Podcast Summary
Examining Trump's criminal cases: Victimhood and gag orders: Discussing the unique aspects of investigating Trump's criminal cases, the hosts explore victimhood narratives, gag orders, and potential motions to dismiss. Trump's release of tax documents leads to a DOJ filing and ongoing legal proceedings.
That the discussion revolves around the unique circumstances of examining the criminal cases against former President Donald Trump, with a focus on the themes of victimhood and gag orders. The hosts, Mary and Dan, reflect on their post-DOJ careers and their role in informing the public about the criminal system. They introduce the concept of "victimhood" as a recurring theme, particularly in relation to Trump's defense strategies. The episode covers two main topics: gag orders and a motion to dismiss the January 6th related case based on selective or vindictive prosecution. Trump issued tax documents over Thanksgiving, leading to a DOJ filing and potential upcoming rulings. The hosts discuss the implications of this action and how it relates to the victimhood narrative. They also delve into the motion to dismiss the January 6th case, exploring the definitions of selective and vindictive prosecution, Trump's allegations, and the government's response.
Threats against judges and staff escalate after gag orders lifted: Since gag orders were lifted, judges and their staff in Trump-related cases have faced an increase in threats, including death threats and hate speech.
The attacks against the judges and their staff in the legal cases involving Donald Trump have significantly escalated since the gag orders were lifted. This was highlighted in a recent filing in the New York case, where a court officer reported an overwhelming increase in harassing messages, including voice mails, emails, and social media comments. The messages contained threats to kill, as well as anti-Semitic and racist comments. The gag orders in both the DC and New York cases are currently on appeal and stayed by the courts. The filing underscores the correlation between Trump's public statements and the resulting threats against the judges and their staff. The situation underscores the seriousness of the issue and the potential harm caused by such threats.
Gag orders protect parties from threats: Gag orders reduce threats against judges, prosecutors, and witnesses during legal proceedings, providing additional safety and ensuring the integrity of the court proceedings.
Gag orders in legal proceedings can help reduce threats against involved parties, including judges, prosecutors, and witnesses. During a recent discussion, it was highlighted that when a gag order is in place, there are fewer reported threats. Conversely, when there is no gag order, there is an increase in threats. For instance, during a court argument last week, a filing was made in New York that could be relevant to an ongoing appeal. Although the filing might not directly concern the integrity of the court proceedings, the spillover effect of threats against judges, law clerks, and prosecutors should not be underestimated. Moreover, while there are criminal laws against threatening witnesses or anyone involved in a case, the criminal justice system's standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, making it a slow process. Therefore, gag orders can serve as prophylactic measures to provide additional protection and ensure the safety of all parties involved.
Threats against justice system personnel require constant reassessment of security protections: The first amendment's protection of free speech is important, but constant threats against judges, jurors, witnesses, and courthouse staff impact the criminal proceeding's integrity and require constant security evaluations.
The constant barrage of threats against judges, jurors, witnesses, and courthouse staff has a significant impact on the criminal proceeding's integrity. These threats require constant reassessment and evaluation of security protections to ensure safety, and the law needs to catch up with this reality. The first amendment's protection of free speech is important, but it becomes unrealistic and too little too late when people are subjected to threatening messages daily just for doing their civic duties. The idea that this is the new normal because of Donald Trump should be pushed back on. The Overton window, which refers to the range of ideas and policies that are considered acceptable for public discourse, has been significantly moved by Trump. However, old analogies may not always work when dealing with new situations, and it's essential to consider the deeper implications of these threats on the criminal justice system.
Politicians and Individuals using threats and intimidation: Trump accuses prosecutors of selective and vindictive prosecution, arguing unfair treatment compared to historical precedents, while the Department of Justice is accused of being weaponized against him.
There's a growing normalization of violent and autocratic behavior in politics, with some individuals and politicians feeling entitled to use threats and intimidation against those with whom they disagree. This trend is evident in Trump's rhetoric, social media, and recent court filings, where he accuses prosecutors of selective and vindictive prosecution. Trump's attorneys argue that he's being unfairly treated compared to historical precedents and that the Department of Justice is being weaponized against him. Selective and vindictive prosecution refers to the discriminatory intent and purpose in a prosecutor's decision to prosecute one individual over another who have committed similar offenses. The classic example of this is the US v Armstrong case, where black defendants argued they were being selectively prosecuted based on race, but the government refused to provide statistics to rebut this claim. Trump's allegations of selective and vindictive prosecution remain to be seen in the courts.
Proving Discriminatory Prosecution in the US: The US legal standard for selective or vindictive prosecution is demanding, requiring proof of discriminatory purpose and effect, and heavily favoring the presumption of regularity.
The legal standard for proving selective or vindictive prosecution in the US is very challenging for defendants. The Supreme Court requires both discriminatory purpose and effect to be demonstrated, which involves showing that the person was singled out for an improper reason and similarly situated individuals with the same level of culpability were not prosecuted. The law heavily favors the presumption of regularity. Vindictive prosecution, similar but not identical, refers to the government charging a defendant with new, more serious crimes in retaliation for exercising their constitutional rights, such as appealing a decision. The discussion also touched upon the potential frivolity of a claim based on newspaper articles, as the reliability and credibility of sources can be questioned.
Political Prosecutions: Fairness and Impartiality: Discussion focused on concerns of selective and vindictive prosecution in political cases, emphasizing the importance of fair and impartial treatment for high-level figures.
During the discussion, it was highlighted that the former president's allegations of selective and vindictive prosecution lack substantial evidence. The government's argument was that he cherry-picked irrelevant cases from the past and misunderstood the context of the Washington Post article he cited. The underlying concern was the potential for politically motivated "show trials," and the importance of treating high-level political figures fairly. The Department of Justice's initial reluctance to investigate Trump after January 6th was also discussed, with the argument that this did not equate to selective prosecution. In the coming weeks, rulings are anticipated on several motions related to this case, including gag orders, constitutional protections for non-protected speech, and statutory grounds. The presidential immunity motion is also still under consideration by the judge. Overall, the conversation emphasized the significance of ensuring fair and impartial treatment in political prosecutions.
Trump's Motion to Dismiss Denied, Delaying DC Trial: Denial of Trump's motion to dismiss could lead to appeals, delaying DC trial until late 2023. Other legal matters, such as Georgia removal issue and Mar-a-Lago filings, could also impact trial schedule.
The denial of former President Trump's motion to dismiss the case in Washington D.C. could potentially delay the trial scheduled for March 4th. This denial would allow Trump to appeal the decision to the DC Circuit and potentially to the Supreme Court, which could significantly postpone the trial. Additionally, there are other developments to watch out for, such as the removal issue in Mark Meadows' case in Georgia, Fani Willis' request for an August trial date, and filings related to classified information in the Mar-a-Lago case in Florida. These filings could lead to appeals and even potential recusals, depending on how the judge rules. Overall, there are several important legal matters related to ongoing investigations and potential trials involving Trump and his associates that could significantly impact the legal landscape in the coming weeks and months.
Discussing serious topics with gratitude and support: Through open dialogue and mutual understanding, complex issues can be addressed with the help of supportive companionship and levity.
The podcast discussion between the speakers was an opportunity for them to process serious topics together, with the added benefit of having each other for support and perspective. They expressed gratitude for the platform to discuss these important matters and for the calming presence of one another during the conversation. Despite the gravity of the subjects, they also acknowledged the importance of finding levity and humor to help navigate through. Overall, their conversation underscored the value of open dialogue and mutual understanding in addressing complex issues. Happy Thanksgiving to all the listeners! If you have any questions, feel free to leave a voice mail at 917-342 2934 or email prosecutingtrumpquestions@nbcuni.com. Don't forget to search for "Prosecuting Donald Trump" wherever you get your podcasts and follow the series. Senior producer: Alicia Conley. Segment producers: Jessica Schrecker and Ivy Green. Head of audio production: Bryson Barnes. Audio engineer: Paul Robert Mounsey. Executive producer for MSNBC Audio: Ayesha Turner. Senior vice president for content strategy at MSNBC: Rebecca Cutler.