Podcast Summary
New Developments in Trump Investigations: Major revelations include Mike Pence's testimony, false claims from a second firm, potential wire fraud charges against Trump, and ongoing investigations into Supreme Court justices.
Significant developments are unfolding in the criminal investigation led by Special Counsel Jack Smith into former President Donald Trump. Major revelations include Mike Pence's testimony before the criminal grand jury, false claims made by a second firm hired by the Trump campaign regarding the 2020 election conspiracy, and potential wire fraud charges against Trump. Additionally, in a civil trial, Donald Trump is an absentee defendant as E. Jean Carroll accuses him of sexual assault. Ivanka Trump's new legal representation and filings suggest she may distance herself from her family's alleged conduct. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has been embroiled in various scandals, with justices under scrutiny for potential conflicts of interest. Notably, Clarence Thomas's association with a Nazi collector, Gorsuch's sale of a cabin to a law firm head, and Kavanaugh's sexual misconduct allegations have all come under intense scrutiny. These developments underscore the complexity and seriousness of the investigations into Trump and the Supreme Court justices.
Mike Pence testifies before federal grand jury in election probe: Former VP Mike Pence testified for a day in the ongoing election investigations, providing crucial info on pressure campaigns and Trump's potential awareness of debunked election claims. This, along with other testimonies and Jan 6 committee hearings, could lead to charging decisions.
Former Vice President Mike Pence's testimony before the federal grand jury marks a significant development in the ongoing investigations into Donald Trump's actions surrounding the 2020 election. Following the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rejecting Trump's attempt to assert executive privilege, Pence testified for a full day, providing crucial information on the pressure campaign on him to participate in the fake elector scandal and potentially Trump's awareness of the stolen election claims being debunked. This testimony, along with the testimony of other witnesses like Evan Corcoran and the Jan 6 committee hearings, could be the final pieces needed before charging decisions are made on at least two grand juries. Additionally, Pence's testimony could shed light on Trump's alleged involvement in defrauding donors through false election claims.
Pence details Trump's pressure campaign to overturn election results, uses derogatory language: Pence testified about Trump's attempts to overturn election results, using derogatory language towards Pence, and Trump's efforts to hire consultants like Luttig. Meadows and others may use 5th Amendment or be granted immunity, potentially limiting new information for investigations.
During Mike Pence's testimony before the grand jury investigating the January 6th Capitol insurrection, he detailed the pressure campaign from then-President Donald Trump to overturn the election results. Trump reportedly used derogatory language towards Pence, threatening that he would go down in history as a "p word" if he didn't stop the certification of Joe Biden's electors. Pence also testified about Trump's efforts to hire independent consultants, including former federal judge Michael Luttig, who advised against any action other than certifying the valid ballots. Mark Meadows, another key figure, invoked his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination during the Fulton County investigation in Georgia and is expected to do the same during his testimony before the grand jury. The Department of Justice may grant him derivative use immunity, which could prevent the use of any new information derived from his testimony against him in future criminal prosecutions.
The order of witness testimony in a criminal investigation impacts the outcome: Securing testimony from key witnesses in a criminal investigation can take months or years due to legal battles over executive privilege. Without these testimonies, crucial information may not be obtained, and legal precedents are set for future cases.
The order in which witnesses are called in a criminal investigation can significantly impact the efficiency and outcome of the case. In the ongoing investigation involving former President Trump and his associates, Mark Meadows was identified as a key witness due to his potential knowledge of messages and involvement in various conspiracies. However, securing his testimony required climbing a legal ladder, starting with witnesses like Mark Short and Greg Jacob who were initially prevented from testifying due to executive privilege claims by Trump. Over time, the legal process evolved, and courts began to reject these privilege claims more quickly. This process took months, if not years, and without it, crucial testimony from key witnesses like Meadows might not have been obtained. Furthermore, this investigation is setting new legal precedents that will be used in future cases against individuals attempting to misuse executive privilege or obstruct justice.
Trump Hired Two Firms to Investigate Voter Fraud, Both Found None: Despite both Berkeley Research Group and Simpatico Software finding no voter fraud evidence, Trump continued to fundraise based on these false claims. Now, they face potential criminal charges for their work on the campaign.
During the aftermath of the 2020 Presidential election, the Trump campaign hired not one but two consulting firms, Berkeley Research Group and Simpatico Software, to investigate allegations of voter fraud and stolen election theories. Both firms concluded that there was no evidence of voter fraud that could have changed the outcome of the election for Donald Trump. Trump and his team were aware of these findings, yet they continued to fundraise based on these false claims. Now, these consultants are under investigation by Special Counsel Jack Smith for potential criminal activity related to their work for the Trump campaign. This raises questions about Trump's intent and knowledge of the lack of voter fraud during his fundraising efforts. The ongoing investigation could potentially lead to charges of wire and mail fraud.
Investigation of Donald Trump and Mark Meadows for mail and wire fraud: Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation focuses on mail and wire fraud allegations against Trump and Meadows, involving deceitful communication and intent to defraud, with a strong case due to financial transaction documentation.
The ongoing criminal investigation led by Special Counsel Jack Smith focuses heavily on mail and wire fraud allegations against Donald Trump, Mark Meadows, and others. Mail and wire fraud involve deceitful communication that leads individuals to send money based on false information, with the intent to defraud. The strength of Smith's case lies in his ability to trace and document financial transactions, making it an effective strategy for investigating public integrity matters. The team of former heads of the public integrity section at the Department of Justice working with Smith further emphasizes this focus. The alleged crimes include misrepresenting the use of funds for an Election Defense Fund, which doesn't even exist, making it a clear violation.
Trump's Election Defense Fund: Misappropriation of Funds: Despite raising $250M for election defense, a significant portion was misused for personal legal fees and other unrelated expenses, with investigations ongoing.
During the time from November 2020 through the insurrection, Donald Trump raised approximately $250 million for an election defense fund. However, a significant portion of this money was not used for election defense, but instead went to various other purposes such as legal fees for unrelated cases, like the E. Jean Carroll case and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution. Some of this money was also reportedly diverted away from planned efforts to overturn the election, like Peter Navarro's Green Bay sweep plan. These allegations of misappropriation of funds are currently being investigated by special counsel Jack Smith, who has brought in a team of elite public corruption prosecutors to follow the money and bring any potential charges. The use of funds for personal gain rather than for their stated purpose raises questions about transparency and accountability.
Wire Fraud Charges in Trump Investigation: Thousands of Individual Counts: Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Donald Trump includes wire fraud charges, potentially resulting in thousands of individual counts, focusing on events of January 6th, fake elector scheme, and pressuring state and local legislatures. Ivanka Trump's new law firm hiring suggests potential involvement.
Mail and wire fraud charges, each individual instance of which is considered a violation, can result in a criminal sentence and are grouped together by judges during sentencing. These charges are particularly challenging for defense attorneys due to their simplicity and elegance for prosecutors. Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Donald Trump is expected to result in a massive indictment with thousands of individual counts, focusing on the events of January 6th, the fake elector scheme, wire fraud, and pressuring state and local legislatures. Ivanka Trump's recent hiring of a new law firm, Bennett Moskowitz, suggests potential involvement in these investigations. The wire fraud charges are considered the least vulnerable to collateral attacks due to potential immunities or defenses. The investigation's scope includes various subtopics within these main topics.
Ivanka Trump Seeks Separate Legal Representation in NY Attorney General's Case: Ivanka Trump separates from her father and brothers' legal team amidst New York Attorney General's civil fraud case. She is no longer named in the complaint, but the trial is set for October 2023.
The legal situation surrounding Donald Trump and his family business, the Trump Organization, is complex and evolving. A notable development is Ivanka Trump's decision to seek separate representation from her father and brothers in the New York Attorney General's civil fraud case. This shift came after Ivanka had previously been named in the complaint for her role in various alleged fraudulent activities, including insurance and appraisal fraud. The case, which seeks to stop the Trump Organization from functioning in New York and could cost the organization billions of dollars, is set to go to trial in October 2023. Another significant change is the new legal representation for Allan Weiselberg, the former CFO of the Trump Organization, who was released from jail after serving five and a half months and is now subject to future prosecution. These shifts in legal representation add another layer of complexity to the ongoing legal battles facing the Trump Organization.
Ivanka Trump hires new lawyer for ongoing legal matters: Ivanka Trump has hired a new lawyer, Bennett Moskowitz, to represent her in legal matters with the New York Attorney General's office. Moskowitz's expertise in white-collar defense makes him a good fit for interacting with the AG's office and potentially cutting deals.
Ivanka Trump has hired a new lawyer, Bennett Moskowitz, to represent her in ongoing legal matters with the New York Attorney General's office. This move comes after Leticia James, the New York Attorney General, allowed Ivanka to be released from financial monitoring. Moskowitz's reputation as a white-collar defense attorney makes him a good fit for interacting with the New York Attorney General's office and potentially cutting deals. Ivanka's decision to change lawyers may also be due to her desire to separate herself from potential criminal charges, as investigations into Donald Trump's financial conduct continue in both civil and criminal courts. The coordinated efforts between Leticia James' and Alvin Bragg's offices have allowed them to work together effectively, with each focusing on different aspects of the investigations. Ivanka's new representation and the ongoing investigations underscore the complexity and interconnectedness of the legal challenges facing the Trump family.
Parallel Civil and Criminal Justice Systems: Civil and criminal cases can progress simultaneously without jeopardizing each other, as demonstrated in ongoing investigations against the Trump family. Courts have denied immunity for testimonies in civil cases and have shown efficiency in completing jury selection and opening statements in one day.
The civil and criminal justice systems can run parallel to each other without creating a criminal jeopardy problem. This was demonstrated in the ongoing investigations against the Trump family, where they are facing both civil and criminal cases. Ivanka Trump's argument that she should be immune due to her testimony in the civil case was denied by the courts. Meanwhile, in the E. Jean Carroll case, jury selection and opening statements were completed in the federal courthouse in Manhattan. E. Jean Carroll, the victim, testified on direct examination and bravely endured cross-examination. The efficiency of the court was noted, with jury selection and opening statements being completed in one day. The courage and resilience of E. Jean Carroll during her testimony left an impression on the courtroom.
Donald Trump's absence contrasts with E. Jean Carroll's courageous testimony: Trump's absence and social media attacks failed to discredit Carroll's compelling testimony about an alleged assault in a department store dressing room, while his lawyer faced potential criminal charges for obstruction of justice.
Key takeaway from the discussion about the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial against Donald Trump is the contrast between Carroll's courageous testimony and Trump's absence. Trump attempted to discredit the proceedings by posting on social media and threatening obstruction of justice, but the judge strongly cautioned his lawyer about potential criminal codes. Carroll's testimony was compelling, as she described the assault that allegedly occurred in a late-night dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, where few people were present and lingerie sections are typically secluded. Trump's defense relied on the argument that the incident could not have happened in a crowded department store and that Carroll did not report it to anyone at the time. However, Carroll had two credible witnesses, including a well-known news anchor, who will testify about her reporting the incident to them shortly after it occurred. Trump's absence from the trial and his attempts to discredit the proceedings through social media further undermined his case.
Testimony of E. Jean Carroll: A Crucial Piece of Evidence Against Trump: E. Jean Carroll's testimony, along with corroborating witnesses and other evidence, paints a picture of a pattern of behavior towards women by Donald Trump.
The testimony of E. Jean Carroll, a woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump in the 1990s, is a powerful piece of evidence against him. Two corroborating witnesses, Carol Martin and Birnbaum, will testify that they remember the incident and that Trump knew Carroll well, contradicting Trump's defense that he didn't know her. The Access Hollywood tape, which shows Trump making lewd comments about women, and the testimony of another woman who alleges she was groped by Trump, add to the evidence against him. Jury science suggests that the first witness, especially if they are the victim, can significantly influence the jury's decision. Carroll's testimony was described as authentic, honest, and courageous, while Trump's lawyer, Joe Tacopina, was criticized for his aggressive and inappropriate behavior during cross-examination. Trump's team brought out potential weaknesses in Carroll's story, but she had been prepared for these attacks by her legal team. Overall, the evidence presented against Trump paints a picture of a pattern of behavior towards women, and Carroll's testimony is a crucial piece of that puzzle.
Defense attacks victim's credibility during E. Jean Carroll trial: Despite attempts to discredit her, Carroll effectively countered attacks by emphasizing her status as a fighter and asserting that her reaction didn't negate sexual assault. In a civil trial, plaintiff only needs to prove it's more likely than not that incident occurred, giving Carroll an advantage.
That during the E. Jean Carroll trial against Donald Trump, the defense attempted to attack the victim's credibility by questioning her reaction to the alleged assault. However, Carroll effectively countered these attacks by emphasizing her status as a fighter and asserting that her lack of screaming or yelling did not negate the sexual assault. The jury was reportedly riveted by Carroll's testimony, and her legal team's handling of the case was widely regarded as exceptional. Another key point is that in a civil trial, the plaintiff only needs to prove that it's more likely than not that the incident occurred, making it an advantage for the plaintiff in this case. Overall, Carroll's team delivered an impressive performance, with their direct examination and foundation-building being particularly noteworthy.
Trump's Legal Woes Continue: E. Jean Carroll Trial: Trump's absence and ineffective defense in E. Jean Carroll trial highlights the importance of strong representation and preparation in legal proceedings.
The ongoing trial against Donald Trump for defamation by E. Jean Carroll is not going well for him. Trump's decision not to attend the trial and the absence of effective defense witnesses and lawyers have been noted by the jury. E. Jean Carroll's team has presented compelling evidence, including contemporaneous witnesses, and experts on damages to reputation. The only live witness Trump's side is presenting is a psychological expert. Alina Haba, who has publicly presented herself as a formidable trial lawyer, is unlikely to make an appearance. Her replacement, Joe Tacopina, has had to clean up the mistakes made during the pretrial preparation process. If Haba were as skilled as she claims, she would not have been replaced. The situation underscores the importance of effective representation and preparation in legal proceedings.
Allegations of corruption in the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court is under scrutiny for alleged corruption among some justices, including accepting large gifts, revealing opinions on pending cases, and covering up past misconduct. Despite these concerns, there's been no transparency or accountability from the justices.
The Supreme Court is facing allegations of corruption from various quarters, with many right-wing justices reportedly involved in scandals. These include receiving large gifts from donors, revealing opinions on pending cases, and even covering up past misconduct. Despite these allegations, the justices have shown no inclination to address the issues publicly or transparently. Meanwhile, lawyers like Alina Habba, who lost several cases against Donald Trump, continue to be touted as experts in legal circles, while the unsung heroes are the teams working on election fraud cases and other important legal battles. The lack of accountability and transparency in the Supreme Court raises serious concerns about the integrity of the judiciary and the need for reforms.
Ethical Standards for Supreme Court Justices Debated Amid Conflicts of Interest Allegations: Recent allegations of potential conflicts of interest involving spouses of Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Clarence Thomas have raised concerns about transparency and accountability, with calls for a formal code of conduct and greater scrutiny and oversight.
The ethical standards for Supreme Court justices have become a topic of debate, with recent allegations of potential conflicts of interest involving the spouses of justices John Roberts and Clarence Thomas. The discussion raised concerns about the potential influence of their spouses' financial dealings on the court, particularly when those dealings involve firms appearing before the court. The justices have resisted calls for a formal code of conduct, arguing that they are capable of handling ethical dilemmas on their own. However, the lack of transparency and accountability in these matters has raised eyebrows and fueled calls for greater scrutiny and oversight. The potential for conflicts of interest and the impact on public trust are significant issues that require attention and resolution.
Negotiating behind the scenes for liberal justices: Liberal justices make secret deals to preserve power, as seen in the mifepristone case where they sent emergency applications to the full court instead of one justice deciding alone.
The three liberal justices on the Supreme Court are in a minority position and must negotiate behind the scenes to preserve their limited power. An example of this was seen in the case regarding mifepristone, where a deal was made to send emergency applications to the full court instead of allowing the assigning justice to make the ruling alone. This allowed for the approval of mifepristone to remain in effect, but it also highlights the importance of these secret deals for the liberal justices to maintain some influence on the court. The circuit assignments are made by the chief justice, and each justice is responsible for specific circuits. Understanding these assignments is crucial for predicting which justice may make decisions on emergency appeals.
Supporting the Legal AF Podcast: Listeners can subscribe to the podcast and YouTube channel, leave reviews, purchase merchandise, display a listening certificate, or join the Patreon to support the Legal AF Podcast.
Supporting the Legal AF podcast can be done in various ways. For YouTube viewers, subscribing to both the YouTube channel and the podcast, and leaving a 5-star review on the podcast platform, is greatly appreciated. For audio listeners, subscribing to the Midas Touch YouTube channel is recommended. Additionally, listeners can purchase Legal AF and Midas Touch merchandise from the store.midastouch.com. The hosts also plan to create a 2-year listening certificate for listeners to display. Lastly, for those who wish to provide financial support, they can do so by joining the Midas Touch Patreon. Overall, the hosts expressed their gratitude to the legal community for their support, as it is essential to the success of the show.
