Podcast Summary
Donald Trump found liable in civil trial for defamation and sexual abuse allegations: Trump was held accountable for his actions and words in a defamation and sexual abuse trial, setting a precedent and adding to his mounting legal challenges
The civil trial against Donald Trump for defamation and sexual abuse allegations by E. Jean Carroll resulted in a jury verdict in favor of Carroll, with Trump being found liable and ordered to pay $5,000,000. The jury's quick decision was due to the lack of evidence or alibi from Trump, who had previously denied knowing Carroll and the alleged incident. The trial's outcome is significant as it holds Trump accountable for his actions and words, and sets a precedent for future cases. Additionally, the ongoing investigations against Trump, including the Manhattan District Attorney's criminal case and the subpoena of Mark Pomerantz by the House Judiciary Committee, continue to unfold. The evidence gathered from Trump's CNN interview and the ongoing lawsuit against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems add to the mounting legal challenges for Trump. Overall, these developments underscore the importance of truth and accountability in public life.
Manhattan jury rules in favor of E. Jean Carroll in defamation case against Trump: Jury awarded Carroll $5M in under 3 hours, Trump plans to appeal but grounds are unclear, Trump's town hall comments may lead to further legal action, Trump criticizes trial process despite being given more latitude to testify, appeal expected to be rejected by court of appeals
The Manhattan jury's verdict in favor of E. Jean Carroll in her defamation case against Donald Trump is significant, as Trump is concerned about the potential bias of juries from liberal areas. The jury returned the verdict in under 3 hours and awarded Carroll $5,000,000. Trump is expected to file an appeal, but there are no clear grounds for reversible error. Trump's comments during a CNN town hall about Carroll may lead to further legal action against him. Despite being given more latitude to testify, Trump chose not to attend the trial and is now criticizing the process as unfair. The appeal is expected to be rejected by the court of appeals due to its frivolous nature.
Donald Trump's appeal in E. Jean Carroll defamation case may face challenges: Trump's appeal in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case may be unsuccessful due to missed evidence and defamatory statements on social media. The process begins with a notice of appeal and involves briefs and oral arguments, but Trump must post a large bond. The town hall event on CNN may provide valuable evidence for future defamation cases.
Donald Trump's appeal in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case is unlikely to succeed due to his failure to introduce key evidence during the trial and his subsequent defamatory statements on social media. The process for the appeal will begin with a notice of appeal and will involve several briefs and oral arguments, but Trump will need to post a large bond to pursue it. Meanwhile, Trump's town hall event on CNN, which devolved into a MAGA rally, may have inadvertently provided valuable material for the prosecution in future defamation cases against him. The jury's finding that Trump sexually abused Carroll and defamed her increases the likelihood and expedites the process for any new defamation cases. This case, referred to as E. Jean Carroll 2, took place in a prime location where Trump frequently walked, between his Plaza Hotel and Trump Tower. The earlier case, Carol 1, which was stayed before the trial, only involved statements Trump made while he was president.
Trump's Immunity Claims Don't Stop Defamation Suit: Trump lost a defamation case against E. Jean Carroll due to collateral estoppel, and future juries will decide if his statements were defamatory, regardless of executive privilege
Former President Trump's argument of immunity and executive privilege did not prevent E. Jean Carroll from suing him for defamation regarding statements made after his presidency. The jury's ruling on the sexual abuse allegations in a previous trial, which Trump cannot contest again due to collateral estoppel, is a significant loss for him. Going forward, new juries will decide if Trump defamed Carroll by denying the allegations, considering potential immunity issues if the statements were made during his presidency. Trump's behavior towards Carroll and her legal team, including a recent handshake and acknowledgment of guilt, highlights the impact of being associated with Trump's controversial persona.
Rudy Giuliani's Unprofessional Behavior as Trump's Lawyer: Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, faced criticism for unprofessional conduct during media appearances. His actions may not sway Judge Kaplan, presiding over defamation cases, and could impact ongoing legal proceedings against Trump.
The behavior of a lawyer representing a client, especially when they begin to mimic the client's despicable actions in public, can be problematic and criticized by the public. In this case, Rudy Giuliani, as Trump's lawyer, acted in a manner inconsistent with a lawyer's professionalism during media appearances, leading to widespread criticism. Furthermore, Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is presiding over several defamation cases involving E. Jean Carroll and Trump, is unlikely to be swayed by Trump's attacks on him. Trump's disregard for the legal system and his authoritarian approach to defending himself during the CNN town hall further underscored his disregard for the rule of law. This attitude could potentially impact the outcome of ongoing legal cases against him.
Judge Orders Trump to Appear in Court: Trump faces legal consequences both inside and outside the courtroom, with a judge ordering him to appear and attempts to delay unlikely to succeed.
Donald Trump is facing legal consequences for his actions both inside and outside the courtroom. Last week, a judge ordered Trump to appear via Zoom on May 23rd to be lectured on the terms of a protective order. Trump's attempts to delay the case through a notice of removal are unlikely to succeed, as this tactic typically does not delay proceedings. Instead, Trump may be trying to remove the case from the Manhattan jurisdiction, where he has had unfavorable experiences with juries in the past. Trump's behavior outside the courtroom, where he attacks judges and prosecutors, is in stark contrast to his demeanor inside the courtroom, where he follows the rules to avoid contempt. The difference between state and federal courts extends beyond judges and rules, as jury pools can also impact outcomes. Despite these challenges, it's crucial to distinguish between Trump's actions within and outside the courtroom.
Trump's team seeks to move hush money case to federal court: Trump's team attempts to change venue for ongoing hush money case, citing desire for more favorable jury pool, despite lack of federal charges.
Former President Donald Trump's legal team is attempting to remove his ongoing criminal case from New York state court to federal court in hopes of securing a more favorable jury pool. The case, which involves allegations of hush money payments made during his presidency, is currently being heard in New York state court presided over by a Clinton appointee, Judge Hellerstein. Trump's team argues that the case implicates federal election law, but they have not been charged with federal crimes. Despite this, they believe that a federal jury may be more sympathetic to their case. However, the prediction is that this removal effort is unlikely to succeed, and the case is expected to remain in state court for trial. Trump's team's primary reason for removal appears to be the desire for a more favorable jury pool rather than any substantive legal argument.
Trump's Judge Selection Strategy: Trump chose a specific judge due to past experiences and believed bias, highlighting the significance of judge selection in legal proceedings.
Former President Trump's strategy in filing a civil lawsuit in federal court over the Manhattan District Attorney's investigation was driven by his desire to have the case heard by a specific judge, Judge Mary k Viscosel, whom he believed would be more favorable to his cause. Trump's history with Judge Eileen Cannon, who took jurisdiction in a case she shouldn't have, influenced his decision. The case was eventually returned to state court, but Trump's strategy highlights the importance of judge selection in legal proceedings. Additionally, the involvement of the Manhattan District Attorney's office in a separate case before Judge Viscosel, which resulted in the forced testimony of Mark Pomerantz, added complexity to the situation. The case ultimately hinged on jurisdictional issues and the use of funds from federal forfeiture by the Manhattan DA's office.
Former Prosecutor Invokes Fifth Amendment in Hearing: A former prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz, invoked the Fifth Amendment during a hearing due to potential criminal liability for disclosing confidential information from an ongoing investigation.
During a hearing, Mark Pomerantz, a former special prosecutor in the Manhattan DA's office, invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions related to an ongoing criminal investigation. The Manhattan DA's office had previously warned Pomerantz that disclosing confidential information could lead to criminal liability. Pomerantz wrote a book about the investigation, which the DA's office believed exposed him to criminal liability. The Republicans on the committee were frustrated that Pomerantz did not provide the information they were seeking, but it is important to note that the information they were asking for was considered unlawful. Pomerantz's decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment was based on his reasonable belief that he could be criminally prosecuted for disclosing confidential information during the pendency of the investigation.
Misjudged Timing of Michael Cohen's Book Release and New Developments in Political Scandals: Michael Cohen's book release timing may have been off, as the Manhattan DA now has crucial Trump info. Santos remains in Congress despite multiple lies and crimes, and McCarthy refuses to ask for his resignation.
The timing of Michael Cohen's book release, which contained allegations against Donald Trump, may have been misjudged, as the Manhattan District Attorney's Office now has crucial information from Trump's deposition. Meanwhile, individuals like Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows ignored subpoenas during the same investigation, invoking privileges and not showing up. George Santos, on the other hand, was indicted for multiple crimes, including lying on financial disclosures, wire fraud, and stealing unemployment funds. Despite these indisputable lies and crimes, Santos remains in Congress, highlighting the modern Republican Party's lack of accountability. The Eastern District of New York Department of Justice filed a 13-count indictment against Santos, and more charges are expected. Santos also admitted to committing fraud in Brazil and still holds a position in Congress, despite his international conviction. Kevin McCarthy refuses to ask for his resignation, and Santos continues to cast controversial votes.
New York US Attorney Accuses George Santos of Multiple Fraud Schemes: George Santos accused of using excess campaign donations for personal expenses, drawing salary from a Ponzi scheme, and falsifying financial disclosures. A cooperating witness aided in yacht sale scheme, funding Santos' campaign.
US Attorney Breon Peace in New York has made strong statements against George Santos, accusing him of involvement in multiple fraud schemes. The indictment includes a phony charity, Redstone Strategies, where Santos directed donors to send excess campaign contributions. The money was then used for personal expenses instead of campaign-related activities. Another scheme involved Santos drawing a salary from a Ponzi scheme while claiming unemployment benefits. He also falsified his financial disclosures to hide these activities. A cooperating witness, Ray Tantillo, a Long Island auto dealer, helped Santos broker a yacht sale, with the commission going to Santos and funding his election campaign. Santos' press conference claims of vindicating himself and clearing his name may be in vain, as the evidence against him is substantial.
The lengthy process to remove a Congress member under indictment: Republican George Santos, under indictment for financial misconduct, still holds a vote in the House, setting a precedent for potentially criminal individuals to serve. The fastest way to remove him is through voter replacement in the 2024 election, but this could take over a year.
The process to remove a member of Congress, like George Santos, who is under indictment for alleged financial misconduct, is a lengthy one. Despite the ethical concerns and calls for his resignation, Santos still holds a vote in the House, which is crucial for the Republican party's slim majority. The ethics commission, which could potentially handle such matters, has been defunded and defanged by the Republicans. The fastest way to remove Santos would be for the voters in his district to replace him in the November 2024 election. However, this process could take over a year, as it would take time for the case to go to trial. The speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, has shown no signs of pushing for Santos' removal. The situation is particularly frustrating for many, as it sets a precedent for allowing potentially criminal individuals to serve in Congress. This is not a partisan issue, as the Democratic party would likely have acted differently if the situation involved one of their members. The case against Santos is expected to result in significant jail time if he is convicted. Meanwhile, there are ongoing investigations into former President Donald Trump, who also faces potential criminal charges. The special counsel investigating Trump has been handed new evidence from the Santos case, and there are potential connections between the two investigations.
Reducing food waste and contributing to a greener environment with Lomi: Lomi, an electric countertop composter, reduces food waste, makes cooking at home enjoyable, and transforms food scraps into nutrient-rich dirt for gardening, benefiting the environment by decreasing personal carbon footprint and reducing the need for landfills.
Lomi, a countertop electric composter, not only helps reduce food waste and make cooking at home more enjoyable, but also contributes to a greener environment by transforming food scraps into nutrient-rich dirt for gardening, reducing the need for landfills and decreasing personal carbon footprint. Additionally, the discussion highlighted the disgraceful town hall event where former President Trump made light of sexual abuse allegations and disregarded the rule of law, potentially providing valuable evidence for ongoing investigations into his handling of classified records. Trump's actions and statements during the event suggest a clear awareness and intent to engage in the criminal conspiracy, contradicting any claims of ignorance or sloppy record keeping.
Trump's inconsistent behavior regarding classified documents: Trump's refusal to follow legal advice, contradictory statements, and potential quid pro quo deals add to concerns over his handling of classified documents and potential legal violations.
Donald Trump's behavior regarding the handling of classified documents and the investigations into his actions have been inconsistent and potentially incriminating. Despite the advice of his lawyers, he has ignored their counsel and made contradictory statements. His refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and his attempts to negotiate the return of the documents, which were not his to negotiate, suggest a guilty mind. Furthermore, his admission to potentially showing classified documents to unauthorized individuals and his past history of quid pro quo deals add to the concerns. The inconsistencies in his statements and actions, as well as the potential legal violations, raise serious questions about Trump's conduct and the potential consequences he may face.
Discussion on Trump's pressure on Ukraine and ongoing investigations: Trump used power to pressure Ukraine for Biden investigation, ongoing probes into Jan 6 attack, defamation cases including Smartmatic demand over $2B, discovery process may change
During the CNN town hall, it was discussed how Donald Trump used his power to pressure Ukraine's President Zelensky for an investigation into the Biden family in exchange for military aid. Trump's negotiation tactics, rooted in his background as a real estate developer and casino operator, were highlighted. The investigation into Trump's actions is ongoing, and every day he remains free is another day for potential damning evidence to surface. The town hall discussion also touched upon Trump's refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing regarding the Jan 6 attack and his ongoing defamation cases, including the one against Smartmatic. Despite Fox settling with Dominion for $787.5 million, Smartmatic is demanding over $2 billion and is not settling for less. The discovery process in the Smartmatic case was limited initially but may change following the Dominion settlement. Overall, the town hall provided insights into various ongoing investigations and legal battles against Trump.
Legal battle between Smartmatic and Trump campaign heats up: Discovery referee appointed, subpoena served to Trump campaign, potential depositions from Trump and key figures, legal battle over subpoena's validity, similarities to Dominion Voting Systems case, slower progress through New York courts
The ongoing legal battle between Smartmatic and the Trump campaign, following the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, is gaining momentum. The recent appointment of a discovery referee in the New York state court case and the subpoena served to the Trump campaign are significant steps towards potentially obtaining depositions from key figures, including Donald Trump himself. Smartmatic's efforts to uncover information related to Fox News, election fraud allegations, and the Trump Organization are expected to lead to a legal battle over the subpoena's validity. With similarities to the Dominion Voting Systems case, Smartmatic's case may take longer to progress through the New York courts compared to Delaware's more rapid pace for business-related cases.
Fox News may settle Dominion lawsuit to avoid trial and financial damage: Fox News is considering settling the Dominion lawsuit to prevent a costly trial and potential financial losses, following new evidence and testimony from the Dominion trial in Delaware.
Fox News is likely to settle the defamation lawsuit filed against them by Dominion Voting Systems, as they face the prospect of a Manhattan jury trial and potential damages that could significantly impact their finances. The case has strengthened for Dominion since the Dominion trial in Delaware, with emails and testimony from Tucker Carlson and others potentially damaging for Fox. Fox may wait until 2024 to settle, as they are already facing financial losses and may be trying to sell the company or assets. The intersection of business, law, and politics is driving Fox's decision to settle rather than face a potentially damaging trial. The legal team on Legal AF will continue to cover the latest updates on this and other legal cases, breaking down complex topics in accessible ways. If you're not already subscribed, please consider doing so on YouTube or as an audio listener, and share this channel with others.
