OA788: All My Conflicts: A Discussion of Trump's Lawyers & More (feat. Mitchell Epner)
Added 2023-08-04 03:29:07 +0000 UTCLiz and Andrew welcome back to the show Mitchell Epner, who helps break down today's arraignment of Donald Trump in DC, with a particular focus on the conflicts of interest surrounding Stan Woodward (in Florida) and Todd Blanche (in DC).
This is an unpaid post on Patreon and was released early for Patrons.
Notes
US v. Trump (DC) docket
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/
Blanche PHV
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.7.0.pdf
US v. Trump (SDFL) Garcia motion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.97.0.pdf
US v. Garcia, 517 F.2d 272 (1975)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2468718350509973831
Liz's Wonkette on “Free Speech” defense
https://www.wonkette.com/p/no-shut-up-new-york-times-the-first
Comments
I really liked this episode. Haven't heard the issue of atty conflicts discussed anywhere else. Great guest giving informative and entertaining answers to great questions.
Snunkoople
2023-08-05 03:35:04 +0000 UTCChoc full! Awesome guest
C’mon
2023-08-04 17:46:15 +0000 UTCIf someone pays legal (or other) expenses on your behalf, wouldn't you incur some type of tax liability for that since it's effectively an indirect form of income? I'm thinking of Walt Nauto, Rudy's document processor invoice, etc. Seems like another interesting hook to watch the worms wriggle on.
SchemaThings
2023-08-04 16:08:25 +0000 UTCThe “pause” was what John Eastman was talking about when he did his “now that we’ve broken the law, how about a little more” message. Even the Trump people thought the “pause” broke the law.
Tim Whatley
2023-08-04 14:34:46 +0000 UTCThere's recent reporting about a Trump attorney John Lauro talking about Trump pressuring Pence to "pause" counting the electoral votes. It sounds like Trump's defense strategy may be to argue over the interpretation of the electoral count act - claiming that the allegations in the indictment aren't actually crimes. How would this be handled in court? I don't assume the jury would be asked to decide which lawyer's interpretation is correct. Is there a way for Jack Smith's team to resolve any arguments over the meaning of the law before Trump's lawyers bring it up to the jury?
Why do podcasters say moron that later
2023-08-04 13:51:47 +0000 UTC
