111 Comments

Woodward is also suggesting that the "best" way to cure the conflict-of-interest dilemma is to NOT have Taveras testify, or to strike any testimony already given. Oh, right! Any other judge would laugh Woodward out of the courtroom, but this is *Judge* Aileen "anything goes" Cannon presiding, and if she allows Woodward's ploy, it's off to the 11th CA for Jack Smith.

Coming closer and closer to a possible recusal motion as the case deepens.

Expand full comment

Wow go figure- the best way to not have testimony that helps prove your client's guilt is to not have those people testify against your client. That is brilliant strategy- why don't all lawyers do that?

Expand full comment

I was going to ask how much more needs to happen for Smith to request Cannon's removal from the case. Time marches on....

Expand full comment

Brilliant dot connecting, Lance. Thank you!

Expand full comment

Recusal couldn't come too soon for this case. Does the SD of FL have any worse judges than Cannon?

Expand full comment

Cannon long ago set the bar.

Expand full comment

Given how clever this is, don't you think that Jack Smith is setting Cannon up to have to be recused or removed without him asking for it? He is probably pushing her to her very limits of bending over backwards to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. It is to no avail. I hope her back does not get sore for bending so much! I would love to see her disbarred because then she could not be a judge anymore.

Expand full comment
Aug 23, 2023Liked by Jay Kuo

And the plot sickens. Thank you Jay for explaining this in clear, concise layman’s language for us non-lawyers. Quite the conundrum for the named, and unnamed, co-conspirators: utilize the paid-for attorneys and lie to the federal government, or accept a public defender and tell the truth.

Expand full comment

Jail or No Jail. Wasn't that a popular TV show? (Snicker)

Expand full comment

Not White House but jail house is his future home. Plus will arrange the "Presidential Suite" for genius tRump in a few years that will include full-time Secret Service protection as well!

Expand full comment

Put him in general population, shared cell. Post the secret service guy in front of the prison front gate.

Expand full comment

Woodward is a case of legal malpractice waiting to happen. Wondering now about the current employment status of Taveras. Still employed by Trump? For how long? Does Trump dare fire him? These are questions that need to be answered.

Expand full comment

He already may be in Witness Protection, given the circumstances of his recanted testimony.

Expand full comment

And does he have security for his safety and well-being? I sure hope so.

Expand full comment

If you are a lawyer for Trump, you really need to ask yourself, "Is this paycheck worth getting disbarred and/or possibly going to jail?"

Expand full comment

Ask Rudy about paychecks he got from genius tRump with legal services provided for the past few years.....

Expand full comment

On his hands and knees begging...so his patron allowed to host a "fund-raiser" for 'America's mayor" in a couple of weeks...yet again, other people's money.

Expand full comment

That's too pathetic cuz genius grifting them gullibles dead on target ...... those cult MAGA members are indeed proving how good and valid of Darwin's theory is today.

Expand full comment

I had your same questions, Richard.

Expand full comment

I recall one of the attorneys on regular rotation at MSNBC speculate that Smith may also be investigating the PAC which is footing the legal bills for Trump, Nauta, etc., with one goal being the freezing the PAC's assets. That would be an interesting development.

Expand full comment
author

The interview of Kerik was aimed toward this to some degree. But I believe the grand jury in D.C. has now concluded its investigation. Not sure if Smith will fire up a new one to look at the Big Grift at some point.

Expand full comment

I was wondering the same thing. I would think that this is a pretty clear misuse of PAC "campaign" funds.

Expand full comment

There is reporting that the “Save America” leadership PAC (AKA Trump’s campaign war chest that he’s been paying his legal bills from) donated millions to the “MAGA, Inc” super PAC, and then that money was later refunded (ahem “refunded”) to pay more legal bills. Seems like some dirty dealing and moving a lot of money around between entities that aren’t supposed to have any coordination between them.

https://www.axios.com/2023/08/13/trump-legal-bills-super-pacs-indictments

Expand full comment

Sure seems shady.

Expand full comment

"Judge Aileen Cannon, that fount of raw intelligence and judicial experience". I almost choked on my sandwich. 😂 Seriously, this is yet another rational, easy to understand piece of writing. My admiration for Jack Smith just soared. Appreciate you, Jay Kuo!

Expand full comment

Thanks for this clear, concise, and thought worthy explanation Jay. I cannot help but think of “Oh, what a tangled web we weave…” Deceit, Division, Distraction…the three “D’s” of the current Republican Party.

Expand full comment

I'd add a fourth "D" - dipshittery . . .

Expand full comment

My grandfather was wont to observe, it wasn't a question of whether a person could be bought,, only whether they would stay bought.

Expand full comment

My stated position is that I can be bought for the highest bid that exceeds $500 million. Anything less gets ignored.

Expand full comment

Thats good....he's right!

Expand full comment

Serious question. Don't all lawyers take an oath about protecting the best interest of the people they are representing? Can't these corrupt lawyers be disbarred or something?

Expand full comment
author
Aug 23, 2023·edited Aug 23, 2023Author

In my experience, lawyers are not the most ethical people on the whole. Good lawyers, yes. But there are many not so good lawyers.

Expand full comment

And those "not so good" washed up upon the shores of Mar-a-Lardo to offer their "services" to Orange Julius...and then, the train wrecks.

Expand full comment

Oh my........... I always thought "ethics" was central to what lawyers were taught and strived for so I really appreciate this insight!

Expand full comment

I always thought “ethics” was central to what SCOTUS strives for!🤪

Expand full comment

They do have to, as far as I know, take and pass an ethics course - but y'know - lead a horse to water and all that...

Expand full comment

With this crowd, “oath schmoath, they’re for suckers.”

Expand full comment

Cassidy Hutchinson is in a good position to answer your query!

Expand full comment

That’s what these Garcia hearings are about: to explain possible & real conflicts to affected defendants. After that, it’s up to the defendant to leave or stay.

Expand full comment

Ahhhhhh....... thank you so much Linda! It helps. But...... why would the opposing lawyer have to initiate a Garcia hearing IF all lawyers take an oath? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the "oath" part? Maybe lawyers do not take such an oath?

Expand full comment

Politicians take an oath of office too. How many violate that oath, especially among the GQP? 90%+?

Expand full comment

Yes, I see your point. Seems to me the central ingredient missing from a good portion of our society is ethics. How does a society instill ethics in every aspect of our lives together?

Expand full comment

"How does a society instill ethics in every aspect of our lives together?" This has been the mission of The Law for all of recorded history (and no doubt before). If we could accomplish that, we wouldn't need the law or lawyers at all.

Expand full comment

I respectfully disagree that ethics has been the mission of The Law. The law has been designed for one thing; protect those in power and their property.

Expand full comment

All lawyers take an oath. Not all lawyers keep that oath.

Any profession is made up of humans, and a given portion of humans are ethically-deficient slime. There’s really no mystery here.😎

Expand full comment

I'm pretty sure "ethically deficient" is the number 1 requirement to represent tRump

Expand full comment

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Pretty sure the subject never comes up.

Expand full comment

I'll assume good intent Derek and not take your 'no mystery here' comment as derogatory. 🙄

Expand full comment

I apologize for sounding derogatory. I’m just wondering why we’d expect an oath to mean anything in the context of the Trumpworld lawyers we’re talking about. No slur intended toward yourself.

Expand full comment

Thank you for clarifying Derek! I failed to actually put myself in Trump world with my question and should have thought more deeply about it all.

Expand full comment

The person paying the bills is the real client. I wonder when more of these low level people whose huge legal bills are generously being covered by Trump’s campaign are going to realize that.

Expand full comment

They already lack critical thinking skills by supporting Trump in the first place so I won't hold my breath for them to all of a sudden waking up to that obvious reality for most of us.

Expand full comment

Ask Rudy and Jenna Ellis who now gas a go fund me to pay for lawyers fees !!

Expand full comment

Lawyers, amongst other things, swear to "promote, uphold, and defend the US Constitution", and one can see how THAT oath was repeatedly transgressed by all those indicted attorneys...such a pitiful crew of law-breakers, feh!

Expand full comment

As I understand it, Cannon has again told the defense attorney, in court and on the record, "there is a way to work the system, but you need to make a motion. Here is the motion... Do you want to make it?" The first time was when she asked, "Do you think this should be considered a complex case?<wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more>" and he responded, "yes, and I meant to file that motion. I will do so immediately!" This time, she asks, "Do you think it is a problem to have two grand juries for one case?<wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more>", to which he likewise responded aggressively affirmative and motioned that she rule on that and strike the new testimony as inadmissible.

Clearly these are ethical violations, but shouldn't Smith's people be asking for her bench?

Expand full comment
author

If Smith is going to move against Cannon, he will need more than just this. The best opportunity would be on remand from a clearly erroneously ruling that also demonstrates her bias. We’re not there yet, I’m afraid.

Expand full comment

I would like a button that is Like but with a frowny face. As in, "I appreciate this post, that sucks"

Expand full comment

Her question about the "proprieties" of two grand juries in different districts shows either a striking näivete or vast ignorance of the totality of the documents investigations, which first opened - appropriately enough - in DC per a NARA referral, then continued as more information came to light following the Miami indictment. Cannon is really starting to mess about here, but SC Smith is absolutely right on it, and would be ready to pull the trigger on an appeal to the 11th CA if she threatens to torpedo his case. Lot happening down in Fort Pierce, stay tuned.

Expand full comment

Glad to hear that. But my understanding is that she needed a motion to pursue this, and prompted the defense for that motion, as she did at the start for a decision on "complex trial". Do you know if this is being misreported or if she is really feeding them motions, or even worse, asking the defense what she should do?

Expand full comment

*Judge* Cannon definitely prompted the motion on behalf of the defense, and even invited tRump to also weigh in, even though his counsel indicated no interest...Cannon is a real work of art.

Expand full comment

"... work of art." I think you meant "piece of work."

Expand full comment
Aug 24, 2023·edited Aug 24, 2023

or alternatively, a work of artifice.

Expand full comment

I think the jury is in on that one!

Expand full comment

Perfect illustration of why the tRump gang gets into legal hot water when they depend upon C-list traffic-court lawyers. No decent firm would even return a phone call to these goniffs, and now we see the consequences.

Expand full comment

Thanks for adding to my vocabulary the word goniff.

Expand full comment

me too: noun (Yiddish) a thief or dishonest person or scoundrel (often used as a general term of abuse)

synonyms:ganef, ganof, gonif

see less

type of:

offender, wrongdoer

a person who transgresses moral or civil law

Expand full comment

My new word of the day " goniff " . I like it !! Thanks Mark and Dave !! Cheers !!

Expand full comment

In the filing to Judge Cannon, Smith intimated that Woodward told the prosecutors to "Just don't call Taveras as a witness." An argument Smith said was unsupported by precedent.

Expand full comment
author

Yes, but that’s not gonna fly with Smith.

Expand full comment

It seems like Smith is playing 3 dimensional chess, and everyone else is playing checkers.

Expand full comment

I think checkers might be a little complicated for them. Crazy Eights, maybe? Go Fish?

Expand full comment

There can be very little doubt in the mind of anyone with half a functioning braincell that, when push comes to shove, Trump will throw anyone under the bus to save his own hide. We have seen this over.... and over.... and over again. So, why would anyone want to protect him anymore? They are already neck-deep in this - make a deal and help dig a deeper hole for Agent Orange.

Expand full comment
Aug 23, 2023Liked by Jay Kuo

You can't discount true believers....like Eastman, who said in an interview when he reported for his indictment in Atlanta that he still absolutely believes the election was rigged. There are still plenty of those out there and there's reason to worry that some will end up on the juries. We already know one is on the bench.

Expand full comment

But then again, Eastman may not actually believe the election was stolen but can't afford NOT to admit that since it may be his only defense.

Expand full comment

tRump will have substantially raise the chassis of that bus, as the body-count is building up.

Expand full comment

I think most Trumpworld lawyers are not prepared to meet the onslaught of Jack Smith

Expand full comment

Given Jack Smith’s resume to date, I’d say most humans are not prepared to meet that onslaught.😅

If that man ever comes after me about anything, I’ll probably roll right over and sing like Pavarotti.😇

Expand full comment

Seriously...it's really Amateur Hour here, and it falls into the "shooting fish in a barrel" territory.

Expand full comment

What we're not going to find out for another 20 years, is that Trump is promising to make it worth their while to lie and go to jail for a few months. Eventually we'll be seeing $1 million deposit into an offshore bank account set up for Nauta, described as a merit bonus for years of service. Face it, Trump knows he's looking at possibly dying in prison, so what's the harm in paying off a witness? Standard mafia procedure.

Expand full comment

Yup, it's the old "do your time and we'll provide for your family" line, but any "promises" from tRump need an iron-clad guarantee plus pre-payment.

Expand full comment

Can you imagine - he's less trustworthy than John Gotti.

Expand full comment

Wow! This is some fantastic stuff from Jack Smith! I had never heard of a Garcia hearing before, so thanks for explaining how all this came about.

Expand full comment

Great piece. I really enjoy these on several levels. This could be 'art of a murder mystery. It is nice to see the noose getting tighter around Trump. I got my wife, who is a retired US govt. paralegal, reading the column. She will love this one. Keep up the great work.

Expand full comment