Podcast Summary
Manhattan DA pushes back against Trump's attempt to move Stormy Daniels case to federal court: Despite Trump's efforts, the Manhattan DA's office argues against moving the Stormy Daniels hush money case to federal court, while evidence production begins and investigations into Trump's actions regarding national security documents continue.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office is pushing back against Donald Trump's attempts to remove the Stormy Daniels hush money case from state court to federal court. Alvin Bragg's team argues that Trump was not acting as a federal officer when the crime was committed and cannot use the federal officer removal provision to move the case. Meanwhile, the first disclosure and production of evidence has been made to Trump's defense team, including an audio tape between Trump and an unnamed witness, possibly Michael Cohen. Additionally, Jack Smith's grand jury is investigating Trump's public firing of Chris Krebs, the former head of cybersecurity infrastructure and security agency, who declared the 2020 election secure just weeks after it took place. This case, which involves potential espionage and obstruction, is reminiscent of a thrilling John le Carré novel. The other grand jury is also looking into Trump's actions regarding national security documents at Mar-a-Lago. These developments show that the legal proceedings against Trump are far from over.
Transfer of jurisdiction from state to federal court: Cases can be moved from state to federal court based on federal questions, diversity, or federal officers involvement. Federal judges decide if jurisdiction is granted, and outcomes can impact parties and case progress.
A case can be transferred from state to federal court based on certain circumstances. These circumstances include when the case involves a federal question, a diversity of citizenship or foreign states, or when a federal officer is involved. Once a case is removed to federal court, it can be remanded back to state court if the party who initiated the removal does not succeed. The ongoing case involving Donald Trump and the Manhattan District Attorney's office is an example of a potential transfer of jurisdiction from state to federal court. The decision to remove the case rests with the federal judge, and both sides have valid arguments. The outcome of similar cases in the past, such as Trump v Vance or Vance v Trump, have shown that federal courts can take jurisdiction over state grand jury subpoenas and criminal cases, even if the defendant is a sitting president. This potential transfer of jurisdiction can significantly impact the course of the case and the parties involved.
Arguments for moving Trump case to federal court: The ongoing legal case against Trump for NY business dealings could potentially be heard in federal court due to the uniqueness of the case involving a sitting president's tax returns, Trump's potential status as a federal officer, and the involvement of a federal crime.
There are valid arguments for why the ongoing legal case against Donald Trump for his business dealings in New York could potentially be heard in federal court. The first reason is the uniqueness of the case involving the tax returns of a sitting president, which a federal judge previously ruled belongs in federal court. The second reason is that Trump could be considered a federal officer due to his role as president during the alleged criminal conduct. While the Manhattan DA's office argues otherwise, there is precedent for a federal judge to rule otherwise. The third reason is that the case involves a federal crime, and a federal defense could be applied, potentially leading to preemption of the state law. While it's not guaranteed that the case will be moved to federal court, these arguments provide a solid basis for the possibility.
Trump's team argues against NY state court trial: Trump's team asserts that the NY state case against him falls under federal courts' limited jurisdiction and that he cannot be tried as a state officer for alleged crimes.
Former President Trump's team argues that he cannot be tried in a New York state court because he was not acting as a federal officer at the time of the alleged crimes. They also claim that the case is essentially a state crime and falls under the limited jurisdiction of federal courts. The team points to Trump's own words, where he described the payments to Stormy Daniels as a private agreement. The Manhattan DA's office counters that Trump's motion papers did not properly specify the elements required for their arguments to hold. The case marks the first time a former U.S. president has been criminally indicted, and the potential for witnesses and the sensitive nature of the allegations could influence the outcome. Ultimately, the decision lies with the federal judge. Trump's team also argues that there is no uniquely federal defense to the state claims and that the executive privilege has already been stripped away.
Trump's move to federal court doesn't guarantee better outcome: Trump's decision to move criminal case to federal court may be for delay tactics, judge shopping, and disrupting investigation. Outcome depends on evidence and effective argument presentation.
Donald Trump's decision to move his ongoing criminal case from state to federal court is not a guarantee of a more favorable outcome. While he may argue that he cannot receive a fair trial in Manhattan due to the liberal jury pool, the state claims and violations will remain, and the rules and evidence will likely change to federal rules but not significantly. Trump's primary reasons for the move may be delay tactics, judge shopping, and attempting to disrupt the investigation against him. The protective order in place by Judge Marchand allows for some information to be reviewed only with Trump's lawyers present, further emphasizing the need for a strong legal team in the case. Ultimately, the outcome of the case will depend on the strength of the evidence and the ability of both sides to present their arguments effectively.
New York's Discovery Laws: More Transparency for a Fair Trial: New York's discovery laws now require the prosecution to share all evidence within 45 days of arraignment, promoting fairness and transparency in the criminal justice system.
The criminal justice system in New York State underwent significant changes to its discovery laws in 2020, moving towards more open and timely sharing of evidence between the prosecution and defense. Previously, New York had one of the most restrictive discovery statutes, but due to concerns about fairness and the potential for wrongful prosecutions, especially for people of color, the laws were changed. Now, within 45 days of arraignment, the prosecution must turn over all evidence, including emails, text messages, recordings, and other digital data. This is a massive undertaking, especially in complex white-collar cases like the one against Donald Trump, which involves millions of documents and terabytes of data. The reason for this change is to promote transparency and ensure a fair trial, eliminating the "hide the ball" tactics that were common in the past.
New York's open discovery process revolutionizes criminal trials: New York's open discovery process allows for the release of grand jury testimony and evidence to the defense, providing valuable insights and ensuring a fair trial while preventing misuse through protective orders.
The release of grand jury testimony and evidence to the defense in criminal cases, as seen in the case involving Michael Cohen and Donald Trump, is a game-changer for prosecutors. It provides the defense with valuable insights into the defendant's mind and planning of the crime. New York, where this case took place, is a one-party consent state, allowing for secret recordings. The recording of Cohen's conversation with Trump is expected to be a powerful piece of evidence in the case. This open discovery process ensures a fair trial and eliminates the need for "playing games" or "hiding the ball" with evidence. However, protective orders can be put in place to prevent the misuse of sensitive information. The case also highlights the existence of the "catch and kill" program, where the National Enquirer paid off women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump and bought their silence through NDAs.
Trump's Hush Money Payments and Interactions with Government Agencies: Michael Cohen paid hush money for Trump, disguised as legal retainer. Lawyer misled during Mar-a-Lago search. Jack Smith investigates Trump's firing of Chris Krebs.
Michael Cohen paid hush money on behalf of Donald Trump to Stormy Daniels, and this payment was disguised as a legal retainer in the books and records. Later, Evan Corcoran, a former lawyer for Trump, testified that he was misled during a search for documents related to the Mar-a-Lago investigation. Additionally, Jack Smith is reportedly interested in the firing of Chris Krebs, the former head of the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, which could potentially indicate Trump's state of mind regarding the election results. These developments suggest that there may be ongoing legal issues related to Trump's handling of hush money payments and his interactions with government agencies.
Lawyer's Misrepresentation of Document Search at Mar-a-Lago: A lawyer certified under penalty of perjury that all relevant documents were searched for but later discovered that some materials were not in the storage unit as represented, potentially leading to criminal investigation.
The ongoing investigation into the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago involves several individuals, including Evan Corcoran, who certified under penalty of perjury that they had conducted a diligent search for all relevant documents, but later discovered that they had been misled about the location of some materials. Corcoran and others were told that all documents were in a storage unit, but it was later revealed that there were documents in desks and offices that were not searched. Additionally, there is reportedly video evidence of a personal valet, Walt Nauta, moving boxes and potentially handling documents, and cooperating testimony from a maintenance worker. The government is currently trying to determine if there is criminality related to the handling of these documents and potential gaps in the video evidence. Evan Corcoran's actions raise questions about his judgment and ethics as a lawyer for not insisting on a thorough search.
Investigation goes beyond possession of classified docs: Special Counsel Jack Smith explores Trump's intent, potential obstruction, and witnesses' accounts in the handling of classified documents, expanding the investigation beyond simple possession.
The ongoing investigation into former President Trump's handling of classified documents is not just about possession, but also about intent and potential obstruction of justice. Jack Smith, the special counsel, is interested in Trump's lawyers, including Evan Corcoran, as they may have information about the former president's state of mind and the purpose behind having these documents. The Espionage Act focuses on national security material, not just classified documents. Witnesses like the Calamari team and housekeeping staff can provide crucial information about the circumstances surrounding the documents' handling. Additionally, Boris Epshteyn could also potentially be a defendant due to his involvement in interfering with records at Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster. The case is not just about having the documents, but rather the context and actions surrounding them.
Trump's Loyalty and Intense Allegiance: Individuals like Rudy Giuliani and Walt Nauta are willing to support Trump despite potential legal consequences. Trump prioritizes loyalty over expertise and facts, as shown in his firing of Chris Krebs after the 2020 election was deemed secure.
Certain individuals, including Rudy Giuliani and others, are willing to go to great lengths to support former President Trump, even if it means potentially facing prosecution. This includes Walt Nauta, Trump's former personal valet, who is being pressured to testify against him but has not yet done so. The discussion also touched upon the firing of Chris Krebs, the first head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), by Trump after Krebs declared the 2020 election to be secure. Despite his integrity and competence, Trump disagreed with Krebs' assessment and fired him. These events highlight the intense loyalty and allegiance some individuals have towards Trump, as well as Trump's tendency to prioritize loyalty over expertise and facts.
Trump fires Cybersecurity Chief for defending election's integrity: President Trump dismissed Chris Krebs, head of CISA, for defending the 2020 election's security and integrity, facing threats from Trump allies. Special Counsel Jack Smith is now investigating the circumstances.
During the 2020 presidential election aftermath, Chris Krebs, the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), defended the election's security and integrity against false claims of widespread voter fraud. Despite being told by advisers, consultants, and White House lawyers that these claims were unsubstantiated or technically impossible, President Trump fired Krebs for doing his job. Trump's allies, including lawyers Sidney Powell and Joe diGenova, made threatening statements against Krebs, leading him to sue them for defamation. Recently, Special Counsel Jack Smith has shown interest in investigating the circumstances surrounding Krebs' firing and the individuals involved in the decision-making process. This situation highlights Trump's intent to undermine the election results and Krebs' commitment to upholding the integrity of the democratic process.
Testimony from cybersecurity expert Chris Krebs crucial for grand jury in election investigation: Expert testimony from Chris Krebs to grand jury could debunk false election fraud claims, provide valuable insights, and help jury make informed decisions based on facts.
Chris Krebs, a leading cybersecurity expert, testifying before a grand jury about the security of the 2020 election would be crucial in debunking false claims of widespread voter fraud. Krebs' testimony, which would contradict allegations made by Trump's legal team, could provide valuable insight into the lack of evidence supporting these claims. Moreover, the grand jury's education on election law and technology from experts like Krebs would help them make informed decisions based on facts rather than speculation. Trump's continued insistence on the existence of massive voter fraud, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, could potentially be considered willful blindness, making his case even stronger. The leaks from the grand jury proceedings are likely intended to put pressure on witnesses to come forward and cooperate with the investigation. Trump's letter to Merrick Garland, threatening investigations into Hunter Biden, is seen as a distraction tactic.
Trump's Legal Team's Lack of Communication with Special Counsel Jack Smith: Despite being a former colleague, Trump's legal team's focus on attacking prosecutors and judges instead of communicating hinders potential meetings and resolutions with Special Counsel Jack Smith.
The lack of communication and credibility from Donald Trump's legal team, specifically Jim Trusty, has hindered any potential private meetings or resolutions with Special Counsel Jack Smith. Trusty, a former colleague and friend of Smith's from their days at the Manhattan DA's office, could have used their prior relationship to potentially facilitate a meeting. However, Trusty has been busy writing letters dictated by Trump instead. The small world of law and politics continues to intertwine, with Trump and his team attacking prosecutors and judges, including Jack Smith and Judge Hellerstein. Despite the political hay Trump gains from these attacks, it does not lead to favorable orders from the judiciary. To support LegalAF Midweek, listeners can engage with the content by giving thumbs up, leaving comments, and sharing the podcast. These free actions help the show continue to provide hundreds of hot takes on the intersection of US law and politics.
Engaging with the Audience: The LegalAF team provides content in various formats and offers multiple ways to support and connect with them, including podcasts, videos, merchandise, and Patreon.
The LegalAF team values engagement with their audience and offers multiple ways to support and connect with them. They provide content in various formats, including podcasts and videos, which can be accessed on popular platforms like Google, Spotify, Apple, Iheartradio, and Alexa. Their merchandise store offers items for purchase, and they have a Patreon for those who wish to contribute financially. They are active on social media and aim to respond to comments in a timely manner. Karen shared a personal story about a challenging case she prosecuted and how Jack Smith stepped in to help, illustrating their teamwork and dedication to their work.
Jack Smith's dedication to public service: Jack Smith's commitment to public service, demonstrated early in his career, has remained consistent throughout his career, prioritizing it over personal gain and financial reward.
Jack Smith's actions from years ago, when he took on a difficult and serious case despite personal challenges, showcases his character and dedication to public service. His decision to prioritize public service over personal gain, even early in his career, is a testament to his unwavering commitment. This essence of who he is as a person has remained consistent throughout his career. Smith's choice to pursue a government salary and dedicate his time to prosecuting war criminals and handling high-profile cases, despite the potential for greater financial reward, is commendable. The federal judges in the District of Columbia serve as the conscience of democracy, and in our own small way, we at Legal AF aim to do the same by providing accurate and informative legal discussions. Our listeners' engagement and commitment to learning from our podcast enable us to make a difference in the face of misinformation and anti-democratic rhetoric.
Republicans: Beyond the MAGA Movement: Democrats should recognize the divide within the Republican Party and address issues like social security, healthcare, infrastructure to cater to a broader range of beliefs within the Democratic Party
While Trump maintains a stronghold on 30% of the Republican Party, there's a significant portion of Republicans (70%) who aren't aligned with the MAGA movement. These voters may identify as socially liberal but fiscally conservative, but in reality, they lean more towards fiscal liberalism, which the GOP exploits. It's essential for Democrats to recognize this divide and create a welcoming space for all, including Republicans, by addressing issues like social security, healthcare, infrastructure, and more. The Democratic Party encompasses a diverse range of beliefs, and it's crucial to acknowledge and cater to this diversity.
