Podcast Summary
Trump legal proceedings: Trump's legal team and special counsel disagree on how to proceed with the Manhattan case, with the former seeking to move it to federal court and the latter opposing the request. The disagreement was evident in a recent joint status report.
The parties in the ongoing prosecution of Donald Trump, specifically the special counsel and Trump's legal team, are at odds over how to proceed in the wake of a superseding indictment and the Supreme Court's opinion on immunity issues. The most recent joint status report, while labeled as such, is more of a disjointed filing with the parties disagreeing on key aspects such as the scheduling of hearings and the jurisdiction of the case. Trump's legal team is seeking to remove the Manhattan case to federal court, but this request has been made before and was previously denied. The next step in the process involves a scheduling conference before Judge Chutkin on Thursday, where the parties will present their arguments for how the case should move forward.
Trump's Immunity: The Supreme Court is deciding if Trump's alleged criminal actions involve official acts, granting him immunity. Special Counsel Jack Smith is preparing to argue against it, with potential election implications.
The legal proceedings against Donald Trump for alleged criminal activity are still in the early stages, with the focus currently on pretrial motions. The Supreme Court has remanded the case back to the district court to determine whether the charges involve official acts, granting Trump either absolute or presumptive immunity. Jack Smith, the special counsel, is prepared to file a brief outlining why the indictment's allegations do not apply to official acts and will introduce additional evidence in support of the charges. The government intends to prove that the evidence of official acts cannot be used for unofficial acts, except for those already in the public record. The danger for Trump is that a detailed filing could reveal damaging information ahead of the election. The prosecution aims to address potential legal issues upfront, while Trump seeks to delay the filing until after the election.
Trump legal team arguments: The Trump legal team is using recent Supreme Court ruling on executive privilege to request new discovery and Brady info, plans to dismiss based on unconstitutional appointment, but must cite a DC Circuit case or face consequences, proposes schedule with key deadlines in September and November
The legal team for former President Trump is raising several issues in the ongoing investigation led by Special Counsel Jack Smith. They argue that new discovery and Brady information could emerge due to a recent Supreme Court ruling on executive privilege. Additionally, they plan to file a motion to dismiss based on Smith's unconstitutional appointment. However, they have not cited a binding DC Circuit case in their filing, which is required by the rules, and could face consequences for failing to do so. The team also plans to propose a schedule for the proceedings, with key deadlines set for September 30th and November 8th. The stakes are high, as these legal arguments could significantly impact the outcome of the investigation.
Trump's legal team strategy: Trump's team is proposing an earlier-than-usual motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity, while the special counsel suggests a traditional approach. The government is challenging both the indictment and the nature of the proof, leading to a complex legal process.
The ongoing legal battle between Trump's team and the special counsel, Jack Smith, regarding the indictment against Trump involves a significant difference in strategy. Trump's team is proposing to file their motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity earlier than usual, while the special counsel is suggesting a more traditional approach where the defense responds first. This shift in strategy is due to the unique aspects of this case, as the government is not only challenging the indictment but also the nature of the proof they intend to use. Trump's team argues that they should be informed of this evidence beforehand but prefers that the information not be made public. This back-and-forth highlights the complexities and nuances of the legal process in high-profile cases.
Trump's obstruction charges: Special Counsel Jack Smith is focusing on Trump's physical removal of electoral ballots during the Capitol riots to amplify obstruction charges, following the Department of Justice's stance after the Fisher case.
Special Counsel Jack Smith is amplifying the obstruction charges against Donald Trump regarding the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots by focusing on the physical removal of electoral ballots during the proceedings. Smith's move is consistent with the Department of Justice's stance after the Fisher case, which narrowed the scope of obstruction charges to tangible or concrete acts. Judge Chucken is expected to rule on the immunity issues first, but the question of a "mini trial" for factual disputes remains unclear. Trump's team has requested the government to re-review Brady and discovery obligations and file other motions, which are not considered unreasonable by Smith. However, Trump is likely to fight against any paper filings to prevent sensitive information from being made public before the elections.
Trump's team removal attempt: Despite the Supreme Court decision, Trump's team failed to remove NY criminal case to federal court due to late filing and lack of opposing counsel consent
Donald Trump's team attempted to remove the New York criminal case to federal court for a second time, but the motion was rejected due to the lack of consent from opposing counsel and the court. The main reason for this late filing was the Supreme Court's decision on Trump's immunity, which Trump argues is official conduct related to the prosecution and justifies removal under the removal statute's good cause provision. However, Trump would have had a stronger argument if he had filed the motion immediately after the Supreme Court decision. The timing of the filing raises questions about the validity of the removal attempt.
Trump's legal attempt to move case: Trump is attempting to move his ongoing criminal case from state to federal court to potentially delay proceedings and get a more favorable judge, using arguments based on immunity, federalism principles, and a Supreme Court case limiting deference to federal agencies.
Former President Donald Trump's latest legal move to remove his ongoing criminal case from New York state court to federal court is a desperate attempt to delay the proceedings and potentially get a more favorable judge. Trump's filing includes arguments based on immunity, federalism principles, and a Supreme Court case that limits deference to federal agencies in interpreting federal law. The main objective seems to be delaying the case rather than picking a different judge, as Judge Hellerstein, who Trump would get if successful, is known for his experience and tough stance. The arguments for immunity and federal officer removal are not new, but the case Trump cites for limiting deference to federal agencies could potentially impact the interpretation of federal election law in Trump's case.
Trump's legal proceedings: Trump's team filed for removal petition and request stay of sentencing, DA opposes, potential impact on timing of sentencing, possibility of appellate avenues
The legal proceedings surrounding Donald Trump's criminal case in Manhattan continue to unfold, with Trump's team filing for a removal petition and requesting a stay of his sentencing date. The District Attorney responded by stating that there is no stay in effect while a removal petition is pending, allowing the judge to decide on the immunity motion and Trump's request to delay sentencing. The outcome of these decisions could potentially impact the timing of Trump's sentencing, which is currently scheduled for September 18. The legal team also mentioned the possibility of appellate avenues if the judge does not rule in their favor. The political and legal tracks of this case seem to be coming to a head, and we will continue to monitor the developments closely.