Podcast Summary
Trump legal proceedings: Mark Meadows petitions Supreme Court for review of Georgia case, while Alvin Bragg argues NY case evidence admissible, with more developments expected
The legal proceedings against former President Donald Trump continue to unfold in various courts, with the latest development being Mark Meadows petitioning for review of a Georgia state case in the Supreme Court. This comes after the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity, which is now being used as part of Meadows' petition. Meanwhile, in the New York criminal case, Alvin Bragg has submitted a lengthy response to Trump's motion, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision on the admissibility of evidence of official conduct does not apply to this case. The legal team expects more developments in the coming weeks and months, including the case going back to Judge Chutkin.
Trial objections: Raising objections during a trial is crucial as courts are less likely to consider them on appeal, and the DA may challenge their validity based on the specific nature of the evidence.
During the trial of the case involving former President Trump, the District Attorney argued that many of Trump's claims were waived because he had not raised them earlier in the proceedings. This means that the courts are less likely to consider these issues on appeal. Additionally, the DA argued that even if these claims were valid, the evidence in question was not official conduct, the immunity presumption had been rebutted, or the evidence was a public record. By making these arguments, the DA aimed to dismiss Trump's objections to various pieces of evidence presented during the trial. Overall, the DA's strategy was to emphasize the importance of raising objections during the trial and to challenge the validity of Trump's claims based on the specific nature of the evidence in question.
Trump indictment dismissal arguments: Trump's legal team is arguing for dismissal of his indictment based on waiver and harmless error, but may face challenges in proving structural error and strengthening their case with the Supreme Court's immunity decision
The legal team for Donald Trump is arguing for the dismissal of his indictment based on several points, including waiver and harmless error. However, they may face an uphill battle in convincing the court that the exclusion of certain evidence amounts to structural error, which would render the harmless error analysis inapplicable. The judges have announced they will issue their decision on September 6, and if Trump is found not guilty, a sentencing is scheduled for September 18. Meanwhile, Mark Meadows, a former White House chief of staff, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court to review lower court decisions denying his attempt to move a state criminal case to federal court. The significant delay in the 11th Circuit's decision, which occurred after two extensions granted by Justice Thomas, has raised questions about whether Meadows and his team were waiting for the Supreme Court's immunity decision to strengthen their petition.
Official acts definition expansion: The Supreme Court's decision expands the definition of official acts to include actions taken under color of office, allowing federal officers, including former ones, to remove cases to federal court when prosecuted in state courts for alleged acts taken under their authority, assuming federal courts offer more favorable forums for federal immunity claims.
The Supreme Court's decision on official acts, as discussed in the context of the case involving Mark Meadows, expands the definition of official acts to include actions taken under color of office, even if they seem to be outside the normal scope of a president's authority. This expansion allows federal officers, including former ones, to remove their cases to federal court when prosecuted in state courts for acts alleged to have been taken under their authority. The assumption behind this law is that a federal court is a more favorable forum for deciding claims of federal immunity. Meadows, a former federal officer, is currently attempting to remove his case to federal court based on this statute, despite the case being on hold due to an appeal. His argument is that the statute only applies to current federal officers, not former ones, and the Supreme Court should clarify this. The conservative 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed with this interpretation of the statute, but some argue that Congress should clarify the statute to make it clear that it applies to former officers as well.
Implications of Trump's immunity case: The Supreme Court's decision on Trump's immunity has far-reaching implications, affecting current and future cases involving former officials, and creating confusion about official vs unofficial conduct.
The Supreme Court's decision on former President Trump's immunity has far-reaching implications beyond his case. It has affected the removal of Mark Meadows and could potentially impact the January 6th case in the DC district court. The decision has created confusion about what constitutes official acts and unofficial conduct. The Supreme Court's decision has set a precedent that could influence how future cases involving immunity for former officials are handled. The impact of this decision is not limited to the Trump case but could have implications for other cases as well. The floodgates have opened, and it remains to be seen how lower courts will apply this precedent in future cases.
Trump legal proceedings, 2024 presidential race: Legal proceedings over Trump's handling of classified docs at Mar-a-Lago could impact 2024 race, potentially delayed until fall due to legal arguments and appeals, outcome significant for future presidential document handling
The ongoing legal proceedings regarding the handling of classified documents at former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate could significantly impact the 2024 presidential race. The hearings, which may not occur until September or October, could be delayed due to various legal arguments, including those related to the appointment of Special Prosecutor Jack Smith and executive privilege. Trump's team may argue that the proceedings are too close to the election and could interfere with the democratic process. The 11th Circuit's ruling on Smith's appointment is another potential factor that could delay or complicate the proceedings. Ultimately, the outcome of these legal battles could have significant implications for the presidential race and the future of presidential document handling.
Trump legal proceedings appeal schedule: The Trump legal proceedings appeal schedule is following a standard timeline, with no delay or expedited briefing requested by the special counsel. An option exists for the U.S. Attorney in Florida to reindict the case, which would not affect the ongoing appeal process.
The appellate briefing schedule for the ongoing legal proceedings against Donald Trump is not delayed or expedited, but rather following a standard timeline. Jack Smith, the special counsel, has not sought expedited briefing related to the election. Additionally, there is an option for the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida to reindict the case, which would not be mutually exclusive with the ongoing appeal process. MSNBC is hosting a special fan event, MSNBC Live Democracy 2024, on September 7th, where legal experts will discuss the top legal issues impacting the election, including the Trump legal drama. Listeners can buy tickets at msnbc.com/democracy2024.