Podcast Summary
Preparing for Trump's Criminal Trial: As Trump's trial for election interference approaches, his legal team readies for an unprecedented event while the Supreme Court considers presidential immunity and Georgia appeal progresses.
The upcoming week is significant in the legal proceedings against former President Donald Trump. With just one week until the start of the trial in New York regarding an election interference case involving hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, the defense team, led by Todd Blanch and Susan Nealice, is preparing for the unprecedented event of a criminal trial for a sitting or former president. Additionally, there are upcoming Supreme Court arguments on presidential immunity and an appeal in Georgia that will be closely watched. The team also shared their appreciation for their listeners' engagement and the podcast's nomination for a Webby award.
Former President Trump's Defense Team: Neal Katyal and Susan Necklace: Two experienced attorneys, Neal Katyal and Susan Necklace, lead Trump's defense team, with Katyal's lack of defense trial experience and state law knowledge being potential challenges.
The defense team for former President Donald Trump in the ongoing Manhattan criminal case consists of two notable attorneys: Neal Katyal, who has a background as a federal prosecutor, and Susan Necklace, a well-respected defense lawyer. Katyal's lack of extensive defense trial experience and familiarity with state law could be new challenges for him. Susan Necklace, on the other hand, is an experienced defense lawyer and a former prosecutor, known for her exceptional legal skills. An unusual aspect of her defense work is that she sometimes doesn't sign submissions on Trump's behalf, which has been observed in the past by some DOJ attorneys during the Trump administration as a form of protest. The prosecution team includes Matthew Colangelo, who has worked in both the DA's office and the Department of Justice, and Susan Hoffinger, a senior lawyer in the district attorney's office with experience in the Trump Organization criminal tax case. Both sides have reputable legal teams, ensuring a robust and professional trial process.
Lawyer Joshua Steinglass to Play Significant Role in Trump Organization Case: Experienced trial lawyer Joshua Steinglass, known for handling murder and gang cases, will use his courtroom skills and rapport with witnesses, judges, and jurors to persuade in the Trump Organization case, particularly during opening and closing arguments.
The trial lawyer Joshua Steinglass, who has experience in murders and gang cases, is expected to play a significant role in the Trump Organization case due to his natural ability in the courtroom and rapport with witnesses, judges, and jurors. Opening statements and closing arguments are crucial parts of a trial, with opening statements being an opportunity for lawyers to tell the jury the story of the case without making arguments about the evidence yet, while closing arguments are when the gloves come off and both sides make arguments based on the evidence presented. It's important for lawyers to persuade the jury in their favor during opening statements. The case involves Michael Cohen as a witness, and it will be interesting to see who will present him and give the jury addresses during opening and closing arguments.
AMI's 'catch and kill' strategy to suppress damaging info for Trump: During the 2016 campaign, AMI, led by David Pecker, colluded with Trump's team to buy off individuals with damaging info using 'catch and kill' tactic, involving falsification of business records to hide payments.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, American Media Inc. (AMI), led by David Pecker, colluded with Donald Trump's team to suppress damaging information about the candidate. This strategy, known as "catch and kill," involved buying off individuals with information that could harm Trump's campaign. AMI, which owns the National Enquirer, was in a unique position to acquire such information due to its reputation for publishing salacious stories. The scheme extended beyond Stormy Daniels and included a doorman from Trump Tower and Karen McDougal, among others. The charges against AMI and Trump focus on the falsification of business records to cover up these payments. The Access Hollywood tapes, which emerged during a precarious time in Trump's campaign, further emphasized the need to silence Stormy Daniels' information about an alleged affair. Expect key figures like Hope Hicks, Kellyanne Conway, and Michael Cohen to provide insights into the campaign atmosphere and the motivation behind this collusion.
Battle of Narratives in Michael Cohen Trial: Defense to challenge Cohen's credibility, prosecution to rely on corroborating docs and emails showing hush money payments and a scheme to disguise them as legal expenses.
That the upcoming trial involving Michael Cohen and the Trump Organization will feature a battle of narratives between the defense and prosecution. The defense is expected to challenge Michael Cohen's credibility, while the prosecution will rely on corroborating documents and emails to tell their story. The documents in question are crucial as they not only show that hush money payments were made but also that there was a scheme to disguise these payments as legal expenses. This scheme involved Michael Cohen being paid more than just the amount of the hush money and adding a bonus to make up for the taxes he would have to pay. The trial will also see the introduction of evidence suggesting that Michael Cohen was paying for Trump's appearance in a poll, further highlighting the transactional nature of the relationships involved.
Last-minute motions and attempts to delay Trump trial: Judges emphasize professional duties during high-profile trials, but lawyers continue to make last-minute motions, including requests to delay trials due to pretrial publicity. A recent development in the Trump case is a renewed motion for recusal of Judge Marchand.
In the final week before a high-profile trial, such as the one involving former President Trump, there is a flurry of last-minute motions and attempts to delay or dismiss the case. These efforts are often made with the intention of preserving arguments for appeal, even if they are expected to be denied. The judge in the case, Marshawn Marchand, has emphasized the importance of lawyers upholding their professional duties within the rules, and there will be consequences for violations. One common motion made in high-profile cases is to postpone the trial due to pretrial publicity, but this remedy is unlikely to be granted, especially in cases involving a former president where publicity is inevitable. Another recent development in the Trump case is a renewed motion for recusal of Judge Marchand, which some may find ironic given the ongoing Supreme Court argument where Justice Thomas, whose wife was involved in communications about the Biden family during the Ellipse rally on January 6th, is not recusing himself.
Judge's Daughter's Political Ties Raise Conflict of Interest Concerns in Trump Tax Case: Defense raises late conflict of interest claim against judge in Trump tax case, citing her daughter's work for Democratic consulting firm
The ongoing legal battle surrounding the Trump Organization's tax evasion case in New York includes a request for Judge Carolyn Demarest Marchand's recusal due to her daughter's potential appearance of conflict of interest. The defense argues that the judge's daughter, who works for a political consulting firm that caters to Democratic clients, could financially benefit from the case's outcome. However, the defense did not provide a clear explanation of why they only raised this issue at the last minute, which is a significant concern in the legal process. The allegations against the judge's daughter do not suggest any illegal activity, but rather an appearance of a conflict of interest due to her professional ties. Despite the defense's claims of new information, much of the argument seems to be a rehash of what was previously discussed a year ago.
Trump vs. James: Latest Point of Contention Over Ivanka's Account Deletion: The legal battle between Trump and NY AG James continues, with Trump trying to delay a civil investigation into his business dealings. Ivanka's alleged account deletion is the latest point of contention, with Trump suggesting it was to destroy evidence and the state arguing it was for personal reasons.
The ongoing legal battle between Donald Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James continues, with Trump attempting to delay a civil investigation into his business dealings. The latest point of contention is the alleged deletion of an account by Trump's daughter, Ivanka. Trump has suggested that Ivanka deleted the account to destroy potential evidence, but the state argues that it's not evidence and Ivanka may have done so to avoid public scrutiny and threats. The state is awaiting a decision on Trump's recusal motion, and there are reports that Trump may appeal. Meanwhile, jury selection for the investigation is set to begin on March 15, with over 500 New Yorkers receiving jury notices. The process of jury selection, which includes a questionnaire to assess potential jurors' impartiality, is standard in high-profile cases to ensure fairness and impartiality.
Judge Jackson and Special Counsel Smith's Legal Dispute over Trump's Use of Presidential Records Act: Judge Jackson has not yet ruled on whether Trump can use the Presidential Records Act as a defense at trial. Smith is pushing for a definitive ruling before the trial begins, preferably through a motion in limine, to prevent Trump from using this defense.
The ongoing legal dispute between Judge Amy Berman Jackson and Special Counsel Jack Smith regarding the handling of the presidential records in the case against Donald Trump is not just about the timing of jury instructions. The main issue is whether the Presidential Records Act can be used as a defense for Trump at trial. Jack Smith has asked for a ruling on this matter, but the judge has not yet provided a clear answer. Smith needs to push for a definitive ruling before the trial begins, preferably through a motion in limine, to prevent Trump from using the Presidential Records Act as a defense during the trial. If the judge denies the motion, Smith will have grounds for an appeal.
Requesting rulings on pretrial motions before jury selection: Lawyers must request rulings on pretrial motions before jury selection to prevent opposing side's prejudicial arguments. Failure to rule could result in appeal or writ of mandamus.
In a criminal trial, it's crucial for lawyers to request rulings on pretrial motions before the jury is sworn in, to prevent the opposing side from making arguments that could potentially prejudice the jury. This is based on Rule 12 d of the Federal Criminal Procedure, which requires the court to decide all pretrial motions before trial unless there's good cause not to. If a ruling is not made and the trial proceeds, the losing party may have the right to appeal or even seek a writ of mandamus to compel the judge to rule. This is because a failure to rule could effectively direct a verdict in favor of one side. If a ruling is made against the party, they can appeal, arguing for clear and indisputable error. The process for mandamus is more challenging than an appeal, requiring a clear showing that the judge is not doing their job. The speaker suggests that the defendant in a current case may be considering these options.
Judge's Decision in Trump Case Raises Questions: Despite ongoing legal battles, a judge's impassioned sentencing in a January 6th case emphasized the importance of facts and law over assumptions.
The legal proceedings surrounding various cases involving Trump and his associates continue to be complex and intriguing, with both parties employing strategic maneuvers. The discussion centered around a judge's decision not to recuse herself from a case, which could potentially benefit Trump but also raises questions about bias. Both parties are preparing for upcoming trials and appeals, including a case regarding presidential immunity in the January 6th related matter. An unexpected yet inspiring takeaway came from a judge's impassioned and factual sentencing remarks in one of the January 6th cases, which emphasized the importance of understanding the facts and the law over character assumptions. These developments underscore the ongoing significance of the legal proceedings and the importance of accurate information.
New episodes of 'Prosecuting Donald Trump' twice a week starting next Tuesday: Listeners encouraged to send questions, vote in Webby Awards, and follow the series for updates
Starting next Tuesday, Mary and I will be bringing you new episodes of "Prosecuting Donald Trump" twice a week to keep you updated on the New York trial. We encourage you to send us your questions, which you can leave as a voice mail at 917-342-2934 or email to prosecutingtrumpquestions@nbcuni.com. Voting for us in the Webby Awards is also appreciated, with voting open until April 18th. The podcast is produced by Vicki Virgolina, with Jameris Perez as the associate producer, Paul Robert Mounsey as the audio engineer, Bryson Barnes as the head of audio production, Ayesha Turner as the executive producer for MSNBC audio, and Rebecca Cutler as the senior vice president for content strategy at MSNB. Make sure to search for "Prosecuting Donald Trump" wherever you get your podcasts and follow the series for more updates.