Podcast Summary
Gag orders in Trump cases: Legal battles continue over gag orders in Manhattan and Mar-a-Lago cases against Trump. NY Court of Appeals dismissed Trump's appeal in Manhattan, while Special Counsel Smith seeks to modify conditions of release to oppose a gag order in Mar-a-Lago. Ultimately, outcomes could impact ongoing investigations against Trump.
There are ongoing legal battles regarding gag orders in the cases against Donald Trump in Manhattan and Mar-a-Lago. In Manhattan, the New York Court of Appeals has dismissed Trump's appeal of the gag order, leaving him to potentially challenge the order again if the lower court does not terminate it. Simultaneously, in the Mar-a-Lago case, Special Counsel Jack Smith has moved to modify Trump's conditions of release to oppose a gag order, which Trump has opposed. These developments highlight the significance of gag orders in competing jurisdictions and their application in the pretrial and post-trial phases. The ultimate outcome of these cases could have implications for the ongoing investigations against Trump.
Trump's gag order impact on presidential debate: The debate around Trump's gag order in the Manhattan criminal case centers on the protection of justice and potential harm to witnesses and jurors. The judge may lift parts of the order, but Trump's statements could still influence third-party actions during the presidential debate.
The ongoing debate around Donald Trump's gag order in the Manhattan criminal case revolves around the protection of the administration of justice and potential influence on witnesses and jurors. Trump's argument for lifting the gag order centers on his presidential campaign and the need to speak freely during debates. However, the unique aspect of this case is the continued potential for harm to witnesses and jurors due to third-party actions influenced by Trump's statements. The judge may lift parts of the gag order regarding Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, but the overall impact on the presidential debate remains a significant concern. Despite the gag order's broad reach, it does not allow for incitement to violence against anyone, including jurors or witnesses. Ultimately, the gag order's impact on the substance of the presidential debate is minimal, as Trump can still discuss issues and attack his opponents without violating the order. However, the potential for third-party actions and the continued relevance of the case to the election make this an unusual situation.
Trump's statements and juror safety: Trump's rhetoric could incite fear and violence, potentially putting law enforcement at risk. Gag orders and their application in the case are being discussed, with an appeal being a likely outcome. Trump's misleading statements about the use of force during the execution of a search warrant have raised concerns for juror safety and the legality of evidence found during the search.
The discussion revolves around the ongoing legal proceedings involving Donald Trump and the potential implications of his statements on jurors, witnesses, and safety. The concern is that Trump's rhetoric could incite fear and violence, potentially putting law enforcement at risk. The issue of gag orders and their application in this case was also discussed, with the possibility of an appeal being a likely outcome. The safety of law enforcement is a key consideration in the case, and Trump's misleading statements about the use of force during the execution of a search warrant have raised concerns. The government has the right to appeal rulings on pretrial conditions of release, and Trump's argument that no threats have been made or evidence presented is likely to be met with skepticism. The discussion also touched on the legal complexities surrounding a motion to suppress evidence found during the search at Mar-a-Lago.
4th Amendment warrant exceptions: The Franks v Delaware exception allows challenges to court-ordered warrants based on intentionally false or recklessly misleading statements, but the agent making the application bears the responsibility and it must be shown that the misstatements were material to the probable cause determination, making it a rare occurrence
The gold standard for searches under the 4th Amendment is a court-ordered warrant based on probable cause. This process involves a neutral magistrate's approval, making it difficult to challenge. However, there is an exception called Franks v Delaware, which allows challenges when there are intentionally false or recklessly misleading statements in the warrant application. The agent making the application bears the responsibility for such misstatements, and it must be shown that they were material to the probable cause determination. Given the high standard, it's rare for this exception to apply, and it's important to note that Donald Trump's team focused on omissions rather than false statements in their argument. The other exceptions discussed were irrelevant to the probable cause issue.
Presidential records act, crime-fraud exception: Trump's team may face a more significant challenge in suppressing evidence using the crime-fraud exception than in dismissing the case based on the presidential records act, as the outcome of the sealed hearing on this issue is uncertain.
The judge's ruling on the motion to dismiss based on the presidential records act may not be a major concern for Trump's legal team, as it has little impact on the question of probable cause. However, a more significant issue could be Trump's challenge to the crime-fraud exception, which could potentially suppress evidence obtained in the grand jury investigation. This issue will be argued in a sealed hearing, and the outcome may not be immediately clear. The judge, Beryl Howell, previously handled similar attorney-client privilege issues during the Mueller investigation. It's important to note that in these types of proceedings, the client is present and able to make arguments regarding the application of the attorney-client privilege.
Crime-fraud exception: The attorney-client privilege does not shield communications if they concern the use of an attorney to commit a crime or fraud, as seen in the Paul Manafort and Mar-a-Lago cases.
The attorney-client privilege does not protect communications if they involve the use of an attorney to commit a crime. This principle, known as the crime-fraud exception, was applied in the Paul Manafort case, and it's currently a key issue in the Mar-a-Lago investigation. In this context, Trump's attorney, Evan Corcoran, had conversations with Trump about responding to a subpoena for classified documents. The government argues that these conversations could be relevant to a potential crime, and therefore, Corcoran's testimony is not protected by attorney-client privilege. The question now is whether Judge Cannon, who is presiding over the Mar-a-Lago case, will apply the same reasoning as the DC circuit court did in the Manafort case. However, collateral estoppel, which would prevent Judge Cannon from revisiting this issue given that it has already been litigated, does not apply in this context. The standards for applying the crime-fraud exception involve assessing whether the defendant was engaged in a crime or fraud when they sought legal advice, and whether the communications with the attorney were closely tied to the crime or fraud. These factors will be considered during the hearing on Tuesday.
Trump legal proceedings: Despite opposition, Trump received an extension on expert witness notice, raising concerns about uneven application of justice in ongoing legal proceedings, with major cases approaching decision points in the Fisher case and Mar-a-Lago investigation.
The legal proceedings against Donald Trump continue to unfold with significant developments on the horizon. Most recently, Trump requested an extension on expert witness notice just before the deadline, which was granted despite opposition from the government. This incident, among others, raises concerns about uneven application of justice and signals a lack of urgency in bringing Trump to trial. Meanwhile, two major cases are approaching decision points: the Fisher case, which could impact Trump's obstruction of justice charges, and the Mar-a-Lago investigation, which involves separate charges for obstruction and conspiracy. These cases could have significant implications for Trump and the legal process as a whole. Stay tuned for updates on these developments and more in-depth analysis.