Podcast Summary
Supreme Court Hearings and Legal Developments for Trump: The US Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could disqualify Trump from holding office, while Special Counsel Jack Smith filed an appeal and Trump's former CFO negotiated a plea deal. Justice concerns over the politicization of the DOJ and prosecutors' public statements.
This week brought significant developments in several legal cases involving former President Donald Trump. During oral arguments before the US Supreme Court in the 14th Amendment section 3 disqualification case, Trump admitted to the January 6th insurrection but blamed Nancy Pelosi. Special Counsel Jack Smith filed what appears to be a precursor to an appeal against Judge Eileen Cannon's orders to release confidential witness information. In the New York attorney general civil fraud case, Justice Arthur Engorron sent scathing emails to Trump's lawyers regarding their ethical obligations. Trump's former CFO, Alan Weisselberg, is reportedly negotiating a plea agreement, and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling denying Trump's absolute immunity argument in the Washington DC criminal case. Judge Luedegonde, a constitutional scholar, discussed these cases in a recent interview, expressing concern over the politicization of the Department of Justice and the role of prosecutors in making public statements.
Special Counsel's Role and Abuse of Power: Special Counsel's role is to investigate facts, not make personal assessments. Recent report on Biden's documents raises concerns for abuse of power and contradiction of procedures.
The role of a special counsel is to investigate and make findings based on facts, not to make personal assessments or opinions about the subject of the investigation. The recent report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller regarding President Biden's handling of documents is seen as an abuse of power due to its focus on Biden's mental capacity and the contradiction of established procedures. The Supreme Court's handling of the 14th Amendment, section 3, disqualification of Trump's oral argument was a point of contention, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson being the only one to focus on the definition of an insurrection during the argument. Trump's lawyer argued that the events of January 6th did not constitute an insurrection due to a lack of an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government. The debate highlights the importance of adhering to established procedures and focusing on facts in legal matters.
Supreme Court Justices Skeptical of State Disqualifying Federal Officers from Ballot: The Supreme Court appears poised to rule in favor of Trump's eligibility to run for office, as justices questioned the legality of a state disqualifying a federal officer from the ballot based on their conduct.
During a recent oral argument regarding the 14th Amendment and former President Trump's eligibility to run for office, the Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical about the idea of a state disqualifying a federal officer from the ballot based on their conduct. Justice Jackson questioned whether the events at the Capitol qualified as an "insurrection" as defined in the 14th Amendment. Trump's lawyer conceded that the events were "shameful, criminal, and violent," but argued they did not meet the criteria for an insurrection. After the argument, Trump himself referred to the events as an "insurrection," but caused by Nancy Pelosi. The justices seemed particularly concerned with the potential for disenfranchisement of voters in other states if one state was allowed to remove a federal officer from the ballot. The discussion suggests that a ruling in favor of Trump's eligibility to run for office based on the oral argument is likely.
The Supreme Court's Decision on Trump's 2024 Election Eligibility: A Complex Issue: The Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether Trump's past actions, such as an insurrection, disqualify him from appearing on the presidential ballot. The decision could hinge on interpretations of states' rights and federal jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court's decision on Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on the ballot for the 2024 presidential election is not a simple matter. While some judges believe that the determination of who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution lies with Article 3 federal judges, others argue for states' rights. During the oral arguments, Judge Kavanaugh questioned if the analysis would be different if Trump had been indicted for and convicted of insurrection. The Constitution does not require a trial, indictment, or conviction on the count of insurrection for disqualification. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on this technicality, potentially reversing the decision disqualifying Trump in Colorado. However, Judge Luedig has expressed concerns about a potential "grand bargain" where Trump is kept on the ballot but loses presidential immunity to dismiss his indictment. Ultimately, the outcome could be 8 to 1, 9 to 0, or 7 to 2 in favor of Trump staying on the ballot.
Legal Proceedings Against Trump: Ongoing and Complex: The Supreme Court may hear a case on Trump's presidential immunity in February, while his lawyers have conceded to criminal events on January 6th. The DC and Manhattan cases are progressing, with new developments expected regularly.
The legal proceedings against Donald Trump are continuing to move forward, with the Supreme Court potentially hearing a case regarding his presidential immunity in February. Meanwhile, Trump's lawyers have conceded that the events of January 6th were criminal, which could be used against him in ongoing investigations and trials. The DC criminal case and the Manhattan District Attorney's case are also progressing, with new developments expected regularly. Trump has made unfounded claims about the origins of the January 6th insurrection, but these claims are widely considered to be absurd. Overall, the legal process is complex and ongoing, with both setbacks and progress to be expected. It's important to stay informed and accurate information as the situation develops.
Armira Colostrum: A Natural Immune Booster: Armira Colostrum is a natural supplement that strengthens the immune system, fortifies the gut wall, and optimizes immune defense. It promotes hair growth, skin radiance, and fitness performance. The 14th Amendment, Section 3, clearly states that insurrectionists cannot hold public office.
Armira colostrum is a powerful, naturally sourced supplement that strengthens the immune system and fortifies the gut wall, acting as a first line of defense against harmful particles and inflammation. It optimizes immune defense, ignites metabolism, promotes hair growth and skin radiance, and powers fitness performance and recovery. The 14th Amendment, Section 3, according to Michael Popak, is a clear and self-executing clause stating that anyone who has engaged in an insurrection against the United States Constitution cannot hold public office. The Supreme Court's attempt to intellectualize the issue and avoid acknowledging the January 6th insurrection as an insurrection was circular and nonsensical. As for Armira colostrum, it's a rich source of immunoglobulins and a whole food with no upper limit, making it an excellent addition to maintain optimal immune health and defense.
New York Developments in Trump Legal Battles: The New York legal battles against Donald Trump and his associates continue, with Justice Goran requesting information regarding alleged plea negotiations and the potential for a monitorship process.
The ongoing legal battles involving Donald Trump and his associates continue to unfold in various courts, with significant developments in New York. In the Colorado case, the speaker expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court's potential decision to overturn the state supreme court's ruling regarding campaign finance disclosures. They also called for the Court to address the potential insurrection issue, urging originalist justices to make a definitive decision. In New York, Justice Goran requested information from the parties regarding alleged criminal plea negotiations between Trump's former CFO and the Manhattan district attorney. The New York attorney general's office responded, suggesting a monitorship process for addressing future discoveries of potential wrongdoing. Alina Haba, Weisselberg's civil attorney, and Trump's other lawyer, Cliff Roberts, found themselves in a precarious ethical situation, as they were asked to disclose information and failed to do so effectively. The speaker expects the upcoming ruling in this case to be issued soon.
Potential Perjury by Allen Weisselberg Goes Unaddressed During Trump Organization Trial: During the Trump Organization civil fraud trial, Allen Weisselberg may have lied on the stand, but the potential perjury was not addressed by the New York Attorney General or the lawyers involved, which could be considered suborning perjury.
During the trial of the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization and Allen Weisselberg, it was revealed that Weisselberg may have lied on the stand. This is significant because Weisselgberg was not only a defendant in the case but also testified to help Donald Trump. The potential perjury went unaddressed during the trial, with the New York Attorney General not raising it and the lawyers involved not correcting it. This is unusual in New York, where the attorney general primarily handles civil enforcement matters and does not have the power to prosecute criminal cases. The failure to address the potential perjury is considered suborning perjury, which is both a crime and an ethical violation. The discussion also hinted that there is a possibility that the Supreme Court may not take up the immunity issue, which could lead to a trial.
Handling inconsistent testimony from a witness: Judges must handle inconsistent testimony from a witness with care and impartiality, ensuring truth prevails in court, despite potential ethical attacks from lawyers.
As an ethical member of the legal profession, it is not an option to ignore potential perjury or false testimony, even if it comes from a witness not directly involved in the case. In the discussed case, a witness's inconsistent testimony was so significant that it approached the realm of mythical creatures and made-up testimony. The judge, as the trier of fact and evaluator of credibility, had the authority to address the issue, but was instead attacked by lawyers for using the opportunity to discredit the witness based on a New York Times article. The lawyers' letters lacked supporting evidence, but the ethical implications were clear. As a judge, one must handle such situations with care and impartiality, ensuring that the truth prevails in the court of law.
Legal proceedings against Trump Organization with significant players and upcoming verdict: A judge is set to issue a significant verdict in ongoing legal proceedings against the Trump Organization, involving Allen Weisselberg, Haba, and Robert, potentially reaching into the billions. Post-judgment enforcement proceedings and the possibility of an independent monitor are expected.
The ongoing legal proceedings against the Trump Organization involve several key players, including Allen Weisselberg, Haba, and Robert, who are under scrutiny for potential lies in court. The judge, Arthur Engoron, is expected to issue a significant verdict soon, potentially reaching into the billions. However, even after this verdict, there will be post-judgment enforcement proceedings and the possibility of an independent monitor investigating ongoing fraud. The recent ruling by Judge Eileen Cannon to release confidential witness information may lead to an appeal by Special Counsel Jack Smith. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that Donald Trump does not have absolute presidential immunity was made weeks ago, but the deadline for him to file a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court is fast approaching. Overall, these legal developments underscore the complexity and ongoing nature of the legal challenges facing the Trump Organization.
Upgrade Your Sleep Routine with Miracle Maid's Temperature Regulating Sheets and Beams Dream Powder: Improve sleep quality, boost energy, and enhance mood with Miracle Maid's temperature regulating sheets and Beams Dream Powder's science-backed hot cocoa for sleep. Save over 40% with promo codes.
Miracle Maid offers temperature regulating bedding made from silver infused fabrics, ensuring a perfect sleeping temperature and preventing bacterial growth, making their sheets last longer and sleep cleaner. Additionally, Beams Dream Powder is a science-backed, healthy hot cocoa for sleep with no added sugar, containing a powerful all-natural blend of ingredients that help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refreshed. Miracle Maid's sheets and Beams Dream Powder aim to improve sleep quality, boost energy, and enhance mood. Try Miracle Maid's sheets and save over 40% with the promo code "legalaf," and receive a free 3-piece towel set. Experience the benefits of Beams Dream Powder by getting up to 40% off at shopbeam.com/legalaf using the code "legalaf" at checkout. Upgrade your sleep routine with these innovative products.
DC Court of Appeals sets precedent on presidential immunity: The DC Court of Appeals ruled that a president cannot use immunity to avoid criminal investigation or prosecution for non-discretionary actions, setting an important precedent for the separation of powers and accountability.
The DC Court of Appeals unanimously rejected former President Trump's arguments regarding presidential immunity and jurisdiction in the ongoing investigation into his business dealings. The court spent significant time addressing jurisdiction and the distinction between official and discretionary conduct, ultimately deciding that a president cannot be immune from criminal investigation or prosecution for non-discretionary actions. The court's decision sets an important precedent for the separation of powers and the ability of the executive and judicial branches to check an out-of-control president who has committed crimes while in office. The decision was meticulously crafted, with Judge Paulette M. Roberts writing for the panel, which included Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Patricia M. Wald. The court's thorough analysis and rejection of Trump's arguments provide clarity on the limits of presidential power and the role of the judiciary in holding presidents accountable for their actions.
Implications of ongoing investigation into Trump's actions: The Supreme Court will decide if Trump can be indicted without impeachment, potentially impacting the ongoing investigation.
The framers of the Constitution would never have intended for a president to be able to violate the law without consequences, including criminal prosecution. During a recent court case, the argument was made that the president could only be indicted after an impeachment process. However, the judges in the case found this argument to be flawed, and Trump himself had waived his argument regarding first amendment and due process rights. The decision now rests with the Supreme Court to determine if they will take up the case, and if not, the trial will move forward in lower courts. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has given Trump until February 12th to petition for a review by the Supreme Court, and any attempt to delay this process will not stay the mandate. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the ongoing investigation into the president's actions.
Legal proceedings' outcome depends on various factors and timelines: The Supreme Court's decision to hear oral arguments on the stay of the mandate hinges on its agreement, while Trump's strategy to make confidential information public to dismiss the case might harm ongoing investigations and potential witnesses.
The outcome of legal proceedings can depend on various factors and timelines of other cases. In the ongoing legal battle between Trump and the Department of Justice, the Supreme Court's decision to hear oral arguments on the stay of the mandate hinges on its agreement. The delay in Robert Hurr's report, dubbed a "February surprise," might have been linked to the DC Court of Appeals' ruling. In Trump's case before Judge Eileen Cannon, a trial date in May 2024 is unlikely. Trump's strategy involves threatening to make confidential information public to dismiss the case and intimidate witnesses. However, keeping such information confidential under protective orders is crucial to prevent jeopardizing ongoing investigations and potential harm to witnesses. The standard for keeping discovery material confidential is easier to meet compared to filing it on the public docket, which requires a compelling governmental interest that overcomes the First Amendment's presumption of public access. Trump's attempts to make confidential information public on the public docket present a challenge.
Judge denies special counsel's request to keep confidential info hidden: Judge ruled against special counsel's attempt to keep sensitive info confidential, potentially putting individuals and witnesses at risk
During the legal proceedings involving Donald Trump, he attempted to make confidential information public by filing a frivolous motion to compel and arguing for its release under the guise of a compelling government interest. This included sensitive information about confidential witnesses and FBI code names. However, Judge Eileen Cannon ruled against the special counsel, Jack Smith, stating that the government had not met the compelling government interest test to keep these documents confidential. Jack Smith then filed a motion for reconsideration and an appeal, arguing that the judge applied the wrong legal standard and that disclosing this information would cause harm and potentially put people's safety at risk. The legal standard should have been the good cause standard, which the government clearly met. The 11th Circuit case supports this argument. The potential release of this confidential information could lead to serious consequences, including harm to individuals and potential witnesses.
Judge Cannon's Error: Witness Safety at Risk: Judge Cannon's decision to release witnesses' identities disregards legal standards, risks safety, and may lead to reversible error and disqualification from the case.
Judge Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago case made an egregious error by ordering the release of government witnesses' identities, disregarding established legal standards. This is a serious issue that puts witnesses' safety at risk and could lead to reversible error and potential disqualification from the case. Jack Smith, the Special Counsel, is taking the appropriate steps to appeal this decision to the 11th Circuit, as the judge has already shown signs of interfering in the investigation and has a history of errors in this case. The 11th Circuit, known for its strict standards, may disqualify a judge for repeated errors. The potential consequences of Judge Cannon's actions could significantly impact the ongoing investigation and the safety of witnesses.
Judge Cannon's handling of Trump case creating ethical and judicial conundrums: Judge Cannon's delay in addressing ethical issues in Trump case could lead to criminal trials, aggressive actions against her by Special Counsel, and significant implications for the judicial system.
Judge Cannon's handling of the case regarding the unsealing of documents related to the Trump investigation is creating ethical and judicial conundrums for herself. If she fails to address these issues promptly, it could lead to a complicated sequence of events, including potential criminal trials for Trump, and more aggressive actions against her by Special Counsel Jack Smith. The situation is further complicated by the fact that Trump is currently facing criminal investigations in both the Manhattan District Attorney's office and the DC Circuit. The deadline for Trump to respond to the motion for reconsideration has been pushed back due to the judge's use of paperless orders, and the Manhattan District Attorney case is still scheduled for March 25th. Ultimately, the outcome of these cases could have significant implications for Trump and the judicial system as a whole.
Key hearings in Trump cases next week: Judge Lamberth sets hearing for Mar-a-Lago documents case appeal, DC Court of Appeals stay decision expected, and Judge McAfee holds hearing to dismiss Stormy Daniels indictment.
Several key developments in ongoing legal cases involving Donald Trump are expected to unfold next week. Judge Lamberth has set a hearing for next Thursday to decide on the next steps in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, including the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court. We'll also learn on Monday if Roberts will issue a temporary stay on the DC Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, Judge McAfee is holding an evidentiary hearing on Thursday to consider removing phony prosecutors and dismissing the indictment in the Stormy Daniels case. Be sure to tune in to Michael Popok's interview with Judge Lutig on Sunday morning for more insights on these cases. Subscribe to the Midas Touch newsletter and YouTube channel for updates, and let's work together to reach 3 million subscribers. The wheels of justice may be turning slowly, but they're moving in the right direction. Stay informed, stay calm, and remember, democracy and justice will prevail.
