Podcast Summary
Criminal trials against Trump and his family progressing rapidly: The Mar-a-Lago and Manhattan DA cases against Trump are moving forward quickly, with potential implications for his political future. Hunter Biden's investigation may also result in a plea deal.
The criminal trials involving Donald Trump are moving forward at a rapid pace, with the latest developments in the Mar-a-Lago case and the Manhattan DA's business record fraud trial scheduled for March 2024. Judge Cannon, presiding over the Mar-a-Lago case, has set an unusually quick trial date, despite the Trump camp's potential plans to delay. Meanwhile, the investigation into Hunter Biden's business dealings is reportedly nearing resolution with a plea deal and deferred prosecution agreement. These developments indicate that the legal proceedings against Trump and his family are progressing, and the outcomes could have significant implications for their political futures. The speed of these trials also underscores the importance of staying informed about ongoing investigations and legal proceedings. Subscribe to The Economist for expert analysis and in-depth coverage of these and other world events.
Judge Cannon allows Trump's team to delay trial, maintaining fairness: Judge Cannon's approach to the Mar-a-Lago documents case allows the legal process to move forward while managing public perception, maintaining fairness to all parties.
Judge Aileen Cannon, in her handling of the Mar-a-Lago documents case involving Donald Trump, is allowing Trump's team to make their case for why the trial date should be delayed. This approach allows Cannon to avoid accusations of favoritism towards Trump, while also allowing Special Counsel Jack Smith to be ready for the trial. The protective order issued by Cannon, which restricts Trump from commenting on discovery material, has led Trump to make potentially damaging admissions on national television. Despite the delay, Smith is reportedly ready to proceed with the trial and has all the necessary evidence and witnesses. Overall, Cannon's approach allows the legal process to move forward while managing public perception.
Complex legal proceedings involving Trump's case due to classified documents: Despite a mid-August trial date, the real timeline for Trump's legal proceedings is uncertain due to necessary steps like lawyers' security clearance and CEPA hearing, complicated by Trump's public statements and Cannon's inexperience.
The ongoing legal proceedings involving former President Trump are complex and time-consuming due to the involvement of classified documents. Eileen Cannon's order for the trial to begin on August 14, 2023, is unrealistic given the necessary steps that need to be taken beforehand, such as lawyers applying for top-secret security clearance and the classified information procedures act (CEPA) hearing. Trump, who is representing himself, is making matters worse by making public statements that undercut potential defense strategies. The lack of specific information in Cannon's order and her apparent lack of experience in handling such a complex case have raised concerns about her competence. The mid-August trial date is likely a placeholder and the real timeline for the case is uncertain.
Judge's August trial date for Mar-a-Lago case unrealistic: The Mar-a-Lago classified documents case trial date in August is unlikely due to the case's complexity, numerous pretrial motions, and potential transfer to Miami for hearings.
Judge Aileen Cannon's August 14th trial date for the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case is not realistic due to the complexity of the case and the expected numerous pretrial motions. The judge's history of setting quick trial dates but pushing them back raises concerns about her experience and ability to manage such a high-profile case. The defense and government will likely file various motions, including those related to attorney-client privilege and selective prosecution, which will delay the trial. A more reasonable trial date would be closer to a year from the arraignment, as seen in similar cases without classified documents. The judge's use of a form order without a collaborative hearing process is also a point of criticism. Ultimately, the case is unlikely to go to trial in August and may be transferred to Miami for hearings.
Trials for Trump and Bannon's indictments in Florida and New York: The trials for Trump and Bannon's indictments in Florida and New York are predicted to take 70 days to a year after arraignment, with Trump's PAC funding Bannon's local representation. The exact timing for Trump's New York trial is uncertain, but both trials are unlikely to occur in August.
The trial for Donald Trump's indictment in Florida, which involves his former advisor Steve Bannon, is predicted to take place somewhere between 70 days and a year after the arraignment. The arraignment is scheduled for late June, and it's expected that Bannon will find a local lawyer to represent him, funded by Trump's PAC. The trial for Trump's prosecution in New York, related to the Stormy Daniels hush money affair, is also anticipated to take place, but the exact timing is uncertain as the case is still being debated in federal court regarding a potential removal to federal jurisdiction. The lengthy process for these trials, as well as the need for security clearances and court availability, indicates that neither trial is likely to occur in August as previously speculated.
New evidence for prosecution from Trump's interview: Trump's ongoing legal issues regarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago continue to evolve as new evidence emerges from his interview with Brett Baier.
Former President Donald Trump's ongoing legal issues, specifically the investigation into the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, are far from over. During an interview with Brett Baier, Trump made numerous statements that could potentially be used against him in the trial. These statements provide new evidence for the prosecution and make the case anything but static. From a prosecutor's perspective, every day brings new potential evidence as Trump continues to generate statements that may contradict the truth. Despite Trump's claims of a perfect interview, the prosecution now has additional ammunition to use in the case.
Trump kept classified docs, refuses to return: Trump kept classified docs, claims they're declassified, but refuses to cooperate with investigation, which could harm his case.
During an interview, former President Trump admitted to keeping classified documents, intermingled with his personal items, which he refuses to return despite the potential risk to national security. Trump's defense is that he believes the documents were declassified, but he has not denied their existence. Prosecutors, like Jack Smith, have recorded interviews and likely have witnesses who can attest to the authenticity of the documents. Trump has also accused his predecessors, including President Biden, of taking similar actions but has not provided evidence to support this claim. Trump's refusal to cooperate and his attempts to deflect blame to others could potentially harm his case in the ongoing criminal investigation.
Trump's Behavior in Mar-a-Lago Raid Interview Could Hurt Him in Legal Proceedings: Trump's evasive interview behavior and inconsistent explanations could harm him in upcoming legal proceedings. His uncoachable nature and history of avoiding trials make his testimony a concern, while potential witnesses could present truthful testimony.
Former President Trump's defensive and evasive behavior during a recent interview about the raid on his Mar-a-Lago home, along with inconsistent explanations and recorded conversations, could potentially harm him in upcoming legal proceedings. Trump's use of non-sequiturs and low literacy grammar, which works in political rallies and interviews, will not be effective in a court of law where his own words, videotapes, and clips will be used against him. Trump's history of avoiding depositions and trials, especially criminal trials, and his uncoachable nature make his upcoming testimony a significant concern for his legal team. The potential witnesses against him, including his assistant and Mark Meadows, add to the likelihood of truthful testimony being presented in court. Trump's efforts to stay relevant and potentially win the presidency again could lead him to endure these legal proceedings despite the challenges.
Trump's Mar-a-Lago Documents vs Biden's Library: Former President Trump's handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago contrasts with Biden's library, with potential security risks and legal troubles for Trump, while individuals can save money with Rocket Money and enjoy better sleep with Miracle Made Sheets
Former President Donald Trump's handling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago club raises significant concerns, as over 150,000 people had access to those documents, including a convicted Chinese spy. This is a stark contrast to the situation with Joe Biden's library, where documents are catalogued and stored through the national archive. Trump's repeated legal troubles, including being twice indicted and arrested within two months, further underscore the importance of his handling of these documents. The Manhattan DA's office is set to trial the criminal prosecution in March. While Trump has been advised to stay out of the public eye, this is unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, Rocket Money, a personal finance app, can help individuals save money by finding and canceling unwanted subscriptions. Additionally, Miracle Made Sheets offer self-cooling temperature regulation for better sleep, with a 30-day money-back guarantee.
Trump's Attempt to Disqualify Judge Rashon: Despite Trump's efforts to disqualify Judge Rashon due to his political donations and family ties to democrats, the judge has a strong ethical record and has consistently recused himself from potential conflicts of interest, and has not been removed from the case.
During the past week, the Trump camp filed a motion in Manhattan's District Attorney office, attempting to disqualify Judge Rashon from presiding over the case against Donald Trump. The grounds for disqualification included Judge Rashon's political donations to democratic causes, his daughter's employment at a political consultancy that works primarily for democratic candidates, and his handling of a previous case involving Trump's longtime CFO, Allen Weiselberg. However, it was recently revealed that Judge Rashon has a strong ethical record and has consistently recused himself from cases where he may have a potential conflict of interest. Despite the Trump camp's efforts, Judge Rashon has not been disqualified from the case.
Judge Seeks Ethical Guidance: Judge Mangano received ethical clearance for a $35 donation and his daughter's role in opposing party, but raised concerns over his urging of a defendant to cooperate with prosecutors.
Judges are expected to maintain impartiality and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. In this case, Judge Mark A. Mangano, a New York state judge, sought ethical guidance from the state's Committee on Standards and Conduct regarding potential conflicts of interest. The committee's opinion, which was issued in May but recently made public, addressed Mangano's $35 donation to a political party and his daughter's role in a firm representing the opposing party. The committee concluded that the judge could remain impartial despite these factors. However, the Manhattan District Attorney's office raised concerns over the judge's role in urging Allen Weisselberg, a defendant in a separate case, to become a government witness. The judge's actions in that case did not violate impartiality, as it is common practice for judges to provide defendants with information about potential trial outcomes and risks.
Judge's Unusual Donation Raises Questions of Bias: Despite Judge Marchand's reputation for fairness, his $35 donation to Trump's campaign raised questions. The New York County Supreme Court's Advisory Committee determined it didn't affect his impartiality, but Trump's past accusations of bias and attempts to 'judge shop' fueled debate.
Judge Marchand, known for his fairness and impartiality, made an uncharacteristic donation of $35 against Trump's election campaign, surprising many. Despite his reputation, the donation raised questions about potential bias. However, the New York County Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics determined that the donation, made over two years ago, did not require disclosure or disqualification. Trump's history of accusing judges of bias and his attempts to "judge shop" were highlighted in the discussion, with some arguing that his constant attacks could make it difficult for him to credibly claim bias in this case. Ultimately, the judge's actions were seen as an unforced error, but his reputation for fairness remained intact.
Judge's Political Contributions and Impartiality: A judge's political contributions, even undisclosed, do not necessarily impact their impartiality in a case. The decision to recuse or disqualify a judge is the judge's discretion, but constant attacks from public figures can raise questions.
The modest political contributions made by a judge to a political campaign, even if it was not disclosed, does not automatically create an impression of bias or favoritism in a case. The judge's impartiality cannot be reasonably questioned based on these contributions alone. The decision to recuse or disqualify a judge is ultimately up to the judge's discretion, and it's essential to avoid judge shopping. However, constant attacks on a judge from a public figure like Donald Trump raises questions about when and how to draw the line for recusal. The Manhattan DA's office argues that if screaming and squawking get a judge removed, then it will be done all the time. The judge in question, Marshawn, has heard both sides and does not see any evidence to support the recusal motion. He intends to stay in the case and make his decision based on the facts and the law. Additionally, there are ongoing subpoenas related to the Manhattan DA's investigation of Donald Trump, including one seeking portions of Trump's video deposition in the E Jean Carroll case, which ultimately needs to be decided by Judge Marshawn.
Confidentiality Orders in Civil Cases vs. Criminal Cases: In civil cases, confidentiality orders limit use of depositions and docs outside the case. In criminal cases, all evidence must be preserved for potential use.
In a civil case, confidentiality orders prevent depositions and documents from being used outside of the case they were obtained for, unless subpoenaed for a related case. In the Jean Carroll vs. Donald Trump case, the full deposition transcripts have not been made public, and the ongoing investigation may involve the Trump Organization and other women. In contrast, criminal cases require the preservation of all evidence, making it likely that Judge Marshawn will allow the subpoenaed materials related to Hunter Biden to be used in the criminal investigation. The ongoing investigations into both Trump and Biden involve allegations of potential wrongdoing and are not morally or legally equivalent.
Hunter Biden's legal proceedings don't compare to serious charges faced by others: Despite media attention, Hunter Biden's tax offenses and gun charge don't equate to election interference, sedition or insurrection charges. He's not an elected official, and his personal issues shouldn't define the administration.
The recent legal proceedings involving Hunter Biden do not equate to the level of criminal charges faced by other political figures, such as those related to sedition, insurrection, or election interference. The case in Delaware, led by a Trump-appointed US attorney, resulted in Hunter Biden pleading guilty to tax offenses and agreeing to a gun deferred prosecution agreement. These charges, while technically violations of federal law, are rarely prosecuted due to jury sentiment. The ongoing investigation comment likely refers to other potential probes, but the primary case has reached a resolution with a lenient sentence. Despite the media attention, it's essential to remember that Hunter Biden is not an elected official and his personal struggles should not define his father, Joe Biden, or the administration as a whole.
AG Garland allows investigation into Hunter Biden's affairs to continue: Despite pressure from Trump, AG Garland kept US Attorney Weiss in place and gave him autonomy to probe Hunter Biden's tax issues and Burisma dealings, including a gun incident, without interference from the Biden administration.
During the Biden administration, Attorney General Merrick Garland chose to keep in place the US Attorney, David Weiss, whom Trump had appointed in Delaware. Instead of appointing a special prosecutor as Trump had requested, Garland gave Weiss the autonomy to investigate Hunter Biden's affairs, including his tax issues and alleged dealings with Burisma. One incident that came under investigation was the discovery of a gun in Hunter Biden's car in 2018, which his late brother's widow had found and reported missing. Although Hunter lied on his gun purchase form about drug use, he was not prosecuted for this offense. The investigation, which lasted for several years, was allowed to proceed without interference from the Biden administration.
Hunter Biden's gun charge and tax case: Hunter Biden faces a gun charge and tax case, but will likely avoid prison time through a deferred prosecution deal. The investigation into his business dealings is likely over.
Hunter Biden is facing charges for possession of a firearm and being an unlawful user of controlled substances, which could result in a prison term of up to 10 years. This is an interesting charge as it's less common than the felon in possession charge, and marijuana, which is legal in many places, was involved. However, Hunter will be allowed to plead guilty to two misdemeanors related to a tax case and this gun possession charge will be held in abeyance for two years while he's on probation. This is known as a deferred prosecution or a plea in abeyance, and it's designed to encourage individuals to get help and stay out of trouble. The investigation into Burisma and the laptop is likely over, and there won't be a special prosecutor appointed for any Biden family crimes. Hunter was unfortunately caught in the middle of the political battle between the Democrats and Republicans, and his name being Biden is what led to this extensive legal process.
Announcement of legal case outcome on 'Legal AF' show: Former classmate and chief judge, Colm Connolly, to announce outcome of ongoing legal case on 'Legal AF' show, with analysis and hot takes from hosts Karen and Ben.
The outcome of an ongoing legal case, involving a plea deal, will be announced by a former law school classmate and chief judge, Colm Connolly. The announcement will be made on a future edition of the "Legal AF" show, either midweek or weekend, depending on when the event occurs. The hosts, Karen and Ben, look forward to reporting on the development and will continue to provide legal analysis and hot takes on the Midas Touch network. It's a pleasure for them to work together and engage with their audience, whether they're in their offices or on the road. Tune in next week for more insightful discussions on legal matters. Shout out to the Midas mighty and the legal aeffers for their continued support.
