Michael Avenatti is one week into representing himself in federal court in Southern California, where he is accused of stealing funds from his client. Is he doing a good job lawyering for himself? And is a juror in the trial secretly posing as Josh Barro for this week’s podcast? You won’t know until you listen! P.S. As mentioned in the show, we’ve been enjoying and relying on Meghann Cuniff’s excellent and detailed reporting on the Avenatti trial. Follow her here. Then: the DOJ has indicated that they will refuse to step in to defend Congressman Mo Brooks in a civil lawsuit brought against him over the insurrection. Why is this different from other situations related to January 6 where the DOJ has stepped in? Also: one person arrested in the insurrection made a selective prosecution argument — why is he being prosecuted now when so many people who were arrested on federal property in Portland last summer were not? Plus: when you’re under federal indictment and also rich enough to post a $250 million bond, how do the feds ensure you stay in the country and show up in court?

LRC Presents: All the President's Lawyers

DOJ threads the needle

This week, Michael Avenatti told a federal district judge in California that he would like to represent himself in his second of three criminal trials, in which he is charged with stealing millions from his clients’ settlements. There are a lot of reasons why hiring a lawyer is a very good idea and a very smart idea. Is it possible, though, that Michael Avenatti could be making a good decision, even though his experience in criminal law is, uh, as a defendant? Also: like former President Trump, the Biden administration has beef with social media companies. Ken and Josh examine whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act could be revised to hold platforms accountable for misinformation around vaccines.  Then: Tom Barrack, who chaired President Trump’s inaugural committee, is the latest prominent Trump-tied figure to be indicted. He’s facing charges related to alleged lobbying of the Trump administration on behalf of the United Arab Emirates.

A pro se pro?

Allen Weisselberg is no longer in executive positions with the Trump Organization and its subsidiaries. Does this signal anything about the relationship between the former CFO and the company? Weisselberg’s defense is going to be very, very expensive. How expensive? Ken says there’s a good chance a full defense in a case like this could even be $1.7 million — the amount in off-the-books compensation Weisselberg is alleged to have received. So who’s paying those legal bills, and what happens if a wealthy defendant such as Weisselberg can’t afford them? Then: the sanctions hearing for Kraken lawyers Sidney Powell and Lin Wood with a federal district judge in Michigan did not...go well. Ken and Josh discuss what makes an affidavit too stupid to file, and whether you should be sharing your sanctions hearing on Telegram. (You should not.) Also, Michael Avenatti received his first sentence: 30 months for trying to extort Nike. This may be the end of his legal career (it is) but it’s not the end of his legal troubles. He still faces two more cases for allegedly stealing money from both Stormy Daniels and a paralyzed tort lawsuit plaintiff. And finally: Can Fox News air just about anything as long as they run a chiron or disclaimer with it?

An expensive defense

Surprise episode! Josh Barro and Ken White talk about the unsealed indictments of the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg. They’re alleged to have engaged in a fifteen-year tax fraud scheme that protected Weisselberg and other Trump Organization employees from paying tax. In Weisselberg’s case, that’s over $1.7 million in compensation. But what’s really at stake here? And is this actually just a way for prosecutors to get to the man for whom the Trump Organization is named?

BONUS: Josh and Ken talk about the criminal indictments against Allen Weisselberg and the Trump Organization

As of Wednesday morning, there have been no charges yet against the Trump Organization or any of its senior officials. The Wall Street Journal reported that charges for tax related crimes are expected Thursday for the organization and its CFO, Allan Weisselberg. Ahead of those charges, there have been reports that the New York District Attorney gave Trump Organization lawyers a deadline of this Monday to talk prosecutors out of charging the organization. What’s the purpose of that meeting? What can really happen at this point? Attorney General Merrick Garland will not conduct a broad review of the politicization of the Department of Justice during the previous administration, disappointing many Democrats. He says the Department’s inspector general is best positioned to investigate such matters. Is that a good decision? Then: Josh and Ken answer a bunch of questions from listeners about why there probably won’t be any repercussions for President Trump related to his role in the insurrection, a hard-number prediction about whether he will be arrested “at some point,” how Josh and Ken met, and our signature swear jar sound effect. Thank you for sending in your questions and please keep them coming. The show will return July 14.

The ATPL XL Ask Us Anything Show

The first Capitol riot defendant received her sentence today, more than six months after the insurrection. Ken White and Josh Barro analyze the sentencing memos from the woman’s lawyer and the government. Both agreed that a lenient sentence with no jail time was appropriate for her one misdemeanor count (to which she pleaded guilty) and the government seemed to set a standard for the hundreds of sentences that are expected. What is the criteria and will it determine how other people are sentenced? Next: some legal analysts worry that because the government will continue to defend Donald Trump in the defamation lawsuit against him E. Jean Carroll, that indicates the government would also defend the former president in civil cases arising from the insurrection. Ken says that the government actually has a better reason to do so in that case than they do in the E. Jean Carroll case. Also: Trump’s attempts to use the Department of Justice and the FCC to get SNL to stop making fun of him were amusing and predictable but not legally feasible. Also in this episode: the swear jar runneth over as Ken and Josh discuss a Ukrainian oligarch named Pavel Fuks with ties to Rudy Giuliani. Finally: the DOJ drops its fight with John Bolton, Manhattan prosecutors appear to be investigating another Trump Organization exec, and the Trump Organization sues the entire city of New York for canceling its contracts to run a golf course, two ice rinks and a carousel.

"What the Fuks?"

It’s been an interesting week for Donald Trump’s Department of Justice, despite the fact that Donald Trump isn’t president anymore. This week, we saw communications from Trump administration officials pressuring people in the Department of Justice to investigate increasingly erratic claims about the November election. In one exchange, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows asked then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen to look into a matter dubbed “Italygate.” Rosen forwarded the request to his acting deputy attorney general, who replied “pure insanity.” What’s revealed in these communications? Why didn’t they ultimately bend to the will of the Trump White House? Was anything about their communications legally irresponsible? Ken says you shouldn’t underestimate the motivating forces of self preservation, institutional preservation, and the likelihood that many people in Trump’s Department of Justice were about to be on the job hunt. Then, we knew that the Trump administration had subpoenaed journalists’ information as part of its leak investigations, but this week, we found out that extended to lawmakers too. Did they necessarily suspect certain lawmakers were leaking material? What were they looking for? Plus: former White House counsel Don McGahn finally testified and it was kind of boring, new indictments and new plea deals for those involved in the Capitol riots, and Ken makes a connection between Ewoks, Stormy Daniels and Michael Avenatti because Ken’s gonna Ken.

“Pure insanity”

Before the election, the Department of Justice under President Trump was at work defending him in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation suit, arguing that when Trump denied Carroll’s accusation that he had raped her, he did so in his official capacity as president, and therefore he couldn’t be sued. It’s customary for the Department of Justice to represent the president in situations like this, though a federal judge rejected it. The Trump DOJ appealed, but after he lost the election, there was a question about whether the DOJ under Biden would continue the appeal. Carroll and her lawyers were strongly opposed. Well, now the Department of Justice under President Biden has spoken: they will continue to represent the former president in this case. Why? Was this unexpected? Ken and Josh discuss that, plus the audio of Rudy Giuliani pressuring Ukrainian officials to announce investigations into Joe Biden’s work in Ukraine and whether Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, if it’s a sweet gig to be a special master, how you go about searching through millions of documents anyways, messing up a PDF and hurting the opposing party, serving subpoena realness and more.

A Trump legal problem becomes a Biden administration problem

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn made some news this week at a rally when he seemed to say a coup like the one in Myanmar earlier this year should happen in the United States. Flynn denied saying this, even though he was caught on tape. Flynn’s old boss, former president Trump, is supposedly telling people he expects to be reinstated as president by August. While Ken says it’s not a crime to believe or wish you’ll be reinstated, it can tip over into seditious conspiracy if an agreement is made. Court documents related to prosecutors’ investigation of Rudy Giuliani show yet another redaction mistake. The documents didn’t reveal much about the investigation, but they did give Josh the opportunity to explain the right and wrong way to redact information from a PDF. And the Manhattan DA’s probe of the Trump Organization may use New York’s “Little RICO” law. 

Michael Flynn and Myanmar

Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance has empaneled a special grand jury that is expected to decide whether to indict former President Donald Trump, his business, or his business associates. It could be a few months before we know anything, or if there will be anything, about indictments. Is this an indication that Vance expected to indict anyone at all? Ken White and Josh Barro discuss the coverage of the grand jury announcement and the part of the memo sent to then-Attorney General Barr that underlay his decision to announce (purporting to summarize the Mueller report) that the Justice Department lacked sufficient evidence to indict Trump for obstruction of justice. What went into this order by LSFJ Amy Berman Jackson that the memo be released? Plus: Judge Jackson unseals some Manafort documents, McGahn will testify soon, remember Gordon Sondland?, and why you should be nice to your exes if you’re going to crime.

Blast from the past

We know that allies of Rudy Giuliani have been pushing for former President Trump to pay his legal fees or to pay him so he can pay his legal fees. But there’s another urgent ask that The Daily Beast reports Trump has demurring on: “a strong verbal or written statement saying Giuliani’s work during the Trump-Ukraine saga was done on behalf of then-President Trump—and therefore not part of an illegal foreign lobbying effort.” Josh and Ken agree this would be inadvisable for Trump if he wants to avoid legal exposure, so does that mean he’s being a good client? New York Attorney General Tish James says her prob eof the Trump Organization is “no longer purely civil” and that she’s work on a criminal inquiry with the Manhattan DA. So...what does that mean? Plus: Proud Boys, insanity defenses, how not to talk about your clients and more.

This podcast is no longer purely civil in nature

Do you remember Essential Consultants, LLC? Michael Cohen’s company established to make hush payments to Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. Stormy Daniels) and Karen MacDougal to stop them from publicly disclosing their affairs with Donald Trump before the 2016 election. Michael Cohen ultimately pleaded guilty to making an excessive campaign contribution, but nobody else faced legal consequences for the concealed payment. And now the FEC has dropped its investigation into the matter, citing prosecutorial discretion. What does that mean? Why? Is this the end of the road? Plus: would Giuliani flip on Trump and would Ken want him as a witness? Can Trump use campaign funds to pay Rudy’s legal fees? Is “Foxitus” a legal defense? And: more reasons why being in lock-up is horrible and dangerous (but not a reasons judges are sympathetic to when considering pretrial detention) and FOIA-ing for information about Champ and Major Biden, the First Dogs.

Hushing the hush payments

On a typical Wednesday, just hours after Josh Barro and Ken White recorded an episode to capture the news of the week, federal investigators executed a search warrant at Rudy Giuliani’s home and office, confiscating electronic devices, because of course they did. News reports indicate the investigation is about whether Giuliani illegally lobbied the Trump administration on behalf of foreign interests. This is bad, right? It’s a big deal to execute a search warrant on a lawyer. What can the feds look for? What if they find other stuff during that raid? Did Rudy do a good job defending himself on television? And is Hunter Biden a good legal defense? Plus: in continuing coverage of corrupt small-time local officials in mid-size counties, Josh Barro and Ken White talk about Joel Greenberg, the former Seminole County tax collector who’s under indictment for sex trafficking and other charges. Greenberg, who’s buddies with Congressman Matt Gaetz, has been negotiating a cooperation deal with prosecutors, and last week The Daily Beast obtained a confession letter he apparently wrote to Roger Stone when he was trying to get Stone’s help to secure a pardon in the last days of the Trump administration. If there’s one thing Ken wants you to learn from listening to this podcast, it’s this: “If Roger Stone asks you to write out a confession to crimes, don’t.”

The Rudy raid

In the weeks after the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the Department of Justice came up with a plan to cast a wide net in its investigation. This would have involved investigating organizers and others who contributed to the event, according to the New York Times, but the FBI wouldn’t go for it. Why? It would be wrong to arrest people for joining groups or attending rallies or funding trips to attend rallies, but is it against the First Amendment to investigate people? Long-Suffering Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson released an alleged rioter and had some words in court for him about his behavior once he’s no longer in detention and his religious beliefs. And was it a bad idea for someone arrested to text the group chat about his intentions to destroy his phone? Yikes. Plus: hearings for President Biden’s first judicial nominees begin, with one name widely believed to be his pick for the next Supreme Court vacancy; Matt Gaetz, public corruption, and medical marijuana; and more demands for now-citizen Donald Trump to testify as part of lawsuits.

Destroying phone now

We got a remarkably rapid guilty verdict in the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chuavin this Tuesday, convicted of counts including second degree unintentional murder. Josh Barro and Ken White talk about the verdict plus comments from President Biden and Congresswoman Maxine Waters and if they’ll jeopardize the verdict. Plus: the first plea deal of the insurrection, Roger Stone’s tax troubles and more.

The Chauvin verdict

There are so many lawyers, so many lawsuits and so much legal news surrounding President Trump that we decided to call our own lawyer to catch you up. 

hubhopper

LRC Presents: All the President's Lawyers

hubhopper