Podcast Summary
Judge rules against Trump on gag order violations: Judge Marshawn denied Trump's argument that reposted social media content isn't his statement, and he can be fined and jailed for each violation of the gag order.
Judge Marshawn's ruling this morning on the first ten charges of contempt against Donald Trump for violating the gag order in the Manhattan District Attorney's case was significant. Trump argued that reposts of others' social media content were not his own statements, but the judge rejected this argument. The judge also has the power to fine Trump up to $1,000 and imprison him for up to 30 days per violation. The ruling came after a hearing where both sides presented their defenses, but there are more claims of violations to be heard on Thursday. This ruling marks a clear message that Trump must adhere to the gag order to avoid further consequences. The written decision is available in the show notes for those interested in reading it in full.
Court: Reposts Can Violate Gag Orders: The court ruled that reposts on social media can violate a gag order, as the defendant's account and website reflect his own opinions and views, and he endorses any content he shares. Knowingly violating a gag order can result in fines.
That the court did not agree with the argument that reposts cannot violate a gag order. The judge made it clear that the defendant's true social account and campaign website exclusively represent his opinions and views, and he endorses any content he reposts. The judge also rejected the argument that the defendant was merely responding to political attacks, as he failed to connect each post to a specific attack. It's important to note that the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the order and willfully violated it, resulting in a fine of $9,000 for nine violations. The judge recognized the defendant's First Amendment rights but emphasized that the gag order should not be used as a weapon by potential witnesses to attack others.
Judge's Warning: Violate Gag Order, Face Jail Time: Judges can impose severe consequences, including jail time, for violating gag orders in court cases.
Violations of gag orders in court cases could lead to more severe consequences than just a fine, including potential jail time. The judge in the case discussed made it clear that if a protected party continues to undermine the purpose of the gag order, they may lose its protection. Michael Cohen, a protected party in a separate case, had issued a statement that he would no longer speak publicly, likely due to this potential consequence. The judge also expressed frustration with the limited fine amount allowed by law and warned of the possibility of jail time for continued violations. The judge did order the removal of certain posts and warned the defendant of further consequences, but did not impose additional restrictions or threaten to hold off sentencing as a potential punishment. The judge's decision highlights the importance of adhering to court orders and the potential seriousness of violations.
Testimonies from Trump's associates during the trial: Former associates of Trump, including Pecker, Graf, and Farrow, testified during the trial. Trump's attempt to praise Pecker during a press event may lead to contempt charges.
During the ongoing trial, former associates of Donald Trump testified, including David Pecker, Rona Graf, and Gary Farrow. Pecker's testimony was damaging for Trump, leading him to consider ways to distract from it, such as potential jail time. However, Trump has been found in contempt of court multiple times for violating gag orders. The latest alleged violation involves Trump attempting to curry favor with a witness, David Pecker, by praising him during a press event. The hearing on these gag order violations is scheduled for Thursday. It's important to note that during the trial, witnesses were subjected to cross-examination, redirect, and recross, which have specific rules regarding the scope of questioning. The trial has seen various arguments, but two in particular deserve more attention. I look forward to discussing these points further with Mary.
Defense lawyer creating reasonable doubt: The defense effectively challenged the prosecution's narrative by highlighting the approval of agreements by lawyers and inconsistencies in their argument, leaving some questions unanswered for future proceedings.
Learning from the cross-examination during the trial is that the defense lawyer, Emile Beauv, was trying to create reasonable doubt by challenging the prosecution's narrative that certain agreements between American Media Inc. (AMI) and Karen McDougal were campaign violations. Beauv emphasized that these agreements were approved by both in-house and outside lawyers, and that there was no clear violation of campaign finance laws. He also highlighted that Peker, the AMI executive at the center of the case, had taken the position that there was no campaign violation. The defense's main objective was to cast doubt on the prosecution's claims and to make the jury question the consistency of their argument. The cross-examination was seen as effective by some, as it answered questions raised during the prosecution's case and provided alternative explanations. However, it is important to note that the defense's job is to poke holes in the prosecution's case and does not necessarily require a consistent, wonderful theory. Overall, the cross-examination provided a smorgasbord of potential arguments, leaving some questions unanswered for future proceedings.
Hidden Agreements and Manipulated Information: The National Enquirer used complex agreements and relationships to hide damaging stories and manipulate information during the 2016 election.
During the trial, it was revealed that the National Enquirer had entered into an agreement with Karen McDougall, not just for payment, but also for opportunities to be on the cover and write for them. This agreement, which looked like an employment contract, was actually a cover for the "catch and kill" scheme. The reason being that it wouldn't have been in the National Enquirer's financial interest to run McDougall's story, as they had already purchased the rights to suppress it. Additionally, it was mentioned during the trial that Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer, had a personal relationship with Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels' lawyer. This relationship and any potential side deals will likely be a focus during Cohen's testimony. The jury may be left scratching their heads about these tidbits until the closing arguments when the connections will be made clear. Another example of this was the different phone numbers David Pecker had during the relevant years, which will likely come up again in the records. Overall, the trial demonstrated how complex agreements and relationships can be used to hide the truth and manipulate information.
Settlement for prohibited corporate in-kind contribution: During trials, campaign finance violations occur when something of value is given to a candidate without complying with regulations. AMI settled with the FEC for making such a contribution, revealing the violation during a cross-examination.
During a trial, it is important to remember that campaign finance violations occur when something of value is provided to a candidate without complying with regulations, including reporting requirements and monetary limitations. In this specific case, American Media Inc. (AMI) agreed to settle with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for making a prohibited corporate in-kind contribution to help influence an election. This agreement was brought to light during a cross-examination, revealing that AMI acknowledged the violation. Additionally, it's worth noting that mistakes can happen during FBI interviews, and recorded statements can help avoid potential discrepancies. Lastly, even for a first-time defense lawyer, effective cross-examination is possible with thorough preparation and understanding of the case.
Testimonies from Ronograph and Gary Farah reveal Trump's contact with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal: Ronograph's role as Trump's assistant and Farah's testimony about Cohen's lies and bank fraud provide crucial evidence against Trump's involvement in hush money payments to Daniels and McDougal.
The testimony from Ronograph and Gary Farah provides crucial details that help build the case against Donald Trump regarding the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Ronograph, as Trump's executive assistant, kept his personal contacts in the Trump Organization's computer system, which included Daniels and McDougal. This shows that Trump was aware of and in contact with these women. Gary Farah, a banker from First Republic, testified about his role in helping Michael Cohen establish Essential Consulting, the company used to pay off Daniels. Farah also revealed that Cohen lied to him about the nature of Essential Consulting, stating it was for real estate consulting when it was actually used for the hush money payments. Additionally, Cohen committed bank fraud by denying to Farah that the account was being used for political campaign purposes when it was. These testimonies add to the mounting evidence that Trump was involved in the payments and attempted to cover them up.
Walt Nada testified about confusion over obstruction charges: Walt Nada, a coconspirator in the Mar-a-Lago case, testified about his confusion over the obstruction of justice charges against him, stating he didn't know what was in the boxes he moved. He also mentioned Trump's office was in the bridal suite.
Walt Nada, a coconspirator in the Mar-a-Lago indictment against Donald Trump, testified before a grand jury in Washington D.C. prior to the criminal charges being brought. In this testimony, Nada expressed confusion over the charges of obstruction of justice against him, as he claimed he didn't know what was in the boxes he allegedly moved to obstruct the investigation. Nada also mentioned that Donald Trump's office at Mar-a-Lago was located in the bridal suite. This grand jury transcript was recently made public as part of the case, and it raises questions about Nada's inconsistent statements regarding his knowledge and involvement in the handling of classified documents.
Dangling of pardons in Trump investigation: Reports of witnesses being offered pardons may hinder truthful testimony and investigation progress, as legal proceedings continue with no trial date set.
The ongoing legal saga involving Donald Trump and the investigation into the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago involves complex issues, including the potential influence of pardons on witnesses. The dangling of pardons problem refers to situations where individuals, under pressure from powerful figures, may choose not to cooperate with investigations. In this case, there have been reports of witnesses being told they could expect pardons if certain outcomes were met, such as a Trump re-election. The implications of these reports are significant, as they could impact the willingness of witnesses to testify truthfully and potentially hinder the progress of the investigation. Additionally, the ongoing legal proceedings, including the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago and the contempt hearing for Trump's attorney, are far from over, with many pending motions and no trial date set. As the situation continues to unfold, it's important to stay informed and consider the potential impact of these developments on the investigation and the legal process as a whole.
Meet the Team Behind 'Prosecuting Donald Trump': A dedicated team of professionals produces the 'Prosecuting Donald Trump' podcast series, including Vicki Vergolino, Jameris Perez, Katherine Anderson, Bryson Barnes, Ayesha Turner, and Rebecca Cutler.
The "Prosecuting Donald Trump" podcast series is produced by a team of dedicated professionals. Vicki Vergolino is the producer, Jameris Perez is the associate producer, Katherine Anderson handles the audio engineering, Bryson Barnes serves as the head of audio production, Ayesha Turner is the executive producer for MSNBC audio, and Rebecca Cutler is the senior vice president for content strategy at MSNBC. This team's collaboration results in the creation and execution of this important and timely podcast series. To keep up with the latest episodes, search for "Prosecuting Donald Trump" wherever you get your podcasts and follow the series.
