Lawfare Live: Trump's Trials and Tribulations, May 8
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 май 2024
- On May 8 at 1 p.m. ET, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes will sit down with Lawfare Court Correspondent and Legal Fellow Anna Bower and Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff for this week’s episode of “Lawfare Live: Trump’s Trials and Tribulations.”
If you can’t attend the live event, the recording will be available immediately afterward on Lawfare’s RUclips channel or on the Lawfare Podcast feed on Thursday morning.
You can help make this coverage possible by becoming a monthly material supporter of Lawfare on Substack or our Patreon page. Or make a one-time donation to support Trump Trials coverage.
Ben, your communication yesterday regarding Stormy Daniel's testimony, and the strategic gains and losses were clear. I come to the Lawfare content because it's soooo substantive on the law, and clear. Roger Parloff especially brings so much to these conversations, and I appreciated his pushback on your point regarding Ms. Daniel's testimony, i.e., that understanding what was being covered up, is important. I cannot thank you all enough. Keep up the good work ALL of you, and keep telling it straight.
Roger is the BEST!
Roger doing Margaret Dumant imitation was such a charming surprise. Bravo!!
FFS. Can we please consider expanding the number of courts and judges we have in this country???? From everything from immigration to criminal law, we are paralyzed.
Guess not, because apparently Get Trump , Trumps get criminals off the streets in NYC while protesters barricade themselves in college buildings?
Sorry, I missed the Zoom. That said, Chief Wittes, you are not the only legal journalist who has questioned the wisdom of putting SD on the stand. I share that view. Your statement is righteous and well taken. I stand with your impeccable journalistic stance. Your a great American too!
*you're (omg. Can't believe I did that.)
@@sbeckwit I almost edited it myself!!! Nice.
I for one was absolutely fine with your Stormy Daniels observations !
Maintain your 'rage' Ben !
You're part of a team of objective Americans !
After seeing the "coverage" of Stormy Daniels testimony in the Dutch news papers, I even more *love* Ben's analysis I watched yesterday, 7th of May. This is why I watch Lawfare (including the youtube ad's to pay for it).
I'm enjoying slightly_catty Roger Parloff when discussing Cannon ;) And his excellent jazzhands at 53:27!
As a Material Supporter of Lawfare, I already participated in the live version, but have to confess I get caught up in the rather charming and compelling chat and need to hear again the tape to understand the excellent profundities by Roger, Ben Tyler and Anna without trying to multitask by chatting and listening.
As to Ben’s comments, yes sometimes Ben is like cod liver oil telling me some realities when I want to be soothed. But my Mom would point out what is good for me is not necessarily what I want.
So the spectre of Stormy’s testimony maybe harming the DA’s overall case and opening the door, if only slightly, to a mistrial claim needs to be heard and thought about. So Lawfare is my go to place for solid analyses and I would urge others to listen in and become material supporters for the cod liver oil🤨
Now the defense has lots of time to further strategise on how to discredit Stormy and I am sure their client who is chaffing at the bit to direct their strategy.Meanwhile, I hope the DA is going to be masterful in their redirect.
Lawfare has a daily podcast after each day of court to brief us on the happenings! Tyler and Anna also provide in real time tweets from the courtroom, excellent work!
You are in favor of lawfare??
This is my first time on this RUclips channel, and I'm having a hard time determining if you people are in favor of the lawfare being wielded against Donald Trump, or not. And I don't have time to sit through a > 1 hour video to find out.
Can you sum up what you people are all about?
Wanted to say I support Ben's coverage, and the approach is exactly why I listen to this podcast.
Good show!
Thanks team !
Comment 1: Re contempt findings constituting breaches of conditions of release in respect of other criminal court proceedings ( whether or not they are courts in the same or other States or Federal Courts)
I’m afraid the panel was wrong. Breaches of court orders resulting in contempt judgements DO NOT constitute violations of the criminal law of any State or of Federal Criminal Law no matter what criminal jurisdiction is being exercised by the court issuing such a judgement of contempt.
The contempt jurisdiction of any court is Sui generis, and exists to enable each court to protect the court’s own processes and proceedings for itself.
Contempt judgements do not constitute judgements of violations of general criminal law.
Thus they cannot be used as a basis for asserting that conditions of reale have been violated on the basis of commission of crime.
Insofar as the facts underlying the contempt judgment may give rise to arrest and prosecution for eg the criminal offences of witness intimidation, then if such criminal proceedings are instituted THEN violations of conditions of release in other proceedings would be implicated.
Correct. I heard this explained by someone on the Bullwark; I cannot recall whom, if I knew at the time (which I might not have if it was simply background to other activities).
Comment 2: Re Stormy Daniels testimony
I reached similar conclusions to Ben independently prior to listening to yesterday’s broadcast, and was gratified to hear him express his opinion. He expressed himself in his usually cogent and measured way, and expressed due compassion and regard of the witness Ms Daniels and her experience.
He did so again today.
There was nothing wrong with either his conclusion nor with the manner he expressed it.
I can personally relate to Eileen Cannon's work ethic. But there's a reason why Im not a federal judge.
Elizabeth de la Vega suggested it’s time to drop the Florida charges and bring the case in DC
Fwiw I thought you were sufficiently clear on what precisely you critiqued in the previous episode, and in particular, that you made a legal rather than ethical analysis
Roger Parloff, I didn't think you could rise any higher in my estimation, but you proved me wrong. Please continue to channel Margaret Dumont, in whatever situation you deem appropriate (or, even better, inappropriate).
No need to apologize, Ben
I am actually surprised to learn that Ben indeed does read the comments. Ben, stop doing it! Nothing good will come of it!
"I am actually surprised to learn that Ben indeed does read the comments. Ben, stop doing it! Nothing good will come of it!"
Ummm, you just told Benny not to read what you typed/ordered. Is this some sort of Reverse Hasbara With a Kahane Triple Axel strategy?
If Ben reads this comment, I want him to know that the chat should be declared a mischat because Paul Topping mentioned jury nullification in the chat.
Sorry to rat you out, Paul.
Agree and a lot of the female legal analysts have come out with a different analysis. They think her testimony is relevant and believable. Everyone agrees that sometimes she went beyond answering the question but not enough to cause a mistrial. I do like hearing different analysis and take it all on board but I got what you were saying. I also get what Ben was saying.
In particular that she can communicate with the dead?
Ben, i try to listen to this daily recap as often as I can catch it, as well as keep up with other interesting columns on Lawfare. Many of the Lawfare reads are over my head, but I try to get a decent jest of the articles. I agreed with your thoughts on Ms. Daniel yesterday. To me I had never delved into her story very much, and found it tawdry. Later last night I hear another take - her appearance gave proof of the tryst. But to me it seems to fork away from the premise of this trial.
Also yesterday I read the article from Quinta and Tyler. I followed the thoughts for the first 4-5 paragraphs, and then went into the weeds. Ended up reading the last few paragraphs and was able to catch some of the thoughts. Law can be sooo difficult to work through. I applaud you all for sharing your thoughts.
this installment was recorded in a 55 gallon drum, yep..
i listened, but it was difficult…
king foo
Roger does Cannon complete with accent and cadence. Hidden talent until now...
Yesterday was not meant personally, but an expression of anxiety that if multiple male commentators (who I have the utmost respect for) shared a similar reaction to her testimony, how will the males on the jury interpret it. It was disheartening to realize that there isn’t a great way to explain what is a broadly shared female experience to a man, and concern of what that will means when it gets to deliberation.
It’s all fine. Roger is a man and he offered a completely different rationale for why it was necessary to put her on the stand. He was shut down the second he got the sentence out. It was as though he never spoke.
All men don’t have Ben’s reaction. Read Jonathan Alter today.
"if multiple male commentators shared a similar reaction to her testimony, how will the males on the jury interpret it." - that ought not to be relevant for the simple reason that, as I understand it, as a juror in a trial you should not be watching/listening to any outside coverage of the trial so you should not be in any way influenced by broadcast commentary of the trial. What is the point of the trial if any Tom, Dick or Harry appointed as a TV reporter can influence the trial outcome without knowing the first thing about either the case, the facts or the law?
@@c2757I’m not concerned about the jury listening to the take. I’m saying if how Ben interpreted the testimony is how men on jury interpret it, it’s worrying
I have counted myself a feminist ally for my entire adult life, and my entire professional legal career- and I hope always willing to learn how to be a better ally.
The strategic difficulty with Daniels as a witness is that her evidence was only tangentially relevant. The relevance and admissibility of her evidence was increased by virtue of TeamTrump denying the truth of its essential details.
The strategic problem for the prosecution is that is still a limited window of admissibility.
The complication is enhanced by the fact that Daniels is now ready to give an expanded version of her account which includes he dissociative reaction, which is explained by her childhood trauma.
But all of this ranges far beyond the bounds of testimony relevant and admissible ON THESE charges AGAINST THIS defendant.
1 the extra material is prejudicial rather than probative (even though it may be/is true)
2 and given the purposes and nature of these proceedings, and her essentially limited role evidentially within them, the modification of he account ( no matter the reasons or truth) is a hostage to the defence and gives them scope in cross examination and legal applications which they didn’t otherwise have.
So this is not a simple matter of whether one believes Stormy, but a question of what all this does to the trial, bearing in mind her testimony is a sideshow to the principal issues at stake in the indictment as charged
@@stephenbevan2320 When is Daniels supposed to give an expanded version of her account? During cross?
Frankly, I'm a bit annoyed and disappointed at the gender divide of opinion on her testimony. I suppose men and women are bound to take different views, but in such instances, IMO the men ought to defer. I'm thinking of Elie Honig and similar. As a woman, it's tiresome that the male view is always the default position of everything, so that, yes, the female view is inevitably marginalized (and women trained to adopt the default). Both the age-old notion of a "reasonable person" and the belief that a male judge can magically take a neutral, objective approach in determinations and rulings (as in "I ask myself the question...") are already suspect, and more so due to gender-based perceptions of witnesses and defendants. I don't know what the answer is, but before you get your panties in a twist, think about it. Try as they might, males can't always walk a mile in someone else's shoes, especially if they're high heels.
Aileen Cannon is auditioning for a Supreme Court pick under the Orange Jesus.
Is there really nothing that can be done about a judge that has gone rogue like Cannon?
Maybe we've been thinking about 175.10 all wrong. Instead of asking "what is the other crime?" We should ask "what was the intent?" And then once we identify the motive behind the falsification of business records, THEN we ask whether the motive itself constitutes a crime. That approach would likely lead to an acquittal.
Ben, you didn’t listen to what Roger or Claire said. Of course she had to take the stand; she’s the fact witness at the base of the case and the charges, as Roger pointed out. You acted as though he had not spoken.
Claire focused keenly on the likely reactions of women jurors. Nobody even answered her question regarding the number of women on the jury, much less the serious questions at the heart of her comments.
According to the rest of responsible media, Necheles did a poor cross based in the premise that Ms. Daniels hopes that Trump goes to jail so she doesn’t have to pay attorney fees. It’s also clear from the quotes and transcript that Ms. Daniels gave as good as she got, and that her testimony about her tryst with Trump was horrifying.
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but I’d suggest even as I’m listening to you now that you’ve got a genuine blind spot re: the necessity of this particular unpredictable witness.
I understand the charges and did cross for 35 years, after a stint as a prosecutor. If the state wanted to piss off the jury they’d have left Ms. Daniels at home.
I’m a Patron who watches on RUclips because I’m busy at Zoom time. I appreciate the efforts that you are all making to keep this trial covered but in the instance of Ms. Daniels, I suggest you listen to your colleagues more than you speak.
Attention y'all, Ms. Kim has a cleared the clearance 🎉 gosh, I wish I had your writing skills! Well said, Ty 🙏🏾
Even if Stormy’s testimony will sink the prosecution case, it was worth it to hear all that salacious stuff and know that the OT had to listen to it!
Trials are all about having fun and watching drama. Who cares about the law anymore?
175.10 is open ended with respect to the object crime, but 17.152 is more specific that you must conspire to use unlawful means of election interference, which here can only mean a FECA violation. Would be better for Bragg to ignore 175.12 and focus only on 175.10 and the jurors feelings and imagination as to the object crime
Self righteous indignation is what you’re looking for.
You’re doing it again today.
No hard feelings, but that’s how I took it yesterday and today.
I’m not tuning out. But now I know.
No, no, no we love Tyler! It's you, Ben with your disrespect of women.
Thanks. I am never offended if my feelings are not honored. Just the facts, sir. If I wanted spin and poor analysis I would go to meidastouch. Their predictions are always wrong but your feelings will be coaxed and manipulated.
As a consistent MeidasTouch viewer and Patreon member, I am going to dispute your comments. I watch them, Lawfare and others because I don’t want spin. I have no idea which people you are talking about on the MeidasTouch network but I watch a lot of their podcasts, particularly the legal ones, and their predictions and analysis are more often accurate than not and they always state when they have opinions and sometimes they have debates over a given legal prediction but they acknowledge it’s their opinion. That is not poor analysis or spin. They put it out their own take on things but always leave it up to the viewer/listener as to how they view the analysis. The legal podcasts have trial lawyers on. They definitely do not coax or manipulate anyone to see things one way over the other.
I too am a consistent viewer of Meidastouch output.
Unfortunately they are frequently wrong on their takes
EG
1 Georgia prosecution. And the application to disqualify.
Nathan was caught lying to 2 courts (including Judge McAfee) regarding his interrogatories.
The DA’s office conducting the case must have known this, as must Fani Willis. He had to go and Willis’s own propriety was implicated in this regard
2 Meidastouch are touting the theory today that speech by Habba constitutes a breach by Trump of the gag order. The order prohibits Trump from ‘directing others to make’ statements which breach the order. An inference that, by virtue of being Trump’s official spokesperson on legal matters, Habba was ‘directed’ to make any particular statement is a very very attenuated inference indeed.
Meidastouch I am afraid are all to full of wishcasting in favor of their partisan position. I share their general political outlook, but wishcasting is an irritation
@@stephenbevan2320 I don't know. Have you listened to her much? Nothing Habba says as Trump's spokesperson is substantially different from what Trump says or has said himself. Many of her statements repeat his words verbatim, including his utterances about the jurors, and witnesses that were deemed to violate the gag order. In fact, she doesn't ever stray from his script. So is it really that "attenuated" as you say to consider them violations?
And?
1 The order is against Trump, making him vicariously liable for those he DIRECTS to make statements.
2 The order doesn’t by its terms prohibit and threaten specified proxies with punishment for making statements on his behalf, which mimic his phrasing and of which he might approve.
You might regard this as a loophole in the order, as I do, and I can think of language which might be added to the order to close the loophole, but unless and until that’s done Habba and Trump hop skip and jump away.
The meidadtouch lawyers selling sponsor products is all the grift I need to see. Do you see Lawfare personalities selling health remedy? No you do not. Do you see goofy thumbnails and partisan commentary? No you don't. I want it straight, no chaser. Meidastouch is a grift.
Dogshirt forever!
*ELEVEN MINUTES* into this and I can't tell what you guys are all about. Are you in support of the lawfare being wielded against Donald Trump? If so, why?
So if we don't like your biased take we should find someone else to watch? Okay. I'm sick to death of trump apologists.
This is legal analysis. You won’t have any trouble finding cheerleading. You might even find some good cheerleading + legal analysts. (Harry Litman is pretty good.)