Opening Arguments

Trump's Criminal Trial Is Moving Right Along!

Apr 19, 2024

01:03:17

Snipd AI

The podcast discusses Trump's criminal trial, jury selection speed, Supreme Court arguments on January 6th rioters, loopholes in obstruction laws, secret meanings in legal terms, and potential disruption in a DC prosecution. Legal twists, jury selection challenges, and analysis of charges add depth to the engaging legal conversation.

AI Summary

AI Chapters

Episode notes

Podcast summary created with Snipd AI

Quick takeaways

Interpreting statutes related to disrupting official proceedings led to debates in the Supreme Court, questioning the applicability to Capitol rioters.

Examining the 'altering tangible objects to impede' clause in the statute revealed differing views on clarity and scope, impacting legal interpretations.

Potential implications of broadly interpreting laws, like 'alter, influence, or obstruct', on rioter prosecutions and future charges were central to the legal discussion.

Deep dives

Statute Interpretation and Intent Clarity Debated in Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Debates in the Supreme Court revolved around interpreting a statute linked to protesting Congress or otherwise disrupting official proceedings. The nuances in defining 'intimidate, threaten, or corruptly persuade' raised questions about the statute's application to actions like storming the Capitol during official proceedings. Arguments based on the statute's 'corruptly alters, destroys, or impedes' components challenged the broad reach of the law.

Introduction

2min

Legal Updates and Technological Advancements

2min

iOS Update Impact and Swift Jury Selection in Trump's Trial

2min

Trump Trial: Legal Maneuvering and Jury Selection

16min

Jury Selection Process and Alternate Selection in Trump's Trial

2min

Complexities of Juror Selection, Trump's Charges, and Upcoming Hearings

3min

Legal Ramifications and Loopholes in Criminal Cases

10min

Legal Analysis of Tangible Objects in Evidence Destruction Case

2min

Interpreting Laws and Capitol Riot Implications

5min

10.

Legal Analysis and Uncertainty on Additional Charges

4min

11.

Legal Implications and Courtroom Drama

16min

12.

Discussion on a Federal Judge Embarrassing Herself and Applying the Right Standard in a Criminal Case

3min

Episode 1024

We have a jury! The preliminaries are nearly complete in the first criminal trial of a former president in US history, and we take this opportunity to review what we know so far about the Manhattan DA's prosecution of Donald Trump for funneling hush money to Stormy Daniels three weeks before the 2016 election. How did they pick a jury so quickly? What is DA Alvin Bragg's theory of the case? Could "retweets are not endorsements" actually be a loophole to a gag order?

The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday from one of the 350 January 6th rioters charged under a 2002 statute passed by Congress in the wake of the many crimes of Enron. How did Congress's attempt to close a loophole which made it legal for some corporate criminals to destroy evidence so long as they did it by themselves open the door to the prosecution of violent insurrectionists? Is there a new, secret meaning to the word "otherwise" that only lawyers know? Is the Supreme Court really about to agree with the defendant that the words "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding [including in Congress], or attempts to do so" clearly do not apply to him--a person clearly on video violently attempting to obstruct, influence, and/or impede an official proceeding of Congress? We also consider the potential disruption to Jack Smith's DC prosecution of Trump, of which this statute is the basis for one of the four pending charges in that case.

For the first time in U.S. history, articles of impeachment brought by the House have been dismissed by the Senate without a trial. Why was the impeachment of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for doing his job in a way that Republicans didn't like (a.k.a. a "high crime" and/or "misdemeanor") so totally dead on arrival? We pay zero respects to what we can only hope will go down as by far the stupidest impeachment in the history of impeachments. (See OA bonus episode of 2/11/24 for our breakdown of the House's articles of impeachment).

Meanwhile in Florida, Fort Pierce's finest (and only) federal judge has returned fire after Trump prosecutor Jack Smith had the untrammeled nerve to notice in writing that Fort Pierce's only federal judge really sucks at her job (see OA 1016 & 1020). Fortunately for everyone however, it turns out the only person responsible for her many mistakes is--Jack Smith?

1. 18 USC 1512(c)

2. Defendant/Petitioner Joseph Fischer's brief in Fischer v US

3. Government's brief in Fischer v. US

4. Audio and transcript from SCOTUS oral argument in Fischer v. US (4/15/24)

5. New York Penal Law 175.10

6. Judge Aileen Cannon's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss based on the Presidential Records Act & gratuitous reference to Jack Smith's complaints about her bizarre thought experiment re: jury instructions (4/4/2024)

7. Judge Cannon's order reconsidering her prior decision to unseal sensitive information in which she blames Jack Smith for letting her get the law wrong (4/9/24)

If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!