News broke overnight on Thursday from the Associated Press that a Trump campaign staffer in Wisconsin had made a secret audio recording of a state Trump Campaign meeting that took place just two days after the 2020 election.
In California BOTH parties must have notice but not in Wisconsin per the Statute. The facts are extremely valuable to JACK SMITH even if the recording were NOT admissible: connects, parties, timing & overt acts of conspiators not to mention the essential evidence of Criminal Intent. I am NOT a Wisconsin lawyer but, I have litigation experience in Federal Court against aggressive, well funded parties. JACK SMITH's reputation prcedes his work on these cases, little emotion, no bombast -- just puts his cases together methodically. Right person for tough jobs.
Sorry Rich, I was in SF today and did not see your comment until late Friday. I will have to review my notes on the Edward case I do recall Jack Smith's convictions of the Virginia Governor that were later overturned by SCOTUS. However, Smith's initial convictions and wide publication of the underlying facts scuttled the Governor's presidential "aspirations". In short, the Governor's resume was correctly revised. I do not look at Jack Smith as a savior. Those are in short supply these years. I view Jack Smith as his record confirms a diligent prosecutor.
As to Edwards, I think you are correct, SMITH did not get the conviction but, as I recall it was Edwards "sailing" & lap dance actvities that sabotaged his aspirations that could not be blotted out by his defense attorney.
Thanks for this information, Bryan. I had wondered whether the tape recording could be challenged based on its secrecy. The release timing -- more than 2 yrs post-election -- is also interesting. What do you make of it?
Tell me about this stuff when somebody is ARRESTED and does the perp walk. Will anything ever happen to the ones who actually plotted to overthrow an election or just the 1/6 stooges that were sent to the Capitol?
I’m glad the tapes have been turned over, but 2 years?? I guess there is a lot of legitimate fear of Trump supporters out there. I agree with Sandra, I’d put my money on the source being a woman.
Time gap can work for the unknown witness on chain of custody matters, document foundation & other evidentiary issues. Pay attention to who the conspirators attack.
Interesting evidence, good analysis, and I love the simulated negotiation bid at the end. My only quibble is on this line: "And we have it all here, on tape, thanks to a guy who’s already cooperating." Is this guy really cooperating if he refuses to be named? And how can we be certain that the recording is authentic and undoctored? Might it not be disputed?
Lawful per Wisconsin statute, Section 968.31. Authenticated in Federal Court per standard, evidentiary foundation rules of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE).
It's what lawyers on both sides do, as well as responsible journalists. Questions about source authenticity, witness integrity and motives, etc., are always raised by whichever side is being implicated. This is why, for example, Michael Cohen is a lousy witness against his former boss because he is a well-known liar and his very job, in fact, was to find ways for his former boss to lie, cheat, and steal - and sometimes to do it for him as surreptitiously (and "legally") as possible - and he was paid to do so because he was good at it. So why should a jury ever believe him about anything? There would need to be plenty of solid corroborating evidence to make his testimony credible.
It would seem at this point that the abundance of evidence is sufficient- enemy of good and all that...
But, on a separate but elephantitic (now words, because....Friday) topic:
Should Trump somehow get on the ballot, well, he is not eligible and that should not stand and We The People should throw the party of all protests and run that seditionist outta town.
Why does everyone assume it is a man who turned over the tape? So far, it seems to me to be women who are trying to save our democracy.
In California BOTH parties must have notice but not in Wisconsin per the Statute. The facts are extremely valuable to JACK SMITH even if the recording were NOT admissible: connects, parties, timing & overt acts of conspiators not to mention the essential evidence of Criminal Intent. I am NOT a Wisconsin lawyer but, I have litigation experience in Federal Court against aggressive, well funded parties. JACK SMITH's reputation prcedes his work on these cases, little emotion, no bombast -- just puts his cases together methodically. Right person for tough jobs.
Thanks for your informed analysis, Bryan. I always appreciate your take!
But was it not Smith who failed to get any convictions on six campaign financing charges against John Edwards?
Sorry Rich, I was in SF today and did not see your comment until late Friday. I will have to review my notes on the Edward case I do recall Jack Smith's convictions of the Virginia Governor that were later overturned by SCOTUS. However, Smith's initial convictions and wide publication of the underlying facts scuttled the Governor's presidential "aspirations". In short, the Governor's resume was correctly revised. I do not look at Jack Smith as a savior. Those are in short supply these years. I view Jack Smith as his record confirms a diligent prosecutor.
As to Edwards, I think you are correct, SMITH did not get the conviction but, as I recall it was Edwards "sailing" & lap dance actvities that sabotaged his aspirations that could not be blotted out by his defense attorney.
Very damning evidence. I have to agree with SandyC, I think people started getting subpoenas and suddendly got Jesus lol.
They got the good kind of Jesus, not "Trump Jesus".
*suddenly.
The recording is lawful in Wisconsin per statute, Section 968.31.
Thanks for this information, Bryan. I had wondered whether the tape recording could be challenged based on its secrecy. The release timing -- more than 2 yrs post-election -- is also interesting. What do you make of it?
Tell me about this stuff when somebody is ARRESTED and does the perp walk. Will anything ever happen to the ones who actually plotted to overthrow an election or just the 1/6 stooges that were sent to the Capitol?
I’m glad the tapes have been turned over, but 2 years?? I guess there is a lot of legitimate fear of Trump supporters out there. I agree with Sandra, I’d put my money on the source being a woman.
Time gap can work for the unknown witness on chain of custody matters, document foundation & other evidentiary issues. Pay attention to who the conspirators attack.
Lordy indeed! This is good!!! Thanks for the excellent summary, Jo!
Interesting evidence, good analysis, and I love the simulated negotiation bid at the end. My only quibble is on this line: "And we have it all here, on tape, thanks to a guy who’s already cooperating." Is this guy really cooperating if he refuses to be named? And how can we be certain that the recording is authentic and undoctored? Might it not be disputed?
Lawful per Wisconsin statute, Section 968.31. Authenticated in Federal Court per standard, evidentiary foundation rules of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE).
Alrighty, then. I hope that means it will hold up in court. LOL
They have umpires in Federal court that call balls & strikes with cool black uniforms.
Interesting thought about authenticity. That's what defense lawyers do, right?
It's what lawyers on both sides do, as well as responsible journalists. Questions about source authenticity, witness integrity and motives, etc., are always raised by whichever side is being implicated. This is why, for example, Michael Cohen is a lousy witness against his former boss because he is a well-known liar and his very job, in fact, was to find ways for his former boss to lie, cheat, and steal - and sometimes to do it for him as surreptitiously (and "legally") as possible - and he was paid to do so because he was good at it. So why should a jury ever believe him about anything? There would need to be plenty of solid corroborating evidence to make his testimony credible.
Excellent analysis, esp. re: Cohen.
It would seem at this point that the abundance of evidence is sufficient- enemy of good and all that...
But, on a separate but elephantitic (now words, because....Friday) topic:
Should Trump somehow get on the ballot, well, he is not eligible and that should not stand and We The People should throw the party of all protests and run that seditionist outta town.
Thanks. It should get interesting . .