Podcast Summary
Trump's Legal Team Seeks Immunity in Mar-a-Lago and Manhattan Cases for Delays: Trump's legal team is using the tactic of appealing for immunity in both Mar-a-Lago and Manhattan cases, potentially delaying trials worth over $1 billion in damages.
Former President Donald Trump's legal team is using the tactic of appealing for immunity in both the Mar-a-Lago and Manhattan cases, aiming for delays in the trials. The Manhattan trial, set to begin in two weeks, involves civil judgments totaling over $1 billion from the E. Jean Carroll and New York attorney general cases. Trump continued attacking Carroll shortly after posting a bond. Meanwhile, Robert Hur, special counsel appointed to investigate Biden's handling of classified information, testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Grand jury subpoenas have been issued in Arizona to Trump's fake electors involved in the elector scheme. The Judge Cannon litigation in Florida may not lead to a significant delay, but the Judge Meershon case in New York could potentially postpone the trial.
Legal Dispute between Trump and Government Over Immunity and Trial Timing: The Supreme Court is considering the immunity argument in the legal dispute between Trump and the government, which could impact the timing of Trump's trial and campaign activities. Both parties want a swift resolution, but the immunity issue may delay the process.
The ongoing legal dispute between the government and former President Trump in the Supreme Court regarding his immunity from criminal prosecutions is a significant issue with implications for the speed of the trial process. While both parties have an interest in a swift resolution, the current delay arises from the immunity argument, which the government and Trump each want decided in their favor. Trump argues that his immunity prevents the trial from moving forward, while the government insists on a speedy trial due to its duty to the public. This immunity issue, which the Supreme Court is currently considering, may impact the timing of Trump's trial and campaign activities. The importance of this issue warrants a prompt resolution, and it is expected that the parties will be asked by the court to provide reasons for expediting the process.
Legal battles over Trump's criminal cases not just about trial dates: Experts believe Manhattan and Mar-a-Lago cases differ from Jan 6th case, as Mar-a-Lago argument for presidential immunity is considered frivolous
The ongoing legal battles involving former President Donald Trump's criminal cases in Manhattan and Mar-a-Lago are not solely about the trial dates, but rather about the potential impact of the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. While Trump's attorneys argue that a ruling in their favor would dismiss the cases entirely, legal experts believe that the postures of these cases are significantly different from the January 6th case. In the January 6th case, a ruling in Trump's favor could potentially dismiss the entire case due to the scope of his official acts as president. However, in the Mar-a-Lago case, the argument is that presidential immunity applies even to things outside the scope of official acts, which is not applicable to Trump's retaining classified information after leaving office. This argument is considered frivolous by legal experts, as the Mar-a-Lago indictment pertains to actions taken after Trump's presidency.
Use of Trump's statements as evidence in ongoing case: Judge Cannon will decide if Trump's statements during presidency can be used as evidence despite his team's argument for immunity, while another judge is moving quickly to rule on a related motion.
In the ongoing legal case involving Donald Trump and the investigation into hush money payments, the use of his public statements and tweets as evidence is a key issue. Trump's team is arguing that these statements, made during his presidency, should be considered immune from use as evidence due to his former position. However, this argument is different from the immunity argument, which Trump has not explicitly made. The judge in the case, Judge Cannon, has the power to decide whether to allow these statements as evidence, even if an appeal is filed. Meanwhile, in a related case, Judge Marchand is moving quickly to rule on a motion regarding evidence, but it is not a motion to dismiss all charges against Trump.
Trump's Immunity Doctrine Request in New York Trial Seems More About Delay Than Genuine Concern: Trump's actions in his New York trial suggest a desire to delay proceedings rather than a genuine concern for the presidential immunity doctrine, while his defamation case with E. Jean Carroll resulted in a large damages award.
Former President Trump's request for a delay in the criminal trial in New York, based on the presidential immunity doctrine, appears to be more about seeking delay than a genuine concern for the application of the doctrine. His actions, including the large number of statements he wants precluded as evidence and his continued use of hyperbole in the public sphere, suggest a desire to avoid tribunals where facts and law govern. Meanwhile, in a separate case, E. Jean Carroll was awarded over $88 million in damages for defamation, highlighting Trump's pattern of continuing to defame individuals even after being sued.
Understanding Trump's Legal Financial Obligations: Trump's legal obligations may involve significant financial commitments, impacting his decisions as a candidate or future president. Existing loan agreements could limit his ability to secure new bonds or loans.
During legal proceedings, individuals like Donald Trump may be required to put up significant amounts of money or provide bonds as part of a settlement or judgment. In Trump's case, he has proposed using a bond from Chubb Insurance to cover a debt. The connection to Chubb is intriguing, as a former low-level executive at the company, Eric Greenberg, had a position in the Trump administration. The public's interest lies in understanding potential financial obligations and influences that could impact Trump's decisions as a candidate or future president. The process of securing a bond or loan involves pledging unencumbered assets, meaning they are not already committed to other loans. Existing loan agreements could limit Trump's ability to obtain new loans or bonds. Possible scenarios include selling unencumbered assets for inflated values, finding a cosigner, or having unencumbered assets used as collateral. For E. Jean Carroll, her primary concern is receiving the money owed to her. However, as citizens, we have a vested interest in understanding the financial implications of Trump's legal obligations. This issue will likely become more significant as larger debts come into play.
A US jury found that E. Jean Carroll was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump and defamed by him, ordering Trump to pay damages.: A US jury ruled that Donald Trump sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll and defamed her, ordering him to pay damages.
The legal system in the United States follows a fair process where both parties have the right to present evidence and have disputes decided by a jury. In this specific case, a jury found that E. Jean Carroll was a victim of sexual assault by Donald Trump and was defamed by him. Trump was ordered to pay damages for these findings. Trump's continued statements denying the accusations and calling them false were also found to be potentially defamatory, but a second jury had not yet reached a verdict on this issue. The judge in the second trial had already decided that the questions of whether Carroll was sexually assaulted and whether Trump's statements were false had been decided in the first trial and could not be relitigated. Therefore, if Carroll were to bring another lawsuit, it would likely focus on whether Trump made new defamatory statements and the amount of damages.
Different Outcomes for Trump and Biden's Classified Information Cases: Robert Hur's report indicates Trump's clear case of defamation and disregard for law, while Biden cooperated willingly with investigators.
The ongoing investigations into potential mishandling of classified information by both former President Trump and President Biden have resulted in vastly different outcomes. While there is insufficient evidence against President Biden, Robert Hur's report indicates that there is a clear case against Trump, with numerous instances of defamation and disregard for the law. The distinction drawn by Hur between the two cases highlights the significant differences in their handling of the investigations. President Biden willingly cooperated with investigators, while Trump has a history of dismissing the consequences of his actions. The ongoing hearings and releases of information are expected to shed more light on these distinctions.
Hurst's Assessment of Biden's Mental State at Upcoming Republican Hearing: The hearing's focus on Hurst's assessment may be a distraction from more substantive issues, as it is irrelevant to the prosecutorial function and Hurst's former employment status limits his ability to reveal new information.
The upcoming Republican hearing will focus on Rob Hurst's assessment of President Biden's mental state, but this assessment is irrelevant to the prosecutorial function and within the president's ability to address. Additionally, Hurst's decision to step down from the Department of Justice before the hearing is due to his obligation to undergo pre-publication review as a former employee. This review limits his ability to go beyond the written report without permission, and former employees do not face the same consequences for not following these instructions as current employees. The department could potentially seek to invoke privileges to prevent Hurst from revealing certain information, but it has less ability to do so with a former employee. Overall, the hearing's focus on Hurst's assessment may be a distraction from more substantive issues.
Discussion on Prosecuting Trump podcast about ongoing investigations into fake electors and commitment to transparency: Robert Hur, a witness, was not advised to keep quiet, indicating transparency. Subpoenas issued to fake electors in Arizona, investigations in other states, and decision on Trump's appeal in New York community issue pending. Stay tuned for updates.
During a recent discussion on the "Prosecuting Trump" podcast, it was mentioned that Robert Hur, a witness in the ongoing investigation into the fake electors of the 2020 election, was not advised to keep quiet about anything. This indicates a commitment to transparency in the proceedings. The podcast also mentioned that subpoenas have been issued to the fake electors in Arizona, and there have been investigations and criminal cases in other states. The outcome of a decision regarding Donald Trump's appeal in the New York community issue is also awaited. With so much happening, listeners are encouraged to stay tuned for updates and are invited to leave questions for the podcast team. The podcast is produced by Vicky Vergolina, Paul Robert Mounsey, Kathryn Anderson, Bob Mallory, and Bryson Barnes, with Ayesha Turner serving as executive producer for MSNBC audio and Rebecca Cutler as senior vice president for content strategy. Listeners can find "Prosecuting Trump" wherever they get their podcasts and follow the series for more information.