Podcast Summary
Supreme Court Allows Trump on Colorado Ballot, but Not Without Dissent: The Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump can appear on Colorado's presidential ballot, but the decision was met with dissent. Significant developments occurred in the Mar-a-Lago case and ICAP won a civil case against fraudulent electors in Wisconsin.
On March 4th, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision allowing Donald Trump to appear on the presidential ballot in Colorado, despite objections from state officials. However, the decision was not without dissent when it came to the substance of the ruling. Additionally, there were significant developments in the Mar-a-Lago case, including the plea of Allen Weisselberg, which could impact Trump's upcoming criminal trial in Manhattan. ICAP, an organization that Andrew Weissman and Mary McCord work for, had a notable victory in a civil case they brought against fraudulent electors in Wisconsin. The case aimed for injunctive and declaratory relief, declaring the actions of the electors unlawful. The defendants in the case, James Troupe and Ken Chesebro, have been involved in other election interference schemes.
Electors in Wisconsin Settle Case, Reveal Campaign's Direction: Wisconsin electors involved in attempt to override election results settled, revealing campaign's efforts to submit electoral ballots before litigation was resolved
The case against the 10 fraudulent electors in Wisconsin was about preventing them from violating the law by taking the positions of real electors even though they weren't certified winners. The electors had settled the case in December, agreeing never to be electors for Donald Trump again and admitting their participation was part of an attempt to overturn the will of the people. Two of the electors, James Troopis and Kenneth Chesebro, have now settled the case permanently and have provided over 1400 emails and text messages revealing the campaign's direction to meet and submit electoral ballots on December 14th, despite pending litigation. These electors were not just contingent electors waiting in the wings, but were actively involved in an attempt to override the election results, which is why criminal charges may apply to some but not others.
Early planning of Wisconsin election overturn effort revealed: Trump campaign lawyers discussed submitting alternate slates of electors and pressuring state legislatures to send up pro-Trump electors to disrupt the electoral college process, potentially allowing Trump to win the presidency via the House of Representatives.
The recently released documents provide insight into the early planning stages of the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, specifically in Wisconsin. James Troupe, a Trump campaign lawyer, played a significant role in driving this scheme, which involved the submission of alternate slates of electors to disrupt the electoral college process. Kenneth Chesebro, another lawyer involved, was disingenuous in his representations, as emails from November 8th, just five days after the election, reveal he suggested the submission of alternate slates and pressuring state legislatures to send up pro-Trump electors. This scheme aimed to throw the election to the House of Representatives, potentially allowing Trump to win due to the way the House votes on the presidency. The documents also show that this plan was being discussed as early as November 8th, highlighting the seriousness and urgency of the attempt to overturn the election results.
Emails reveal plan to manipulate electoral process: Emails between Chesebro and Troupe detailed a scheme to create court challenges and pressure Pence to count alternate electors, contributing to false fraud claims and Capitol violence. Despite downplaying actions, documentation shows their true intentions.
The emails between Kenneth Chesebro and James Troupe, key figures in the alternate electors scheme, reveal their plan to manipulate the electoral process in swing states before the January 6th Capitol attack. They aimed to create court challenges and pressure Mike Pence to count the alternate slates or send it back to the state legislatures. Chesebro downplayed the seriousness of their actions after the fact, but contemporaneous documentation shows their true intentions. This scheme contributed to the false narrative of fraudulent electors, which fueled the violence at the Capitol. The Supreme Court later ruled that states cannot unilaterally remove someone from the presidential ballot, but the events of January 6th underscored the importance of transparency and accountability in the electoral process.
Different perspectives among Supreme Court Justices: The Supreme Court's decision on presidential ballot removal revealed a divided court, with the majority limiting states' power and three liberal justices advocating for more flexibility to prevent potential chaos.
The Supreme Court's decision in the case regarding the power of states to remove presidential candidates from the ballot revealed a fractured nature behind the scenes. While the majority ruled that only Congress has the power to act, the three liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, believed the court went too far by making it easier for former President Trump to avoid potential discord and mayhem. The lack of clarity surrounding the majority's use of the term "critical" regarding Congress's role adds to the confusion. Overall, the decision highlighted the different perspectives and interpretations among the justices.
Supreme Court's decision on 14th Amendment leaves room for ambiguity: The Supreme Court's ruling on disqualifying individuals from federal office doesn't necessitate congressional legislation but leaves room for ambiguity and potential future debates
The Supreme Court's decision in the case regarding the 14th Amendment and disqualification of individuals from federal office does not definitively require congressional legislation for implementation. While the majority opinion suggests Congress has the power to enact implementing legislation, it does not necessarily mean it's the sole way. The concurring justices argued that the decision could potentially shut the door on other means of federal enforcement and insulate certain individuals from future challenges. The criminal statute 18 USC 2383, which carries disqualification upon conviction for engaging in an insurrection, was not charged against the individual in question but could satisfy the majority's test for complying with federal congressional action. The decision leaves room for ambiguity and potential future debates on the best course of action for disqualifying individuals from federal office.
Supreme Court's Decision on Mar-a-Lago Documents Reveals Political Tensions: The recent Supreme Court decision on Mar-a-Lago documents showcases internal conflicts and complexities, with justices seemingly divided and debating presidential immunity, while also dealing with metadata issues and criticism for potential legislative action.
The recent Supreme Court decision regarding the release of documents related to the Mar-a-Lago investigation highlights the political tensions and complexities within the court. The decision put pressure on the upcoming opinion regarding presidential immunity, with some justices seemingly at odds with each other. Additionally, there was a metadata issue that led to confusion about the authorship and content of the opinions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's concurrence called for unity and lowering the volume during a politically charged season, which some saw as an odd and dismissive response. The court's decision that legislation may be required to enforce certain aspects of the 14th Amendment was met with criticism, as it contradicts the legal precedent of enforcing some sections without legislation. Overall, the decision underscores the significant divisions and debates within the Supreme Court.
Congress has the power to reject electoral college votes for disqualified candidates under the 14th amendment: Constitutional law experts believe Congress can reject electoral college votes for Trump due to Capitol insurrection involvement, but court opinion on implementing legislation is disputed, and trial dates for Trump investigations remain uncertain
According to constitutional law experts, Congress has the power to reject electoral college votes for a candidate who is disqualified under the 14th amendment, such as former President Donald Trump due to his involvement in the Capitol insurrection. This power was discussed during a recent legal analysis, with the experts explaining that even Trump's own attorney acknowledged this during the impeachment trial. However, the court's recent opinion suggesting implementing legislation is needed for Congress to exercise this power is disputed, as it was not agreed upon by all justices. Meanwhile, in other news, the trial dates for ongoing investigations against Trump, including those related to Mar-a-Lago and the Manhattan case, remain uncertain due to legal proceedings.
Legal issues facing Trump and the Trump Organization with Allen Weisselberg as a key player: Despite ongoing criminal and civil cases, Trump paid his indicted CFO Weisselberg, raising ethical concerns
The legal situation surrounding Donald Trump and the Trump Organization is complex and multifaceted, with criminal and civil cases ongoing. A key player in these cases is Allen Weisselberg, the former CFO of the Trump Organization, who has pleaded guilty to tax fraud and perjury in relation to the civil fraud case. Despite these criminal and civil liabilities, Trump continued to pay Weisselberg during the relevant time periods. This raises ethical concerns and highlights the ongoing nature of the legal issues facing Trump and his organization. The trial dates for these cases are still pending, and many procedural steps must be taken before trials can begin.
New York Civil Fraud Trial: Perjury Admission by Allen Weisselberg and Michael Cohen: Former Trump executives Allen Weisselberg and Michael Cohen have admitted to perjury, but Weisselberg's refusal to cooperate with the state complicates the defense's case. The trial, which begins in 20 days, may see the defense raise the issue of unequal treatment of perjurers.
The ongoing New York civil fraud trial against the Trump Organization has taken an unexpected turn with the admission of perjury by former Trump executive Allen Weisselberg and Michael Cohen. Weisselberg, who is currently facing charges, has refused to cooperate with the state, making it difficult for them to call him as a witness. This is problematic for the defense, as they may now point out the discrepancy in how Weisselberg and Cohen, both of whom have admitted to perjury, have been treated in the case. The defense is expected to raise this issue during the upcoming trial, which will be a return to familiar ground for the hosts, who have a background in trial law and criminal defense. The trial is set to begin in 20 days, and it remains to be seen what other developments may arise before then. Listeners with questions can contact the show at 917-342-2934 or email prosecutingtrump@nbcuni.com. The show is produced by Vicki Virgolina, Jessica Schrecker, Paul Robert Mounsey, Bob Mallory, Ayesha Turner, and Rebecca Cutler.