Podcast Summary
New York civil fraud case against Trump progresses, Rudy Giuliani's defamation trial upcoming: The New York civil fraud case against Donald Trump advances, with Trump and Eric opting not to testify again. Rudy Giuliani faces a federal civil defamation trial for election interference, focusing on damages for election workers. The trial is a jury trial due to the case's nature, with Rudy being the only remaining defendant.
The Economist offers expert analysis on global events and trends through its weekly digital edition, online articles, curated newsletters, and podcasts. In legal news, the New York civil fraud case against Donald Trump is progressing, with Trump and Eric electing not to testify again for the defense. Jack Smith intends to use Trump and his coconspirators' words and actions against them at trial using special 404 b evidence. The federal civil defamation trial against Rudy Giuliani for election interference is upcoming, focusing on damages for election workers. The trial is a jury trial instead of a judge's decision due to the nature of the case. Rudy is the only remaining defendant, and the judge is annoyed with him and his lawyer's behavior. Additionally, new indictments of fake electors have occurred in Nevada, involving the former heads of the GOP. The Legal AF podcast discusses these developments and more at the intersection of law, politics, and justice. Despite occasional criticisms, the hosts continue to provide real-time analysis with a human touch.
Gag orders and unexpected turns in the Trump civil fraud trial: The Trump civil fraud trial in New York is making headlines for gag orders and unexpected turns, including Eric Trump's decision not to testify, while Donald Trump is still scheduled to do so.
The ongoing civil fraud trial against Donald Trump and the Trump Organization in New York is making headlines for several reasons. One is the legal battle over gag orders, with judges issuing and then reversing orders restricting what Trump and his lawyers can say in public about the case. Another is the unexpected turn of events with Eric Trump deciding not to testify, while Donald Trump is still scheduled to do so. The trial, which has already seen over 45 days of testimony from experts and witnesses, is deep into the defense case and was expected to include testimony from both Eric and Donald Trump. However, due to ongoing legal disputes, Eric has chosen not to testify, and it remains to be seen whether Donald Trump will follow suit. The trial, which has significant implications for Trump's business future and past, is expected to reach a closing argument in January.
Trump's gag order dispute with NY AG involves mentioning issues to judge and making proffers, but abusive conduct towards law clerk led to reinstatement: Trump's ongoing legal dispute with NY AG includes a gag order, but his abusive conduct towards a law clerk led to its reinstatement, unrelated to his decision to testify or not.
The ongoing legal dispute between Donald Trump and the New York Attorney General's office involves a gag order preventing Trump from attacking or bashing certain individuals involved in the case, including the principal law clerk. The gag order is broader in the District of Columbia and narrower in the current case. Making a record for appeal purposes includes mentioning potential issues to the trial judge and making a proffer for the appellate court. However, continuing to raise the issue after the record has been made and engaging in abusive or harassing conduct towards the law clerk is considered unethical and has led to the reinstatement of the gag order. The ongoing dispute does not appear to be related to Trump's decision to testify or not, but rather an attempt to find an excuse not to do so. The experts Trump has called to testify have been discredited, and his relationship with Deutsche Bank, which he had promised would be a strong point, has also been called into question.
Underwriters, not bankers, determine loan collateral: Discrepancies between submitted financial statements and actual net worth raise concerns of potential fraud in Trump's case, with high odds of significant penalties due to New York's strict fraud laws
During the trial, it was revealed that underwriters, not bankers, determine the amount of collateral required for a loan. In this case, Donald Trump was required to have a net worth of 2.5 billion dollars and 500 million dollars in liquid assets. However, Trump's actual net worth was significantly lower, which raises questions about the accuracy of the financial statements he submitted to Deutsche Bank. The bank's own bankers acknowledged that financial statements are estimates and that they conducted their own due diligence, adjusting Trump's numbers downward. However, the discrepancy between the submitted numbers and the actual net worth raises concerns about potential fraud. The case revolves around the accuracy of Trump's financial statements and the potential consequences if those statements were found to be false. The lack of proper controls in Trump's family office, which functions as a glorified family investment vehicle, increases the likelihood of persistent fraud. The odds of the case leading to a significant penalty for Trump are high, given New York's robust fraud laws that have been in place since 1956.
New York Trial: Trump's Acquittal Odds High, Significant Penalties Ahead: Despite potential acquittals on some charges, Trump faces significant penalties including dissolution of NY businesses and major damages.
The odds of Donald Trump being acquitted on some of the remaining charges in the ongoing trial led by Leticia James and the people of the state of New York are high, according to the discussion. The judge, Angouren, is expected to acquit on at least one charge to counter the argument of bias. The damages, both monetary and non-monetary, are predicted to be significant, potentially leading to the dissolution of some of Trump's businesses in New York. The remaining counts, such as insurance fraud and financial statement fraud, may be thrown out as well to further protect against the argument of bias. The case is almost concluded, with the defense having presented their case, and the attorney general may choose to present a rebuttal case. The experts testifying for Trump were not convincing, and the bankers' testimonies did not help his case. Overall, it seems likely that Trump will face significant penalties, but may avoid criminal charges on some counts.
Judge writes significant portion of order before trial: Judges can write substantial orders before trial with help from law clerks and staff. Local counsel's expertise is crucial for navigating jurisdiction-specific procedures.
The judge in a high-profile case has likely written a significant portion of his order before the trial, with his law clerk and staff helping to populate it with relevant facts. Despite some attempts by lawyers to expedite the process or challenge certain procedures, the judge has the authority to issue orders as he sees fit. The efficiency and expertise of local counsel in navigating the specific legal system and procedures of a jurisdiction cannot be overstated, as demonstrated in this case where the lack of such counsel led to several missteps and delays.
Complexities of Practicing Law in New York State: New York's unique civil procedure rules present challenges for attorneys, requiring a deep understanding to practice effectively. Ongoing legal cases, such as Jack Smith's trial preparation and Karen's damages analysis, further illustrate the importance of navigating this complex legal landscape.
Practicing law in New York State comes with unique challenges due to its complex civil procedure rules, which differ significantly from most other states. Alina Haba, a New York Bar member, faced criticism for her lack of regular practice in the state. New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) is unlike any other state's civil procedure rules, making it difficult for attorneys to adapt and practice effectively. The CPLR and appellate rules are unlike those in other states, and even seasoned attorneys like Chris Kice find themselves referring to the CPLR. This complexity can lead to confusion and challenges in legal proceedings. Additionally, several ongoing legal cases were discussed, including Jack Smith's preparation for trial, Karen's analysis of damages in the Rudy Giuliani trial, and the indictment of Nevada electors. The podcast also featured sponsor segments for Green Chef and Aura digital frames. Green Chef offers meal kits with clean, chef-crafted, nutritionist-approved recipes, while Aura digital frames allow users to display and share photos with family and friends. In conclusion, the complexities of practicing law in New York State and ongoing legal cases were the main topics of the podcast. The unique challenges of New York's civil procedure rules and the various legal proceedings discussed highlight the importance of understanding the nuances of the legal landscape.
Using past criminal actions as evidence in current cases: Prosecutors can use past criminal actions as evidence in current cases under certain exceptions to prove specific elements like motive, opportunity, intent, or plan. This can help establish a pattern of behavior to prove involvement in the crime.
While evidence of past criminal activity is generally not admissible in court due to the risk of prejudice, there are exceptions. These exceptions allow the introduction of such evidence to prove specific elements of a crime, such as motive, opportunity, intent, or plan. In the ongoing case against Donald Trump, the prosecutor Jack Smith is using this rule, known as Rule 404(b), to argue that certain past actions of Trump are relevant to the current charges, despite occurring outside the timeframe of the conspiracy. By establishing a pattern of behavior, this evidence can help prove Trump's involvement in the crime, rather than just showing a propensity for criminal activity. This nuanced application of the rule can have significant implications for the outcome of the trial.
Trump's appeal on presidential immunity denied, Special Counsel preparing to present evidence: Trump's attempts to appeal immunity in ongoing investigation denied. Special Counsel gathers evidence against Trump for election interference, false claims of fraud, and intimidation of witnesses.
Former President Trump's attempts to appeal Judge Chutkan's ruling on presidential immunity in the ongoing criminal investigation against him through an interlocutory appeal have been denied. Meanwhile, Special Counsel Jack Smith is preparing to present evidence against Trump in three categories: Trump's history of baseless claims of election fraud, his knowledge that he lost the election, and his attacks on individuals. Smith also recently obtained new evidence and potential cooperating witnesses since the last indictment. Trump's continued attacks on individuals like Vice President Pence, Ruby Freeman, and Shaye Moss, even after they testified about threats and harassment, demonstrate his plan to silence his critics. This evidence will likely be used to establish Trump's motive and intention to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election.
Discussion on Trump trial and use of prejudicial evidence: Prosecutors must provide advance notice of potentially prejudicial evidence to the defense and court. Unrelated historical conduct can be included. Prosecutorial discretion plays a role in shaping the case. An unindicted coconspirator suggested a riot, highlighting the importance of transparency.
The ongoing trial of Donald Trump involves the use of potentially prejudicial evidence, which requires advance notice to the defense and the court. This evidence includes historical conduct that is not directly related to the crimes charged in the indictment. The discussion also highlighted the informational advantage that prosecutors have in such cases and the importance of transparency in the legal process. An intriguing detail that emerged was the existence of an unindicted coconspirator who suggested a riot when Trump was expected to lose the election. The discussion underscored the importance of giving notice of such evidence and the role of prosecutorial discretion in shaping the case. The trial process is a complex one, with each side building their case differently based on their unique perspectives and experiences.
Trump associate Boris Epshteyn identified as unindicted coconspirator in Capitol insurrection case: Trump and his associate Boris Epshteyn attempted to halt the vote count process in Detroit during the Capitol insurrection and Trump has a history of refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.
Boris Epshteyn, a political consultant and lawyer for Donald Trump, is identified in the January 6th Capitol insurrection indictment as an unindicted coconspirator, specifically for his role in trying to stop the vote count in Detroit. Boris Epshteyn, on behalf of Trump, allegedly attempted to cause a riot to halt the vote count process. Additionally, Trump himself has a history of refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, as evidenced by his responses during the 2016 presidential debate and a press conference in September 2020. These actions demonstrate an intent to avoid the peaceful transfer of power, which is a key element in understanding the criminal charges against Trump and his associates.
Trump's use of absentee ballots vs opposition to mail-in ballots: Trump's past use of absentee ballots for health reasons contrasts with his opposition to mail-in ballots in the 2020 election, which is seen as an attempt to suppress votes and disenfranchise people. Prosecutors plan to use Trump's own words and actions as evidence in the trial.
During the discussion, it was revealed that Donald Trump's use of absentee ballots in the past was justified due to health concerns and constitutional rights. However, Trump's opposition to mail-in ballots in the context of the 2020 election is seen as an attempt to suppress votes and disenfranchise people. Prosecutor Jack Smith intends to present this as evidence of Trump's intent to cling to power and never transition from office. Trump is also arguing against certain language in the indictment, specifically regarding the January 6th Capitol attack. However, Smith plans to use Trump's own words and actions as evidence of his involvement and motivation for the events of that day. The trial team is reportedly gathering evidence from Trump's social media, interviews, and rallies to use against him. The trial of Rudy Giuliani is ongoing in a court presided over by a judge with experience in handling January 6th cases. Additionally, there are ongoing legal proceedings in Nevada and Colorado regarding Trump's eligibility to be on the ballot due to his involvement in insurrection or rebellion against the constitution.
AG One's daily health benefits and Giuliani's defamation lawsuit: AG One, a daily nutrition supplement, enhances health through gut optimization, stress management, and immune system support. Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani's defamation lawsuit against Ruby Freeman and Shane Moss was proven baseless, yet he continued to spread false claims, causing harm and threats to their safety.
AG One, a daily nutrition supplement, has significantly improved the speaker's daily health and energy levels due to its comprehensive support for gut optimization, stress management, immune system, and continuous formula refinement since 2010. The supplement includes prebiotics, probiotics, digestive enzymes, vitamin C, and zinc. AG One is a trusted choice for foundational nutrition and a great way to start the day for those seeking to take ownership of their health. On a different note, the defamation case involving Rudy Giuliani and Ruby Freeman and Shane Moss, who were falsely accused of voter fraud during the 2020 US elections, has resulted in a lawsuit against Giuliani. The allegations were proven baseless by multiple investigations, and Ruby Freeman and Shane Moss were cleared of any wrongdoing. Despite this, Giuliani continued to spread the false claims, leading to threats against them and their need for protection. Giuliani's poor handling of the legal process, including refusal to provide documents and participate in discovery, further highlights the baseless nature of his accusations.
Giuliani's Incompetence and Noncompliance in Court Leads to Sanctions: Failure to comply with court orders and effectively represent clients can result in severe consequences, including sanctions and reprimands.
Rudy Giuliani's repeated failure to comply with court orders and represent his client effectively led to a judgment against him in a high-profile case. The judge, who had previously shown patience, grew frustrated with Giuliani's incompetence and noncompliance, ultimately ordering him to provide financial records and attend every event in the trial. Giuliani's absence from court for one of these events led to further sanctions and a harsh reprimand from the judge. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to court orders and representing clients diligently, or risking severe consequences.
Strategic reasons led plaintiffs to sue Giuliani instead of Trump: Plaintiffs chose to sue Giuliani over Trump due to ongoing legal battles and potential damages, despite Giuliani's objection and his own discovery misconduct leading to a default judgment against him.
The plaintiffs in the ongoing trial against Rudy Giuliani chose to sue him instead of Donald Trump due to strategic considerations and the ongoing legal battles regarding Trump's immunity. The judge in the case emphasized the importance of the plaintiffs' right to a jury trial, despite Giuliani's late objection. The jury in a civil case consists of 8 members, not 12, and the requirement for unanimity varies depending on the jurisdiction. The trial is expected to result in significant damages for the plaintiffs, and the absence of Giuliani's lawyer in the proceedings adds to the confusion. The irony lies in Giuliani's own discovery misconduct leading to the entry of a default judgment against him. The legal complexities and ongoing developments in the case make it an intriguing one to follow.
Strategic decisions not to pursue legal action against Trump: Lawyers may choose not to litigate against Trump due to potential circus and immunity issues, while some plaintiffs might be intimidated or afraid.
The decision by lawyers not to pursue legal action against former President Donald Trump and his associates in the E. Jean Carroll case may have been a strategic one, aimed at avoiding the "circus" that comes with litigating against Trump and his immunity issues. Another possibility is that the plaintiffs themselves may have been intimidated or afraid of the repercussions of taking on Trump. In the case of Ruby Freeman and Shane Moss in Nevada, however, grand juries are now pursuing indictments against fake electors, and the advantage of waiting is that much of the heavy lifting has already been done by other investigations and indictments. Ultimately, these decisions reflect the complexities of litigating against high-profile figures and the considerations that go into a client's decision to pursue a case.
Nevada Republicans Indicted for Falsely Representing Themselves as State Electors: Six Nevada Republicans were indicted for submitting fraudulent documents to state and federal officials, each facing up to 9 years in prison. This is one of the first instances of individuals being held accountable for attempting to steal the 2020 election.
In Nevada, six Republicans have been indicted for falsely representing themselves as state electors in the 2020 election. This scheme involved submitting fraudulent documents to state and federal officials, and each person was charged with two felony charges, carrying a maximum sentence of 5 and 4 years respectively. The attorney general opened the investigation just a few weeks ago, despite previously expressing uncertainty about doing so due to cooperation from a key figure. This is significant as it marks one of the first instances of individuals being held accountable for this scheme, which also involved Republicans in other states like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The defense for these actions may argue that there is precedent for such conduct, but the key difference is that these individuals were not just preparing "in case" electors, but instead presented them as the legitimate electors in an attempt to steal the election from Joe Biden. The case in Colorado, where the supreme court is holding oral arguments regarding the applicability of the 14th amendment section 3 to Donald Trump as president, remains a separate issue.
Colorado Supreme Court Debate: Trump's Role in Capitol Insurrection: The Colorado Supreme Court is debating whether former President Trump's actions during the Capitol insurrection constitute an insurrection or rebellion under the 14th Amendment Section 3. Scholars agree it refers to rebellion against the Constitution, but there's confusion about the definition of insurrection and rebellion in this context.
The ongoing legal debate in the Colorado Supreme Court revolves around the applicability of the 14th Amendment Section 3 to former President Donald Trump in relation to the Capitol insurrection. The debate centers on whether Trump's refusal to peacefully transfer power constitutes an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. Scholars agree that the provision refers to rebellion against the Constitution itself, not specific actions like the Capitol attack. However, there seems to be confusion in the oral argument about the definition of insurrection and rebellion, focusing on the armed nature of the Capitol attackers and Trump's role in the events. It's crucial to clarify this distinction for a proper understanding of the constitutional analysis.
Hot takes on legal issues from Karen and Ben: Listeners can access timely legal insights from Karen and Ben through Midas Touch's library of hot takes
The hosts of this podcast, Karen and Ben, provide "hot takes" on legal issues through the Midas Touch platform. These hot takes are published earlier than their weekly show due to the fast-moving nature of the stories. Listeners can access their individual hot takes through playlists on the Midas Touch library. The podcast will be on hiatus until next Wednesday. The hosts express their appreciation to their listeners, the Midas Mighty and the legal aeffers. Essentially, the Midas Touch podcast offers timely insights into legal issues, and listeners can access these insights through the platform's library of hot takes.
