Podcast Summary
Manhattan DA takes legal action to protect investigations against Trump: Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg filed a lawsuit to stop interference, seeking an injunction against MAGA House members and Jim Jordan, and is moving forward with high-profile cases against Trump and Fox News.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is taking bold steps to protect ongoing investigations and prosecutions against Donald Trump and his associates. Bragg recently filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop interference from MAGA House members and Jim Jordan, seeking an injunction to halt obstruction and persecution of his office. This comes after Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor on the case, resigned and was later subpoenaed by Congress. Bragg's actions demonstrate his commitment to upholding the law and ensuring the integrity of the criminal justice system. Additionally, several high-profile cases against Trump and Fox News are moving forward, including a civil rape and defamation case and a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Machines. These developments underscore the intense legal scrutiny Trump continues to face.
Congressman Jim Jordan Interfering in Trump Case with Federal Grant: Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg accuses Congressman Jim Jordan of politically motivated interference in his criminal case against Donald Trump using a $5,000 federal grant as a pretext.
Jim Jordan, a congressman, is attempting to interfere in a criminal case against Donald Trump being handled by the Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg. He's using a $5,000 federal grant as justification, but it's likely a pretextual move. Bragg has filed a civil case in federal court to prevent Jordan from interfering, accusing him of colluding with Trump to intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice. The Manhattan DA's office has received federal grants for various purposes, including asset forfeiture, and using these funds on cases is valid. However, Bragg argues that Jordan's actions are politically motivated and intended to undermine his prosecution. The complaint filed in the Southern District of New York includes a detailed recitation of facts and evidence supporting these allegations. Bragg also defended his record by citing decreases in crime in Manhattan since he took office.
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg files complaint against Jim Jordan, Kevin McCarthy, and Donald Trump for intimidation campaign: A Manhattan DA filed a complaint against Jim Jordan, Kevin McCarthy, and Donald Trump for an alleged intimidation campaign against him, involving social media attacks, death threats, and other forms of harassment, resulting in over a thousand threats against him and his colleagues, setting a dangerous precedent for the future.
The filing by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg against Jim Jordan, Kevin McCarthy, and Donald Trump details an alleged intimidation campaign against him in relation to a criminal investigation. The complaint shows coordinated attacks on social media, death threats, and other forms of harassment, which have resulted in over a thousand threats against Bragg. The filing also includes examples of derogatory language used towards Bragg and his colleagues, as well as threats against judges involved in the case. This unprecedented interference in a state criminal prosecution is a clear attempt to intimidate and undermine the legal process, and sets a dangerous precedent for the future. The filing not only provides evidence of the intimidation campaign but also includes a sophisticated legal argument about the sovereign powers of states and the role of the federal government in criminal justice.
Supreme Court case sets precedent for congressional oversight into local prosecutorial conduct: The Supreme Court established four factors for when it's appropriate for Congress to subpoena local prosecutors or their associates, setting a precedent for Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's decision to prosecute Trump in state court and involve a defendant in the case.
The legality of congressional oversight into local prosecutorial conduct, such as subpoenas for tax returns, was established in a US Supreme Court case involving Donald Trump and Mazars accounting firm. The case, which went up to the Supreme Court twice, set forth four factors for when it is appropriate for legal analysis. Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney, cited this case as precedent in his decision to prosecute Trump in state court and to keep Mark Pomerantz, a defendant in the case, as a necessary party since he is being subpoenaed. The judge assigned to the case, Mary Kay Viscusi, is known for her background in bankruptcy law and was appointed by Trump. The initial filing in the case is called a complaint, and Bragg asked for an injunction instead of monetary damages. However, a recent ruling by the judge was not favorable to Bragg. Regarding Pomerantz, it remains to be seen whether he might be compelled to testify about things he has already made public.
Manhattan DA argues for privilege over former prosecutor's testimony: The Manhattan DA's office is opposing a congressional committee's attempt to access a former prosecutor's testimony about an ongoing investigation, maintaining that the privilege belongs to the current office and not the former prosecutor. A public hearing is preferred over a secret order.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office is seeking to prevent a congressional committee from accessing a former prosecutor's testimony about an ongoing investigation, arguing that the privilege resides with the current office and not the former prosecutor. The office also argued against the use of a secret order and instead requested a public hearing. The former prosecutor, Mark Pomerantz, is a nominal defendant in the case and does not have the right to waive the privilege. The hearing will be relatively public, and the grand jury process and its secrecy are also at stake. The Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, has emphasized that his actions are not political and that he did not run on a campaign against Donald Trump.
Manhattan DA Race and Trump-related Cases: During the Manhattan DA race, handling potential Trump-related cases was a significant factor, but Alvin Bragg did not campaign on this issue despite ongoing investigations against the Trump Organization and Alan Weisselberg. Jim Jordan's actions towards a prosecutor could potentially be considered intimidation or retaliation.
During the Manhattan District Attorney race, the ability to handle potential Trump-related cases was a significant factor. Alvin Brack, unlike Leticia James, did not campaign on this issue. However, investigations against the Trump Organization and Alan Weisselberg were ongoing before Trump's candidacy declaration. Bragg's objections to Pomerantz's book and public statements were clear, but Jim Jordan's actions could potentially be considered intimidation or retaliation. This situation highlights the politicization of a legal case, with potential implications for criminal intimidation charges. It's important to remember that the ongoing case against Trump is a civil one seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Roan's Commuter Collection offers a solution to the discomfort and hassle of dressing for various occasions, providing comfortable, flexible, and breathable clothing for men.
Rhone's Commuter Collection: Easy Care, Long-Lasting, and Machine Washable: Rhone's Commuter Collection offers easy wrinkle release, long-lasting anti-odor technology, and is machine washable, making it a versatile and comfortable choice for busy individuals.
Rhone's commuter collection offers easy wrinkle release technology, long-lasting Gold Fusion anti-odor technology, and is machine washable, making it a versatile and comfortable choice for busy individuals. In a different realm, the upcoming civil rape trial between Ejean Carroll and Donald Trump will present witness testimonies, including from women who allege they were sexually assaulted by Trump, the Access Hollywood tape, and Trump's depositions or potential live testimony. The jury will be anonymous, and the case centers around allegations from the late 1990s and defamatory statements made by Trump after his presidency. Trump is expected to testify or have his depositions played in court. The trial is set to begin on April 25, 2023, in the Southern District of New York.
Ensuring jury safety and impartiality through anonymity: Anonymity during jury selection is vital for jurors' safety and impartiality. Stand up for your rights and don't back down from intimidation.
The selection of a fair and impartial jury is a crucial aspect of any legal proceeding. In this discussion, the importance of anonymity during the jury selection process was emphasized to ensure the safety and impartiality of potential jurors. Jessica Denson, a guest on the show, shared her experience of taking on Donald Trump in a lawsuit and the retaliatory tactics used against her. Her story serves as an encouragement for those facing similar situations, highlighting the importance of proactive action and not backing down in the face of intimidation. The recent developments in the Manhattan DA's case against Trump were also discussed, with the decision to confront the situation head-on being seen as a positive step. Overall, the conversation underscored the importance of standing up for one's rights and not being intimidated by those in power.
Trump's Request for Trial Adjournment Challenged by Legal Team: Trump's team sought a 30-day adjournment due to media coverage, but Kaplan countered by showing decreased interest and highlighting Trump's role in fueling it, emphasizing the judge's control over jury selection.
During the recent legal proceedings regarding Donald Trump's request for a 30-day adjournment of his trial due to pretrial publicity, Robbie Kaplan's response was swift and impactful. Trump's team argued for a cooling off period due to the deluge of media coverage since his indictment. However, Kaplan pointed out that Trump himself had fueled the media frenzy through his public statements and actions. Furthermore, she criticized their method of measuring media coverage and demonstrated that interest in Trump's indictment had significantly decreased within days. Kaplan also emphasized the judge's ability to handle jury selection and voir dire. Overall, her response effectively challenged Trump's request and highlighted his team's lack of legal substance in their argument. It's unlikely that the judge will grant the adjournment, as things are expected to worsen for Trump in terms of media attention in the coming month.
The Legal Battle Against Trump Continues: Despite a 30-day cooling off period, Trump's legal troubles persist with ongoing investigations and cases. The choice of a female cross-examiner in an upcoming trial against him could impact the jury's decision.
The legal battle against Donald Trump is far from over, with multiple ongoing investigations and cases against him. Thirty days is not enough time for a cooling off period, as Trump continues to foment controversy. New Yorkers, particularly in the legal system, have a history of not favoring Trump. Jessica Hulsey Nickels, a lawyer involved in the case, has taken on the challenge of taking down Trump and his team of lawyers. The choice of who will cross-examine E. Jean Carroll in the upcoming trial is a significant decision, with Alina Haba and Joe Tacopina being the top contenders. Criminal defense attorneys often believe that having a woman cross-examine another woman in sexual assault cases can help prevent the defense team from appearing too heavy-handed. Karen, a former prosecutor, and Jessica, an experienced legal observer, can provide valuable insights into the impact of the jury's decision on the selection of the cross-examiner.
Women questioning women in sexual assault trials: In sexual assault trials, having a woman question another woman about sensitive details is less awkward and more effective than having a man do so. Consistent, authentic, and unshakable witnesses like Jean Carroll are likely to be believed by the jury, and the defense team's cross-examination may backfire if handled by a man.
During a sexual assault trial, having a woman question another woman about sensitive and private details is considered more appropriate and less awkward than having a man do so. This is because the detailed questioning can be seen as offensive and creepy, especially when it comes to discussing body parts and sexual encounters. According to legal experts, when a witness like Jean Carroll, who is consistent, authentic, and unshakable in her story, testifies, the jury is likely to resonate with her and believe her account. In such a case, the defense team's cross-examination may backfire, benefiting the plaintiff instead. Therefore, if they have any hope of success, they would likely bring in a female lawyer to handle the cross-examination.
Donald Trump's trial with E. Jean Carroll: Cross-examinations and jury selection: The trial between E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump is expected to involve intense cross-examinations, impartial jury selection, and a potential delay due to legal disagreements. Trump denies any wrongdoing and faces other legal challenges, while Jessica Denson, a podcast anchor, is praised for her coverage.
The ongoing trial between E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump is expected to involve vigorous cross-examinations, with Trump denying any wrongdoing and claiming ignorance or dislike of the accuser. The jury selection process involves finding impartial jurors who can apply the law to the facts, regardless of their prior knowledge of Trump or the case. The trial is set to begin on the 5th, with potential delays due to competing briefs about the timing of the trial. Trump's argument for a delay based on an unrelated case was criticized as ridiculous, as the cases involve different legal issues and only share the involvement of women. The trial comes as Trump faces other legal challenges, including a new suit against Michael Cohen, who is a key witness in the Stormy Daniels case. Jessica Denson, a podcast anchor and a key observer of the trial, was praised for her courage in taking on Trump despite his intimidation tactics.
Dominion Voting Systems sues Fox News for defamation in Delaware: Dominion Voting Systems filed a defamation lawsuit against Fox News and Fox Corporation in Delaware, alleging harm to their reputation from alleged defamatory statements.
Dominion Voting Systems, a voting machine company, has sued Fox News and Fox Corporation for defamation in Delaware Superior Court. The case was filed in Delaware due to Fox being a Delaware corporation. The lawsuit stems from allegedly defamatory statements made about Dominion on Fox News programs, which Dominion claims harmed their reputation. The case has not gone well for Fox, with the judge already ruling against them on several major issues before jury selection has even begun. This is just one of several legal battles related to the 2020 election that are currently making headlines.
Judge Rules Fox News Lied About Dominion Voting Systems: Judge indicates Fox News withheld info, faces $1.6B damages, and may appoint a special master to investigate.
The judge in the ongoing defamation trial between Dominion Voting Systems and Fox News has ruled that the falsehoods broadcasted about Dominion were proven before the jury even began deliberations. The judge also indicated that Fox may have withheld important information during the discovery process, which could result in serious consequences including the appointment of a special master to investigate. Fox is facing potential damages of $1.6 billion and their only defense, actual malice, is under scrutiny. The trial, which is set to begin in earnest on Thursday, could be complicated by these developments, and the judge's displeasure with Fox's handling of the case.
Misleading the Judge in Defamation Trial Could Lead to Severe Consequences for Fox: Fox may face severe consequences, including the striking of their pleadings and defenses, and a default judgment, due to reported misleading of the judge about Rupert Murdoch's role and late production of crucial documents in the defamation trial against Dominion Voting Systems.
The ongoing defamation trial between Dominion Voting Systems and Fox Corporation could result in severe consequences for Fox, including the striking of their pleadings and defenses, and a default judgment in favor of Dominion. This potential outcome stems from Fox and its lawyers reportedly misleading the judge about Rupert Murdoch's operational role within the company and the late production of crucial documents, such as the Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell, and Maria Bartiromo show recording. The judge has expressed feeling misled and could impose sanctions, including contempt, which could significantly impact the trial's outcome.
Rules for using depositions vs live testimony vary greatly: Understanding jurisdiction-specific rules is essential for using depositions effectively in criminal cases, as some courts allow use during opening statements while others require in-person appearances.
The use of depositions versus live testimony in criminal cases varies greatly depending on the jurisdiction. In some courts, sworn testimony given under oath during depositions can be played during opening statements, while in others, all witnesses must appear live in the courtroom. It's crucial for legal professionals to familiarize themselves with the rules of each courtroom they practice in. For instance, in some cases, key figures like Rupert Murdoch and Fox News personalities have been ordered to appear in person due to their involvement in high-profile lawsuits. The use of deposition videos for impeachment purposes is also subject to various hearsay rules and court interpretations. Ultimately, navigating the complexities of using depositions versus live testimony requires a deep understanding of the specific legal context and jurisdiction involved.
Legal Cases Involving Trump Associates: Former President Trump's associates have been involved in multiple high-profile legal cases, including one with a Venezuelan businessman linked to Dominion Voting Systems and another with Michael Cohen being sued by Trump in Florida. The cases are interconnected, with motivations behind actions questioned.
There have been multiple high-profile legal cases involving individuals connected to former President Trump, including a case with a Venezuelan businessman linked to Dominion Voting Systems and another with Michael Cohen being sued by Trump in Florida. The businessman, who was implicated in the 2020 election fraud allegations, was a focus of attorney Sidney Powell's claims, and a confidential settlement was reached between him and Smartmatic and Fox. Trump's lawsuit against Cohen in Florida is seen as a counterattack, with Cohen being transparent about his past dealings with Trump. The choice of Miami as the filing location is significant due to Trump's residency in Florida. The overall discussion highlights the complexity and interconnectedness of these legal cases, and the questionable motivations behind some of the actions taken.
Trump's Lawsuits Against Adversaries Dismissed for Bad Faith Filings: Despite numerous lawsuits against political adversaries, Trump's efforts to find favorable judges and intimidate opponents through legal means have consistently failed due to bad faith filings and lack of clear defamation claims.
Donald Trump's lawsuits against his political adversaries, such as Hillary Clinton and Leticia James, have consistently been dismissed due to bad faith filings. In the case against Hillary Clinton, Trump and his lawyer were fined over $1,000,000 for their actions. Trump's attempts to find more favorable judges in different locations have also been unsuccessful. However, in the lawsuit against Michael Cohen for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and breach of confidentiality agreement, there seems to be confusion. Trump argues that Cohen violated attorney-client privilege and New York ethics rules, but the lawsuit lacks a clear defamation claim. It appears that this lawsuit is not about seeking justice, but rather an attempt to intimidate Michael Cohen. Trump's timing of filing the lawsuit after the indictment and warning from the judge further supports this theory.
Trump's Lawsuit Against Cohen: A Public Opinion Shaper: Trump's lawsuit against Cohen is more about shaping public opinion than a legitimate legal action, with questionable claims and a law firm not typically known for constitutional defamation cases.
Donald Trump's recent civil lawsuit against Michael Cohen should be viewed as an attempt to shape public opinion rather than a legitimate legal action. Trump's document, filled with grievances and questionable allegations, is being used to protect him from accusations of jury pool tampering or interference with the criminal justice process. However, the lawsuit's merits are questionable, with several claims likely to be dismissed due to statute of limitations or lack of personal jurisdiction. The law firm handling the case is not typically known for constitutional defamation cases, leading some to speculate that it was brought in by other lawyers to avoid association with Trump's legal woes. Overall, this lawsuit appears to be more about grandstanding and deflection than a serious legal challenge.
Boosting ratings and reach through audience engagement: The Boogie and Salty Show encourages listeners to subscribe, follow, and engage in live chats to support the podcast and access hot takes on important topics, available on audio and video platforms. Merchandise is also sold in their store, and the show takes place on Wednesdays and Saturdays with potential additions to the team.
The hosts of the "Boogie and Salty Show" on the Midas Touch network appreciate their audience's support in various ways. They encourage listeners to subscribe, follow, and engage in their live chats to help boost their ratings and reach. The show covers important topics and offers hot takes, which are available on both audio and video platforms. The hosts also have a store where they sell merchandise, and Karen will be updating and upgrading the offerings. The show takes place on Wednesdays and Saturdays, and sometimes Karen joins them depending on the topic. Boogie, the dog, had ACL surgery but is doing great, and the team is considering adding their producer and Fookie to the podcast. Overall, the hosts value their audience's engagement and encourage everyone to join them in their discussions.
