The Disinformation Campaign
On the Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News podcast, former federal prosecutors Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann tackle misinformation surrounding Donald Trump's recent conviction in New York. They address claims regarding Trump's decision not to testify, the prosecution's charges, and the case's independence from federal influence.
McCord and Weissmann also provide insights into Trump's appeal process, updates on the Mar-a-Lago case, and the challenges Trump faces in motions challenging the special counsel's appointment. This episode aims to dispel misinformation and offer legal expertise on the ongoing cases against the former president.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Jun 5, 2024 episode of the Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
1-Page Summary
Debunking Misinformation About Trump's Conviction
In the aftermath of Donald Trump's conviction in New York, legal experts Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann address claims and misinformation surrounding the case.
Trump Chose Not to Testify
McCord clarifies that Trump made the personal decision not to testify, despite the judge explicitly informing him of his right to do so.
The Prosecution Was Tailored Appropriately
McCord explains that prosecutors tailored the charges based on applicable laws and Trump's alleged conduct, which is standard practice. Weissmann adds that Trump was informed of the underlying crime of election interference through unlawful means.
Case Not Driven by Federal Government
McCord emphasizes that the prosecution was a state case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, acting independently without influence from the federal government or Biden administration.
Trump's Appeal Process
After sentencing, Trump can appeal to New York's appellate division, then potentially to the state's highest court. Weissmann notes the U.S. Supreme Court generally cannot intervene until federal issues arise after exhausting state appeals.
Mar-a-Lago Case Updates
Prosecutors refiled a motion to modify Trump's release conditions to prevent inciting violence, setting a June 14 deadline for Trump's response.
Trump faces an uphill battle on motions challenging the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith, as McCord states such arguments have historically been rejected.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The U.S. Supreme Court generally does not intervene in state criminal cases until all state-level appeals have been exhausted. Only when federal issues are raised in the appeals process can the Supreme Court consider getting involved. This means that the Supreme Court typically waits for a case to go through the state's legal system before potentially taking it up.
- The prosecutors sought to modify Trump's release conditions to prevent him from potentially inciting violence. This action was taken in response to concerns about Trump's behavior or statements that could lead to unrest or harm. The request aimed to address any perceived risks associated with Trump's actions while he was out on release pending further legal proceedings.
- Challenges related to the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith may involve legal arguments questioning the authority or impartiality of the special counsel in the case against Trump. Such challenges could focus on the process of selection, potential conflicts of interest, or the scope of the special counsel's mandate. These challenges aim to ensure a fair and lawful prosecution, addressing any concerns about the validity of the investigation and subsequent legal actions. The rejection of these challenges historically indicates that courts have found the appointment and actions of the special counsel to be legally sound and within the bounds of the law.
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Debunking misinformation and false claims about Donald Trump's New York conviction
In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s conviction in New York, legal experts Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann address the misinformation swirling around the case.
The judge did not preclude Trump from testifying, it was Trump's personal decision not to do so
The judge explicitly informed Trump that he had the right to testify, but Trump chose not to
After Trump's claim about a gag order, Judge March was direct in informing Trump that he was permitted to testify regardless of the gag order. Trump made the personal decision not to testify, even though he had the right and was given the opportunity to do so.
Claims that the case was "tailor-made" for Trump are unfounded
During the proceedings, Mary McCord expresses disbelief at the suggestion that the prosecution was inappropriately tailored to Donald Trump. She points out that every criminal prosecution is tailored to fit the facts and the law as they apply to the defendant's alleged actions. McCord explains that the basis of the case is formed when prosecutors look at the laws, see how they apply to the conduct alleged, and determine if the laws apply to the conduct that has been proven to have been committed.
Prosecutors tailored the charges and evidence to the facts and applicable laws, as is standard practice
The case included charges of fraudulent business records used to conceal another crime, specifically a violation of New York election law.
The crime of election interference through unlawful means was clearly identified and explained to Trump
The underlying crime was a conspiracy to influence an election through unlawful means, which was directly explained to Mr. Trump and to the jury.
Allegadyions that the prosecution was driven by the federal government are false
In addressing rumors that the federal government was behind the prosecution, Mary McCord clarifies that the prosecution was a state case, with Alvin Bragg as the district attorney in Manhattan, an elected official who does not report to the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Merrick Garland, or President Joe Biden.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office, not the federal government, brought the prosecution
McCord emphasizes that Alvin Bragg acts independently of the U.S. Department of Justice and any federal directives.
The Biden administration has not interfered with or directed the prosecution, despite having the power to do so
Andrew Weissmann highlights that, had President Biden wanted to direct the prosecution, he could have through ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Debunking misinformation and false claims about Donald Trump's New York conviction
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The case involved charges of fraudulent business records used to conceal a violation of New York election law. The underlying crime was a conspiracy to influence an election through unlawful means, which was explained to Trump and the jury. The prosecution was led by the Manhattan District Attorney's office, not the federal government. The judge informed Trump that he had the right to testify, but Trump chose not to do so.
- Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann are legal experts who provided insights on Donald Trump's New York conviction. Judge March presided over the case, Al ...
Counterarguments
...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The legal process and timeline for appealing the New York conviction
Following Trump's guilty verdict, an appeal process involving several stages within the New York state court system awaits.
The appeal process involves several stages in the state court system
Initial appeal to the appellate division of the New York State court system
The segment indicates that after President Trump is sentenced, he has the opportunity to appeal his conviction. Trump's attorneys will likely focus on "big ticket errors" they believe could reverse the conviction. The appeal process will require Trump's legal team to carefully consider which alleged errors might have influenced the outcome of the trial, with a focus on reversible errors. Additionally, they might present arguments regarding the unanimity the jury must reach about the unlawful means used in the crime.
The first step in the appeal would involve the appellate division of the New York State court system.
Potential further appeal to the New York Court of Appeals
Depending on the outcome at the intermediate appellate division, Trump may seek further review in the New York Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in New York state.
Possibility of a final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, if federal constitutional issues are raised
While there have been calls for the U.S. Supreme Fryvnt to step in following the verdict, the Court does not typically have authority to intervene in ongoing state criminal prosecutions at this stage. Only after sentencing and exhaustion of state appeals, and if federal constitutional issues are raised, might there be a possibility ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The legal process and timeline for appealing the New York conviction
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The appeal process involves multiple stages within the New York state court system, starting with an initial appeal to the appellate division. If necessary, further review can be sought at the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state. The U.S. Supreme Court may only intervene if federal constitutional issues are raised after the state-level appeals process is exhausted. The Supreme Court generally requires a federal issue at stake and full exhaustion of state appeals before considering involvement in a state case.
- The appellate division is an intermediate level court in New York that reviews decisions made by lower courts, while the New York Court of Appeals is the highest court in the state, often referred to as the state's "court of last resort." The appellate division typically handles appeals as a matter of right, meaning parties can appeal as a matter of course, while the Court of Appeals has discretionary jurisdiction, meaning it can choose which cases to hear. The appellate division focuses on reviewing lower court decisions for legal errors, while the Court of Appeals primarily deals with significant legal issues and questions of law that may have statewide importance.
- The U.S. ...
Counterarguments
- The focus on "big ticket errors" might not be the only strategy Trump's attorneys could employ; they might also focus on procedural issues, juror misconduct, or evidentiary challenges that don't necessarily fall under the category of "big ticket errors."
- While the text suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court cannot intervene in ongoing state criminal prosecutions, there are rare circumstances where the Court might grant a stay or review a case before state appeals are exhausted if a substantial federal issue or constitutional right is at immediate risk.
- The assertion that the Supreme Court's influence is not applicable at the current time may overlook the Court's indirect influence on state proceedings through its prior rulings on relevant legal principles that lower courts must follow.
- The statement that the Supreme Court generally lacks jurisdiction in a state case without a federal issue might be too broad, as the Court can also i ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Updates on the Mar-a-Lago case and related legal proceedings
Prosecutors have refiled a motion to modify Trump's release conditions to prevent incitement of violence
Prosecutors, led by Jack Smith, are taking action to prevent the possibility of violence following statements made by Mr. Trump in the Mar-a-Lago case. The motion was initially denied without prejudice, with a directive for Smith to engage in further conferral with Trump's defense team.
The judge initially rejected Smith's motion due to incomplete conferral with defense attorneys, granting the motion to deny without prejudice. Smith and his team then followed up with the defense through phone calls and emails to discuss the order, but couldn't resolve the matter. Following the directed conferral, Smith's team has refiled the motion, adding an official record of their conferral process as per the judge's requirements.
The judge has set June 14th as the deadline for Trump to respond to the refiled motion, which seeks to adjust his conditions of release to prevent him from engaging in public statements that may encourage violent attacks against law enforcement. This action comes in light of Trump's false statements regarding the authorization of lethal force by the FBI during the execution of the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump has outstanding motions challenging the appointment of the special counsel, which face an uphill legal battle
Trump's legal team has filed motions challenging the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith on grounds similar to those used against previous special counsels, such as Robert Mueller. Mary McCord comments on a motion to dismiss th ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Updates on the Mar-a-Lago case and related legal proceedings
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Trump made false statements about the FBI authorizing lethal force during a search at Mar-a-Lago, prompting concerns about potential incitement of violence. This led prosecutors to file a motion to modify his release conditions to prevent him from making public statements that could encourage violent attacks against law enforcement.
- Special counsels are appointed to investigate specific matters when there is a potential conflict of interest for the Department of Justice. They have a degree of independence to conduct their investigations. Their role is to ensure impartiality and transparency in high-profile cases.
- The prosecutors are seeking to change Trump's release conditions to prevent him fro ...
Counterarguments
- The motion to modify Trump's release conditions may be seen as an infringement on his First Amendment rights, and the court must balance concerns about potential violence with the protection of free speech.
- The requirement for prosecutors to confer with defense attorneys could be argued as a necessary step to ensure due process and prevent one-sided legal actions.
- The argument that Trump's statements could incite violence might be challenged by asserting that there is no direct link between his statements and any specific acts of violence.
- The challenge to the appointment of the special counsel could be viewed as a legitimate legal strategy to ensure that the appointment was made in accordance with the law and does not infringe upon the separation of powers.
- The lack of similar motions against special counsels Rob Herr and David Weiss could be justified by differences in the circumstances of their appointments or the perceived impartiality of their investigations.
- Historical rejection ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
