Podcast Summary
Legal Proceedings Against Trump and Giuliani: Ongoing civil and criminal cases against Trump and Giuliani in New York and DC include fraud, defamation, and presidential immunity appeals.
There are ongoing legal proceedings against former President Donald Trump and his associates, including Rudy Giuliani, in various courts. The New York attorney general's civil case against Trump for fraud is ongoing, with Giuliani's damages case starting this week. Trump had planned to testify in the New York case but changed his mind. The DC civil case against Giuliani for defamation is also ongoing, with the former chief judge of the DC court presiding. Trump is appealing the ruling on presidential immunity in the DC criminal case, and the gag order issued in the case was recently affirmed. Mary, a former attorney involved in a fake elector scheme, discussed her role and the recent developments in the case, which included a resolution that received significant media attention.
Wisconsin Electors Admit to Involvement in Failed 2020 Election Overturn Attempt: Ten Wisconsin electors confessed to participating in an unsuccessful attempt to change the 2020 election results. They agreed not to serve as electors again, but potential criminal charges could still be filed against them and other involved individuals.
Ten Republican electors in Wisconsin, who cast their electoral college ballots for Donald Trump despite not being the certified winners, admitted to their involvement in an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. They made a public statement acknowledging their actions and agreed not to serve as electors in future elections involving Trump. The remaining defendants in the case include a Trump campaign lawyer in Wisconsin and a man who pleaded guilty in a January 6th related case for his role in the fraudulent elector scheme. These individuals could potentially face criminal prosecution if it was proven they knew they were participating in a fraudulent scheme. The distinction between fake electors and contingent electors is crucial in determining potential criminal liability. The former, who intentionally misrepresented themselves, may face charges, while the latter, who were genuinely unsure of their status, might not. However, none of the individuals in this settlement admitted to breaking the law.
Electors' cooperation with investigations could impact criminal culpability: The ongoing legal battles surrounding the certification of electors and presidential immunity could significantly impact the outcome of investigations into the 2020 presidential election controversy.
The cooperation of certain electors in the 2020 presidential election controversy with investigations, including those led by Jack Smith, could be a key factor in determining criminal culpability. The failure to include a caveat in the certification of electors could potentially make their actions fraudulent. Additionally, the ongoing case in the DC district court involving Donald Trump's appeal on presidential immunity and double jeopardy could result in an automatic stay, potentially halting the jury selection process and other pending motions. The ultimate outcome of these legal battles will depend on the decisions of the courts. The resolution of the case involving the electors was cordial and respectful, and the case was brought in collaboration with attorneys in Wisconsin, LawForward, and Stafford Rosenblum, as well as Georgetown's ICAP.
Government responds to Trump's request for a stay, leaving some questions open: The government acknowledged an automatic stay but didn't directly address Trump's concerns about jury selection and litigation leading up to the trial. Trump had waited several months to file for a stay, and the government urged the judge to keep the trial date.
During the legal proceedings against Donald Trump, the government filed a response to Trump's request for a stay, stating that there's an automatic stay in effect but leaving open some questions about the nature of that stay. The government specifically mentioned that certain motions, such as the motion to dismiss on selective prosecution and vindictive prosecution grounds, could still be decided. However, they did not directly address the issue of jury selection or the litigation leading up to the trial. Trump had waited several months to file for a stay after being indicted, which some might argue undermines his claim of being prejudiced by the need to litigate. The government urged the judge to keep the trial date, suggesting that a quick ruling from the DC circuit on double jeopardy and presidential immunity claims could cause conflicts for defense lawyers if the trial date was given up.
Special Counsel's Aggressive Approach to Trump Legal Battle: Special Counsel Jack Smith pushes for expedited appeal process, asking Supreme Court to bypass DC Circuit for Trump's immunity and double jeopardy motions, aiming for a swift resolution before the trial date.
Special Counsel Jack Smith has taken an aggressive approach in the ongoing legal battle over the presidential immunity and double jeopardy motions in the case against Donald Trump. Smith has asked the Supreme Court to hear the appeals directly, bypassing the DC Circuit, and has also filed a motion to expedite the appeal process in the DC Circuit. This strategy puts pressure on the DC Circuit to act quickly and allows for a potential resolution of the immunity and double jeopardy issues before the March 4th trial date. The public interest in the rapid resolution of criminal cases and the potential for lengthy jury selection processes add to the urgency of this situation. The Supreme Court's decision to take up the case could have significant implications for the criminal proceedings against Trump.
Michael Cohen's team jumps straight to Supreme Court: Cohen's team bypasses DC Circuit Court to seek Supreme Court resolution on presidential immunity and double jeopardy for Trump's case.
Michael Cohen's legal team, led by former Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreybin, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court to bypass the DC Circuit Court and have the presidential immunity and double jeopardy questions regarding Donald Trump's criminal case resolved directly by the Supreme Court. This move comes after the DC Circuit Court indicated that some parts of the case would be stayed if the immunity and double jeopardy issues were not resolved. Dreybin, a highly experienced Supreme Court litigator, argues that Trump's team's position that they should not be subjected to an indictment puts them in a difficult position, as they have previously stated that they want the issues resolved quickly. The case being cited in the petition is United States v. Nixon, where presidential immunity was a central issue. This leapfrogging procedure is unusual but has been used 14 times since 2019.
Supreme Court Upholds and Narrows Trump's Gag Order: The Supreme Court ruled that the government's interest in a fair trial outweighs potential restrictions on Trump's speech related to ongoing investigations, but only if the speech is intended to materially interfere or cause interference.
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold and narrow a gag order against Donald Trump's speech related to the ongoing investigation is increasingly common and significant, as it can effectively prevent a trial from moving forward. The court found that the government's interest in maintaining a fair trial outweighed the potential restrictions on Trump's speech. The order applies to statements about witnesses and Jack Smith himself, but only if they are made with the intent to materially interfere or cause interference. The court's decision underscores the importance of this issue and the potential impact of such speech on the judicial process.
Court Rejects Trump's Delay and Gag Order Arguments: The court upheld the gag order and denied Trump's request to delay his criminal trial, emphasizing the importance of a fair and orderly trial process.
The federal appellate court's ruling against former President Trump's request to dismiss or delay his criminal trial made it clear that his right to a fair trial does not give him the right to prejudice it in his favor. The court rejected Trump's argument for delaying the trial and upheld the gag order, stating that the general election being a year away and the trial still ongoing. The court also left open the possibility for expanding the gag order in the future if deemed necessary. Furthermore, the court did not accept Trump's argument that he should not be held responsible for third parties' reactions to his statements about potential witnesses. Overall, the decision reflects the court's careful consideration and commitment to ensuring a fair and orderly trial process.
Court Prevents Trump from Making Public Comments that could Influence Witnesses: The district court applied the strictest standard to prevent Trump from making public comments that could potentially influence witnesses or their trial participation, emphasizing the importance of careful consideration and application of legal standards in criminal cases.
The district court had the authority to prevent Donald Trump from making public comments that could potentially influence witnesses or their trial participation, as it could be seen as attempting to launder communications, according to the discussion between the speakers. The court applied the strictest standard to this issue, ensuring that if the case were to go to the Supreme Court, they wouldn't risk having the court rule that a less stringent standard was applied. The government's response to the defense's discovery request was also discussed, with the speakers praising the government's submission but raising concerns about the clarity and specificity of the defense's request. The speakers emphasized the importance of the government being held to a high standard in discovery proceedings, given their extensive training in the area. One issue they wanted clarified was the scope of the prosecution team and whether discovery obligations changed when the investigation switched from one team to another. Overall, the speakers highlighted the importance of careful consideration and application of legal standards in criminal cases.
Prosecution Team Criticizes Trump's Narrow Approach to Requesting Documents: Prosecution team provides vast database to Trump's counsel, urges clarification on relevance of requested info, and distinguishes Brady info from general discovery.
During the recent court hearing regarding Donald Trump's request for documents related to the January 6th investigations, the prosecution team emphasized that they have already made available to Trump's counsel a vast database of evidence related to the January 6th prosecutions of the rioters. They also criticized Trump's team for not utilizing this existing database and for using a narrow materiality standard when requesting additional information. The prosecution team argued that their broad view of materiality when it comes to Brady information is a departure from their earlier narrow approach following criticism for not taking Brady obligations seriously enough. They also distinguished between Brady information and general discovery under the rules, emphasizing that the latter is not limited to exculpatory or impeaching information. Overall, the prosecution team urged Trump's team to clarify why they are seeking specific information and how it is relevant to Trump or the ongoing investigation.
Government's argument on irrelevant evidence in Trump election fraud case: During a recent hearing, the government argued that evidence unknown to the defendant beforehand, even if potentially relevant, is not material in a legal sense. The defense and judge agreed, but the issue of litigation at this stage is in question.
During a recent hearing in the case of the Trump election fraud allegations, the government argued that any evidence not known to the defendant beforehand, even if it could potentially be relevant, is not material in the legal sense. The defense and the judge seemed to agree on this point, with the judge expressing a desire for clarity on what exactly is being asked for. The main contention now is whether this issue can even be litigated at this stage of the case. Despite the fast-paced conversation, the participants covered a lot of ground, and they all seemed to agree that being specific and clear about what is being asked for is crucial. The case is ongoing, and listeners can stay updated by tuning in to future episodes of "Prosecuting Trump" or by visiting NBCUNI.com to send in questions.