Podcast Summary
A Year of Accountability: Trump Investigations, Supreme Court Rulings, and More: 2023 promises significant legal developments, including investigations against Trump, the Supreme Court's immigration ruling, and ongoing probes into individuals and organizations.
2023 is expected to be a year of accountability in the world of law and politics, with several ongoing investigations and legal actions against individuals and organizations, including former President Donald Trump. The release of Trump's tax returns and depositions from the January 6th committee have shed light on potential lies, conflicts, and crimes. The Supreme Court has blocked President Biden's immigration policy, and George Santos, a MAGA extremist, faces multiple investigations and allegations of fraud. Special counsel Jack Smith's criminal investigations, civil lawsuits, and ongoing criminal investigations in New York and Georgia are all set to come to a head in 2023. The Legal AF team, which started out expecting to cover legal and political issues for a few years, now finds themselves with an abundance of content due to the unprecedented events unfolding. The importance of the community in making these discussions possible cannot be overstated.
Trump's Tax Returns Raise Questions of Criminality: Trump's tax practices involve large expenses against zero income, significant tax refunds, and potential misalignment between claimed donations and actual data, which may be under investigation for criminal activity.
That Donald Trump's tax returns, which have been released, reveal a pattern of financial practices that raise questions of criminality. Trump's claims of charitable donations and tax payments do not align with the actual data. He paid more in taxes to foreign governments than to the US government and had a Chinese bank account. Furthermore, Trump used a technique of setting up his companies as sole proprietorships and claimed huge expenses against zero income, resulting in significant tax refunds. This practice, which is not typical for large companies, allowed Trump to eliminate over $150 million in income and end up with a refund of $2.1 million over five years. The Manhattan district attorney is likely considering these practices as potential criminal activity.
Mazars Disclaims Trump's Tax Audits, Criminal Investigation Shifts to Money Laundering: Mazars disclaimed Trump's tax audits due to unreliable info, criminal investigation shifts to money laundering in China and Azerbaijan, recent Trump Organization tax fraud conviction debunks Trump's invulnerability to legal consequences
The accounting firm Mazars, which audited Donald Trump's tax returns for 13 years, has disclaimed their work due to the unreliability of the information provided by Trump and the Trump Organization. This raises concerns about potential bogus charitable deductions, unreported income, and tax policy manipulation. The criminal investigation is now shifting to follow the money, with potential money laundering investigations in countries like China and Azerbaijan. The recent conviction of the Trump Organization on tax fraud charges could provide valuable insight for future prosecutions against Trump himself, as many of the same witnesses and strategies will be involved. The conviction also debunks the notion that Trump is invulnerable to legal consequences.
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's Decision to Prosecute Trump: DA Alvin Bragg is reconsidering prosecuting Trump in 2023 after evaluating evidence and witness performance, while public scrutiny from January 6th committee reports aids in distinguishing between actors during that time period.
Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney, faced significant pressure to prosecute Donald Trump following the investigation initiated by his predecessor. Bragg evaluated the evidence and decided against pursuing charges in 2022. However, he may reconsider in 2023, as he now has more control over the case and has had the opportunity to assess the performance of witnesses. This strategy could prove brilliant if new evidence is uncovered. Meanwhile, the January 6th committee reports and deposition transcripts are having a significant impact, allowing the public to distinguish between bad actors, criminal actors, and phonies during that time period. Reputationally, this process is crucial in identifying who acted reasonably and who validated the events. Notable figures like Pat Cipollone are becoming key players in this investigation.
Judge Rejects Trump's Public Authority Defense in Capitol Insurrection Case: Despite Trump's attempts to influence the DC federal judiciary, his impact has been minimal. Judges, even those appointed by him, are unlikely to shield him from charges related to the Capitol insurrection based on the public authority defense.
The January 6th committee report and the judgments of various federal judges continue to paint a damning picture of Donald Trump's actions leading up to and during the Capitol insurrection. The public authority defense, which could have shielded an insurrectionist from charges based on the belief that they were following lawful orders from the president, was rejected by Judge John Bates based on the report and common sense. This rejection further limits the potential allies Trump may have in Washington D.C., where indictments against him for theft of government records, insurrection, and election interference will be brought. Trump's efforts to reshape the federal judiciary were not as successful as his presidency, with Biden making significant appointments at the trial and appeal levels. Trump's impact on the DC federal judiciary has been minimal, and even Republican-appointed judges are unlikely to let him off easy on the charges related to the insurrection.
Judges presiding over January 6th prosecutions not expected to be sympathetic to defendants: Judges, some appointed by Trump, are taking a firm stance against January 6th defendants, dismissing arguments against obstruction charges and Trump's calls to 'fight like hell'.
The judges presiding over the January 6th prosecutions, many of whom were appointed by former President Trump, are not expected to be sympathetic to the defendants. While some, like Carl Nichols, may not be ideologically aligned with the MAGA movement, others, like Beryl Howell, have already shown signs of predisposition against Trump and his associates. In a recent ruling, Judge Bates rejected the argument that obstruction of justice charges cannot be brought against January 6th defendants without evidence of physical destruction of electoral votes. He also dismissed the idea that Trump's calls for protestors to "fight like hell" amounted to an implicit license to storm the Capitol and interfere with the election process. These rulings suggest that the judges are taking a firm stance against those involved in the insurrection, and that the legal process is having an impact on their perspectives.
Impact of January 6th committee hearings' transcript releases: The release of transcripts from the January 6th committee hearings provides firsthand accounts, shaping public perception and potentially damaging reputations of figures involved, and serves as essential historical records for future cases and research.
The release of transcripts from the January 6th committee hearings is having a significant impact on public perception and potential future reputations of those involved in the Capitol attack. The transcripts provide firsthand accounts of individuals' actions and words, allowing the public to form their own interpretations. This is particularly relevant for high-profile figures like Donald Trump and his associates, who have faced damaging revelations from the testimony. The transcripts' release also means this information will be available for future court cases and historical records. The impact is not limited to Trump and his associates; others, including former press secretaries and advisors, have also faced scrutiny and potential damage to their reputations. Overall, the January 6th committee's transcript releases serve as an essential public service for understanding the events of that day and the roles of those involved.
January 6th hearings reveal leaders disregarding the law: Former Pence's adherence to law commendable, but not standard. Witness negotiations, unexpected Quayle involvement, and Supreme Court's use of shadow docket threaten democracy and citizen rights.
The January 6th hearings have revealed a dark chapter in American history where following the law is no longer the baseline expectation for leaders. Former Vice President Pence's decision to follow the law and not interfere with the certification of electoral votes was commendable, but it should not be the standard. The hearings have also shed light on the Jan 6 committee's negotiations with witnesses, in which they made promises not to immediately turn over transcripts to the Department of Justice in exchange for testimony. Additionally, the involvement of former Vice President Dan Quayle in guiding Mike Pence during the Capitol insurrency attempt was an unexpected revelation. Another concerning issue is the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket to block President Biden's immigration policies and force the continuation of Title 42 expulsions, which has resulted in asylum seekers being sent back to dangerous situations. Overall, these developments underscore the importance of holding our leaders accountable for upholding democracy and protecting the rights of all citizens.
Supreme Court Blocks Biden's Immigration Policy: The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to keep Title 42, a Trump-era immigration policy, in place despite lower court rulings allowing Biden to pursue his own policy has sparked controversy and debates on executive authority and immigration reform.
The Supreme Court's use of its "shadow docket" to block President Biden from implementing his own immigration policy has been met with controversy. The case, Arizona vs. Mayorkas, saw Republican states intervening to keep Title 42, an executive order from the Trump administration, in place. Despite lower court rulings stating that Biden had the authority to pursue his own policy, the Supreme Court granted a temporary stay and eventually ruled in favor of the states in a 5-4 decision. This decision has been criticized for its potential hypocrisy, as the Supreme Court has previously blocked Biden's attempts to use COVID-19 as a reason to implement policies in areas such as evictions and student loans. The ongoing debate highlights the need for comprehensive immigration reform and the complexities surrounding executive authority in times of crisis.
A Call for Compassionate and Comprehensive Immigration Policy: The speaker advocates for a compassionate and comprehensive immigration policy, criticizes performative gestures, and calls for a solution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of asylum seekers.
The current immigration policy in the United States is a contentious issue, with a need for a comprehensive, humane solution that recognizes the country's history as a land of immigrants. The speaker shares their personal connection to the issue, having friends who have been both legal and illegal residents in the country. They advocate for a policy that is compassionate and respectful, acknowledging the need for borders but also reflecting the country's immigrant roots. The speaker criticizes performative gestures, such as building a wall, that do not address the root causes of the issue. They also discuss Title 42, a controversial policy implemented during the Trump administration that kept asylum seekers in their home countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. This policy resulted in over 2 million asylum seekers remaining in place, many of whom may be in danger in their home countries. The speaker suggests that the Biden administration could have challenged the policy more aggressively and questions their readiness to house and protect a large number of asylum seekers if Title 42 is eliminated. Ultimately, the speaker calls for a solution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of those seeking asylum.
Criticisms of Supreme Court's handling of Title 42 immigration policy: The Supreme Court's approach to Title 42 and other contentious issues has raised questions about its role in policymaking and its impact on individuals' lives, with critics arguing that the court is making policy by delay through timing, shadow dockets, and case selection.
The Supreme Court's handling of Title 42, a policy related to immigration and asylum applications during the COVID-19 pandemic, has been criticized for making policy by delay. Despite Gorsuch's assertion that the court is not a "policy maker of last resort," the court has used various methods, such as timing, shadow dockets, and case selection, to effectively make policy. The implications of this approach extend to various contentious issues, including immigration and abortion rights. The court's actions have significant consequences for individuals and the administration, raising questions about the court's role in policymaking and its impact on people's lives.
Selective application of major questions doctrine by Supreme Court: The Supreme Court's conservative-majority has selectively applied the major questions doctrine to block policies they disapprove, such as Biden's student loan relief plan, while overlooking potential abuses of power.
The major questions doctrine, a legal principle used by the Supreme Court to limit executive power, has been selectively applied by the current conservative-majority court, particularly when it comes to policies they disagree with. This was evident in the court's decision to block the Biden administration's student loan relief plan. Additionally, the discussion touched upon the ongoing criminal investigation into George Santos, the newly-elected Republican congressman from New York, who has been accused of lying about his work history, education, and financial disclosures. The investigation raises concerns about potential campaign finance violations and shady connections to Russian oligarchs and a Ponzi scheme. The conversation also highlighted the reputational damage these deceitful actions inflict upon the Republican party.
New York Congressman George Santos under investigation for potential financial crimes: New York Congressman George Santos faces multiple investigations for potential financial crimes, including money laundering, fraud, and campaign finance violations. His business dealings and expense reporting raise red flags.
George Santos, the newly elected Congressman from New York's 3rd district, is under investigation by multiple prosecutors at the local, state, and federal levels for potential financial crimes, including potential money laundering, fraud, and campaign finance violations. Santos has a history of embellishing his resume and financial status, and some of his business dealings are raising red flags. For instance, he used a company called Cleaner Cleaner 123 to pay his rent, which sounds like money laundering. He also has ties to a Florida-based company that the SEC has accused of running a $17 million bond scheme. Santos' campaign finance reports show that he structured his expenses to avoid reporting requirements, which is a crime. With multiple investigations ongoing, it's likely that Santos will face charges and be removed from his seat in Congress. Kevin McCarthy and other Republican leaders have remained silent on the issue, but the Democrats have a slim majority in the House, and losing Santos would make their already thin margin even thinner.
New York Congressional Candidate George Santos Faces Investigation for Voter Fraud and Misrepresentations: Republican Party must prioritize honesty and integrity in leadership, even if it means addressing deceitful candidates like George Santos, who faces investigation for potential voter fraud and misrepresentations in his resume.
George Santos, a congressional candidate from New York, is under investigation for potential voter fraud and misrepresentations in his resume. Santos, who is from Nassau County and campaigned on issues like financial services and 9/11, is facing scrutiny for deceitfully claiming various identities and accomplishments. Prosecutors are examining his actions, and it's clear that he cannot manipulate the truth to gain votes without violating criminal law. As a leader, it's crucial for the Republican Party to address this issue and not tolerate fraudulent candidates, even if it means losing a close election. Santos' deceitful actions are likely to lead to further damaging revelations, making him an embarrassment for the party. The importance of honesty and integrity in leadership should always be prioritized over political gain.
Anticipated criminal prosecutions in 2023 for obstruction of justice cases related to the Trump administration: In 2023, significant steps are expected in the justice system with potential indictments of Trump and key figures like Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman for various obstruction of justice crimes, including election interference in multiple states.
In 2023, justice system is expected to take significant steps forward with criminal prosecutions against individuals involved in obstruction of justice cases, particularly those related to the Trump administration and the events leading up to and following the 2020 election. This includes potential indictments of Trump himself, as well as key figures like Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and others. The scope of investigations is not limited to Georgia election interference but may also cover cases in Nevada, Colorado, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The term "obstruction of justice" covers a range of crimes, including witness tampering, influencing election officials, and lying to the public. The year 2023 is anticipated to be a productive one in terms of holding individuals accountable for their actions.
Expected Indictments for Trump Allies: Former President Trump's allies, including Eastman, Giuliani, Clark, and Meadows, may face indictments related to January 6, 2021 events. Experts predict these could happen as early as January 2023.
Several key figures close to former President Trump, including Eastman, Giuliani, and Jeff Clark, are expected to be indicted in relation to the events of January 6, 2021. Mark Meadows, another prominent figure, is also speculated to be in harm's way due to his involvement and potential witness tampering. Indictments for these individuals are predicted to happen relatively quickly, with some experts believing it could occur as early as January 2023. The community of legal analysts and observers, known as "legal AF," will continue to closely follow these developments throughout the year. It's important to note that all individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Additionally, the public's support and contributions to independent media platforms like Midas Touch help ensure that important discussions and analysis continue to be shared.
