Judge Cannon Issues SURPRISING ORDER That is BAD NEWS for Trump
MeidasTouch
Sep 25, 2023
1.58M subscribers ... 381,825 views ... 22K likes
MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on a new order from Judge Aileen Cannon that somewhat surprisingly granted the request by Special Counsel Jack Smith and that could spell trouble for Donald Trump.
- Visit https://meidastouch.com for more!
- Support the MeidasTouch Network: https://patreon.com/meidastouch
- Add the MeidasTouch Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
- Buy MeidasTouch Merch: https://store.meidastouch.com
- Follow MeidasTouch on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meidastouch
- Follow MeidasTouch on Facebook: https://facebook.com/meidastouch
- Follow MeidasTouch on Instagram: https://instagram.com/meidastouch
- Follow MeidasTouch on TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@meidastouch
Transcript
Follow along using the transcript.
Show transcript
MeidasTouch
1.58M subscribers
Videos
About
1,111 Co
0:00
I'm Ben micellis from the Midas touch
0:02
Network judge Eileen Cannon just made an
0:06
order in the federal case against Donald
0:08
Trump in the southern district of
0:10
Florida being prosecuted by special
0:12
counsel Jack Smith that may be bad news
0:16
for Donald Trump let me repeat that
0:18
judge Eileen Cannon just issued an order
0:21
it's actually the second order that she
0:24
issued that may be bad news for Donald
0:26
Trump the first bad order which we
0:28
reported for Donald Trump good for
0:30
justice is when she entered the
0:33
protective order that the Department of
0:35
Justice that Jack Smith's team was
0:37
asking for and rejected at least at
0:39
first Donald Trump's request to build a
0:42
skiff a sensitive compartmented
0:44
information facility at Mar-A-Lago and
0:47
judge Cannon also adopted the language
0:50
from the Department of Justice
0:52
protective order making it very clear
0:54
that these classified sensitive records
0:57
do not belong to Donald Trump hears her
0:59
latest order I'm going to read it for
1:01
you then let's discuss its implications
1:03
because it's not fully what special
1:06
counsel Jack Smith asked for and I'll
1:09
explain to you the possible Mischief
1:11
that judge Eileen Cannon is trying to do
1:14
if you read between the lines here's the
1:16
order
1:17
paperless order granting in part special
1:20
counsel Jack Smith's motion for Garcia
1:24
hearings the court will hold two
1:27
separate Garcia hearings on October 12
1:31
2023 in the Fort Pierce division
1:34
defendant Carlos De Oliveira's hearing
1:37
that's one of Trump's code defendants
1:39
will commence at 1 pm defendant walty
1:43
nautas Garcia hearing will commence at 3
1:47
pm defendants day Oliveira and nauta
1:51
Associated defense counsel and attorneys
1:54
for the office of special counsel must
1:57
be present so she's ordering Donald
2:00
Trump's co-defendants they must be
2:02
present for this Garcia here don't worry
2:05
I'll explain what the Garcia hearing is
2:06
in a moment the potential Witnesses
2:09
identified in the special counsel's
2:11
motions need not appear I'll explain to
2:15
you what that is in a moment the office
2:18
of special counsel shall be prepared to
2:20
articulate the nature and scope of the
2:24
potential conflicts identified in its
2:28
motions where it requested a Garcia
2:30
hearing along with any evidence in
2:33
support
2:34
defendants the co-defendants nauta and
2:38
daiolavera and their lawyers shall be
2:41
prepared to respond at its discretion
2:44
the court may elect to hold a portion of
2:48
each hearing sealed and ex parte to
2:52
protect privileged Communications
2:54
references during the hearing to the
2:57
identified potential Witnesses are to be
3:00
made in accordance
3:01
with the witness designations as stated
3:04
in the motions and I'll explain what
3:07
that means in a little bit as well but
3:08
that basically means witness for witness
3:11
five witness 6 as opposed to using their
3:14
actual names the remainder of these
3:17
special counsel's motions are denied
3:19
without prejudice signed by judge Eileen
3:23
M Cannon so basically here granting what
3:26
special counsel Jack Smith was
3:28
requesting which is to hold these Garcia
3:31
hearings a Garcia Hearing in federal
3:33
court is named after a case called
3:36
Garcia that's why involving a party
3:39
named Garcia that's why it's called a
3:41
Garcia hearing and these hearings are
3:44
held where there are potential conflicts
3:48
of interest that need to be raised
3:51
before a defendant in the case to
3:55
determine if their lawyer can render
3:58
effective assistance of counsel or
4:01
whether where the conflict that exists
4:04
because the co-defendant or defendant's
4:07
lawyer is engaged in some other
4:09
representation perhaps of other clients
4:13
or other former clients with interests
4:16
adverse to the current client that is a
4:19
defendant whether those conflicts of
4:22
interest are so overbearing that they
4:25
are unwavable and they create a
4:27
situation where the lawyer can no longer
4:30
function in their capacity as a lawyer
4:33
their loyalty has been divided in a way
4:36
that the law says this lawyer can't be
4:39
representing a party anymore and of
4:42
course in this case it's fraught with
4:44
these potentially unwavable conflicts of
4:47
interest because you have Donald Trump's
4:49
political action committee the save
4:52
America political action committee
4:54
that's paid for the lawyers not just of
4:57
the co-defendant waltin now to who's
4:59
Donald Trump's assistant and valet who
5:02
is the one who is moving the documents
5:04
at Mar-A-Lago after the Department of
5:06
Justice issued a subpoena not only
5:08
paying for the lawyer of Carlos De
5:10
Oliveira the maintenance worker who was
5:12
helping waltin nauta who was brought in
5:15
in the superseding indictment but
5:16
Trump's political action committee has
5:19
also paid for the representation of
5:21
witnesses
5:22
and these Witnesses have testimony that
5:27
would be adverse to De Oliveira Trump
5:30
and walten nauta and the lawyers for
5:35
waltin nowta and the lawyers named
5:38
Stanley Woodward and the lawyer for
5:41
Carlos De Oliveira John Irving
5:43
represented a lot of these other
5:45
witnesses as well who now want to
5:48
testify against or have the ability to
5:51
testify the prosecution is going to have
5:53
them as cooperating witnesses to say
5:55
Donald Trump did this walty now to did
5:58
this Carlos De Oliveira did this they
6:00
committed these crimes so what Jack
6:03
Smith is saying is we need to flag these
6:05
conflicts today Oliveira and to walty
6:09
nauta and they need to know that they
6:12
have the opportunity to have independent
6:14
counsel as well who can effectively
6:17
represent their interests because
6:20
the reason that they're being prosecuted
6:23
here is because of certain decisions
6:27
that likely or could have been made by
6:29
their lawyers and that could have been
6:31
avoided if they just told the truth like
6:33
some of these other Witnesses did so the
6:37
hearing is set up to determine if these
6:40
conflicts of interest the Garcia hearing
6:42
is set up to determine if these
6:43
conflicts of interest are waivable or
6:46
unwavable and whether there needs to be
6:50
certain disclaimers that are made to the
6:52
co-defendants about the conflicts that
6:55
exist that they then will make a knowing
6:58
and intelligible statement in the court
7:01
in open court that they're aware of the
7:04
risks and that they're waiving those
7:06
risks that they could be provided the
7:08
opportunity of having independent
7:10
counsel who could give them guidance and
7:13
advice outside of the lawyers being paid
7:16
for by Trump and this is standard par
7:18
for the core stuff in all federal cases
7:21
where these potential conflicts of
7:23
interest to carcass you could imagine
7:24
for example in Mafia cases for example
7:27
and I could give you a wide array of
7:29
other examples where the mafia boss pays
7:31
for the lawyers of the underlings who
7:35
are also been prosecuted where you still
7:37
where you have these same types of
7:38
conflicts and there's a lot of other
7:40
examples of broader conspiracies where
7:42
that takes place so Jack Smith requested
7:45
this hearing
7:46
back in August Jack Smith's been ready
7:48
to go here's the protective order please
7:51
sign it here's what we we know about
7:53
these Garcia hearing issues because we
7:56
know for example that one of the
7:58
witnesses who's identified as witness
7:59
number four in the superseding
8:01
indictment when this individual named
8:05
yusel Tavares was being represented by
8:07
Stanley Woodward
8:08
for whatever reason he lied to the grand
8:11
jury back in March of 2023 and then when
8:14
we held a Garcia Hearing in Washington
8:16
DC before the grand jury in that case
8:19
where the grand jury proceedings then
8:22
you sold Tavares got independent counsel
8:24
and then admitted to lying before the
8:26
grand jury and wasn't prosecuted so we
8:28
know about these conflicts of interest
8:30
judge dating back for some time so
8:32
please can we hold this hearing now it
8:35
took judge cannon from early August
8:37
until now September 25th to issue this
8:42
order saying that a Garcia hearing is
8:44
going to be held October 12 2023 so a
8:48
long time has passed since the request
8:50
was made and again that goes to judge
8:53
Cannon's inexperience here but
8:55
nonetheless she is allowing for this
8:57
Garcia hearing to take place as I said
9:00
at the outset of the video is there some
9:03
Mischief here that I see judge Cannon
9:05
can be doing I do so first and foremost
9:08
judge Cannon waited on this for
9:11
basically two months from the more than
9:14
two months from the date the Garcia
9:15
hearings requested to the date the
9:17
actual hearing will take place so we're
9:19
seeing delayed delayed delay and that to
9:22
me stems from her kind of lack of
9:24
experience and incompetence and you
9:26
could imply nefarious motives to the
9:29
delay there as well
9:31
but also one of the things that you may
9:34
have noted here when I read her order is
9:36
she talked about at her discretion some
9:39
things may be held ex parte and she she
9:42
says it the right way here which is if
9:44
there's attorney-client privilege
9:46
information that's not subject to let's
9:48
say a crime fraud exception which would
9:51
make
9:52
information exchanged with an attorney
9:54
not confidential if it turns out that
9:57
the attorney was and the client were
9:59
using that relationship to commit
10:01
additional crimes but she's saying that
10:03
she'll hold ex parte under seal hearings
10:06
outside of the public record and even
10:09
potentially without the Department of
10:11
Justice asking questions or learning
10:13
about
10:14
attorney-client privileged information
10:16
if that is addressed so the question is
10:19
is at the hearing what type of
10:21
interpretation is she going to say of
10:24
what needs to be ex parte and what
10:26
shouldn't be ex part day because as Jack
10:29
Smith pointed out in his briefings and
10:32
this is a direct quote from from Jack
10:34
Smith is that 11th circuit precedent
10:37
requires a full-scale adversarial
10:41
hearing to evaluate potential conflicts
10:45
and then Jack Smith cites the 11th
10:47
circuit case called United States versus
10:49
register where the court of appeal deal
10:52
granted a writ of mandamus after the
10:56
district court deviated from clearly
10:58
delineated and well-established
11:00
procedures in Garcia and instead
11:03
proposed to subject defendants Witnesses
11:06
and attorneys to a series of
11:08
examinations close to everyone but the
11:10
judge a court reporter and the
11:13
individual being questioned finding this
11:16
is at odds with the principles of the
11:18
open adversarial system
11:20
of Justice guaranteed by our
11:22
constitution so at the October 12th
11:26
hearing if judge Cannon engages in the
11:29
conduct that the district court did in
11:31
United States V register where the 11th
11:34
circuit overturned that she will get
11:36
overturned that will be improper
11:38
procedure but here judge Cannon you know
11:43
is clearly being schooled a bit by
11:45
special counsel Jack Smith who's
11:47
explaining to her the kind of Contours
11:49
of these issues and at least for now
11:52
she's not engaged in any order including
11:55
this order that is egregious enough
11:58
where an appeal can be taken there's no
12:00
final order there's no none of this is
12:03
appealable yet in any of the conduct
12:05
that she's done and by and large It's A
12:07
peculiar order for her that she just
12:09
made because she made the right decision
12:13
here and then in terms of I mentioned
12:16
and I'll say this is the last thing some
12:18
of those other Witnesses who she says
12:20
need not appear I think she's referring
12:22
there to some of the other individuals
12:24
who Stan Woodward and John Irving
12:28
represented who are witnesses for the
12:31
government who could potentially provide
12:33
information
12:35
to demonstrate the conflict and I think
12:38
that she's saying we don't we don't need
12:40
those people here for this hearing we're
12:42
just going to have nauta and we're going
12:43
to have Dale Oliveira and we're going to
12:45
do this Garcia hearing so bad news for
12:48
Donald Trump But ultimately how bad of
12:51
news and what's she going to do at the
12:53
hearing itself we'll see and you can see
12:55
how she's delayed this thing from the
12:58
first week of August to October 12th
13:00
when the hearing is going to take place
13:02
thanks for watching hit subscribe we're
13:04
on our way to 2 million subscribers
13:06
thanks to your incredible support have a
13:07
great day hey Midas Mighty love this
13:09
report continue conversation by
13:11
following us on Instagram at Midas Touch
13:13
to give the most important news of the
13:15
day what are you waiting for follow us
13:17
now
13:19
foreign
26:32
NOW PLAYING
| |
