Transcript

LIVE: TRUMP GRILLED AT SCOTUS + EPSTEIN UPDATES | Legal AF

From MeidasTouch · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 1 h 21 min · 14,585 words · 130 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "LIVE: TRUMP GRILLED AT SCOTUS + EPSTEIN UPDATES | Legal AF", an episode of MeidasTouch published January 22, 2026 (1 h 21 min, about 14,585 words). It mentions 12 people, works and ideas, including Supreme Court Justice, Tariffs, Karen Freeman, Michael Pop, Kanji Brown Jackson.

What this episode is about

This edition focuses on Donald Trump's legal challenges at the Supreme Court, highlighting a critical case regarding his attempts to influence the Federal Reserve, and a judge's recent decision to block the Trump administration's efforts to investigate a Washington Post reporter for leaks. Key discussions include the potential ramifications of these developments on Trump's administration and ongoing legal battles.

Key takeaways

  • Trump's legal strategies are like a boomerang: they just keep coming back to hit him harder.
  • A federal judge reaffirmed First Amendment rights, reminding us that not all 'fishing expeditions' end in a catch.
  • Trump missed the chance to reclaim his 'genius' label by arriving late to Davos—strategic blunder 101.
  • The Supreme Court may soon add Trump's name to the infamous list of epic legal losers.
  • When it comes to international diplomacy, it'd be more effective for Trump to send his binder than himself.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 10:00: Supreme Court Justice, Karen Freeman, Michael Pop, Jay Powell
  2. – 20:00: Supreme Court Justice, Tariffs, Karen Freeman, Jay Powell
  3. – 30:00: Tariffs, Kanji Brown Jackson, Supreme Court Justice
  4. – 40:00: Tariffs, Supreme Court Justice, Hannah Nathanson
  5. – 1:00:00: Social Security
  6. – 1:10:00: Tariffs, Blackstone
  7. – 1:20:00: Tariffs, Social Security

Notable quotes from "LIVE: TRUMP GRILLED AT SCOTUS + EPSTEIN UPDATES | Legal AF"

  • Debacle for the Trump administration today. No, not in Davos, not in Europe. We'll get to that next. At the United States Supreme Court, is Donald Trump about to go on an epic…
    about Supreme Court Justice · at
  • Thing is no matter when I tuned in, no matter who was arguing, whether it was the solicitor general, John Sauer, or Paul Clement or Abby Lol, and no matter who was doing the…
    about Abby Lel · at
  • And the fact that Jerome Powell was there in the audience Oh, yeah.
    about Jay Powell · at
  • He's the smartest guy in the room is wearing thin as an advocate. I think Paul Clement did a much better job as a former solicitor general than the current solicitor general. What do you think?
    about Paul Clement · at
  • And then finally, Katanji Brown Jackson for me is the intellectual heavyweight on the panel. hopefully one day when there's a Democrat in office, she would be the chief jud chief justice of the.
    about Kanji Brown Jackson · at
  • About it as passing taxes on to the American public. I think it's a setback for him. I think they're going to there, it's a it's a little bit of muscle memory, right? This case…
    about Tariffs · at
  • It has to come to an end. We got a new order there and comments by Miss Nathansson about the raid on her house and what it means. Again, it's not just about her. It's the Trump…
    about Hannah Nathanson · at
  • Of people saw that their social security checks were less than what they're used to getting. I think that is a reflection of this administration's policies whether it's about…
    about Social Security · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Karen Freeman — Person · Co-host / anchor · 4 mentions · first at
    One of the regular anchors; provides reactions to Supreme Court audio, commentary on DOJ actions, and geopolitical implications of Trump’s Davos trip.
    And we've got so many things to order and I think this is the right order of operation. Karen, you and I talked about it before we got on. We're going to we're going to start…
  • Michael Pop — Person · Host / anchor · 2 mentions · first at
    Primary narrator and organizer of segments; frames the Supreme Court dispute, plays oral-argument clips, and transitions to press freedom and Davos topics.
    Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF with your regular anchors Karen Freeman and me, Michael Pop. And we curated a show for you tonight.
  • Kanji Brown Jackson — Person · Referenced Supreme Court Justice (questioner in oral argument) · 4 mentions · first at
    Cited for pointed questioning on stay factors and irreparable harm; used by hosts to illustrate skepticism toward Trump’s position.
  • Hannah Nathanson — Person · Referenced journalist / subject of press-freedom dispute · 1 mention · first at
    Discussed as a Washington Post reporter whose devices were seized in a leak investigation; hosts frame it as a First Amendment/press intimidation issue.
  • Jay Powell — Person · Referenced Fed Chair (audience presence at oral argument) · 3 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as being in the room during Supreme Court argument, signaling institutional stakes and Fed independence concerns.
  • Paul Clement — Person · Referenced attorney / amicus participant in Supreme Court argument · 3 mentions · first at
    Praised by hosts as an effective advocate; contrasted with Solicitor General John Sauer’s performance.
  • Jerome Powell — Person · Referenced Fed Chair (duplicate naming of Jay Powell) · 2 mentions · first at
    Same individual as ‘Jay Powell’; referenced to emphasize Fed independence and the symbolism of his attendance at oral argument.
    And the fact that Jerome Powell was there in the audience Oh, yeah.
  • Abby Lel — Person · Referenced attorney for Lisa Cook (as stated in episode) · 2 mentions · first at
    Identified as representing Lisa Cook in the Supreme Court stay dispute; mentioned alongside other advocates in the argument.

Companies & orgs

  • Blackstone — Company · Business focus · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as a sponsor of the Davos event where Trump attended.
    Some scandal and the stench of some scandal, he's they got to his handlers got to get him out of the country. So he didn't have to go to Davos, even though it was being…

Concepts & topics

  • Supreme Court Justice — Concept · Core topic · 15 mentions · first at
    The episode discusses a significant case before the Supreme Court regarding the Federal Reserve's independence.
  • Tariffs — Concept · Key argument · 15 mentions · first at
    Discussed as a tool Trump uses in international negotiations and its potential impact on the economy.
  • Social Security — Concept · Referenced concept · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned in the context of economic policies affecting everyday Americans.

Full transcript with timestamps

Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF with your regular anchors Karen Freeman and me, Michael Pop. And we curated a show for you tonight. Actually, Donald Trump curated a show for us tonight. Uh we we put him in charge of our programming apparently. Uh and we've got so many things to order and I think this is the right order of operation. Karen, you and I talked about it before we got on. We're going to we're going to start off with what a a a debacle for the Trump administration today. No, not not in uh Davos, not in Europe. We'll get to that next. At the United States Supreme Court, is Donald Trump about to go on an epic losing streak at the United States Supreme Court about things that matter to his economic and monetary and ultimately foreign policy? because today he tried to argue with a straight face that he had the right to effectively destroy the independence of the Federal Reserve and

because of a social media post fire a board of governor member and Lisa Cook and I don't know if it's going to be just to keep people on the edge of their seat. I don't know if it's going to be 90 8 to 1 or 7 to2 but he is going down and wait till you hear the clips. We've got the receipts tonight from the oral argument that we had live streaming up on Legal AF YouTube today. Uh, and I'll just play most of them are just the MAGA six, just the even Alto. I mean, Trump's probably thinking, I'm glad I'm over in Davos. He might be over in Switzerland, but Jay Powell was in the room today.

We're going to talk about the United States Supreme Court. Then we've got, as we came on the air, a a magistrate judge, but a judge nonetheless, who has blocked the Trump administration from uh uh going through and doing a fishing expedition on the Washington Post reporter who had her files picked up because they're trying to get to the bottom of a leak. We're talking about a person who's got a thousand confidential informants, if you will, [clears throat] and has dozens and dozens of relationships to the Defense Department and other places on the Washington Post.

You know, this is like Basos versus Donald Trump. And you got a federal judge that said, you know what, I'm going to issue an order here. And that's a good one for First Amendment expression. Uh Lindseay Halligan had a had to resign in disgrace after back-to back orders crushed her yesterday. I also think it's convenient that she resigned when her boss um old old Yellow Stain Mr. Coward was in Davos, you know, instead of being in America. I'm sure they timed that on purpose. We'll talk about uh we'll talk about uh Lindseay Hallan on that particular on that particular thing. And then we'll have to talk about Donald Trump's shortcircuited trip, literally had to change planes like the rest of us to get to Davos, Switzerland. He went late, which I thought was a tactical and strategic blunder. Gave the Europeans time to have dinner together, have meetings together, and give speeches against Donald Trump.

By time he arrived, he went from It was like I Karen, I felt like I was watching, remember the old Get Smart TV show? Uh, and

because he used to where he used to answer the phone in his in his shoe. Yeah. But he would always have this running joke where he would say, uh, if you don't let me in, uh, you know, 1,000 agents are going to storm down this. And they're like, we don't believe you. Would you believe 25 boy scouts with a pocketk knife? Would you believe, you know, with him? It's like, I'm going to take over Greenland militarily. And it and it got reduced down to, oh, you're going to let me have two military bases in Greenland. Oh, okay. I won. Yeah, you didn't win. I know you have this binder of accomplishments that you like to walk. He's like a four-year-old. You have to give him a binder of accomplishments to take to a podium.

This is what his handlers are now doing because they just can't control him and he's completely completely out of his mind. So, we'll talk about global things, you know, as the backdrop to all of this for a very failed already mission for Donald Trump to try to take over the world. Um, all here on Legal AF um podcast. How are you, Karen?

I'm really good. I'm really good. How are you? I'm doing great. It's zero degrees in New York these days. So,

yeah, it's pretty it's pretty terrible when they say, "Oh, it's 17 degrees." But it feels like zero. And it actually does,

right? So, yeah, I'm sorry about that. You know, I moved I moved out of the moved out of that area. But

I think I think about that and I think now now I know why Pop went south. I went I definitely went south. So, let's pick up with the Supreme Court because um two and a half hours. I'll just set the stage here. You got John Sauer, the unlistenable um solicitor general arguing uh for the government department and the US, you know, the US position and Abby Lel representing Lisa Cook. And then you had some friends of the court like Paul Clement who [clears throat] actually made some very good points today. And then as I said in the pregame show that I did with Adam Clasfeld uh when we had the live stream this morning, look to Roberts. How if you're going to know and the rest are going to take their lead from Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts about where he's at.

out. The issue procedurally was whether the Supreme Court was going to continue a stay to keep Lisa or or to continue uh to continue to continue to affirm a a decision by the appellet court 2 to1 to keep Lisa Cook in her chair as the as a member of the board of governors controlling ultimately interest rates or were they going to take her out and force her through appeal to get her job back? Trump wants her out and wants her to fight to get back in. Cook wants to stay where she's at and have Trump fight to get her out. That's the fight right now. This stay issue about Trump asking for a stay to block the the uh decision of the DC appellet court is what was technically up on appeal today.

Sometimes the judges referred the justices referred to that like, well, we're just here on the stay. And otherwise, they got down to sort of the merits of the case. Donald Trump tried to fire Lisa Cook because he had his, this is all orchestrated, like a conspiracy. He had his head of Fanny May and Freddy Mack, the mortgage uh the mortgage regulator, if you will, uh post some clip art, some cut and paste jobs of mortgage documents that he should never had access to to try to prove that Lisa Cook owned two first residences, two primary residences, one in Michigan and one in Atlanta that she took out from the same bank. She said, "I didn't do that. If I did it, I did it through the same bank, credit union. So, who's being defrauded? And how is that grounds to fire me for cause from the position?

Because the Supreme Court's already said if you're going to fire the bank, Federal Reserve, that's got to be for cause. And then her other argument, which seemed to take over the hearing today, was what due process was she given? And what does that due process look like? Shouldn't there be, for instance, a hearing? Shouldn't there be shouldn't there be evidence presented? Shouldn't there be a decision maker? and then she can maybe appeal from that process. What is the nature of the due process? And John Sauer Karen came right out basically telling the Supreme Court, you have no power to in reinstate or in put somebody in or out of the position, which didn't sit well with the chief justice. He said you the due process she was given was sufficient even though he had to admit that the record was completely not complete from the trial court level and that pissed off a lot of the judges and soon as we heard the

clips and we'll play the clips in a moment you'll see why I think this is 7 to2 8 to1 or maybe 90 before I play the clips Karen what was your overall reaction to the hearing and what do you and what do you think is going to happen

so I flew in and out of it I was I able to listen to parts of it. But the crazy thing is no matter when when I tuned in, no matter who was arguing, whether it was the solicitor general, John Sauer, or Paul Clement or Abby Lol, and no matter who was doing the questioning, whether it was Katanji Brown Jackson or Brett Kavanaaugh, uh you know, whatever it was, they all seemed to say the same thing, which is basically the Fed is different. It's supposed to be above politics. Congress meant what they created and you're not following what they meant.

And it really seems like Trump is going to lose in a big way. So I kept waiting. I kept hoping I was going to hear whatever the other argument is, but I I never quite heard it. The most I heard was what legal standard should we be applying here? you know, like right and what you know, like that it was more of like a

one of these kind of law schooly Supreme Court arguments about you know what standard is it and is it the is it is it inm you know inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance or is it for cause or is it the same thing and you know it's like it was a lot of that kind of stuff but

but go ahead no I was just going to say and I didn't hear the whole thing so but everything I heard was was very much like

Yeah. And and the fact that Jerome Powell was there in the audience Oh, yeah. basically sending a message.

Yeah. So, I I think I think this this felt different than than some of the others.

I I would be And now here's what I want people to do in the audience tonight. I want you to count on your fingers the votes after you hear each clip and where you think that vote lies in terms of you got to count to five to defeat Donald Trump. And of course, the more the more the marrier. Let's start. Let's just start playing clips. Okay, I picked out ones I think sum this up. Let's start with the MAGA 6, right? Which is where Donald Trump has to get his votes from. Let's start with Neil Gorsuch.

General, let's let's uh just suppose with me hypothetically for the moment that the court read the the act to require notice and a hearing. I I I assume everybody has notice now. Uh here we are. Uh what would that hearing look like? Uh

I would point to what the court has said in Vermont Yankee, which this court is very reluctant to dictate uh uh procedures to even federal agencies. And here the court would be dictating or a court would be dictating procedures to the president. I I think they rely heavily on Louder Mill. Obviously, we dispute that there's any notice in hearing requirement, but louder mill requires only very minimal flexible procedures. be calling uh Miss Cook in into the Roosevelt room, sitting across a conference table, listening for I don't know how long, how much evidence is a lawyer required and then and then making a decision. Could that suffice?

You think what would what would be required? It would probably be entire if if the court were to conclude that it would be have to be entirely dependent on the executive to decide. Uh and that's what the case will indicate. Certainly, I think the question points out a great weakness in their argument, which is that the word cause does not include notice in a hearing. But on its face, Congress knows how to provide notice in a hearing. It did so in the NLR one month before and it it it reenacted the four cause uh restriction here in 1935.

And because it's not there, the court has nothing to provide guidance on that point. And if if the court were to conclude that, it would be up to executives.

Just a meeting across a conference table finished with you're fired. I mean, Uh, by the way, I just to just to uh to not leave a cliffhanger, that was the best probably for the Trump administration. Gorsuch saying sarcastically, so that's all they got to do. Bring her into the Roosevelt room and then at the end say you're fired and that's going to be enough. Um, and one thing before I get to the next clip, Karen, I want to hear your I'll play another one. I'll get your opinion on it. I said, and you and I did a lot of this, that when John Sauer became the solicitor general, and he we found him to be almost unlistenable, insufferable to listen to during the immunity oral argument and the um and the um Colorado insurrection oral argument when he was private lawyer for Donald Trump. And I said at the time that this shtick of his of trying to to try to filibuster and try to talk over the judges and just

shove all of this content that's, you know, just and because he's got some sort of photographic memory and just just talk his way in in and out of circles was going to wear thin when you're the actual solicitor general regularly arguing at the Supreme Court. We're for me we're starting to see that that that act of his of overtalking over explaining trying to pull every like every smarmy school boy trying to pull every example out every case out like he's the smartest guy in the room is wearing thin as an advocate. I think Paul Clement did a much better job as a former solicitor general than the current solicitor general. What do you think?

Yeah, I I agree with you. I thought Paul Clement was really good. Um, and you know, did a better job, I should say, than than he did. He's hard to listen to, not just because his voice is is, you know, like nails on a chalkboard. He's hard to listen to because he also just the way he explains things, the way he, I think, talks to the justices, he kind of interrupts them. And you're right, he's acts like he's the the smartest person in the room. and and he advocates to the point where he loses credibility and that's the part that you have to be careful.

That's right. You know, you're an advocate, but you also are somebody who has to maintain your credibility.

Yeah. He takes it too far with their examples. And here's here's a good example. Amy Coney Barrett, again, a vote they need in order to defend Donald Trump's ability to take over the Federal Reserve. She's wondering whether we're going to have a cratering of the economy and whether that should be a consideration. This is to your point Karen with J with Jay Powell the Federal Reserve central banker sitting in the room. Let's play Amy Coney Barrett.

Nothing sour. Can I ask you a question uh that's also related to the stay factors. Um Justice Otomayor brought up the public interest here and we have amigus briefs from economists who tell us that if Governor Cook is if we grant you your stay that it could trigger a recession. How should we think about the public interest in a case like this?

Yeah. two two things to say about that. One [clears throat] is if you look at what actually happened here, she was removed on August 25th and the stock market went up for the next three days. So we've already had a kind of natural experiment so to speak about whether or not the predictions of doom will really be implemented and surely that if investors are jittery or whatever the argument is. You would have seen that in August 25th and you did not see that. IN FACT, YOU HAVE THESE SURPRISED

WELL, I'LL interrupt you there to say that I don't want to be in the business of predicting exactly what the market's going to do. I agree and and that's why I think the court ought to consider all those amiggas briefs and their sort of you know predictions of doom with a fairly drawn aside. What the court has to do is weigh

essentially you have those amiggas briefs a reflection of very elite opinion elite opinion that risk general sour I don't want to be responsible for quantifying that risk. I'm a judge not an economist but if there is a risk doesn't that council in the stay posture when the equities are at stake caution on our part. I think the court has to weigh that risk.

See, that's an example of what Karen, you were saying. He just loses credibility because he won't acknowledge the risk and he's bringing things outside the record like, WELL, WE ALL KNEW WHAT HAPPENED TO THE STOCK MARKET like 3 days after. That's not in the record. And there was a lot of discussion about what was not in the record. In fact, if he thought he was going to find a a safe harbor or a port in the storm with Sam Alto, if he loses Alto, I don't know how he gets any votes. Here's Sam Alto about um the record below and that and the rush for everybody to get to the Supreme Court when they should have left it with Judge Gab, a Biden appointee at the trial court level. Let's play Sam Alo. Is there any reason why this whole matter had to be handled by everybody, by the executive branch, by the district court, by the DC circuit in such a hurried manner? Uh we you began by laying out what you claimed to be the factual basis

for the four cause removal, but no court has ever explored those facts. Are are the mortgage applications even in the record in this case? I know that the text of the social media post that screenshots to the mortgage applications is in the record, but I don't recall if the the paperwork itself is in the record.

All right. Right there. The screenshots of social media posts are the record below. I mean, that's not going to make Alto or others feel like there was a proper process because look, where we're going with this is um the Supreme Court 728190 is going to send this back to Judge Gia Cobb uh who's the trial court judge below to with instructions about how to conduct a due process hearing, maybe with some guidance about what for clause looks like and send it back to her and get it out of their hair and Lisa Cook is going to stay in that I believe she's going to stay in that position through that level of appeal. What do you think, Karen? [snorts]

Totally. I completely agree. And you know, and in the meantime, uh Jerome Powell's tenure is going to expire, right? I mean, just as the chairman, not as the full on on on the Federal Reserve Board, but all these things are going to happen while that plays out in the lower court if they send it back. I I think that's absolutely right what will exactly happen. And you know, th the whole thing is just bananas. I mean, the Supreme Court signaled in case after case where they did allow Trump to fire people who were who had these types of positions that were supposed to, you know, be independent and expand uh go go across administrations like the FBI, FBI director and others who he has successfully been able to fire. The Supreme Court every time they've looked at this, it says, "But the Fed is different." And Trump just pushes and pushes and pushes. And even this week it came out that they're saying, "Well, if

we lose in the Supreme Court, there's these five other statutes that allow us to to do tariffs. We're going to do tariffs no matter what." I mean, and it's so they're just saying basically giving the middle finger to the courts and to the Supreme Court and basically saying, "We're going to do what we want. Whether you let us do it this way or some other way, we're going to do, you know, whatever we want." And so, and that's that's what they keep that's what they keep signaling to them.

And so, I think they've kind of had enough just generally. And here, I think they're going to put their foot down and say, "This one's different. The Fed's different. We told you and you don't want to listen."

And business and business powers are different. While Katanji Brown, while Amy Coney Barrett and Kavanaaugh regularly vote in the majority, it's almost like their court right now. You got to get their vote if you're going to get a major decision. And when when we're talking about religion and church and state and women's rights, they're on the wrong side. However, when it when you're talking about presidential power and separation of power, when it comes to things like the independence of the Federal Reserve and I think tariffs, when statutes clearly say he doesn't have this power or or congressional over, you know, congressional uh acts, then it's a bridge too far even for the MAGA. And I said at the top of the oral argument today when I was on uh the pregame show, I said, "Watch John Roberts, who I think will likely end up writing the opinion here. He was the one that the case went to originally. He's

the one that referred it to the full nine for consideration on the motion to stay, which is technically what we were here on today." And and I don't think you can take any I think Trump's got to be uh if they tell him anything, he has this habit of either they don't brief him about what really happens because they're scared daddy's going to beat them. It's a possibility. Or he just likes to downplay every technicality. It was a technicality. Everything's a technicality to Donald Trump. This is not a technicality. Here's Chief Justice Roberts basically saying what you're saying we don't have the power. This is where again John Sauer going too far and losing credibility. Here's Chief Justice Roberts.

General Sour, if if you're correct that courts do not have the authority to reinstate a removed officer, why are we wasting our time wondering if there's cause or not? I because even if we say yes, there is cause, shouldn't have removed her, but we don't have the authority to order her reinstatement. What's the how is that consistent with with the time and energy being spent on determining if there's cause an independent basis? I guess it's not independent in the sense that if that's right, the other one is uh uh irrelevant, right? It seems to me that if there is any level of cause and you indicate that there is some level of cause, right? Well, then you can't be right about the idea that the courts can't order anybody uh who's been removed uh to be reinstated.

See, Roberts is annoyed. So, again, if you're counting at home and and you're I don't want anybody to think because the full two hours is up on Legally Off YouTube channel that I'm like shading this and I'm leaving out the ones that are helpful to the There are none. There are no audio clips. That's what Karen, you said. I kept tuning in and I was like, where's the helpful clip? There is no helpful clip. And Roberts is is basically saying from a procedural standpoint, what are you talking about? We don't have the power to in to reinstate or put somebody in or out of a job. You can't have it both ways. But Kavanaaugh for me summed it up, which was this will destroy effectively this will destroy the American economy. What you're proposing, let's play Kavanagh.

This is not a ironclad. You can never be removed. There is a cause removal uh authorization. But on that your position that there's uh no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, very low bar for cause that the president alone determines. I mean that would weaken if not shatter the independence of the Federal Reserve that we just discussed.

Right. He he went on in that clip. I I think I clipped the clip where he talked about the destruction of the economy. And then finally, Katanji Brown Jackson for me is the intellectual heavyweight on the panel. Um hopefully one day when there's a Democrat in office, she would be the chief jud chief justice of the United States. I think that's definitely something that could happen, should happen. Here's how Katanji Brown Jackson kind of brought it all together. I guess I think you may have to be a little bit more specific with respect to the irreparable harm that you are alleging because really as Justice Barrett sort of indicated we are in a stay posture here. So the question is to what extent do we believe that the president or the public is harmed by allowing Miss Cook to remain in her position for the pendency of this case.

I'm not sure that we have evidence here that Miss Cook is an immediate threat to the public, that she's been in this position for a long time. um the kinds of things that you're pointing to as Justice Sotomayor indicates are not uh related to conduct while in office. So it would seem to me um that on the stay factors you would have to say more about the harm of leaving her there for the next however many months while this case is being litigated.

Yeah. And that's that's really classic Katanji Brown Jackson like right to the heart of the matter about the issue here. Um [clears throat] and so

if I remember correctly Sour's answer was no the president's the one who's going to be irreparably harmed.

Of course it's always the reparable harm runs the other way because he's got to he's got to have Dr. Cook as a board of governor and he can't get control of the of the uh of the um Federal Reserve. Here's my question for you as we round out this segment. Do you think they they all they all say they're just handling one case at a time. However, what do you think this has an impact on what we can expect from the tariff decision with the same lineup of people and a very similar commentary that you and I did? It was Kavanaaugh against the tariffs in questioning Amy Coney Barrett talking about if we rule in your favor, how quick can you make the refunds? You know, which is never a great place to be if you're on the other side of that argument. It was really the same people except maybe Alto and Thomas. Um, but with is this same are we going to get the band back together again with the tariffs too and take down tariffs and

Donald Trump loses two major signature attempts by him which is to destroy our economy by tariff or by Federal Reserve capture.

So this I think this one we're he's going to lose. I I don't know what what the numbers are the way you said, but I think Trump's going to lose this one. I I'm I'm not exactly sure how long the opinion's going to be, right? Because there's not a full record. This is just a stay motion. It it's probably not going to be a very long decision, I would I would guess. Um there's not a lot to go on, right? It's just kind of what the law is. And but tariffs, I you know, it's it's it's hard to say because of so much has happened since that oral argument, right? And and like I said that there was they were coming out saying, "Well, if you rule against us, we're going to still do it's inevitable.

We have all these five other statutes that allow us to do tariffs. We have broad tariffs powers." So that one, it's a good question. I'm not I'm not exactly sure how that's going to come out uh because because of sort of it's not in a vacuum. It's not not happening while he's trying to steal Greenland, you know. So, I think I think they see the ramifications of what he's doing and I think I think that one is has a fuller record. But I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

Well, I think on the tariff side, he's threatening to use all these other statutes, but frankly, those statutes are very, very difficult. he'd never be able to replicate the 200 tariffs, 200 country tariffs on basically every type of good for an indefinite period of time that he's tried to tried to do through the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. And yes, there's about five different other statutes, but some of them you have to do public comment and hearing, you have to publish, you have, you know, so he's never going to be maybe he can get some sort of what they call sectoral tariffs up and running, but it would be a far cry from what he's doing now, maybe 20 or 25%. And I don't think the the Supreme Court and the MAGA 6 or at least four out of the six. I don't think they want to leave planet Earth with giving a president the power under AIPA to pass the laws, the tariffs and the taxes because they kept talking

about it as passing taxes on to the American public. I think it's a setback for him. I think they're going to uh there, you know, it's a it's a little bit of muscle memory, right? This case that we're talking about here, the Lisa Cook case, will break the ceiling for me about how they can come back together again in a similar combination and defeat tariffs. I think it's Amy Coney Barrett. I think I think Amy Coney Barrett, this is my prediction. You can put this in a time capsule and pop it open. I think in if you put the two cases next to each other, I think Amy Coney Barrett and Gorsuch are going to be in the majority in both cases and they're going to be against Trump. I think Roberts is going to be in the majority against Trump in both cases.

And frankly, that's enough. Now, that's that's six to three right there. We don't even need Alo. I don't need Kavanaaugh. I don't I don't need Robert. I don't need Thomas at that point. I just need those three. Katanji Brown, Jackson, Kagan, and Soayor. And I'm six to three. And I I think that's how this is going to play out. when we when we and as we've seen from this past term when Kavanaaugh and Katanji and Amy Cody Barrett rule it, you know, vote in the majority, it's become their court. It becomes the law. Um, and so that's that's what I think. You know, people can debate with me all day long about whether oh no, they're all they're all individual cases and one case doesn't lead. I don't think so. I think they they kind of they they start getting their brain rewired about about economics, constitution, and the presidential power. And I think that'll help. I the tariff decision is not done. It's not

coming in January. Everyone's like, "Oh my god, it's another drop day for the decisions. Where's it's not coming. It's amazing hundreds and hundreds of pages of analysis of descents and concurrences in the majority opinion. If we see it in February, I'd be shocked. March maybe. If you remember, the DOS decision that you and I covered uh when it when it leaked about ripping away a woman's right to choose leaked in March as a draft with nothing else attached to it, just the just the majority opinion by Alto. It didn't come out until finally until June. And this tariffs is just as important in terms of the e the economy in terms of papers as that decision. I'd be shocked if it came out before the spring. Uh uh and and they don't care about You heard Amy Cody Barrett proved my point. Some people were like, "But look at all the money they'll have to refund. The bigger the refund, the less likely they No, they don't care about

how big the refund is." You just heard Amy Cody Barrett said, "I'm not an economist. I'm a judge. She's not a business person. If she's going to rule that the tariffs were wrong from the beginning, then they don't they figure out the government will be able to figure out how to pay back hundreds of billions of dollars." What do you think Trump's just drumbeat of using tariffs as a threat?

Oh, he should stop. I know, but no, of course. What do you think? Do you think that because that's that's clearly what he's been doing, right? He give me, you know, give me give me Greenland or you're going to have tariffs, you know, like he basically it he he uses as a as a cudgel and a and a threat,

which he's not supposed to do. Right. I was going to say, but what what impact does that have on on the justice?

I think it seeps in. I know your point. I think it seeps in even though it's not part of the record. It seeps into the water supply. They're human beings. They're reading the paper in the morning. They're getting the apps. They're watching Legal AF. Hi. I assume. And they're watching him. They're watching exhibit A as to why you don't have a president hold that power and why the founding fathers and framers put it with the legislative branch because it is a tax ultimately on the people. And if and if the frame framers and founders wanted to give the president that power or co-extensive power like equal, it would have been an article two. It's not in article two. It's in article one. And the only way the president gets any tariff power is if it gets delegated by Congress by an act. And even there you got to like well AIPA is easy. There's no mention of the word tariff. That was the that's the easiest analysis I've

ever heard done by the uh by the bank panel of the DC circuit court appellet court which is where show me where the word tariff is as a power in the statute that you're relying on. So, so that's but he's proving the point because you see what happens when a power mad lawless rogue populist president he while he's got this amazing superpower. It's like giving a 12-year-old the keys to a Ferrari. You know, he'll keep running it into the wall until somebody takes the keys away. It's time to take the keys away. Supreme Court.

It's crazy. Yeah, it's totally crazy. So, speaking of of crazy, we'll do we'll do one more quick segment before we take our break. Um people know the headline. Lindseay Halagan resigned in disgrace. That's I mean they they tried. By the way, I don't know if you caught Pam Bondi's posting. I don't I don't know if Chat GBT wrote this. Actually, they would have written it better. It took me four paragraphs to figure out that Lindsay Hallan was fired. It was all this flowery pros about Lindseay H. It was like past tense. So, I was like, uh, something's up, you know? And then and but it wasn't like today I accepted the resignation with a heavy heart of Lindsay H. That's how you and I would have wrote it, right? And then we would have No, it's like Lindsay Alligan with flowers and protecting the people in her six months as a prosecutor of D and we'll be and she'll be missed. I'm like, oh, she'll

be missed. She's been fired or she's resigned and then we don't even know where she's going normally.

That's what I That's what struck me was the fact that it wasn't like, oh, she's now going to be the special whatever like she's out. They didn't give her a safe. They didn't Trump Trump is a Trump is a coward and and he he realized she's a loser in his world and he went to Switzerland. He he they obviously did it with his approval and he and she got thrown under the bus. He didn't even give her a safe a safe place to land. Like she will now be the general counsel of uh the Trump Pack or No, it's we don't even know where she's going. I assume she's crawling back to Fox News or somewhere uh and all of that. But it just there is one thing that I wanted to raise on this issue. We had two back-toback in the same day, hours apart federal court orders different but got to the same place which is vacancy and judge Novak went further and said the maser one of my favorite quotes of a judge I don't know if I have it handy

here to read from the quote was her her continued masquerading as a US attorney must come to an end. He wrote that in the afternoon and then it finally did. When you have a federal judge saying, "I'm only taking it easy on you because you're a novice and you don't know what you're doing." But you, Bondie and Blanch, you do. And the rule of law matters in this courtroom and you can't ignore orders that you don't like because then I got to let everybody do that in my courtroom, including criminal defendants. And then what kind of justice system do we have? So after he wrote this 18page blast, I mean, I told people on my one of my hottakes, I needed to wear asbestous gloves to hold this order. I was I was not shocked that they eventually folded like they did with Alina Haba and the Delaware US attorney.

They're going to do with John Zarone in New York and the one in New Mexico and Nevada. They all quit because they can't win. The writing is on the wall. But I didn't think it would come just hours from a timing standpoint, from a news cycle standpoint in the middle of the night, I guess, while Donald Trump's in Davos. So, you want to you want to give your comments about the end of your fellow prosecutor? Uh, Lindseay Halligan.

Look, Lindseay Halligan was not qualified to begin with. She didn't know what she was doing. She raised her hand and said, "Pick me. I'll go indict Tish James and Jim Comey. And she miserably failed at every turn. She made rookie mistakes. She was not at all up to the task to to do what Trump wanted her to do. And he's not a loyal person." So he kicks people who he perceives as losers to the curb. And the writing was on the wall. You had so many judges say the same thing which is you're not the US attorney if you you know if you write the he they directed the aus in the Eastern District to not refer to her as the US attorney. and and the judge essentially really lambasted her for holding herself out as the United States attorney because she is not the United States attorney and they put out a uh expression of interest basically asking people to apply for the job for US attorney for the for the Eastern

District of Virginia and because they can vote someone into office. So, and that's what I think they're going to plan on doing is vote someone into the office of US Attorney interim until Donald Trump appoints someone who can get confirmed by the Senate. But who knows? He'll probably fire that person and again try to go through the same thing over and over and over again. But in the meantime, I don't know what's what they're going to do about cases down in Virginia. I mean, the Eastern District used to be this very respected place that people are resigning in droves and it's turned into this Donald Trump political prosecution machine. So hopefully this will end soon and we can get a real US attorney down there, someone who's actually qualified and will fight normal crime, not just Trump's political enemies. But they clearly dropped this on the day that he was going to Davos so that it would get

buried in the news cycle. And luckily, we don't allow these things to get buried in the news cycle. And but I was surprised, like you said, that that he she didn't have a landing spot. He really kicked her to the curb.

Absolutely. And uh welld deserved. I mean, uh, she belongs on the cable news talk shows that Judge Novak said that her filings should be should be, um, would be a proper place for the things that she said in her filings against him. And, um, yeah, and that's it. Hopefully, she'll crawl back under the rock that she can from under.

He said, "This filing is not befitting of litigants in this court, especially the Department of Justice. They're more appropriate for the cable news channel." Yeah exactly.

Cable talk show vitrial. Yeah, that's that's that's a and he's a trouble point. He's a trouble point.

Exactly. That that's why I was like, "Holy cow, that's a them fighting words. Those are fighting words." Um and when we come back, we're going to talk about um the reporter for the Washington Post who who had the greatest quote so far, which is, "I need my devices back to do my job." Right? So, you know, it's like, yes, uh, the FBI and Department of Justice picked up all of her devices as a reporter to send a a chilling message to her First Amendment expression and her right of free press. Um, could you imagine if if Nixon did this to Bernstein and Woodward um or uh or uh the New York Times reporters that were covering his administration uh and it has to come to an end. We got a new order there and comments by Miss Nathansson about um the raid on her house and um and what it means. Again, it's not just about her. It's the Trump administration trying to bully uh uh in, you know, media and press from covering

them. Pentagon bars them from the room. The only one that goes to Pentagon briefings now are right-wing podcasters like Laura Loomer and the rest. No legitimate news organization goes to Pentagon briefings anymore. they have to get their news there. There's some other way. So, she's working in the hallways and you know, they pass policies so they don't talk to reporters, but like intrepid reporters will figure out a way. And so, we appreciate her. We will talk about her story. And then what the heck just happened in Greenland where Donald Trump tried to I mean in uh Davos about Greenland. And you notice there's no mention of Gaza and the peace board.

Yeah. A lot of crazy things happened there. none of them in favor of Donald Trump who comes back weaker than when he left besides the fact it looked like he was stumbling around again with a medical condition up at the podium in [clears throat] Davos. So, um we'll talk about all that, but we're going to take our first break. Many ways to support what we do here on Legal AF. You've got the podcast and the support we get here and the love we get is unmatched, unparalleled, and we appreciate it. On our audio podcast platforms, put in Legal AF. Comments and fivestar reviews always help. And then we've got the legal a YouTube channel. Uh over well on our way to two million eventually. I mean we may we may hit two million subscribers in 20 26 with your help. Um we've got a new paid subscriber level.

We got associate council and partner and some great new content for those people that support us that way. And then legal the substack it's another way to support there it is another way to support what we do. I do [clears throat] two lives a day. I did a 40-minute live with Adam Klasfeld about many of the things in the in the news today from All Rise News and I do that every day. And then we've got um uh yeah, those are the we got other podcasts and things that are branded with legal AF, but those are the main ways to support that all that we do. And then of course we've got our prodemocracy sponsors, some of which have been with us forever, some of which are new, all curated by Jordy, me and Karen to support what we do. And so, and here's uh here's our first break. I've been genuinely impressed with the Tushy Bedet and the upgrade it's brought to my daily routine. Tushy sent me their bedet

and installation took about 10 minutes. Easier than I expected and fits seamlessly with my existing toilet and bathroom aesthetic. It's a simple, modern upgrade that makes your routine cleaner and more comfortable while reducing how much toilet paper you use. Number two is Tushie's thing. Go take care of number one. For a limited time, our listeners get 10% off their first bidday order when you use code legal AF at checkout. That's 10% off with your first bedet order at hello tushy.com with promo code legal AF. Tushy is the everyday luxury that improves your bathroom habits and bottom health.

Backed by a 30-day return policy and a 12-month [clears throat] warranty. And one more time for the people in the back. Get it? Number two is Tushi's thing. Go to take care of number one. For a limited time, our listeners get 10% off their first bedet order when you use code legal AF at checkout. That's 10% off your first bedet order at hellotushy.com with promo code legal AF. Let's be honest, shall we? Modern life is rough on our bodies. Your liver, it's working overtime to filter all of that out. That's why there's Dose. Dose for your liver is a clinically backed liver health supplement. It's a daily 2o liquid shot that tastes like freshsqueezed orange juice. Dose cleanses the liver of unwanted stressors, slowing it down and promotes daily liver function with zero sugar, zero junk, and zero calories. Look, your liver, mine too, performs more than 500 functions every day. Energy, digestion,

metabolism, and vitamin storage. And dose is designed to support that work. It's also backed by two double blind placeboc controlled studies showing positive impact on liver enzyme levels. Ready to give your liver that support it deserves? Head to dosedaily.co/legal AF or enter legal AF to get 35% off your first subscription. Your body, it does so much for you. Let's do something for it. That's d o s e d a i l y.co/legal. co/legal AF for 35% off your first month subscription. Welcome back and thank you for the support and the commitment [clears throat] to all that we do on Legal AF. We got an Epstein files update. Good news, bad news. I guess the bad news is that Judge Angelmire denied the motion to intervene by the uh bipartisan team of uh Representative Massie and Kana to intervene in the one of the cases, the the Gain Maxwell case in order to argue for the appointment of a special master or independent monitor

to take over the process of producing the millions of documents and pages that the Trump administration continues to bury and disappear. Um, and since the Trump administration ran to Judge Angel Meer to begin with, I think it was fair game and part of his inherent authority to take over that process and protect the victims and give them back dignity and justice the way a federal judge can do. Um, but he disagreed but but had an invitation in his order for another mechanism that could be used by the congressperson and survivors. And as a full disclosure, I represented Lisa Phillips, one of the survivors who filed a declaration to encourage the judge to uh to help her reclaim dignity and justice and to appoint the special master and her independent monitor.

Although he did not he did not ultimately do that and seemed a little sanguin about it, he did quote from approvingly from the comments made by Lisa Phillips uh in his order. How about that invitation though, Karen? tell our audience about that. I mean, look, the the fact that the rep the Massie and K and Kana uh the representatives in the House who were the Congress people who co-sponsor the um Epstein Files Transparency Act, the fact that they chose to vent their frustration essentially at the Department of Justice, totally understandably, that the the time to turn over the files has come and gone.

on. They have missed every deadline. They've only turned over 12,000 and change files, but there's millions, literally millions more. And so it makes sense that they want to push the Department of Justice and try to get the files released, right? And that's why they and and then what's getting released is heavily redacted, overly redacted, way outside the bounds of what the law that they passed uh permits. And so that's why they want a special master or an independent monitor uh appointed. What I thought was weird was the mechanism with which they tried to do it, which is to intervene in the Gileain Maxwell case because that case is closed. And so I I never quite understood that to begin with as a as why did they do it that way? And but as you said, I think the reason is because Angel Meer was already involved in the you know, the Department of Justice went to Angel Meer, right, and said

basically, help us. Uh and you know, so he was involved in it, but they did it under the United States versus Gileain Maxwell heading. And the judge said, "This case is closed. She's she's sentenced and so I have no authority to do this over this case in this matter." But he basically said, "But bring your own case, you know, bring a different case and uh and and we can do it that way." Because it just didn't make sense this way to me. And when I read the opinion, I actually kind of I mean, at least I'm not saying I agree or disagree. It's kind of how I understood courts to be.

Yeah, I think he's inviting another lawsuit. He wants and I think the survivors andor the representatives in violation of the act will file a federal lawsuit and ask that in temporary restraining order that that be a remedy for right now. I mean, I don't know if they'll get it, but certainly um somebody's got standing to enforce that act. Trump administration tells everybody, "Well, it's just a toothless act. If we violate it, it doesn't matter." matter. They certainly act like it doesn't matter and nobody has standing to challenge it or to sue over a violation of it. I don't think they're right about that and I think we're going to find out sooner rather than later. I don't have anything breaking news to tell you about whether one of my client survivors is willing to do that. But she's pretty courageous, Lisa Phillips, and I I wouldn't be shocked if there's a movement to bring such an action to

I think I think the Congress could do it, right? I think the I think Massie and I I think they could do it the the members right like they could say I mean the problem with the the EFTA the Epstein files transparency act is that it doesn't really have an enforcement mechanism and it is a civil right it's a civil action but why wouldn't it just be enforceable like any other civil you know civil law like I don't think it has to have an enforcement mechanism in it I think they could bring an action and and I think they have standing or one of the survivors as you said and then that would have I think he then the judge would have be able to have jurisdiction over the millions of documents but but the the particular criminal case that they brought this under is closed and that's what the judge held and so but I agree with you there was an invitation to to bring a different case

and I think they will so let's turn our attention now um as we see what happens next and the wheel turning in Epstein to it. It originally didn't get a lot of coverage, but of course it's now gotten a lot of coverage in which the government raided the house and and stole the uh devices, the laptops, and the computers of a a major Washington Post reporter um uh and uh of Hannah Nton. On January 14th, they seized a phone, two laptops, a recorder, a portable hard drive, and a Garmin watch because they wanted to know how her cholesterol is or how how many steps she's getting in um and um in order to try to get to the bottom of an investigation that they're doing about whether a government contractor obtained classified materials and whether she she was involved. that that's not the good cause to go rumaging around a a reporter, a member of the fourth estate and somebody who's got thousands of um

people that are cooperating with her about stories listed there. We have privilege in this country. We have a first amendment right. And it went before a US magistrate judge, William Porter, who um has, at least for now, he's holding the ring. He's ruled that the federal law enforcement officials have to return the electronic devices seized um and cannot look at what they have seized. And Hannah came out with a with a comment on social media which is like these are my tools. I need my devices back to do my job. This is what she does for a living. She you know is an ant she is sunshine to try to shine light on a corrupt administration. the these are the tools of her trade. Talk about Karen with our audience this kind of um crossing a threshold that we've never seen an administration do which is to go after a rep even Nixon who used to hear on those secretly recorded tapes which we now of course are able to

listen to where he would about to like Halddeman his attorney general or or somebody else in his in his corrupt administration. He would about, "Oh, those rat bastards, uh, Bernstein and Woodward, you know, where are they getting their information from?" But he didn't say, "Let's go to their house and take away their typewriters and all of their papers." Even even even Nixon had limits. So, walk through what you think's going on here. And uh uh and were you shocked that the Washington Post, which is basically captured by Basos, a buddy of Donald Trump, is fighting back here?

You know, I am not surprised because the independence of the press is sacriinct. It's in the constitution. It's the first amendment, right? It's a freedom of the press. And it's it's almost like the fourth branch of government. And it's such an integral part of our society that it is very prosecutors, at least prosecutors that I'm familiar with, they really take their job seriously when they when they're thinking about executing a subpoena or a search warrant on a reporter or a reporter's office or reporter reporter's device. You have to get approvals up the ladder. You have to really have the goods. You can't go on a fishing expedition. Uh you can't do that anyway, but you have to really I mean it is so you you think long and hard before you would ever do anything like that.

And frankly, most reporters would refuse to in a subpoena situation to hand over anything because and I've I've known reporters who go to jail instead of, you know, be held in contempt before they'll give up their sources because, you know, people put their lives on the line and their reputations on the line and everything else to come forward and and show transparency, you know, to to basically put themselves out there so that reporters can do their job and they depend on that and reporters rely on that and and that's just something that because it's constitutionally protected like almost no other job. It really is something that you don't do and you don't take lightly. I think here the fact that they said it was classified information that was being leaked to her. I'm sure that's what they use to justify oh national security we have to do this. But even that once you would let's say hypothetically okay it's you

have some information that she has classified information that we have to figure out who did this who leaked it

but they don't but they don't but they don't hear that's it's not a leak of classified information right

so okay but if they if they if they thought that's what it was they would have to put like a taint team in place because you have to you can't just go around and now suddenly dump her devices and look for absolutely everything and know who all her sources are and all the information that you now have, right? You have to be very very laser scalpel, you know, you have to go in there and okay, we're going to look for the one thing that we think we have probable cause for. You can't go fishing around and suddenly these are all the people who go to her. You know, that's that's just not how it works. So, you know, what happened today was the magistrate judge basically did in addition to to the give her devices back, it's the stand still order, right? don't look through it. You can't look through anything until we hash this out. You know, he basically did something that's very unusual and told the prosecutors,

you can't look at what you have. Well, and and the reporting by the Washington Post, just to kind of round it out, is that the the leak investigation was about was about a systems administrator named Aurelio Perez Lagonus and that he [clears throat] had information about u Venezuela and he was in direct contact with the reporter. There's no allegation in the filings by the government or otherwise that Nathansson received classified information in the signal chat at all. The lawyers that she hired at Williams and Connelly or Washington Post hired at Williams and Connelly were in negotiations with the government to make sure they didn't look through any of the materials while the case was being litigated in the court. And and they only ran to court after the DOJ took a very hard tact and said, "No, we're not going to agree. their senior officials have said, "We're not going to agree not to look through this while the case is

in court." Meaning, they had to run to court and get an emergency restraining order on exactly that and to return it. Um, now, if she got classified information, sure, they could try to use the Espionage Act. That's ironic since Donald Trump was charged with espionage espionage act violations in his own Mara Lago case. But um what she said in uh the filings about Nathansson is that it what they seized contains quote years of information about past and current confidential sources and other unpublished news gathering materials including those she was using for current reporting. It's essentially her entire professional universe. Almost none of the information is relevant to the search warrant. the proverbial the government the filing said for the Washington Post seized this proverbial haststack in attempt to locate a needle.

Um and she covers the federal workforce. She's been one of the most highprofile reporters for the Washington Post covering government firings, national security, in-depth articles about Venezuela and um social security. And according to this reporter here that I'm I'm referring to in the Washington Post right now, she did a firstperson account about her experience covering the Trump federal workforce across all the upheaval. She detailed how she posted her secure phone number to an online forum for government workers, got 1,000 sources to talk to her, um, and and other tip lines. This is why they're targeting maintenance because they don't like her her news gathering techniques which are not illegal. Um but certainly she's meeting the moment and you got an outofcrol you got to use you got to use whatever you got. You set up a website, you set up a a hotline, you set up a tip line, you do whatever you got to do,

especially when you're being blocked. You're being forced as a reporter to to sit through the insufferable propaganda press secretary briefings in the White House briefing room or the propaganda that's spewing like it's North Korea in the Pentagon briefing room or any a good reporter today has to assiduously avoid the official White House and Department of War and whatever briefing rooms because it's just unmitigated And so you got to go around it. And so she found a way. They didn't like it. And so they targeted Nathansson the way they target everybody. And now we're in federal court. And this is a story that we're going to have to follow because we're on her side. We're on the side of independent media and commentary. She's in a weird spot because she's not she's she's independent. But her parent company is is Amazon who's close with Basos. But even Bezos was like, "All right, they didn't send in like the minor leaguers.

Williams and Connelly and Karen, you know this well, is one of the most elite topflight um uh credentialed law firms in Washington. If I had a problem, WNC would be one of the firms I'd go to in a heartbeat. So, the fact that they're not it's not like they're getting some solo practitioner from out outer outer Maryland to go sorry solo practitioners in outer Maryland, but you're not Williams and Connelly. So, that's a good thing, but we got to follow this story because it's not going to end there. If we don't draw the line now, a red line now to stop him from doing it, what's next? Knock on your door, knock on my door.

Yeah. No, it's it's it's I mean, why didn't they subpoena the information? Like, the fact that they went straight to a search warrant is really, I think, a very dramatic step. And I'm not surprised that the Washington Post is fighting back that this this is a bridge too far for all reporters.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And anybody that's in the media and journalism the way that in commentary the way that we are and we're glad that everybody's here with us. Um we don't have billionaires and trillionaires and we don't have their dollars to support what we do. Uh that I think that does make us better. I think that makes us more honest uh in terms of our uh what you can rely on. But you know we're we punch above our weight and we need your we're people powered. We need the support of our audience to do what we do. This isn't volunteer work.

We have teams of editors and um and uh assistants and news gatherers and uh social media people all in this ecosystem that we create created on the Midas touch network and legal af and and all of that. So, the way to support and how do you invest and make sure that we're on the air? Legal AF the YouTube channel, 12 videos a day. Now, uh ACLU is now on with us for regular reporting. We're trying to put under one pane of glass everything at the intersection of law and politics, law, politics, and global politics all under one plane. ACLU is there, Democracy Forward, Attorneys General. I just interviewed Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania today. It'll be up on Legal AF YouTube uh in in a day or so. And um so you you be come over there if you can swing me in a paid membership. We've got some exclusive content for paid members at at the Legal AF YouTube legal AF Substack, a whole another parallel

universe for people that enjoy lots of different things, but law and politics particularly. We're regularly in the top five and rising US politics, top 40 of all substacks in that genre. Uh and we bring it all. We got write, you know, we got people writing regularly there. You won't find that writing anywhere but there. My two live reports a day, the videos, commercial free versions of things. We got a whole it's a whole ecosystem to nerd out on law and politics over on legal AF Substack. And then of course we've got support for the podcast itself over on audio versions wherever you get your audio podcast from YouTube. Tell friends, continue to build our audience. leave comments and the like. Um, and all the other things that are in our world our world in our legal af world. Um, and then finally, we've got our sponsors who are ride or die.

They are with us and they have been with us and they and they fight to get on and address our audience and support our messaging. They know what we do. They know our editorial viewpoint and they are here for it and we are we are happy about that. And here's a word from our sponsors. Magic Spoon is basically the grown-up version of your favorite childhood cereal. All the fun, nostalgic taste without the sugar bomb. It's a wholesome, high quality, high protein, zero sugar cereal that still hits that Saturday morning vibe. Each serving has 13 gram of protein, 5 g of net carbs, and zero gram of sugar. So, it's super fueling any time of the day and great for anyone who's carb conscious. They've got classic flavors like fruity, frosted, hot chocolate, and cinnamon toast. They're also launching new flavors in January this month that lean hard into childhood nostalgia. Classic marshmallow, reminiscent of a certain

childhood favorite enjoyed by all, and s'mores, the ultimate campfire inspired cereal. Both include real marshmallows and just 2 g of sugar. Plus, Magic Spoon Treats are crispy, airy snack bars with 12 grams of protein. And their granola packs, 13 grams of protein with zero added sugar. Perfect anytime. Look for Magic Spoon on Amazon or at your nearest grocery store. Or get $5 off your next order at magixpoon.com/legal AF. That's magixpoon.com/legalaf for $5 off. You should know by now I love to cook for my friends. And lately, what's taken my food to that next level is Graza. Graza is my olive oil of choice. Extra virgin, single origin, single varietal, super fresh, clean, pure vibrant bright grassy punchy and aromatic. All at an affordable everyday price. Graza picks, presses, and bottles their olives in the same season. And you can see the harvest date on every bottle. You can truly taste the

difference in quality. It's like no other olive oil on the planet. The smell, the taste, the texture, A FULL MOUTH, SENSORY WOW. Graza has two oils. Sizzle for everyday cooking, roasting, sautéing, everything. And drizzle, a bold, flavorful finishing oil that's perfect for dipping bread, salads, or even ice cream. I'm always hosting dinner parties, so I keep both sizzle and drizzle on hand because they're absolutely delicious and look great on the countertop. You'll get 10% off your first order, but I recommend the Graza Duo sizzle for cooking drizzle for that extra kick of bold flavor. So, here you go. Go ahead to graza.co and use legal AF to get 10% off and get to cooking your next chef quality meal.

Welcome back and thank you to our pro-democracy sponsors and more importantly, thank you to our audience, our fervent audience. We're here. They're always here in large numbers. 10 20,000 to watch and then, you know, three 400,000 before the show is all over during the week. We really appreciate everything that you do for us because without it, it would just be me and Karen getting a cup of coffee every day talking about the craziness in the in the world, which I would certainly do and I would do it with Ben, too. But it's such a honor to do it with our our audience. And so we move globally global global AF as we like to call it as whenever Donald Trump gets into a problem at home, which is every day with some scandal and the stench of some scandal, he's they got to his handlers got to get him out of the country. So he didn't have to go to Davos, uh, even though it was being sponsored by

Blackstone, private equity shop in New York, uh, where all the movers and shakers and all the bureaucrats and, uh, billionaires in smoke filled rooms divide up the world's economy. You know, that's that's what happens at Davos. And, uh, my old boss used to go regularly. He's there now as the Congress secretary, actually. And he Donald Trump made a major miscalculation as far as I'm concerned. Not surprising to me. He decided to go while the while it was in progress as if it was like his his convention. You know, like in the Republican National Convention or the Democratic one, the candidate doesn't arrive to the last night. Donald Trump's like, "I'll come in three days in."

Yeah. Big mistake because that just gave the European Union and NATO and Canada and Macron and Germany all the time and take to the podium first and tell off Donald Trump and tell him, "You're not taking Greenland over our dead body. you'll have to rip it out of our cold dead hands. That's my paraphrase. For the for the European Union, we don't care about 200% taxes uh and tariffs on French wine because you'll never Nobody believes him because you'll never do it. You are the boy that cried tariffs. You are never don't believe you. And Donald Trump always when we heard last week he was going to go to Davos triumphantly and force down our allies throats two things. Two things Karen I don't forget. One the signature on the dotted line on the peace board for Gaza. Yes. the peace board where where Vladimir Putin, who's currently at war killing innocents in Ukraine, can be on the peace board for a

billion dollars that goes ultimately to Donald Trump and he can sit next to the Canadians and the Bellar Russians and everybody else who wants to be on the peace board. That's going to get signed while I'm there. Hold that thought. Second is while I'm there, we are going to own Greenland. They will bow down before me and the great and powerful Oz and they will give me all of Greenland. And even when they've told them, you don't need all of Greenland. You just need certain military strategic parcels that you can get anyway under a contract that you've had with NATO and GREENLAND SINCE 1952. NO, I WANT IT ALL.

I It's like, well, it's like watching Willy Wonka. It's like the kid. Yeah, I want it now. Was it Veruka salt? I WANT IT NOW, DADDY. I WANT GREENLAND NOW. [snorts] And I'm sorry. So,

on fire tonight, sometimes I do things just to make Karen laugh, but but okay. So, that didn't happen because now he's trying to spin, right, Karen? That he's only going to get these quote unquote strategic pieces of Greenland, which he could always have gotten if he just he didn't have to ask nice. He just had to invoke the stat the law. and which is similar to for instance as a comparison Great Britain has British soil in Cyprus for their military base for their air force base. Same effing thing. Okay, you'll have more military bases. Trust me, NATO doesn't want to police Greenland, this frozen wasteland.

We have Guantanamo Bay and Cuba, right? We got we got we own soil in other countries. Just do that. So Donald Trump backed off and said, "Okay, I'm not doing tariffs. I'm not penalizing the 10 NATO countries with tariffs. I guess France is off the hook, too. I don't need the whole thing. I'm not gonna buy it. I'm not gonna take it militarily. I'm like, who is this guy? You know, for him, he thinks if he goes from this negotiating position, this art of the deal, as we said before we got on the air, to this, it makes him look strong. It doesn't. Is there any doubt in your mind, Karen, that he's coming home weaker than when he left?

It It's insane to me. as you said, he started having the ability through this 70-year-old treaty to basically go and and use Greenland as we see fit for our national security. You just have to ask, right? So, he had the ability and the authority to already have Greenland. But suddenly, even though no one's brought this up in my lifetime about this necessary, we have to have Greenland uh you know, in in it for our national security, that that's never been brought up. But suddenly Donald Trump's decided, okay, he absolutely needs to have it.

And he has, you know, so he he says, "I'm going to take it by force if I have to." And that scares everybody, right? Everybody's like, "Oh my god, the guy might do that." and because he's so unpredictable and now we're all going to go to war and we're going to lose our allies and and they're going to pull the bonds the you know the Europe has more of of our country's debt than I think anywhere else and if they pull all the all their bonds and and call their loans what happens to our economy and the world economy collapses and everybody you know starts thinking these are all the things we can do how is this going to play out and suddenly he realizes okay a bridge too are. I can't do that.

And he ends up basically in the exact same place that he was in before, but now he's going to declare victory, which makes no sense. He was already there. It's like he causes a problem. He solves the problem he created, and the solution is one that already existed, but he claims victory. It's like this this complete charade that I think people have to stop falling for. I can tell you right now the world leaders are laughing at us. We're a laughing stock because of it. They see behind this charade. Nobody's really afraid of him, right? This the stock market, you know, the taco Trump always chickens out with tariffs and everything else, I think, responds as well. And it it's just this is just a ridiculous problem, a ridiculous situation. The speech he gave at Davos was offensive. the fact that he as always puts down our allies who are long-term allies who are not only our trading partners, you know, oh, but but

I love Europe. I'm half Scottish and half German, full Scottish and full German, like, you know, it's it's like bizarre the way he talks and the things he says. It's all about him. It's not about our shared history and our relationships and what we've done for each other. Oh, NATO's never done anything for us. Denmark's never done anything for us. He says, "Oh, really? Well, how about after 9/11? When 9/11 happened, guess who came to our aid? Who send sent military forces? Who was there? Guess who lost lives on our behalf? You this is these are NATO military people, including Denmark. But he he just doesn't appreciate or recognize any of these relationships.

and he puts down our allies while building up the strong, you know, oh, you know, I like Putin and and you know, and and she and and everybody else who he thinks are strong and it's just he it's it's offensive. And I think the more and Canada stood up for I I mean the fact that our our brother and sister country Canada had to give a speech where they were fighting for themselves as if we're not their ally is offensive. This is Canada is one of our most important relationships. Right? Canadian people are among the most wonderful people and partnership that we have as a country.

And the fact that we are at that point with Europe and with Canada and other allies that we are so close to, it's just it's just it's a really dangerous position in the long run. I'm not worried about today necessarily because Trump always chickens out, but but they're going to remember and they're going to [clears throat] remember, you know, I think I think when the first Trump happened, right, in 2016, it was like, ah, what was that? Okay, well fine. You know, we'll wait it out and then they'll elect a normal president and we'll go back to the way things are.

The fact that we reelected him again and by not a not tiny margin and the fact that he is in office and 10 times worse than he was, if not more, this is going to have long-term impact on our country forever. And the speech today was was just, I think, offensive and terrifying and headscratching. And I do think it's really not making us in any way stronger or safer or better. That That's my takeaway from today.

Yeah, totally totally agree. Donald Trump says crazy things out loud. I mean, two days ago, I was reporting on Donald Trump begging Renee Good's parents, who he figured out may be Trump supporters, to continue to love him love him even though his ICE goons shot their daughter in the head several times. I mean, the fact that he makes everything about him agilation, narcissism is is really just disgusting and offensive. And you know, he'll be coming back from the world platform shrunken, bitter, um, a fool on a fool's errand to begin with, and now returning back to the United States. We didn't have a time to really touch on um, Minnesota. We got a new I'll just I'll just do one minute on it. We got a eighth circuit court of appeals that's blocked Judge Mendez's attempts to protect first amendment freedom of speech um in the way that she did it similar to what the seventh circuit did with Judge Ellis about

Illinois. But this game is not this this this is not fight is not over. And Donald Trump however has backed off the insurrection act and sending in military troops. Although he's investigating opening up criminal investigations against again uh elected leaders of um of the states of the blue states that didn't vote for him like Tim Walls and and uh Mayor Frey and and even even Attorney General Keith Ellison. And um we uh this is an administration that needs all eyes on it. Some people I think misinterpret what our approach is when we talk about here in the lower third you'll see Trump presidency breaking legal news. We'll cover other things that are at the intersection of law and politics. But there are no other things because Donald Trump's erratic behavior and his descent into madness on full display enabled by the people in his administration means that we don't just have one news story every day and

one news cycle. We have micro news cycles every day. We've got, you know, everything hitting all the cylinders hitting hitting and firing at one time. federal courts, appellet courts, Supreme Courts, Donald Trump's executive orders, his his social media threats and attacks on on his political enemies, uh whether they're governors or former prosecutors or attorneys general or, you know, playing old war war tapes, you know, his old his old hit list of people that he wants to get rid of. And then I haven't even talked about economics, monetary policy, tariff policy, attacks on the allies, trying to break NATO over his knee like it's some sort of baseball bat. um and and him losing every time he tries to be the strong man insults our this administration has spent more time starting with JD Vans at the top of the administration beginning in January when it went in last year to to to today bookending the two of them attacking our

allies and and on them than any other administration in history. You want to have American first policy that's fine. You want to completely put a you want to completely torch and emulate our our diplomacy that that is used in many many ways in order to um accomplish American interest and American goals. You can't do everything with, you know, with saber rattling that nobody that everybody's ignoring now and social media posts. That's not how world politics works or the world economy works. And if anybody, this is a thing that's really why we have to keep all eyes trained on him because he eventually succumbs to political pressure. If he believes he's not being loved, if he believes the polls are not supporting him, if he believes the American public are against him on major issues, he backs off. Maybe not every time, but enough that it it is an effective strategy in opposition.

That's why we got to file the lawsuits. Sometimes he folds. He folds half the time. it doesn't even pursue the appeal and then the funds that were blocked flow back to the American people. And so the lawyers have got to do their job, the public interest groups and then we here in terms of the commentary, we got to do our job. We got to we got to figure out during the day what's important for people to know and understand and and to talk about on the podcast and then we got to activate it, right? We got to we got to turn information into action. And I think that's one of the jobs that you and I have here on the podcast.

Yeah, I agree. I absolutely agree. Yeah. So, um, with that, I'll turn over what we usually do. Six years running. Taran, Karen, you get the final word for our midweek edition of Legal AF.

You know, a lot of people got their social security checks today and a lot of people saw that their social security checks were less than what they're used to getting. Uh I think that is a reflection of this administration's policies whether it's about health insurance and and healthcare uh whether it's uh Medicare whether it's uh all of the various policies that are happening. So my heart goes out to the people who are struggling because we're starting to feel the effects of this administration even tighter. And the more they talk about how oh well prices are going down and and gas is going down, stock market's going up, I want people who are feeling the real effects of this, not just the rich people who have stocks in in in the stock market to know that we hear you, we see you. and thank you for sharing your stories with us so that we can give a voice to them. And we'll keep fighting like hell to turn us blue again so that

we can make policies that make sense for the everyday person, not just for the billionaires and the 100 millionaires. So

absolutely and thank you all to our audience for being here until Saturday edition of Legal AF. You know where to find us, Legal AF YouTube channel, Legal AF Substack, and of course here on the podcast. So until our next show, shout out to the mightest mighty and the legal afers.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "LIVE: TRUMP GRILLED AT SCOTUS + EPSTEIN UPDATES | Legal AF"?

Karen Freeman (Host), Michael Pop (Host).

What is "LIVE: TRUMP GRILLED AT SCOTUS + EPSTEIN UPDATES | Legal AF" about?

This edition focuses on Donald Trump's legal challenges at the Supreme Court, highlighting a critical case regarding his attempts to influence the Federal Reserve, and a judge's recent decision to block the Trump administration's efforts to investigate a Washington Post reporter for leaks. Key discussions include the potential ramifications of these developments on Trump's administration and…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

12 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Supreme Court Justice, Tariffs, Karen Freeman, Michael Pop, Kanji Brown Jackson, Hannah Nathanson. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "LIVE: TRUMP GRILLED AT SCOTUS + EPSTEIN UPDATES | Legal AF"?

The episode runs 1 h 21 min; the transcript is about 14,585 words in 130 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 24, 2026.