Podcast Summary
Trump Faces Intensifying Legal Battles: Former President Trump is under investigation for election interference, faces trials in 2023, 2024, and 2025, and has suffered multiple court losses.
Former President Donald Trump is facing a barrage of legal challenges on multiple fronts. Special Counsel Jack Smith indicated an imminent indictment for election interference, and Trump responded without taking a testifying offer before the grand jury. Meanwhile, a new trial date was set for Trump's case involving the willful retention of national defense information. In Georgia, an indictment against Trump in the Fulton County District Attorney's investigation is expected in the coming weeks. Trump also suffered three major court losses this week, including attempts to remove cases to federal court and derail investigations. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp confirmed that special counsel Jack Smith's team has been in contact with his office. Trump's legal calendar is packed, with trials scheduled for October 2023, January 15, 2024, March and April 2024, and May 2025, among others. The legal battles are intensifying, and Trump's legal team has a challenging year ahead.
Trump receives target letter from Special Counsel Jack Smith: Special Counsel Jack Smith sent a target letter to Trump, signaling a potential indictment. Trump reacted with anger, while Smith remained calm. The investigation may also focus on MAGA Republicans and a new criminal statute, 18 USC section 241.
The ongoing legal proceedings against Donald Trump continue to unfold, with Special Counsel Jack Smith reportedly sending a target letter to Trump on a Sunday night. The contrasting responses from Trump and Smith have become a topic of interest, with Trump's heated reactions and Smith's calm demeanor providing a stark contrast. The discussion also touched upon the potential involvement of MAGA Republicans in defending Trump. Additionally, a new criminal statute, 18 USC section 241, was mentioned as a potential area of focus in the ongoing investigation. This statute, which deals with conspiracies to commit federal crimes, has gained attention in legal circles as a possible charge against Trump and his associates. Overall, the conversation underscored the ongoing political drama and legal complexities surrounding Trump's legal situation.
Trump and associates under investigation for election interference under 18 USC 241: Former President Trump and associates are being probed for voter intimidation and fraud under 18 USC 241 during the 2020 election, including allegations of pressure campaigns on election officials and submission of false electoral certificates.
During the 2020 presidential election, former President Trump and his associates are under investigation for potential violations of 18 USC 241, a law passed after the Civil War to protect against voter intimidation and fraud. This law can encompass various criminal activities related to election interference, including ballot stuffing, forgery, and intimidation of election officials or voters. The ultimate goal is to disenfranchise voters and manipulate the electoral vote. The investigation includes allegations of pressure campaigns on election officials to change votes and certify fake electors, as well as the creation and submission of false electoral certificates. It's important to note that receiving a target letter does not necessarily mean an individual will be prosecuted, as others who were involved in the pressure campaign have also stated they have not received one.
Discrepancies between target letters and indictments: An absence of a target letter doesn't prevent indictments, and the scope of an indictment can be broader than a target letter. The ongoing Trump investigation covers various charges and focuses on intent during the Capitol insurrection.
The absence of a target letter before an indictment is not uncommon and doesn't necessarily mean that charges won't be brought against someone. Additionally, the scope of an indictment can be broader than what's outlined in a target letter, and there's no basis to dismiss an indictment based on this discrepancy. The ongoing investigation into former President Trump and his associates, including John Eastman and William Russell, is expected to cover various charges such as obstruction of official proceedings, conspiracy, money laundering, and wire fraud. The focus of the investigation appears to be on the state of mind and intent of Trump and those around him during the January 6th Capitol insurrection. The involvement of Trump's personal lawyer, Stanley Woodward, in representing multiple individuals involved in the investigation, including William Russell, has raised some eyebrows due to potential executive privilege issues. The investigation is ongoing, and more witnesses are expected to testify.
Trump's Lawyer Raises Concerns Over Executive Privilege and Late Arrival at Hearing: Judge McFadden reacted strongly to Trump's lawyer's late arrival and invoked the U.S. Marshals to search for Smith's team, while Judge Cannon acknowledged the need to set a trial date despite objections from both sides.
During a recent court hearing regarding the ongoing legal proceedings involving Donald Trump and special counsel Jack Smith, Trump's lawyer Stanley Woodward raised concerns about executive privilege and being late to the hearing due to Smith's team. However, executive privilege can only be invoked by the current president, and even if it were invoked, it could be overruled in a criminal investigation with a compelling need. Judge Trevor McFadden, appointed by Trump, reacted strongly to Woodward's late arrival and even ordered U.S. Marshals to search for Smith's team. In a separate hearing, Judge Eileen Cannon, who is presiding over a different case involving Trump, acknowledged the need to set a trial date despite objections from both sides regarding the potential impossibility of finding a fair jury during the election season. She ultimately set a compromise date that left both sides somewhat dissatisfied.
Setting a trial date for Trump's indictment: Judge sets May 2024 trial date for Trump's indictment, an accelerated process considering historical precedents with complex investigations ongoing
Judge Amit Mehta has set a trial date for former President Trump's indictment on May 20, 2024, in Fort Pierce, Florida. This is a significant development in the ongoing investigation, and while some may view the timeline as too long, it's important to note that this is an accelerated process compared to historical precedents such as the Watergate investigation. The complexities of stripping away privileges and securing cooperating witnesses take time. The trial calendar is expected to be busy, with potential additional indictments from Special Counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Despite some disappointment that the trial isn't happening sooner, it's crucial to remember that thorough investigations are necessary for accountability.
Donald Trump's trial: Quick or lengthy?: Despite a planned trial date in May 2023, Donald Trump's trial could be delayed until 2025 due to potential motions, appeals, and complexities. Judge Cannon's impartiality and Trump's lawyers' strategies may also impact the trial's timeline.
The upcoming trial for Donald Trump, set by Judge Aileen Cannon in May 2023, could be a quick one if it indeed goes forward as planned. However, given the history of lengthy proceedings in similar cases and the potential for numerous motions and appeals, there's a possibility that the trial could be delayed and pushed into 2025. The speaker also expressed concerns about Judge Cannon's impartiality, citing her previous actions and her background as a Cuban American woman from Miami. The speaker also mentioned that Trump's lawyers may have made a strategic error by not proposing a specific trial date, potentially giving the judge the impression that they were trying to manipulate the process. Overall, the trial process is expected to be complex and lengthy, with many variables at play.
Judge Eileen Cannon's Past Raising Concerns for Impartiality: Judge Eileen Cannon's past rulings and affiliations have raised doubts about her ability to preside over the Mar-a-Lago documents case impartially, despite her non-controversial background as a US attorney and assistant US attorney.
Eileen Cannon's background and judicial record have raised concerns about her impartiality in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. Despite her non-controversial past as a US attorney and assistant US attorney, as well as her clerkship for a conservative federal judge, her rulings prior to her appointment to the bench have been criticized as pro-MAGA. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals even rebuked her for her handling of a case. These factors have led many to question her suitability for this high-profile case and to call for her recusal. The jury is still out on whether Cannon will prove herself to be an impartial judge in this matter. The New York Times article provides a nuanced view of Cannon's background, but her past actions have fueled doubts about her ability to preside over the Mar-a-Lago documents case fairly.
8 Sleep's PodCover offers advanced sleep technology and insights: The PodCover by 8 Sleep enhances sleep with temperature control, individual adjustments, and sleep tracking, providing valuable health insights.
The PodCover by 8 Sleep offers an ultimate sleep experience with its temperature control feature, individual adjustments for each side of the bed, and gentle vibrating alarm. This technology not only improves sleep quality but also provides insights into sleep patterns and overall health through sleep tracking. Additionally, Fulton County DA Fonnie Willis is using the Georgia Rico statute to build a criminal enterprise case against Donald Trump, involving alleged crimes in multiple locations, including election data manipulation and extortion attempts. The grand jury in this case has been hearing evidence for several days, and more information about the investigation is being revealed.
Georgia DA Investigates Election Interference and Data Breaches: DA Fani Willis is leading a grand jury investigation into election interference and data breaches in Georgia, presenting evidence from over 75 witnesses and terabytes of information, including computer sabotage, ballot flipping, and illegal voter data downloads, potentially resulting in indictments
Fani Willis, the Fulton County District Attorney, has been working tirelessly with a grand jury to investigate potential election interference and data breaches in Georgia. Despite opposition, she was able to call the grand jury to session and has presented evidence from a previous special purpose grand jury, which included testimony from over 75 witnesses and terabytes of information. This evidence includes reports of computer sabotage claims, attempts to flip ballots, and the illegal downloading of voter data by a bail bondsman. The grand jury is currently considering indictments based on this evidence. Georgia law allows the use of hearsay and previously presented evidence, making the process more efficient. The investigation centers around allegations of interference in the 2020 election, particularly in Coffee County, where election officials allowed access to voter data to groups looking for supposed fraud, ultimately compromising the data of every voter.
Competition between two district attorneys to secure indictments against Trump: Two district attorneys, Fani Willis and Jack Smith, are intensely investigating former President Trump, each aiming for indictments before the other. Trump's legal losses in various courts add to the mounting pressure and challenges he faces.
Fani Willis and Jack Smith, two district attorneys, are moving forward with their respective investigations into former President Donald Trump, with each trying to secure indictments before the other. This competition between the two, as described by the speaker, is a sign of the seriousness of the legal proceedings against Trump. The speaker also touched upon Trump's legal losses in various courts, including two scathing rulings in the Southern District of New York. These losses highlight the challenges Trump faces in his legal battles and the mounting pressure against him. Overall, the discussion underscores the significance of the investigations and the potential consequences for Trump.
Judge Orders Evidence Against Trump in Hush Money Cases, Denies New Trial: A federal judge has upheld the validity of hush money cases against Trump, denying his request for a new trial in a rape case. The rulings underscore the gravity of the allegations against him and the importance of accountability.
A federal judge has formally ordered that there is strong evidence against Donald Trump for making hush money payments, and he was denied a motion for a new trial in a rape case where the jury found him liable for sexual misconduct. Despite Trump's attempts to remove these cases to federal court, the judges involved have sent them back to state courts and have criticized his arguments as misleading and disgusting. These rulings underscore the serious allegations against Trump and highlight the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions, regardless of their political status.
Donald Trump's legal challenges to Georgia grand jury unsuccessful: Despite filing petitions in Georgia courts, Trump failed to halt the special purpose grand jury investigating him. The courts denied his requests due to procedural issues and lack of merit, leaving him to challenge evidence in a potential criminal proceeding.
Donald Trump's legal efforts to challenge the special purpose grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, have been unsuccessful on multiple fronts. Trump filed petitions in both the Georgia Supreme Court and the Fulton County Superior Court, but both were denied. The Georgia Supreme Court not only rejected the petition for procedural reasons, but also analyzed the merits and found that Trump had not shown entitlement to the relief he sought. The cases Trump cited in support of his argument did not apply to the facts at hand, as they involved grand juries publishing information about individuals who were not ultimately indicted or convicted. The Supreme Court also noted that the admissibility of evidence is not the standard in the grand jury process, and Trump's constitutional rights would not be violated even if there were some irregularities in the special purpose grand jury process. Trump's remedy would be to challenge the evidence in a criminal proceeding after an indictment, but he cannot quash the special purpose grand jury. This represents one of several significant legal losses for Trump at both federal and state levels.
Donald Trump's legal actions backfire: Trump's repeated attempts to bypass proper legal procedures have backfired, damaging his reputation and potentially impacting his ability to secure an impartial jury. These actions have not delayed the progression of cases but have given judges the opportunity to publicly criticize and reject them.
Donald Trump's legal actions, particularly in the cases of Georgia and New York, have consistently backfired against him, resulting in public harm to his reputation and potential negative impact on his ability to secure an impartial jury. These filings have not delayed the progression of the cases, but have instead given judges the opportunity to publicly criticize and reject them. The repeated attempts to bypass proper legal procedures have also been met with resistance. The filings have provided ammunition for opposing counsel to argue for the disqualification of judges or potential jurors, based on perceived biases or fundraising efforts. These actions have not only been unsuccessful but have also been deemed frivolous by the courts. Trump's legal team's efforts to discredit judges and potential jurors have not only been unsuccessful but have also been perceived as a reach, further damaging their credibility.
Judge denies Trump's attempt to move Manhattan DA case to federal court: Judge Hellerstein ruled against Trump's efforts to bring the Manhattan DA case, alleging business record fraud and felonies, to federal court. The judge found no federal jurisdiction or defenses for Trump's actions.
The legal battles surrounding former President Trump continue, with various judges denying his attempts to move cases to federal courts using different rationales. In the latest development, Judge Hellerstein in the Manhattan DA case against Trump for business record fraud and 34 count felonies related to the Stormy Daniels hush money affair, ruled that Trump did not meet the criteria to bring the case to federal court. Trump's legal team argued that the acts happened while he was president, they occurred under the color of his office, and he had federal defenses. However, Hellerstein rejected these arguments, stating that the case was not federal and there was no federal defense for Trump's alleged actions. This decision adds to the growing list of judges who have ruled that there is compelling evidence against Trump for various alleged crimes. Despite Trump's efforts to be vindicated, these rulings underscore the seriousness of the legal challenges facing him.
New developments in Trump's legal battles: Recent court rulings against Trump have implications for future cases and potential sanctions. Delay tactics can promote his image and agenda, highlighting the importance of factual information and an evidentiary-based system.
That the legal proceedings against Donald Trump continue to unfold with complex and sometimes contradictory outcomes. The recent ruling in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, where the judge referred to Trump as a rapist, has implications for future legal actions and potential sanctions. The delay tactics used in the legal process can also serve to promote and market Trump's image and agenda, creating a complex web of corruption and disinformation. The importance of an evidentiary-based system and access to factual information is crucial in understanding these developments and combating disinformation. Legal AF aims to provide a calm and informative platform for discussing these legal matters and encouraging community engagement and sharing of information. The support of the Legal AF community is essential in spreading factual information and promoting a pro-democracy agenda.
Stay engaged and subscribed to Midas Touch's platforms for latest updates: Subscribe to Midas Touch's YouTube channel and legal AF audio platform for exclusive content and breaking news
It's important for viewers and listeners to subscribe to both the Midas Touch YouTube channel and the legal AF audio platform to ensure they don't miss any updates or content. Ben Mycellus and Michael Popok encourage everyone to subscribe across both platforms to stay informed with their latest news and insights. They also express their gratitude to their audience and promise to provide more breaking news as it develops. A special shout out was given to the Midas mighty, likely referring to their dedicated fanbase. Overall, the message is to stay engaged and subscribed to the Midas Touch's various platforms for the latest information.
