Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Sloppy Judge Cannon STEPS IN IT with BIZARRE Decision That Completely EXPOSES HER

Episode Date: October 18, 2023

Inexperienced Judge Aileen Cannon is once again showing her inexperience and bias towards Trump when she adjourned the conflict of interest hearing for Trump’s valet worker Walt Nauta. Former Prosecutor and Host of Legal AF, Karen Friedman Agnifilo reports. Get 20% off when you go to https://Liquid-IV.com and use code LEGALAF at checkout! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 Uncovered: https://pod.link/1690214260 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Death by a thousand cuts continues. Judge Eileen Cannon, his overseeing the Mar-a-Lago documents case, is once again allowing defense attorneys in that case to create delay and to make it so that it is unlikely that this trial is going to go when it's actually scheduled in May of 2024. When she set that date, she seemed reasonable. She wasn't putting it after the election, the way Dwayne Trump had requested, but we all suspected that she was gonna find reasons to,

to rule in Trump's favor, make delays, create problems, and that is exactly what's been happening. She makes issues where they don't seem to be issues and she's frankly showing her inexperience. She's not inexperienced trial judge. She's not even an experienced judge. She hasn't been on the bench as long as most federal judges

and she clearly doesn't have the experience to handle a criminal trial like this and it shows. And so what happened this week, there was a Garcia hearing. There's actually been two Garcia hearings and that's for two of the co-defendants, Trump's co-defendants in this case, right? Don't forget, he's charged along with his valet, uh, valet, Walte, not, not, and, uh, also, uh, Carlos de Olivia, the, um, the grounds keeper, you know, maintenance person. Um, and so he's char, they are charged together, and

they are both being, uh, both being represented by Trump lawyers that, and I say, call them Trump lawyers because they're in the stable of lawyers who handle lots and lots of people in Trump's orbit. So one is Stan Woodward and the other is John Irving. Now there was a Garcia hearing earlier in the week and, or last week, and that was to determine whether or not John Irving could represent Carlos

de Oliveira. Now, what's a Garcia hearing, a Garcia hearing is to determine can somebody who's represented a witness in a case or a co-defendant, but in this case, it would be a witness. Can they also represent a defendant or would there be a conflict of interest? And why would there be a conflict of interest? I think the simplest way to think about this issue would be if you think about, there's an attorney client privilege, right?

And that's exactly allows you to speak freely to your lawyer, because you know that he can never, she can never share what you told them unless of course you're committing a crime together. They call that the crime fraud exception. But if your lawyer is, you're sharing with your lawyer, they can never accept very rare circumstances, share what you have said unless you waive that in some way. And so that's pretty sacrosanct the attorney client privilege.

And so let's say, John Irving represented or Stan Woodward represented one of the former, one of the witnesses who will be testifying a trial against, one of against these defendants. And let's say that witness told them something in confidence that about them that is either different from what they're admitting to on the trial or is in some ways their omitting information, whatever it is,

the lawyer can't use that information to cross examine them, but that lawyer owes a duty to the defendant. He has to do the best job he can possibly do, but he can't use information that he might have that's helpful to him, right, to cross examine that witness. So it's because it's about that matter, right? If it's about, if you represented the witness and something else that had nothing to do with this matter, I still think it's a little tricky because you have a duty of loyalty as well

to your former clients and to your clients. And I would have a hard time cross examining a former client for sure for that reason, but because you have to vigorously defend the defendant on trial as your client. So how does that work logistically? You can't possibly vigorously defend them and not use information that you have in your head

that's helpful to them. And so the hearing is to determine how does that work logistically, whether there's a conflict, make sure the defendant knows there's a conflict and see if the defendant wants to waive that conflict. So it's standard these hearings. They have them in state court, they have them in federal court.

They're called different things in different jurisdictions. In New York, they're called a curcio hearing, but in Florida, it's called a carcita hearing. That's based on the cases that have established this rule and this procedure and how it's going to go. Anyway, John Irving in Carlos De Oliveira said, OK, you know what, I have no problem. I won't cross-examine any witness

that I have represented before, which is actually, I think, a reasonable way of addressing the issue, because it's, as I said, it doesn't make any sense logistically or otherwise to cross-examine a former client about a particular matter that you're on trial with. As you know, I'm a trial lawyer and when I'm not breaking down the latest legal filings the day for you on legal AF, I'm jumping from courthouse to meeting to meeting and it can be exhausting and frankly dehydrating. That's why I started using Liquid IV. Liquid IV is the number one

powdered hydration brand in America and is now available in a sugar-free option. With three times the electrolytes of the leading sports drink, plus eight vitamins and nutrients for everyday wellness, Liquid IV hydrates two times faster than water alone. And you can keep your daily routine exciting with 3 new flavors, white peach, green grape and lemon lime. I love how liquid IV makes me feel. After having liquid IV, I feel ready to take on the day at full strength. Also the packaging is super convenient, and makes it super easy to carry with me for

when I need it most. My favorite flavor is the white peach. It's robust and super satisfying, but you can't go wrong with green grape and lemon lime either. Just one stick of liquid IV and 16 ounces of water hydrates you two times faster and more efficiently than water alone. There are no artificial sweeteners and zero sugar with a proprietary amino acid alulose blend for a sweet taste without the calories or raised blood

glucose levels you get from sugar. And of course, it's non-GMO and free from gluten, dairy, and soy. Liquid IV believes that equitable access to clean and abundant water is the foundation of a healthier world. They partner with leading organizations to fund and foster innovative solutions that help communities protect both their water and their futures. To date, liquid IV has donated over 39 million servings in 50 plus countries around the world. Real people, real flavor, real hydrating. Now sugar free. Grab your liquid IV hydration

multiplier sugar free in bulk nationwide at Costco or get 20% off when you go to liquid IV.com and use code legal aft checkout. That's 20% off anything you order when you use promo code legal aft at liquid IV.com. And so he agreed and the hearing went on fine. So he's going to continue to represent Mr. Dill of Vieta, but he's not going to cross examine any witnesses that he represented. Well, then they had Waltean now does Garcia hearing. And what happened there, Judge Cannon basically cut the hearing short and then adjourned it and admonished the prosecution saying that they're wasted her time because they

raised issues and arguments that were not raised in their papers. Now this is why I say it shows her inexperience. Because anyone who has experience and has done a Garcia hearing would know all of the issues that would come up. And you're not going to list every single case you're relying on in your motion, you might, but you might not. You might summarize them, but the legal propositions are the same, right? And so in this particular hearing, questions came up that weren't necessarily specifically addressed in the motion practice.

However, the concept of a conflict of interest, right? And in representing witnesses in this case was what the motion practice was all about and was brief. But because Stan Woodward felt that he was caught off guard and they mentioned something they hadn't mentioned specifically in their brief, although generally they did. He said, he's not prepared and Judge Cannon went along with it and they have adjourned the case. And now that case, now that's going, the Garcia hearing, first they have to brief this

new issue and then they have to reply to this new issue and then they will appear in court again. And that's what Judge Eileen Cannon has just ruled, that that's how this is going to happen. And now the hearing is gonna be October 20th at two o'clock before her and they will continue this hearing. So what is happening here is they keep postponing things by a few days, by a week, by a couple of weeks, by a month. We just also saw another order that came out where Judge Cannon insisted that these classified documents that are so super sensitive that they have to be brought to Florida into a skiff.

That Jack Smith said they're too sensitive to travel from Washington, but now she says I don't care, that has to come all the way to Florida. And again, showing her inexperience, but also now that's going to cause delay because Jack Smith is either going to have to appeal this decision if this is so sensitive or he's going to probably not agree not to have these documents admitted into evidence and maybe even dismiss a couple counts if they're that sensitive. So all these little rulings that don't seem like much and that seem like these technical, legal issues, we are here to break them down for you and not just tell you about them, but tell you what they mean. Tell you that all this shows is that Eileen Cannon at best is inexperienced, doesn't understand the issues, doesn't understand the law, and doesn't understand, and doesn't

understand that there are things you can do that both protect the government as well as the defendant, or, you know, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and say she's inexperienced, but I know that many would say, and I'm starting to think this, is she's really doing the bidding for Donald Trump, the president who appointed her. And normally that shouldn't matter. And most judges don't, you know, don't in any way let politics seep into the courtroom. But she keeps showing time and time again that she is going to do Trump's bidding for him.

And these little rulings, these little delays, they all add up. So, so Lexi, I think this is a death by a thousand cuts way of her killing this case or delaying this case, but that's what she's trying to do and that is hopefully what won't happen, but that's what's going on in Fort Pierce, Florida, in United States versus Trump. I'm Karen Friedman Agniflo with Legal AF. Join me and my co-host, Michael Popock and Ben Myceles every Wednesday and Saturday on Legal AF. Thank you so much for listening. Hey, Midas Mighty. Love this report. Continue the conversation by following us on Instagram, at MidasTouch to keep up with the most important news of the day. What are you waiting for?

Follow us now.