing wind for your confirmation process. And, and oh, yeah, I totally agree with you. I mean, the symbolism there, that was his first official act is who's going to swear me in and he chooses email bovey or to paraphrase Ty Cobb who used to be Donald Trump's

6:20lawyer. God help us, you know, we're screwed with Todd Blanch in that position. But the good news is Todd Blanch sucks at his job. I don't know how else to put this. And he had his first official press conference that you and I watch very, very closely as the free press started a lob in questions, many of which he looked ill prepared to respond to. He often looks put upon like, I don't know how many times I have to answer this question. He gets out where he's getting his coaching from from, you know, he's got an audience of one in Donald Trump. But I thought it'd be fun to play a couple of clips and kind of get your reaction to it. You know, you having been in the room and you know a lot of these reporters. So let's, let's have our producer play a couple of the clips that we selected. Next week, there's a deadline in the Komi case. The defense has said that there was evidence that was gathered by the government that suggested there were alternative reasons, you know, sort of the restaurant narrative of 86.

7:20How confident are you today that that case will survive to trial and ultimately result in a conviction? So I'm not going to comment on a defense filing in any case because that's not fair to any of the parties involved. And so I don't have a comment on the way that every case works in this country is that when every indicted case, it means a grand jury has returned an indictment. That means that a grand jury found a problem cause, that a crime has been committed and there's a trial. And there's a lot of cases as a prosecutor that I felt were definitely going to get convictions and that didn't or that it was a tough, tough conviction. There's cases that were really, really tough that got convictions. And so I'm certainly not going to act like I have a crystal ball and predict what's going to happen with that case at trial. But it's enough to say that these, this was a case that was returned by a grand jury. It's not out of DC. It's out of, yeah, let's, let's, let's, because you've been following the Komi case pretty closely, even Pam Bondi didn't indict, refused to indict James Komi over the seashells,

8:24okay? Because she was still in office at that time. You know, the fact that somebody wrote 8647 on the beach and Komi commented about this interesting seashell collection on the beach and taking that as a truth threat against the president. And it's, isn't it, the fact that that for me, the top-lanche can acknowledge or won't acknowledge and nobody in the room will follow up with it is that how much grand jury abuse there has been under his, under his leadership, because even when he was the deputy attorney general or acting attorney general, a lot of grand jury abuse happened where they were lied to, where false testimony was provided in various grand juries, grand juries refused to return indictments. And yet he says, well, it must be a good case because the grand jury returned indictment. What did you make of that Komi crystal ball climate? Well, let me focus on something pretty fundamental here. He was asked how confident he was at this case would go to trial and end in a conviction.

9:30And he didn't sound that confident. And by the way, so this is a sort of question that in any other circumstances, a total softball and there's a prefabricated answer that I have heard a thousand times from prosecutors not named Todd Blanche. And it's that the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. We embrace that burden, but we would never bring a case that we are not confident that we couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. He couldn't say any of those words. He couldn't honor his presumption of innocence. And he couldn't express any degree of confidence that this will survive to trial. Because James Komi has a motion pending right now to dismiss the case on first amendment grounds. This whole case hinges on this theory that 8647 is a true threat against the life of Donald Trump. And not only did James Komi not make that image, he took a photograph of C. Shells on a

10:33beach that on the law, it fails. He has a vindictive prosecution motion that could get rid of the thing. As you pointed out, there's a motion to go into the grand jury proceedings that could uncover all sorts of abuse. So my major reaction here is that Todd Blanche, when really tossed a softball by a reporter, a question that prosecutors get asked a hundred times and has a prefabricated answer, he couldn't say I'm confident in it because he isn't confident in it. Right. I think that is a perfect analysis of, all you got to say is, I believe in the strength of our case, and we wouldn't have brought it if not. But it literally the softball bounced off his forehead. You know, it was tossed. And but that is not, and you have a great video up on LegalAF YouTube channel about this kind of particular issue. That wasn't the only rookie mistake that he's made or where we could do an entire show

11:37just on this press conference. But let's play one more clip. What about the reflective? I don't know what you mean by the White House's assets to do that, but no, I don't have an update on that. I think there's been a lot of comments and source-based comments about what if anything's happening with that case, the judge ruled in that case or were waiting for the ruling, and then I don't have an update now. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, stop right there. Sourced-based comments. You mean people in the know inside the administration? Look, here's the reporting. You've done it. I've done it. It's out there. Donald Trump's unhappy with Janine Pirro about to fire her. He's had proxies like Peter Navarro say things about Janine Pirro just recently on Steve Bannon's channel to try to crack the ice underneath her. And hopefully she falls through in their mind. There's already reporting that Janine Pirro went to the White House, made a presentation

12:41of the lack of evidence to support Davey Herndt's indictment, okay? Made a whole power-play presentation to explain why she dropped the case. I think her only sin was she didn't apparently give the White House a heads up, that she was going to do it, which by the way is a cardinal sin in any organization that you don't give the top guy, the apex person, the info so they get caught flat footed. But there's also the new reporting that Donald Trump's unhappy. He's still selling this bullshit story about Davey Herndt violently ripping up seven acres of cover of a liner and destroying the liner and that he's pressuring the department of justice to bring an indictment. What you make of Todd Blanche is sort of, I don't even know what you're referring to. So my favorite part of the entire clip was Todd Blanche pretending, I don't know what you're talking about with the White House asked us to do it.

13:42Okay, sure, Mr. Blanche, and this is me, cartoonish, we'll leave winking. As though you really have no idea that the White House has any involvement in this case against Davey Herndt that everyone knows that Trump is fuming publicly about it, bringing Jeanine Pirro in the White House. This is a one time where he'll even pretend to have an Iota of independence from the White House and it just as a whole water. So the clip, there were many things that were just comical about it, but I think that was the biggest one. Now, he's pretending that he doesn't know the White House asked us to keep this bogus case alive even after Jeanine Pirro put in writing that they don't have the evidence to convict that David Herndt isn't the person to blame for the damage to the pool. This was another one of the really unconvincing responses from Blanche. But it did remind me, I care, remember, was at a press conference or one of his oversight

14:43hearings were taught when it went, I think it was oversight hearing, but one of the senators or House members asked him about the Epstein investigations and said, can you give us an update on the Epstein investigations now that they've released all the files or half the files and the names that are in there and what you're doing about it. He said, I don't understand what you, what you're referring to when you say the Epstein investigation. Over that? I do. I do. It's a, you know, there, there should be a ranking of unconvincing things that Todd Blanche claims not to know about, you know, I don't know about the, what Epstein investigation you're referring to. You know, I'm in this constitution that you keep referring to. I'm not familiar with it. Right, right. I'm doing his, doing his best Ted Lasso impression of, you know, we're, we're going to try our best with James Comey. Sometimes it's a tough case and tacitly admitting that he's not confident in this case.

15:43It's a bogus case and that, you know, we've now seen the investigation where FBI agents and others were furiously looking for any indication that some mobster anywhere used 86 to mean to kill and they found the opposite. Yeah. Listen, I worked in a diner when I was studying for the bar. Okay. I worked fast food. I know what 86 means when they tell you 86 to tune a fish, it doesn't mean take it out in the back and kill it. It means you're out of it and take it off the menu and stop selling it. That's what it's always meant. And the, the, the Kobe case, just to stay there for a minute has another little wrinkle because as you and I reported, another federal judge in DC about a first amendment expression of a group that has been sitting out in front of, I forget which location that's you, you may know it, which location this group has pitched a tent to call for the removal of

16:45Donald Trump and they staffed this booth like 24 seven and they've had giant balloons that say 86 47 and the park service trying to yank their permit and a federal judge put a stop to it and said, and did the whole analysis of 86 47 and said that can never be seen as a, in this context as a true threat against the president and went through the hall. It came from soda, soda jerks during the 1920s in 1930s. That case, even though it's not, it's not precedent in the Eastern District of North Carolina. It's certainly a well reasoned decision that could be persuasive and of course, Kobe's lawyers have cited to it in some of their briefs, right? Absolutely. And, you know, I think it's just very clear to everyone watching that is that this is a case that is bound to collapse and you don't want to get complacent when the federal government uses the massive power set it has to try to deprive a person of its liberty

17:47and gets federal prosecutors involved in that mission. You don't want to be complacent and say, well, surely I'll fall apart. Our system is strong. But this case has so many ridiculous laws, the fact that it's, you know, that there is a Supreme Court precedent that if James Comey said, if Trump is going to want to send me to Iran, I'm going to put them in my sights, that would be analogous to what the non-protester said about LBJ and that the Supreme Court at the time said that was not a true threat. So the first amendment grounds are strong, the indicative prosecution grounds are strong, and many other defenses, selective prosecution. You know, one of the things that we've talked about, Michael, is the fact that there are hundreds of products being sold on Amazon, 8647, 8645, and when Biden was in office, 8646, this is just part of the political lingo, and you know, we now have all of this evidence

18:51coming up that the FBI was trying to find some mobster anywhere to reinforce their theories, and they couldn't find a single person. They even went to, you know, they went to Sammy the Bowl and Sammy the Bowl said, go to this mob prosecutor, the mob prosecutor, John Gleason said that that was absolutely ridiculous. Right, right, and who's now a former federal judge, Gleason? Absolutely. Yeah, so let's stay on blanche for a minute and let's move to the Epstein records scandal. You've got a senior federal judge in the District of Columbia, Emmett Sullivan, who presides over a case brought by our friend Katie Fang against Todd Blanche and his official capacity. It's always Todd Blanche because Todd Blanche is the person under the Epstein File Transparency Act or the Attorney General is the person, I should say, that is responsible for most of what needs

19:53to be done under the act. So if that the act is not being complied with, you sue the Attorney General. And so we've gone now over a month with wind after wind after wind by Katie Fang and her lawyers and public integrity project in which Sullivan issued effectively in order to show cause to say, all right, these five categories of documents is what she sued over so expertly, you know, give me all the emails about the sex torture video. In the fact that I even have to create that sentence is disgusting. And the fact that it has been revealed, sex torture, give me all the evidence or the documents related to Donald Trump, and a handwritten notes of the FBI related to a witness who says when she was 13, she was sexually abused. Where is the reduction log? And why haven't you translated the foreign language documents even though I ordered you to do it? And lawyer after lawyer for the Department of Justice kept telling in their own way, judge Sullivan and go pound sand,

20:55we're ultimately not going to do it. We don't have to do it. We don't think we have to do it. We don't think you can tell us to do it. And worse, that effect. He's finally gotten fed up and he hasn't yet, but he's about to lower the boom after this hearing tomorrow, where he wants the Department of Justice to come forward. It's not going to be top-lanche. The Department of Justice to come forward and give him evidence. I mean, evidentiary hearing as to each of the items there and explain to him and show him documents as to why these documents are somehow not subject to being produced under the Epstein file transparent. And there's going to have to be somebody's going to have to stand and deliver for the Department of Justice. The biggest oddity for me is the sudden reappearance, not of main justice, because Stan Woodward, the number acting number two in the Department of Justice, have been filing all these papers in the case. All of a sudden, the last paper in the case that got filed was by Janine Piro's office, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia.

21:57Now, is that because there's still an ethics person inside of the Department of Justice and they've taken Todd Blanche off of the case, so to speak, and they've given it to the District of Columbia to handle the defense of Todd Blanche? Like, what did you make of Janine Piro's office and this poor, lowly, assistant US Attorney making an appearance in the case? And I guess being got the short straw is going to show up at tomorrow's hearing. What do you make of that? Well, you know, the Justice Department is headed toward a train wreck and it's Janine Piro's time in the barrel. I mean, look, this Thursday hearing, it's very easy to predict that the federal government is going to face a lot of headwinds to put it mildly. You had a judge Sullivan saying in an order before the hearing that they didn't comply with his order to provide him with information. He's asking basic questions like, why can't you redact a handwritten document?

23:01And, you know, it just gets worse from there. And so the Justice Department has to know, and Todd Blanche has to know that when the schedule for how this hearing is going to go down is Judge Sullivan saying you're not in compliance with my order and your rationalization seem ridiculous. Then, okay, toss a beer row in the ring. This is, you know, half her deal with this. This is not going to go well for them. And I, you know, I don't think I don't make predictions as a journalist. You know, I, you know, I follow the public record and the public record is blistering on this point. They know what they're walking into. I totally agree with you. I think this is a total setup. This is like when Judge Brinkham in the Eastern District of Virginia greeted the one lawyer for the Department of Justice. That's all they sent in. I mean, normally, I mean, I practice law. I mean, normally you go to a major hearing. You know, I'll have a couple of associates with me, maybe a partner and an associate with me, maybe a paralegal in the room as well.

24:03This poor person walked in on the Gen 6th anti weaponization fund legality, constitutionality by himself. And the judge looked down her nose on her glasses. Judge Brinkham said, you are a very brave person to write. I remember. You were there. You reported on it to come into my courtroom and make these arguments basically by yourself. And look, this next, this next person who I never even heard of is going to show I pay I guess it's not going to be stand woodward. It's going to be this lowly system US attorney who's going to show up tomorrow. You and I are going to phone in for it. You know, it's on the docket. You'll cover it. I'll cover it. And I almost feel sorry for them, although I don't. I think and I've told this to people don't be fooled by how what's the word I'm looking for? How lacking in emotion, the judge's order setting tomorrow's hearing up is when you read it, it looks very draw cut and dry, very plain vanilla.

25:12But, but I'm telling our audience and I know you'll agree with me that judge Sullivan is seething behind the scenes. He'll get his he'll get them into his courtroom. And I think this is going to be the start of lowering the boom on them. He's not happy that the foreign language documents have not been translated in an international child sex trafficking ring despite his order. He's not happy with what they produce despite being given ample opportunity to produce. And I think this is a setup for a major content hearing. Right. I mean, I think that judge Sullivan has shown he's a tough judge. He's the judge who presided over the case of Michael Flynn, who said to the prosecutors, have you considered charging Michael Flynn with treason? He later walked that back, but he really showed that he was indignant about the crime set. Michael Flynn was charged with and pleaded guilty to and he's been very systematically setting up his ducks in a row. He ordered the government to hand him the Epstein files at issue to inspect in camera.

26:16So all of this is following that. He's read the documents. He's seen their rationalizations. And he's said to the Trump DOJ, wait a minute, you're still not in compliance with my order. You are telling me that you can't redact handwritten documents. Why? And also, why is it that you're monthly to filing your rationalizations for not releasing these documents on the federal register as federal law obligates you to do? You know, as you said, Michael, it's very even keel in its delivery in this order, but those are, you know, red in their proper context, fighting words. Oh, absolutely. When you put it in the context of knowing this judge and what he's previously ruled in this case, and how strong he's been in favor of the first amendment and Katie Fang and the arguments that her lawyers from public integrity project are making.

27:17We're going to, for those that are joining a little bit later in progress. This is the legal AF podcast. Don't adjust that dial. That is Adam Klausfeld of all rise news, sitting in as a guest anchor with me today, Michael Popak. All of his fine reporting and commentary can be found on all rise news on substack and his video work on legal AF YouTube channel. Just go to the playlist that we have the playlist tab on legal AF YouTube channel and look for Adam Klausfeld. And you will find him there with all the work that he's done. He really is a camp miss type commentator out there at the intersection of law and politics. And so many different ways to support what we do here on legal AF the podcast one download the audio. I know that sounds slightly antiquated, but to be, but to be frank, it's the audio that still drives the algorithms and the ratings and keeps us at the top of the shows that that on law and politics.

28:18And if that's where you want us to be, that's how you can help by free free downloading. We made it easy for you with a QR code there as well. Then the legal AF YouTube channel is sort of devoted to all things legal AF. We just crossed 1.2 million subscribers. That's a big thank you to you because without you, frankly, we would not exist. And we're at about 740 million views of our content, including that of Klausfeld, I mean Michael Popak 1.2 million subscribers in less than two years. Really, we're just completely overwhelmed by the generosity of our audience their time, money where it's where it's appropriate and the rest to keep independent commentary and journalism alive. And so we got those are those are two things. We got a legal AF sub stack. There it is. We're now in the top regularly in the top five of US politics rising in top 30 overall.

29:18Move us into top 10. You'll get 10 new pieces of content every day, including a live report that I do on a daily basis only on legal AF sub stack and all of the filings that we rely on court opinions, Supreme Court opinions motions. This kind of thing are under legal AF sub stacks. We call it filings AF. So those are a number of ways to support what we do. And then we've got our pro democracy sponsors. We're going to take a break for them right now. When we come back, I've got a fascinating interview and exclusive briefing with the ACLU's Cody Wolfsy who runs the immigration rights project for the American Civil Liberties Union about a real time event. The ACLU rushing into court last 24 hours up in New Hampshire with judge La Plante about birthright citizenship again to declare unconstitutional and inviolation of the Supreme Court's ruling back in June in the case of Barbara versus Trump that established once and for all the birthright citizenship isn't trying in the Constitution in the 14th Amendment.

30:26Donald Trump apparently didn't get the memo, didn't read the opinion, doesn't want to acknowledge it and entered new issued new executive orders that violated the Supreme Court ruling already. So you're going to want to hear from Cody Wolfsy when we come back from our commercial break, thank you to our pro democracy sponsors. And here's a word from them. Have you ever actually looked at the ingredient list on your dog's food? Well, after the first ingredient, good luck. Most kibble is made using extreme high heat to keep it shelf stable, which means brands have to add back synthetic vitamins and minerals with ingredients you can't even pronounce. Sunnies for dogs is different. They start with more than 80% all natural meats than add super foods like kale, ginger and blueberries and gently air dry everything instead of using high heat. It doesn't look or smell like dog food. It looks like high quality human grade jerky, no fillers, no nutritional blends, no chemicals, just simple complete nutrition.

31:27Founded by veterinarian Dr. Tory Waxman, Sundays was created to meet her high standards as both a veterinarian and a dog parent. And there's no fridge, no freezer, no prep, no mess, just scoop and serve with over 100,000 dogs already eating Sundays. It's easy to see why so many picky eaters are excited for meal time. Make the switch to Sundays go right now to Sundays for dogs calm slash legal AF 50 and get 50% off your first order or you can use code legal AF 50 at checkout that's 50% off your first order at Sundays for dogs calm slash legal AF 50 or use code legal AF 50 at checkout. Alright, let's be real, who likes wearing a bra? Nobody, especially when you're working out, right sports bras are terrible to wear most of the time. And they, whether it's that they dig into your shoulders on the straps or the band rolls up and feels too tight around your rib cage or you know whatever it is.

32:33They're a pain to take to put on their pain to take off and they're so uncomfortable, but honey love has this sports bra that is different and they have this wonderful new product called the honey love cross flex activity bra. And it immediately felt different from every other sports bra that I've worn it feels like a sports bra with a support. But it's also designed for all day wear and it's supportive without feeling too tight to stiff or suffocating it has easy to take on and take off and it's wireless using their technology called cloud fuse. So there's no poking or digging or pressure points, which is actually what I love the most about it and it gives you of course great shape and separation instead of that uniform look that sports bras can often give you so if you find yourself reaching for sports bra on a daily basis and who are because you need the coverage and you need the support but you're looking for something comfortable that you could also wear all day I highly recommend the honey love cross flex activity bra as the solution you've been searching for.

33:42So it's really fantastic they are now offering a crossover triple triple bra bundle so if you want a full refresh on your top drawer you can get a huge savings by buying three at once. They are an independent female founded brand with products designed by women who actually wear them including the founder Betsy honey love doesn't just make bras and shape where they've built a full line of tanks body suits and underwear with supportive structure. So they're a lot of structure smoothing fabrics and premium finishes and they recently launched their new crossover contour bra which features their best selling wireless crossover bra design plus built in molded light foam pads for extra support and beautifully contoured shape. So I think it's a great idea to go to the most advanced bras and shape wear on the market use our exclusive link to save 20% off honey love at honey love dot com slash legal AF that's honey love dot com slash legal AF and after you check out they'll ask where you heard about them.

34:45Please support our show and tell them legal AF sent you experience the news standard and comfort and support with honey love. Welcome back to legal AF the podcast and thank you to our pro democracy sponsors and again thank you to each one of you it's your generosity that defines the mightest touch and legal AF community. I mean as I've joked at nauseam with my close friend and founder Ben my Salas you know we would just be you know to reasonably old guys one older than the other sitting at a park bench you know feeding the pigeons and yelling at them if it wasn't for you and this community that we built that is so committed to the rule of law and defending our democracy. And I'm so honored to have our collaboration that we have with legal AF and the American civil liberties union so that when a bombshell of a new filing happens or a new action by Donald Trump gets announced.

35:48Of such as his second run at attacking birthright citizenship just hours after the Supreme Court issued its mandate to make final the ruling at least five to four in the barbera case from June that birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th amendment of the constitution and not in a statute and certainly can't be. It cannot be affected again by the executive orders no matter how many they number you do a hundred of them I believe the you wrote each one of them would be equally deficient under the constitution and right after he issued. His two executive orders as diversionary tactics to try to take away from the fact that the Supreme Court after 60 days issued its mandate oh no oh no you know make me apparently is what Donald Trump believes his next response should. He should be any issue to executive orders one coming up with like a dozen new exemptions to birthright citizenship missing the point of the five to four decision on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship written by chief justice Roberts which was no we are effectively adopting a 1898 ruling from the Supreme Court.

37:09So we are not going to be able to do that in which we said there are only a couple of exceptions because birthright citizenship is sacred and sacrosanct and goes back before colonial period back stretching back to England and so the one Kim arc case came along and we like those two exceptions which are you know ambassadors and other foreign entities children and a couple of 19th century Native American tribes but that's it's oh no don't didn't hear that he said I'm going to come up with a dozen more you know people I don't want to do that. You know people I don't like and people that I declare to be foreign terrorists and people that are participating in birth terrorism whatever that's supposed to mean penalizing the babies that result from that taking away their birthright citizenship so right away of course two groups two groups of plaintiffs that had cases one in New Hampshire led by the American Civil Liberties Union and one down in Maryland in front of Judge Bortman sprung back into action is it wait a minute we got preliminary injunctions in these places. Against him doing exactly what he just said to do that he's going to do how do you map these exemptions onto our class of people that have just had babies are about to have babies and so when I saw the American Civil Liberties Union in the lead case you know because this jurors prudence now under the Supreme Court is known as the Barbara case Barbara versus Trump went back to judge the plant I am immediately left into action I said I got to get Cody Wolf see on

38:37from the American Civil Liberties Union to join us here on legal a F so let's bring in Cody. Hi Cody. Hi great to see you thanks for having me back. Absolutely people love you giving your exclusive briefing here on legal a F with the legal a F YouTube channel Cody being the deputy director of immigration right of the immigration rights project at the American Civil Liberties Union and and you came out really strongly about what the president just did in public safety. So why don't you catch our audience up about why you've returned to judge the plant what you're seeking and what and how you on behalf of your clients the ACLU interpret these two new executive orders. Absolutely I mean if people are feeling kind of a sense of deja vu haven't we already been here you are not imagining things you're absolutely right. The president look taking a step back made his case to the Supreme Court he said that he should be able to come up with new exceptions to this fundamental constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship and as you say the court said emphatically no it confirmed what's been true what we have all been doing.

39:52So I always know that if you're born in this country you belong here and that the only exceptions to that are narrow ones that go all the way back to the framing of the 14th amendment that are laid out in that you know landmark decision that you referenced won't you mark and today essentially practically the only exception is for children of ambassadors who have full diplomatic immunity. But here we are again the president is trying again to create new exceptions and as we you know laid out to the court the answer is the same president cannot rewrite the constitution. So what we've asked the court to do is we already have a certified class of all the babies who were subject to that first executive order that is babies born after February 20th of 2025 who don't have a parent who has legal immigration excuse me permanent immigration status in the United States.

40:57And we just asked the court to to say what the Supreme Court has already said those babies are citizens president Trump cannot do anything to take away their citizenship it is guaranteed by the Constitution that is the motion we've put in and you know that reflects exactly what the Supreme Court declared just weeks ago. Yeah I mean there's a certain amount of fatigue but we are so pleased at the ACLU and the other groups have left back into action I mean it was the cleanest and fastest track back into a court to challenge those executive orders without having like to avenge your loss because you have class members you have a preliminary injunction as does the other group the Cassem corporate group. And this is something that I wanted this I think this is a nice way for you and I to get a little inside baseball and give our audience something a little bit of a mini law school class if there's a violation of a Supreme Court rule the law of the land now the Supreme law of the land some people might be thinking well just file a motion for contempt with the Supreme Court and point out on the record how these people aren't complying with it.

42:15But that's not how that works and that's not how the Supreme Court likes things to come up to them you got to start at the district court level and say they are violating your law and then it ends up with the Supreme Court right. Yeah that's absolutely right and you know I think what we're talking about here is the government may have some you know arguments it wants to make technicalities about this or that but as you say it's very clear. This new executive order is trying to strip away the citizenship of members of our class and so you know we think it's well within the court's discretion to say no you can't you can't do that it doesn't matter if it's based on executive order one executive order number two or as you say executive order number one hundred the rule the Supreme Court laid out is very clear and so that's right we're working we're back in district court and you know we're going to do that. And you know we're hoping and expecting that the court will make very clear to the government that this is just as illegal.

43:22Yeah I mean we've had you know members of the ACLU actually argued the case before the United States Supreme Court and the and the thing that the take away for our audience is look some some news outlets reported as six to three because the great concur Brett Kavanaugh a concurred in the ruling but not in the jurisprudential underpinnings because he said no it's not a constitutional 14th amendment thing it's a nationality act Congress act thing and then he had that very curious footnote which obviously people the Trump administration took to get took to mean they could issue executive orders which was Congress Congress can create new exceptions that are not yet before the court. Because his argument as it's not constitutionally protected it's a statute that can be changed by an act of Congress whenever Donald Trump hears act of Congress can change it somehow he always conflates that with i'll do it by executive order.

44:24Yeah you know it's interesting I do think you know that the administration may be looking for some solace in Justice Catherine I was opinion obviously on the constitutional question that was a dissenting opinion. Decenting opinion the majority took the opposite view from his but I actually think when it comes to this executive order there's no solace to be found in Justice Kavanaugh's views and that's for a couple of reasons so one is you know he's very clear of what we're talking about he says you know I get it won him or held that there is quote a close set of exceptions to the citizenship clause that's essentially today just children. And he also says I think that very same rule close set of exceptions was baked into the statute that Congress passed in 1940 and 1952 and that very statute guarantees the citizenship of for example the members of our class and so on Justice Kavanaugh's view this executive order is entirely illegal because of the statute.

45:36Now it's true Justice Kavanaugh thinks you know it disagrees with wonky mark and thinks that there should be more exceptions under the Constitution but he doesn't think there can be more exceptions under the statute and he recognizes the Supreme Court majority disagreed with him on the constitutional analysis and accepted that there is a closed set so any way you slice it this executive order should be accepted. So that's the executive order trying to come up with new exceptions outside that quote close set is illegal. No matter how many times he pulls the handle it for Trump it comes up lemon lemon lemon and you've got five justices including Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts who aren't going anywhere anytime soon certainly not Amy Coney Barrett. Justice says say that it is a constitutionally protected sacred right or right citizenship and if it comes back to that five it may be five to four again but five to he doesn't have the votes yet that doesn't stop him from either pandering to his base for political reasons why do you think he just again to the mind of your adversary for a moment why do you think Donald Trump issued those two executive orders on birthright citizen.

46:58I don't know I can't get into the head of another person and certainly not the president I will say you know it may be that either the president or Stephen Miller or others the administration are unhappy about the Supreme Court loss obviously they've expressed that and that they disagree with the Supreme Court decision. Reaffirming one can mark and that fundamental right to birthright citizenship but the end of the day that doesn't really matter it doesn't give them any more power to inject themselves into this you know really fundamental question of who counts as an American and you know just to take a step back what are we talking about here the point of the 14th amendment citizenship close the reason that you know those who fought and died in the civil war that the free black communities who advocated for the reason that they pushed so hard to get this into the constitution was because that they recognize that there's really two visions of America there's an America in which if you're born here you belong here this is a multi racial multi ethnic democracy and then there's a vision that's reflected in the shameful dreads Scott decision

48:25that's reflected in the anti Asian racism that led to the Wong Kim arc decision and that is reflected in these executive orders that is attempting to exclude entire swaths of people from citizenship and full participation in our country because of who their parents are and most fundamentally as a way to try and change the demographics of this country make it wider and I just think the majority of the world is going to be in the world and then we're going to be on this Supreme Court looked at this and saw it for exactly what it was you know and and the court said that the citizenship clause put quote the question of citizenship once and forever to rest it was taking this out of the hands of politicians whether they're in the White House or in Congress and putting it in our most fundamental document the Constitution and that's why it doesn't really matter which at the end of the world matter which actions the president decides to take or how he decides to slice and dice this he has no power here the Constitution is clear and the Supreme Court has already spoken.

49:36Now in your case before judge La Plante and New Hampshire tell the tell our audience what you've asked what you filed or what you've asked for in the status of that and then I can contrast that with what's happening in Maryland with Judge Bortman. Absolutely so you know we filed a few things some procedural motions but the primary thing we we filed is this we said we think that this executive order already violates your injunction that injunction bars the president the executive branch from taking away citizenship from anybody in our class who again is all those babies subject to the first executive order but we said look if there's any question about that you can clarify that that's what the injunction means. You can modify the injunction to change the wording slightly to make sure that it is protecting these class members from any sorts of attacks from the executive whether or not they are sort of grounded on that first executive order or you could issue a new preliminary injunction whatever you do the point is our class members are facing the exact same threat they've always faced in this litigation which is President Trump denying them.

50:48Their birthright as U.S. citizens the court has already decided the preliminary injunction the first circuit agreed and affirmed it in another case and the Supreme Court obviously has now agreed and affirmed as well the legal questions are done and so you know all that really remains is to make sure that our clients rights are being enforced. And so in judge boardman's courtroom they've already gotten a little bit of information out there because the plaintiffs there reached out to the government and said can we can't make heads on paraphrasing we can't make heads or tails tails of your executive orders they're very ambiguous and murky at best can you clarify what some of these some of these terms mean and whether so we can map it on to our preliminary injunction law. And the response was sort of like we're not going to clarify we don't think we think it's too early to have to do that it's ret its its prospective early only to don't worry about babies born before and we're still working on guidelines what did you make of this sort of new color and Intel that they got in that case and how it impacts yours.

52:08Yeah, I mean I think that we completely agree that the executive order raises a thousand and one questions that it doesn't answer and we've laid out some of those to the court as well for example the original executive order from last year specifically said this is going to apply moving forward to babies born February 20th 2025 and and forward so it's not going to apply to people say who were born last year or 10 years ago 50 years ago. The new executive order doesn't save that and so it opened up the obvious possibility that actually what they were saying is we're going to strip away citizenship from who knows how many people who have lived their entire lives of citizens not just attacking babies moving forward so you know it's not surprising to me the government is you know going to take some positions attempting to narrow this executive order to make it less cruel and extreme. We'll have to see kind of how that shakes out in terms of what the ultimate scope of this new executive order is obviously that is going to matter for the twists and turns of this litigation but I think the thing for people to understand is really two things number one ultimately the you know these questions about the scope don't matter for the merits of this executive order because for all the reasons we've laid out to the court the orders illegal.

53:36Under the Supreme Court's decision already and whether it applies prospectively retrospectively what have you it's illegal. But the second point is you know I know that there's a lot of folks who are confused there's quite a few folks who are scared about what this order might mean for their citizenship their children's citizenship their families and you know as I said there's a lot of questions raised by the executive order. And we and the other groups litigating these issues are working hard to get clarity and answers and protections in place but ultimately we already fought the big fight here because the Supreme Court has already confirmed that the citizenship plus means what it says and so part of this is just about how are we going to get you know to a place where there's court orders you know protecting everyone who is not going to be in the court. And the one who is a birthright citizen from these lawless actions as opposed to where we were say a year ago where the goal was really you know the Supreme the government was trying to get this issue up to the Supreme Court and rewrite that fundamental rule.

54:51Absolutely and even the one on on birth tourism which you know panders to his base I mean this is just my view you want to make illegal this industry to the extent that it's even a real problem in America I'm not sure how many dozens of people actually come to America in order to have a baby but let's say you want to criminalize that in some way that's different then criminalizing it then stripping away if there is a baby born from whatever it is. You can't burn from whatever you have deemed to be birth tourism and good luck with that the baby can't lose his his or her birthright citizenship because of this illegal conduct you can make it illegal right you can try to police it but you can't if if despite all of that there is a baby born that baby is a US citizen. Yeah that's absolutely right I mean a few things I'd say on this so one is I totally agree this is this is a red hairing that is used for political purposes you know all the data show this idea of you know people coming here specifically to give birth on a tourist visa or whatever is a you know tiny tiny fraction of of all births the second thing is it's already.

56:06I'm not sure if there's a federal law there's a federal regulation speaking directly to this and in fact you know a DHS representative told the New York Times that this executive order really doesn't do anything it just repeats what current law already is but number three I think you're you're completely right you know so much of the first and second executive order is about trying to blame children babies for. What the administration perceives a sort of the sins of their parents but that is actually really fundamentally contrary to American values there was a doctrine about you know sort of imputing crimes of the father to to children under you know English law and that's one of the things that's explicitly rejected in the US Constitution because in this country every person is their own person. Every child born here is a citizen that's why this is a plus doesn't say anything about people's parents it says if you're born in this country and you're subject to the jurisdiction of the country you're subject to the country's power unlike say a child who has diplomatic community then you are a US citizen.

57:25Really appreciate Cody you coming on with us on a regular basis to make what appears at first blush to be complicated really easy to understand and make our audience feel great about the fact that the American civil liberties union and all of its you know different divisions I know you're you're working with the ACL you have to hamps your in the ACL you have made an all different parts of the ACL you as we end here. The segment of legal AF just talk to our audience about what your immigration rights project does and and and sort of explain how the ACL you kind of the national umbrella organization works with its local affiliates in cases like this. Yeah absolutely I'll start with the second part first you know our affiliates are really the engine the powers our ability to do the work that we do across the country we have affiliates in every state as well as DC or Rico and you know they are doing the work day in and day out litigating on all the different issues that the ACL you works on whether it's immigrants rights reproductive justice criminal justice reform.

58:36Racial justice the voting rights the list goes on and on and on there in state courts and federal courts there in our state legislatures lobbying and they are in the communities kind of building coalitions and so we work with them hand in hand in cases I think this is a good example of what that partnership can yield a can't say enough good things about our affiliate colleagues. We at the immigrants rights project work on a wide range of issues in terms of the constitutional and civil rights of non citizens and their families right now we are you know fighting back against the most anti immigrant administration in our lifetimes and possibly ever so in the thousand in one ways we are trying to push back against the anti immigrant rights. We are trying to put the immigrant anti mixed status family agenda of Stephen Miller and the rest of the administration I'll just name a couple of things that we are fighting back against the shameful alien enemies act invocation which is trying to completely eliminate any semblance of due process for people and show people out of the country without adhering based on the flimsy of evidence we are fighting back against mass to take the country.

1:00:04We are trying to put the tension which the administration is trying to use in order to you know essentially bully people into giving up their chance for asylum or other kinds of protection by keeping them in horrible conditions in immigration detention and definitely without even so much as I bond hearing and we are fighting back against various state laws that are trying to bolster the Trump deportation agenda as well as set themselves up to the to fight against you for example the next democratic administration which might have a different view on immigration policy so we're doing it all our affiliate colleagues our colleagues in communications and advocacy are doing it all as our partners across the entire movement and you know we welcome people joining our efforts in any way that they can visit our website ACLU or go out and join those protests.

1:01:04Give to local organizations working on immigrants rights issues and immigration representation we need your help. Yeah well put the actually the link below for the ACLU for those who want to help and join this so many different ways to do it not just money and donations which is great but also you know getting involved and joining local affiliates or the national organization. I know there's so many different ways for people to get involved with the ACLU and we're so honored to have you regularly here and collaborating with us on legal AF Cody Wufsi of the American Civil Liberties Union thanks for joining legal AF the podcast tonight to brief our audience about birthright citizenship. Thanks so much for having me. And thank you to Cody Wufsi and the American Civil Liberties Union we so appreciate their collaboration on the legal AF YouTube channel whenever we have the opportunity to get the agency. ACLU want to talk about their cases they've got hundreds and hundreds of cases that they have filed to defend American values defend the first amendment and the Constitution immigration rights civil liberties civil rights ACLU is on the front lines in the courtrooms and we get their lawyers to come on and others to talk about their cases we jump at that opportunity let's bring out of class felt back on as well.

1:02:21Out of you do a fair amount of ACLU interviews as well. Absolutely they're behind some of the biggest cases that are out there you know we were talking about in your conversation with Mr. Wufsi it's the the Trump executive order in birthright citizenship and they were behind the original Trump the Barbara case and I was there in new hamcher when that was going down so I'm constantly going back to new hamster my friend. Well yeah we will see when that comes to ahead but yeah. Where are you going to plan. Judge the plan. I'm sorry to talk about the plan because you've been in the you've been in the courtroom. Yeah I mean he ruled from the bench that time I you know I think that this is going to come to a head before him I think he's a tough judge and reading their papers in this it really I want to read a line that just kind of gets to the heart of it. They wrote if the president issues 100 orders seeking to create new exceptions the sacred guarantee of the citizenship clause all 100 will be equally illegal and nothing requires this court to countenance the continued assault on this foundational constitutional principle or issue an endless string of EO specific injunctions.

1:03:42I don't think. Yeah they're not going to do better with board with boardman either in the case. Absolutely this is just a sort of thing where it's what Trump always does he loses in the Supreme Court on tariffs so he tries to wriggle it around with a different legal rationale. Here there's not even a different legal rationale he's trying to define words differently and try to relitigate an issue that has been resolved it's unconstitutional so here we are again. Yeah now Adam you know you're in the business of reporting and breaking stories and investigative reporting and bringing your commentary. Have you ever thought about scraping up $100,000 a month so you can get insider access before the rest of us to post things by the press secretary and Donald Trump JD dance and the FBI and the Treasury Department R.F.K. Jr. so you can get insider information so you can trade on it you can invest around it and you can make business strategy decisions.

1:04:49Have you ever thought about doing that? Well you know when I sleep on a bed of money that I could shovel the Donald Trump like that you know of course not. It's you know and I know what that transition is Popak. It's a good one. This lawsuit against this scheme where Trump is through truth social offering access to Wall Street insiders to get in his words market moving posts. Or advance access to that. Stop right there. You would back in the day that used to be called front running and insider information tipper to be and that's a bad thing. The fact that Trump is selling just through his truth social official government information early to people on purpose so that they can imagine if you and I knew that the transportation department was about to announce a new contract to make an investment in this the build a new bridge in fill on the blank.

1:05:56Okay you and I would if we have that information we would we would buy up all the real estate around that area or we would we would invest in money in the contractors or if we knew that he was about the bomb Iran or take over Venezuela early we would shift our portfolio towards industries that support that issue which is exactly what Trump is he's basically admitting that he's been front running all this time and now he's offering that to the average $100,000 a month paying. A subscriber the thing that calls me and then I'll turn it over you to complete the whole lawsuit that's been filed is that he's the first one to come out and say that Jackson Smith was wrong about why he kept the moral logo documents because there was a working theory that Jackson Smith had a special prosecutor independent prosecutor that Trump would kept all of those top secret classified documents and war plans because he wanted to sell them and make money off of them. Is this effectively an acknowledgement that that's exactly what Donald Trump thinks is okay.

1:07:01You know it's an admission that's a great tie there. Popoq I think they are related issues that he does think that information can be profitable and he's right about that. We had we there's public reporting that there are 10 people who took him up our took Trump media which owns truth social up on that offer and they're paying in the same way. In effect more than a million dollars a year and I think the statistic is more than 10 people so at a minimum it's tens of millions of dollars at the very beginning that he's getting selling early access to public pronouncements and he's contractually obligated to make those official announcements on his social media website. So as you said if there is a military action is there if there's domestic policy if he's making an appointment that goes there and his Wall Street buddies get access to it first and so this lawsuit that was filed that I find really interesting and it was a perfect way to open it the way you did Popoq is that he said the lawsuit says this is a first amendment issue one of the plaintiffs is the intercept and news organization the other is a freedom of the press foundation.

1:08:19And you're saying they what they're saying is these Wall Street buddies who cannot buy early access to public announcements from the president of the United States before the press and public does so they're making a first amendment case about it and in the meantime you have capital hill taking action you have congressman Jamie raskin going ahead and saying that he's launching an investigation which would have a lot more teeth if he gets a peanut power after the midterm elections but we can talk about that later we have a proposed bill in the Senate by Senator Reed and again if the Democrats take the Senate then we can talk about even the possibility the question of that advancing. But this lawsuit goes from the fundamental premise is that set aside the self dealing get set aside the corruption set aside the insider trading there's a core for some end minute issue they also say the fifth amendment is one of the basis of their claims and they filed this in my backyard in the arm and hat in the seven district of New York.

1:09:31I think this is going to be one of the big first amendment legal battles and it's the same court where Trump faced a lawsuit in his first term about blocking people on Twitter if that was a first amendment issue and it was determined to be a first amendment issue in that court. I don't see how he's going to avoid the conclusion that this is a first amendment violation to hope to make the press and public pay $100,000 a month to get early access to what should be public information. And how about we talk about stock market and how you could trade on that information and make strategic investments what about all the predictive markets what about polymarket what about Calci what about people that made money because they got tipped off that we were going to take over Venezuela and bet on that and made millions of dollars now for your $100,000 a month you can go into all these predictive markets and and you right because you've got the earlier information that anybody else.

1:10:36And the fact and look at the list of people this is what I loved about the lawsuit there are like Trump. Sends out information on his social media on on his own truth social about foreign policy domestic policy, military policy, economic policy. In this case, RFK junior public health policy, transportation policy, the secret the press secretary, we know that that that Carol and Levitt is. What should you get you came back off like a paternity leave and now she's already quitting but whatever you know she's going to spend more time with her family but whoever the press secretary communications director is. Right is any FBI director and think about this FBI director cash but tell who is so like a bowl in a china shop with information. You get this information early I don't understand what the defense is going to be by the lawyers I'm sure it's going to be solving in a crime well get ready represent true social or this lawyer at DLA Piper.

1:11:43Chris Operson one of them is going to be you see will be representing Donald Trump's interest in this case might be Operson but but maybe the department of justice intervenes. I mean how are they going to justify to a judge. The selling and front running of insider public information early to people that pay for it. I just don't understand. Well they'll try to find some sort of procedural dodge that's what they always do it's going to be oh yeah file two early or you file too late. You know we will see what they try to throw at a federal judge to try to avert a injunction blocking them but to your point about predictive markets and the whole wild west economies surrounding that. You know I remember the days when we just called those gambling sites and there are people who have been prosecuted for it within you know who had early access to government information

1:12:44and tried to bet it on some of these gambling sites and you know we're speaking a day after an unexpected result in the Wisconsin gubernatorial elections where one of those quote unquote predictive markets thought that the losing candidate had a 95% chance of winning. So what we have here is a recipe for anyone who has a spare $100,000 a month to shell out can use that information to get an edge on the stock market to get an edge on the gambling market. You know it's a kind of thicket and bog and septic tank of conflicts and corruption and you know who knew that the first lawsuit against that wouldn't be about insider trading wouldn't be about a monument wouldn't be about corruption. So about the fundamental issue the first amendment you know the president of the United States using his private website and using it to and through contractual obligations he's giving it early to the public there and that he's setting aside the advance access for his Wall Street buddies.

1:14:05Absolutely well that is a business model it's just not legal a F and might as touch as business model we don't try to charge a small group of people $100,000 a month for early access to our videos we just ask for support in a completely different way and one that I hope that everyone feels is comfortable and appropriate and consistent with our ethos and our values. So many different ways to support what we do here on legal a F starting with the audio downloads for this particular podcast then you've got the legal AF YouTube channel and thank you and early thank you we just crossed literally in the last few hours 1.2 million subscribers. We rolled the odometer all because of you and your generosity of spirit and commitment to what we do our first amendment rights are stronger because you are protecting your own by supporting what we do on legal a F the YouTube channel legal AF of the sub stack is another great community you can get it on the ground floor something

1:15:10people might be thinking oh wow I just recently joined legal AF YouTube channel I'm the one million person well you can come we got about 165,000 people or so that have joined legal AF sub stack you get about a dozen new pieces of content every day including our videos you want to catch you like Adam class fell to all rise news is my co anchor tonight you're going to love them when he joins us on a regular basis on my live reports on sub stack and only on sub stack. And then we've got our of course our pro democracy sponsor some of which have been with us from the very beginning like six years ago when Ben and I co founded legal AF some are new but they have something in common they know what hour they don't know what we're going to say but they know what our point of view is they know what our view point is in our commitment to honest commentary they know what our audience is all about and they want to be your in support so supposedly income is a tough thing to come by these days with Donald Trump in office but these are products the Jordi and I have vetted a spet a Jordi that one of the brothers of course for the legal AF and these are things we think are interesting and if you think they're interesting take a shot and that's another way to support what we do here on legal AF so let's take a break for our pro democracy sponsors.

1:16:35This episode is brought to you by IQ bar our exclusive snack hydration and coffee sponsor IQ bar protein bars IQ mix hydration mixes and IQ Joe mushroom coffees are the delicious low sugar brain and body fuel you need to win your day. I like having convenient better for you options on hand and IQ bar makes that easy. Ultimate sampler pack is a great way to try everything you get nine IQ bars eight IQ mix sticks and four IQ Joe sticks plus all IQ bar products are clean label certified and entirely free from gluten dairy soy GMOs and artificial ingredients with over 20,000 five star reviews and counting more people than ever are fueling their busy lifestyles with IQ bars brain and body boosting bars hydration mixes and mushroom coffees their ultimate sampler pack includes all three and right now IQ bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQ bar products including the ultimate sampler pack plus free shipping to get your 20% off text legal AF to 64,000 text legal AF to 64,000 one more time that's legal AF to 64,000 message and data rates may apply see terms for details.

1:17:52Have you ever thought I should really be doing something to protect myself from stalkers, scammers and hackers, but you're not sure what here's what to do go to W.W. W.Join delete me dot com slash legal AF and enter code legal AF you'll get 20% off delete me delete me removes your personal information that's being sold online. Look, I have an active online presence. So privacy is really important to me knowing delete me does the hard work of removing my information from hundreds of data broker websites gives me real piece of mind. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for delete me now at a special discount for our listeners get 20% off your delete me plan when you go to join delete me dot com slash legal AF and use promo code legal AF at checkout the only way to get 20% off though is to go to W.W.W. join delete me dot com slash legal AF and enter code legal AF at checkout.

1:18:53And thank you to our pro democracy sponsors welcome back to legal AF at the midweek with Michael Pope, and guest anchor Adam, class felt of all rise news. If this is your first time hearing or seeing Adam, class felt you can follow him on a sub stack on all rise news. He regularly appears on legal AF YouTube channel you can look for his playlist there and in the notes below will give you the links for all of his social media and sub stacks that you can consider becoming a subscriber. I think it's a it's must must see you to must must read sub stack whenever Adam class false names attached to something really appreciate you being here at him with us today. Why don't we bring it home with John Brennan John O Brennan former CIA director for Donald Trump. Apparently the subject of not one but two federal grand juries. One that I know of in particular is what we refer to as the grand conspiracy grand jury, which is presided, which is presided over by your friend in mind, alien cannon, the judge in the northern hinterland of the southern district of Florida and Fort Pierce, Florida, famous for infamous for presiding over the bar, a log,

1:20:12case and chastising jack Smith whenever she had the chance and turning the tables and proving that somehow the prosecutors were the bad people and Donald Trump was the good people and has locked away forever more the report of jack Smith related to the moral log, okay, putting that aside for a minute that's also being apparently prosecuted by a special employee appointed by Todd Blanch, name Joe DeGeneva, who's an 82 year old former Reagan US attorney. He was the Janine Piro of the DC US attorney's office in the Reagan era. And so he's been a free just put in Joe DeGeneva or his wife Victoria Tensing and just put that into Google and you'll see these crazy clips of him on newsmax and Fox news attacking John Brennan attacking. Colby like a decade ago about their involvement with a mass conspiracy to have Donald Trump defeated at the polls in collusion, I guess with the Russians or whatever so he's in charge there, Blanch appointed him and John O'Brett and is not waiting around to see if he's going to get indicted or not.

1:21:30He keeps filing motions with the district court judge in the DC accusing the Trump administration of potentially destroying evidence. I love the fact that he's not sitting idly by and just wait a wonder of all being indicted today. He's actively suing first before the indictment setting up his future motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution, et cetera. Let me turn it over to Adam Klausfeld about the new filing that we're reporting that. That's a great introduction, great setup because like others who were targeted by Trump, you have Brennan being proactive. Remember when Jay Powell saw that there was this grand jury investigation, he went to quash the subpoenas and succeeded. And so what Brennan is doing, he's not trusting that the Trump Justice Department is going to dutifully preserve evidence to protect his due process rights before an inevitable indictment as he sees it because Trump demanded it.

1:22:34If Trump demands it, if you're on his enemies list, if this has been openly declared, we know where these investigations are going, especially if they're in the courtroom of Trump's favorite judge, Aline Cannon. So he, as you said, Popok just came out with a new filing. I'm going to read from the introduction of it, 32 pages long, but the introduction kind of lays out the basic point that he is asking the court to have the government on its obligations, which is to preserve evidence that could be used against him at trial. And he makes a very simple point that if the government is fighting this hard against him in that effort, that's more of a reason for the court to take action. Here's what he says former CIA director, John Brennan is currently the target of two federal grand jury investigations, which are demonstrably motivated by President Trump's effort to use the criminal justice system to seek retribution against director Brennan for his lawful conduct while serving as CIA director and for his criticism of the press.

1:23:40And he's also the target of the president of the president in the year since to ensure he can effectively challenge any unconstitutionally vindictive and selective criminal charges director Brennan has sought injunctive relief ordering the government defendants to reserve the internal government records and communications that they will demonstrate that demonstrate the retrovative motivations behind the eventual prosecution. And this action director Brennan seeks nothing more than to ensure that the government does what it is already obligated to do, preserve all records and communications relevant to the government's pre ordained decision to investigate and prosecute him rather than simply stipulating to uphold that constitutional obligation. However, the defendants devote their responsive pleadings to arguing the limits of that obligation and disputing when and how director Brennan has the right to enforce it. So that's where the rubber hits the road here, you have Brennan pointing out that the entire premise of his legal action is government preserve your records that if you are going to go ahead and do this vindictive prosecution, I'm going to have a fair trial.

1:24:55And I need a judge to protect my rights because you can't trust this administration to do it. And what does the government do if fights it tooth and nail and he argues in this 32 page motion that their recalcitrance is the reason the judge has to take action. Absolutely, I mean this is a pre-curred, I mean there's a number of ways if you're on the receiving end of a vindictive prosecution of the Trump administration department of justice that you can't do. You and I have covered many of them. If you're Kilmer, a brago Garcia, that poor guy from Maryland that became the poster child for civil liberties abuse by Donald Trump and being sent to the torture prison of El Salvador without due process and then having a trumped up criminal charge against him in order to bring him back to the United States. If you're him and you're those lawyers, you just you don't preemptively file anything. Although in a way you do because they filed their civil rights case in front of judge Zinnis, although that led to the criminal case.

1:26:02But when things are developed more, then you file your motion for vindictive prosecution. You don't file preemptive motions. That's one way. If your James Comey, you, the first indictment that was brought by Lindsey Halligan. You don't do anything to cut off Lindsey Halligan at the pass. You just let it play out. And then once it plays out, you immediately go for the grand jury transcript and you file your motion for vindictive prosecution and you get judges to rule on it at that time. That's a way. And if your James Comey, the second time, you, you know, you know, file early, you know, you file it when the grand jury indicts and then you start building your case again to get your case dismissed. But what I love about John O'Brien is rather than sit around for this amorphous, you know, rogue grand jury. So Lord knows what Dojo DeGeneva is telling the grand jury in order to get an indictment. I mean, given the track record of this Department of Justice in abusing the grand jury process in subordinate purgeery, in sending in false testimony, in mistating the Constitution.

1:27:14In sending in fake documents. Lord knows what crazy Joe DeGeneva is telling a grand jury. And so rather than wait around right out and to have this shadow, this shade over him, John O'Brien, he filed first. This is now like the second or third motion that he's filed in a different court arguing against indictments. Lord knows where they are. So I like the tack. It's not for everybody. It's not for the faint of heart either. It's a strategy that they develop that it's bespoke. It works for John Brennan because of the nature of the double indictment, grand juries and DeGeneva and it works. And it's really real, but it's not for the faint of heart. Not if you ran that strategy past a dozen top flight criminal defense lawyers that do work like this, at least 10 of them would say, pass, that's not how we're going to do this case. So I give them a lot of credit.

1:28:14Right. And it's also not for folks who can't afford the crushing expense to litigate on multi fronts. And you know, there's that expression. You can beat the rap, but can you beat the ride? There's a ride going on where he's having to litigate in civil court. He believes that it's inevitable that he's going to have to litigate in criminal. Well, I mean, you know, federal court in the criminal case and that this strategy in saying that I don't trust the Trump Justice Department to preserve records and give me information that is a sculpted Tory and necessary for my defense. Well, there's a history behind that, you know, right now around the same time that this is going on, the Southern property law center is saying that the Trump Justice Department is withholding evidence of its long standing cooperation with the FBI using information about it from its informants program to share cooperatively with the federal government years and decades of this cooperation.

1:29:20That's memorialized in government files that the government isn't sharing. So I think Brennan knows that this is necessary to defend himself and to take a step back from all of this, you know, we've talked about the grand conspiracy investigation quote unquote. And it's worth emphasizing just how ridiculous this Joe DeGenerva investigation in the Southern District of Florida and Fort Pierce is it's based on this conspiracy theory that dating even before Trump's first term, there was some sort of coordinated conspiracy between enemies of Donald Trump from before the Mueller investigation, and then there was some sort of investigation spanning through the Mueller investigation, spanning through Trump's criminal prosecutions after his first term against him and that this somehow darts the statute of limitations because it's ongoing with different actors that are in the deep state.

1:30:26Now this is something that is in the kind of crazy waters of Michael Lindell podcasts, but now it's actually in a federal court. Now it's actually in the courtroom of Judge Aileen Cannon where it's for anyone who's been there in Fort Pierce and I was there covering Trump's criminal case, it's a tiny courtroom. You're not allowed to bring electronic devices. It's basically a black box that will have a pretty limited audience if this grand conspiracy case gets off the ground. So he has to be aggressive because in a circumstance like this, a crazy investigation like this, the deck appears to be really stacked. Yeah, two quick observations. When I've tried a case in that Fort Pierce warehouse, I used to practice at a West Palm Beach and I covered the entire Southern District and in early in my career. And then secondly, you want, if you're talking about the crazy water, you and I have done separate hot takes about Donald Trump's, you want to read about the deep state where you think this is batshit crazy.

1:31:38Just read Peter Ticketin Donald Trump's former military academy roommate from high school, who says one of their go to lawyers, he's represented Tina Peters, all sorts of things. He just filed a federal tort claims at case on behalf of a dozen Jan Sixers, including a proud boy who was convicted of seditious conspiracy, looking for money from the government. But it's not just like a plane and simple under rule eight of the civil, the federal rules of civil procedure statement of the claim. Oh no, it's 30 pages of deep state QAnon already debunked 80 times in federal court houses, just mad as a hat or shit about globalists and anarchists and the Democratic party. And the grand conspiracy all and this is the reason why Donald and the election was rigged and the and the software companies and the hardware companies like if you thought Sydney Powell was, was mad as a hat or wait to read what Peter ticket did his wrote.

1:32:50I have it up on legal AF sub stack on behalf of Jan Sixers trying to get their money, but this is the problem. These are articles of faith for those that surround themselves and make money off of Donald Trump. So whether it's it's Joe DeGeneva or it's Peter Ticketin or it's it's people now inside the government that were once outside the government like Stan Woodward and Todd Blanche and all Donald Trump's personal criminal defense team or his outside. Criminal defense team, they have all taken, they've all drank from the Kool-Aid jar container that relates to Donald Trump and they believe at least most of the gospel of this bullshit about about the 2020 election and Donald Trump, you know, being crucified by something called the deep state. So if you ever, you know, sort of, you know, can't go to sleep at night, you ought to read Peter Ticketin's complaint and but these are the people that Donald Trump has a name has have empowered who enable his worst instincts, right?

1:33:58And to your point, they filed this in the district of DC where I can guarantee you there isn't a single judge on that bench that these are the judges that presided over the January 6th docket who saw all the videos of the rioters beating up cops. They're the ones who presided over the seditious conspiracy trials, even every Trump appointee, every Biden appointee, every single appointee in that court knows that this kind of in conspiratorial nonsense petaled in this complaint is malicious garbage. They did not file this complaint thinking that this is going to be a winning lawsuit. They filed this complaint because this is the administration that wanted to do the payout pot for punks as a tillis called it and that they know that if they filed the complaint, the Trump Justice Department is going to roll over because any judge in the court where they filed this that looks at this complaint will have to suppress his or her.

1:35:10So it's so well, but one of the many reasons I was looking forward to doing the show tonight is just having your insightful wit and analysis, Adam class felt all rise news joining as a guest anchor today on the legal AF podcast. Thank you for taking time out of your day. Adam to brief our audience and for those that know Adam, I'm sure they've been thrilled for those that are just being introduced to Adam in the links below you'll find links to all rise news. Different ways to support his independent commentary and journalism. Thanks for being here on legal AF. The podcast download the audio so many different ways to support what we do download our audio Q our code is up there for you. It sounds antiquated and analog. But audio podcasting is still the dry one of the drivers for ratings. So if you're a YouTuber like I am go over the audio podcast and do us a favor and hit subscribe and download levels of five star review. Come over to legal AF YouTube channel. Thank you to everybody. We hit 1.2 million subscribers right on time.

1:36:15Less than two years up and running and that's a compliment to our audience and their fervent support for what we do 12 new videos a day called 12 hot ones a day over on legal AF YouTube channel. Cost you nothing to subscribe. Nothing to subscribe but it means the world to us and what we do here on supporting independent journalism. So you've got those two major ways of course we've got our pro democracy sponsors and you're talking about supporting independent commentary and journalism. You can you can I can't think of anybody find her to help support that Adam class felt of all rise news. Thanks for being here again with us. Adam you get to be here. It's sort of like Saturday night live when they do that whole intro that they go live Saturday live. We have a we have an ending you get to be a part of here on the legal AF podcast. You ready. Here goes. Shout out to the mightest mighty and the legal AFers.

1:37:15You