Podcast Summary
Significant legal milestones this week: Trump indicted, Fox faces fewer defenses in Dominion lawsuit: Trump indicted in Stormy Daniels case with 34 counts, Fox Corporation's defenses limited in Dominion's $1B defamation lawsuit
This week marked significant legal milestones. In Manhattan, former President Donald Trump was criminally indicted in the Stormy Daniels hush money case. The indictment, which includes approximately 34 counts, was made public after a limited unsealing order was granted due to the intense public interest in the case. The charges are believed to be related to payments made from Trump to Michael Cohen to silence Daniels and Karen McDougal during the 2016 election. Meanwhile, in a separate case, a Delaware judge stripped Fox and Fox Corporation of most of their defenses in Dominion's $1 billion defamation lawsuit, leaving only two issues for the jury to decide. These developments represent major rulings in both cases, with implications for truth and accountability.
Potential charges beyond falsifying records for hush money payment: A conspiracy charge could be brought against Trump and Cohen for hush money payments if evidence of an agreement exists, and overt acts were taken towards completion.
The hush money payment made to Stormy Daniels by Michael Cohen on behalf of Donald Trump could potentially lead to multiple charges beyond falsifying business records. A conspiracy charge could be brought up if it is proven that there was an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a crime. Overact is a crucial element in a conspiracy charge, and evidence of discussions and actions taken towards the completion of the conspiracy would strengthen the case. The involvement of Karen McDougal in a separate hush money arrangement could also be significant, as it may challenge the defense's argument that the payment was unrelated to the election.
Discovering a broader conspiracy in Trump's hush money payments: Legal analysts expect the ongoing investigation into Trump's hush money payments to reveal a larger conspiracy involving the National Enquirer, its former CEO, and Michael Cohen.
The ongoing investigation into Donald Trump's involvement in hush money payments to women before the 2016 election is expected to reveal a broader conspiracy, according to legal analysts. The payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, which were not disclosed as campaign contributions, allegedly involved the National Enquirer and its former CEO, David Pecker, who reportedly made the payments to help Trump's campaign. Trump is indicted as a coconspirator, while Pecker and others are unindicted. The rationale behind the payments, according to reports, is that Trump stiffed Pecker and refused to pay for the second payment to Stormy Daniels, leading Pecker to involve Michael Cohen instead. This "split the atom" discovery could potentially solve multiple problems, including the Michael Cohen issue, as he was not involved in the first payment to Karen McDougal. The indictment and its aftermath have predictably sparked strong reactions from Trump and his supporters.
Manhattan DA Indicts Trump on 34 Counts, Including Financial Crimes: Former President Trump indicted on 34 counts, including financial crimes related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer, involved. Judge handling case has previously presided over a Trump Organization tax fraud conviction.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office has indicted former President Donald Trump on 34 counts, including financial crimes related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer, was involved in the payments and previously faced credibility issues. The indictment also includes potential felony charges, as New York law states that two misdemeanors can make a felony. Trump delayed his surrender to the authorities for a 4-day weekend to regroup with his defense team and continue fundraising off his indictment. The judge handling the case, Juan Mershon, was not randomly assigned and has previously presided over a tax fraud conviction against the Trump Organization. Trump has criticized Mershon in the past, and the judge is not known to be favorable towards Trump. The indictment is expected to include a range of charges, with some related to Cohen and the hush money payments, and others potentially related to conspiracy and civil RICO claims.
Donald Trump's Indictment: Preparing for Surrender and Arraignment: Expert Karen Freeman explains the expected process for Donald Trump's indictment, including surrender, processing, and arraignment, but uncertainties remain regarding Trump's actions and potential attempts to delay or obstruct.
The legal process for Donald Trump's indictment is moving forward, with law enforcement preparing for his surrender and arraignment. Karen Freeman, an expert on the subject, explains that Trump is expected to be brought to the Manhattan DA's office for processing, which may include being fingerprinted and possibly photographed. However, given Trump's public profile, it remains to be seen whether law enforcement will actually take this step. The entire process is being carefully planned to ensure Trump's safe transport and processing. If Trump voluntarily surrenders, the arraignment will follow later in the day. However, there are still uncertainties, such as whether Trump will actually surrender or if there will be attempts to delay or obstruct the process. Overall, the focus is on ensuring a peaceful and orderly resolution to this significant legal event.
Donald Trump's Arraignment: Formal Charges and Not Guilty Plea: At an arraignment, a defendant is formally charged, enters a plea, and the case proceeds with motion practice. Trump's arraignment marked the start of a criminal case against him, with no bail granted.
During an arraignment, a defendant, in this case, Donald Trump, is formally informed of the charges against them in an indictment. This process takes place in the Supreme Court of New York. The judge reads the charges, and the defendant, through their lawyer, may waive the reading but not the rights they're under. After the charges are read, the defendant enters a plea, typically not guilty. The case is then adjourned for motion practice and proceeds like any other case. The defendant will not be granted bail for this type of crime. The judge, in this instance being Judge William K. Marchand, will preside over the proceedings. The arraignment is a significant step in the legal process, and it sets the stage for the remainder of the case.
A defendant's arraignment: Informing charges and setting bail conditions: During a defendant's arraignment, they're informed of charges, no bail for non-bail eligible offenses, and legal arguments are made to delay trial
During a criminal arraignment, the defendant is informed of the charges against them, and bail conditions are set if applicable. In the case of Donald Trump, since it's not a bail-eligible offense, there will be no bail conditions. The prosecutor may also serve notices of statements they intend to use against the defendant, and a statement of facts may be filed. The arraignment will then be adjourned for motion practice, where the defendant can make various legal arguments to delay the trial. The judge will keep the case moving, but the defendant's legal team is expected to make numerous motions as a delay tactic. The defendant can also challenge the sufficiency of the grand jury evidence in New York state, unlike in federal or California courts.
Trump Faces Criminal Charges in New York: Trump is being charged with falsifying business records over hush money payments, and the outcome could significantly impact his presidency record.
Former President Donald Trump is facing criminal charges in New York related to business dealings from 2005, and these charges are being pursued by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg despite backlash from Trump's supporters. The charges include falsifying business records in connection to hush money payments to a porn star. Trump's opponents argue that these actions are criminal and warrant prosecution, while Trump's supporters claim that New York has a high crime rate and that the charges are politically motivated. Regardless of the order or timing of future investigations or indictments, Trump is now being held accountable for his actions. The outcome of these cases will be significant and could shape the historical record of Trump's presidency. The only group politicizing the situation is Trump's base, who argue that he is above the law.
Trump Faces Multiple Legal Battles: Former President Trump is under investigation for various crimes including business records falsification, financial fraud, tax evasion, election interference, obstruction of justice, and theft of government records. He's currently facing multiple civil and criminal trials.
Former President Donald Trump is currently facing multiple legal investigations and lawsuits, both at the state and federal levels. The most recent development is his indictment in New York for a class E felony related to business records falsification, which could result in up to 4 years in jail. However, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's investigation isn't over yet, as he's still investigating financial fraud, tax evasion, and other potential crimes. Additionally, Special Counsel Jack Smith is investigating election interference, obstruction of justice, and theft of government records. Trump is also facing a civil rape and defamation trial, a civil fraud case, and a defamation lawsuit worth over $1 billion. Despite Trump's attempts to delay trials, judges are firm on their dates. A recent ruling in the Dominion defamation lawsuit against Fox News is seen as a significant win for the truth.
Judge Rules Against Fox in Dominion Voting Machines Case: Judge found Fox put Dominion under relentless attack with lies, leaving them vulnerable to a $1.6 billion damage claim in a jury trial.
Fox Corporation and Fox News faced a significant setback in a Delaware Superior Court ruling, which could potentially lead to a $1.6 billion damage claim. Fox decided to file a motion for summary judgment, asking the judge to rule that statements made against Dominion Voting Machines were not false. However, the judge found that Fox had put Dominion under relentless attack with lies about their product, integrity, and corporate culture, despite evidence to the contrary discovered during the discovery process. Fox's defense, actual malice, requires proving that the statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The judge's ruling leaves Fox vulnerable to a jury trial, stripping them of many defenses and privileges. The ruling highlights the importance of factual accuracy and the potential consequences of spreading false information, especially for media organizations.
Judge rules Fox News not shielded by First Amendment in defamation case: Judge holds Fox News accountable for spreading false info about Dominion Voting Systems, requiring proof of actual malice and finding beyond neutral reporting, affecting Fox Corporation and other defendants as well.
During a defamation case involving Dominion Voting Systems and Fox News, the judge ruled that Fox News cannot hide behind the First Amendment to avoid accountability for spreading false information. The judge's decision in the case, New York Times v. Sullivan, requires public figures, such as Dominion, to prove actual malice for defamation claims against them. The judge also found that Fox News went beyond neutral reporting and therefore did not qualify for the journalistic privilege. The judge has already determined that the statements made about Dominion were false, and the jury will be instructed to assume this as fact. Additionally, the judge found that Fox Corporation and other defendants are also responsible for the publication of the false statements due to their close relationship with Fox News.
Jury trial to decide if Fox News defamed Dominion: Jury will decide if Fox News and its figures knowingly published false statements about Dominion, with trial continuing in April
During the Dominion Vs. Fox News defamation trial, the judge denied Fox News' summary judgment motion, meaning the case will proceed to a jury trial. The jury will decide if Fox Corporation and its prominent figures, including Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, and Lou Dobbs, knowingly published false statements about Dominion. The jury will also determine the damages. Despite Fox News' argument that no reasonable juror would disagree with their position that they did not defame Dominion, the judge found that there were disputed facts that should be decided by a jury. The trial is set to continue in April.
Dominion defamation case against Fox News goes to trial: Fox News faces trial for false statements about Dominion with a judge's finding of actual malice, having passed on chance to challenge it earlier
The Dominion defamation case against Fox News is significant because a judge has already made a finding that false statements were published regarding Dominion in the Fox News news division. The jury will now decide if these statements were published with actual malice, meaning intentional or with reckless disregard for the truth. Fox News had the opportunity to challenge this finding with a summary judgment but chose not to, and now faces the consequences as they prepare for trial. This case is not an isolated incident, as Fox News is also involved in a defamation case with Smartmatic, and other companies may use this ruling as persuasive authority in their own cases against Fox. As a legal practitioner, it's uncommon to bring a cross motion for summary judgment due to the risk of having elements of a claim stripped away before trial. Fox News' decision not to challenge the summary judgment leaves them at a disadvantage as they defend the case in front of a jury.
A Former President Faces Legal Proceedings in New York: For the first time in American history, a former President is facing felony charges and is required to attend court proceedings in New York, highlighting the importance of accountability and upholding the law, regardless of the defendant's status.
This past week marked a historic moment in American legal history with the indictment of a former President of the United States, Donald Trump, in New York. Karen Friedman Agnifolo, a Manhattan District Attorney with extensive expertise, discussed the significance of Trump's requirement to attend each court appearance due to the felony charges against him. The Manhattan DA's office, under Alvin Bragg, has a reputation for handling consequential cases and upholding law and order, regardless of the defendant's status. The former president's attacks on Bragg's wife and doxing of the office did not deter them from following due process. This case is unprecedented, as no former president has ever been charged with a crime before. Trump's alleged crimes were committed while he was in office, which raises concerns about accountability and democratic values. The coming months will bring more legal proceedings for Trump, including a rape trial, making New York a focal point for these historic events.
Legal AF gears up for a busy period with upcoming trials and investigations: Legal AF, with over 1 million subscribers, is preparing for a busy time with rape case trials and Letitia James investigation, with more indictments expected. They pride themselves on their objective, database law and order approach and encourage viewers to subscribe and leave positive reviews.
The upcoming trials involving the rape case and Letitia James investigation are just the beginning, as more indictments are expected. Legal AF, hosted by Michael Popok, Karen Friedman Agnifolo, and the speaker, is gearing up for a busy period on the Midas Touch network. The team is proud of their objective, database law and order approach, which is not commonly seen elsewhere. With over 1 million subscribers and aiming for 1.5 million, Legal AF encourages viewers to subscribe on YouTube and audio podcast platforms, leave a 5-star review, and subscribe to their YouTube channel if they only listen on audio. This historic episode of Legal AF is a testament to the team's hard work and dedication to providing comprehensive legal coverage.
