Podcast Summary
A $148 million verdict against Rudy Giuliani in a civil case related to the 2020 election: Rudy Giuliani faced a significant financial penalty for his role in the 2020 election, reminding us that civil and criminal cases can progress simultaneously.
The legal proceedings against former President Donald Trump and those involved in the January 6th Capitol riots are complex and ongoing. A significant development came last week with a $148 million verdict against Rudy Giuliani in a civil case related to the 2020 election. This verdict signifies accountability for his actions, and it's a reminder that civil and criminal cases can run concurrently. Looking ahead, there are several legal matters ongoing. The former president has appealed the ruling on executive privilege in the Jack Smith DC case, and the Supreme Court is considering whether to take up the appeal. Additionally, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a criminal case related to a January 6th rioter, which could impact the charges against Trump. The legal process is intricate, and the outcomes of these cases could have significant implications.
Judge Tanya Chungkin's decision in Jack Smith case challenges presidential immunity: Judge Tanya Chungkin ruled that the Constitution does not grant absolute immunity to a president from criminal prosecution, contrasting the Supreme Court's decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. Criminal cases have specific deterrents, unlike civil cases where a president could be sued repeatedly.
Judge Tanya Chungkin's decision in the Jack Smith case challenges the idea of absolute immunity for a president from criminal prosecution. This contrasts with the Supreme Court's decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which established immunity for a president from civil litigation within the "outer perimeter" of their official acts. Judge Chungkin, however, found no immunity for President Trump based on the text of the Constitution, historical and structural considerations, and the rationale for immunity in the civil context. She also noted that criminal cases have specific deterrents, unlike civil cases where a president could be sued repeatedly. The DC Circuit is currently considering this issue on appeal, with briefs due by January 2nd, 2023.
DC Circuit and Supreme Court moving quickly on Trump legal proceedings: The DC Circuit is expediting the appeal process, potentially allowing the Supreme Court to wait for their decision before ruling. Trump must respond to the Supreme Court's request for opposition by this week, accelerating the schedule further.
Both the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court are moving quickly in regards to the ongoing legal proceedings involving former President Trump. The DC Circuit is expected to fully brief the appeal before the Supreme Court even meets to decide whether to take the case. This fast pace could potentially lead the Supreme Court to wait and see the circuit's decision before making their own, potentially eliminating the need for them to take up the case. Additionally, the former President is under pressure to respond to the Supreme Court's request for his opposition to the certiorari petition by this week, further accelerating the process. The potential implications of this fast-tracked schedule include the impact on the March 4th trial date and the constitutional issues surrounding presidential immunity.
Potential implications of the outer perimeter test on a presidential immunity case: The application of the outer perimeter test in a presidential immunity case could lead to a remand, causing delays, but the automatic stay might be too broad and could be lifted to allow the case to progress
The application of the outer perimeter test in the ongoing legal case regarding presidential immunity could potentially result in a remand back to the district court for reconsideration. This could cause delays due to the time it takes to make such a decision. However, the automatic stay currently in place, which prevents any litigation or trial-related activities, may be too broad in this context as it involves a legal question about the president's official duties, which is ultimately a jury issue, not a judge issue. The argument is that immunity should not be a jury issue since it implies that the person should not have to go through a jury trial at all. Instead, the courts could consider lifting the automatic stay to allow the case to progress.
Supreme Court case could impact Trump trial: The Supreme Court case on obstruction of Congress could potentially delay Trump's trial or set a precedent for future cases.
The ongoing legal case involving the obstruction of the joint session of Congress on January 6th, which is being appealed to the Supreme Court, could potentially have implications for the trial of former President Donald Trump. The debate centers around whether the obstruction charge applies in this context and whether the case should be allowed to proceed while the criminal case against Trump is ongoing. Some believe that the case could delay the Trump trial, but others argue that it's a separate issue and should not affect the criminal proceedings. Ultimately, the outcome of this case could set a precedent for how obstruction charges are handled in the context of official proceedings.
Trump's Legal Team Cannot Use Supreme Court Case as Delay Tactic: Trump's legal team cannot use the Supreme Court's consideration of a related case as a reason to delay his own obstruction trial. Any arguments about the applicability of the obstruction statute can be made after conviction.
Former President Donald Trump's legal team cannot use the Supreme Court's consideration of a related case as a reason to delay his own obstruction trial. The charges against Trump do not involve immunity or double jeopardy issues. Any arguments Trump might make about the applicability of the obstruction statute to his conduct could be made after conviction. Additionally, the outcome of the Supreme Court case is uncertain, and it's generally not an option for a defendant to delay their trial based on another case's appeal. Mike Gottlieb, a distinguished lawyer and guest on the show, discussed this and his recent victory in a civil case representing Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss. He became their lawyer after a long process, and their case involved significant differences between Trump's obstruction conduct and that of violent rioters. The intricacies of the legal issues will be explored further as the case progresses.
Bridging the gap in civil litigation for disinformation victims: Law For Truth, an organization under UTD, provides legal representation to individuals harmed by disinfo, changing perceptions and laws to ensure access to justice, regardless of financial resources.
Law For Truth, an organization formed under United to Protect Democracy, aims to bridge the gap in civil litigation by providing high-quality legal representation to individuals who become victims of disinformation, particularly those who lack the resources to pursue such cases. These individuals, such as Ruby Freeman and Shane Moss, may not have the potential for large damages awards, but their reputations can still be significantly harmed. The legal landscape is shifting with new forms of defamation, and Law For Truth is working to change perceptions and laws to ensure that financial resources are not a barrier to seeking justice. By partnering with law firms and litigators, they hope to make a difference for those who have been unfairly targeted and harmed by disinformation.
Reputational harm from defamation can lead to emotional distress and expensive repairs: Defamation lawsuits can result in significant damages beyond financial losses, including emotional distress and costly reputation repairs. False accusations can lead to security concerns and the need for legal action to restore a tarnished reputation.
That defamation lawsuits can result in significant damages beyond just financial losses. The reputational harm suffered by individuals when false accusations are made against them can lead to emotional distress, security concerns, and the need for expensive measures to repair their tarnished reputation. The jury in the case of Ruby Freeman and Shane Motz recognized this, awarding punitive damages to send a message to those who engage in such behavior. The experts used in the case, such as Dr. Ashley Humphreys, emphasized that the cost to repair reputational harm should be the focus rather than the lost income. Statements made outside of court by the defendant, Rudy Giuliani, that continued to defame the clients were also used as evidence in the case.
Securing agreement to admit evidence in lieu of testimony during a defamation case: In a defamation case against Rudy Giuliani, the legal team successfully admitted crucial evidence instead of his testimony, emphasizing ongoing harm and need for deterrence in punitive damages. Despite challenges in obtaining documents, they aim to finalize judgment, file for injunctive relief, and explore potential action against Trump for repeating lies.
During a defamation case against Rudy Giuliani, the legal team was able to secure agreement to admit crucial pieces of evidence in lieu of his testimony, which they presented to the jury during closing arguments to emphasize the ongoing and egregious harm, and the need for deterrence in punitive damages. This case required extensive efforts to obtain documents from third parties who were evading service, leading to a default judgment ruling. Moving forward, the team aims to finalize the judgment and file a new action against Giuliani for injunctive relief to stop further defamation, which could lead to contempt proceedings if violated. The team also plans to explore potential legal action against Donald Trump for repeating Giuliani's lies, as he was not a defendant in this case.
Legal team overcomes challenges in defamation case against Trump: Despite obstacles, legal team secures victory in defamation case against Trump and associates, with potential for further action
The legal team behind the defamation case against former President Donald Trump and his associates, including Rudy Giuliani, faced numerous challenges in bringing the case to court due to jurisdiction, venue, and immunity considerations. However, they were able to secure a significant victory with a ruling that Trump and his campaign were coconspirators in defaming the clients. The team, led by Michael D. Stern, is continuing to explore legal options as Trump continues to make statements that could lead to new statutes of limitations and potential legal action. Stern expressed gratitude for the support of concerned citizens and acknowledged the tenacity of the women involved in the case, who are expected to be called as witnesses in any criminal matters in Georgia and DC. The team's hard work and dedication resulted in a remarkable outcome, demonstrating the importance of standing up for one's rights and seeking justice.