Tom Fox and guests Kenyen Brown and Kevin Carroll take a deep dive into the legal drama surrounding President Trump. On this week's episode of All Things Investigations their seasoned attorneys walk us through three major legal events that unfolded in a momentous week. They uncover the delicate balance of political and legal intrigue, explain court strategies, and reveal the ins and outs of the judicial process.
Kevin Carroll and Kenyen Brown are partners at Hughes Hubbard & Reed. Kevin is a professor, and former Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice. He has also served as a senior counsel to the House Homeland Security Committee. Kenyen is a former federal prosecutor and currently serves as the President of the National Bar Association.
You’ll hear Tom, Kenyen and Kevin discuss:
- The surprising lack of preparation on President Trump's defense team's part. They were surprised by the lack of a structured legal argument and the pleading for a trial after the election.
- Is there any merit to the defense's claim that the amount of information to be reviewed necessitates a delay? Kenyen and Kevin agree that the defense might be asking for too long of a delay; however, they do not rule out a timeline extension due to the volume of documents involved.
- Trump's defense does not have a large legal team to sift through the discovery material.
- They examine the defense strategy, in particular the call for the trial not to be held before the election. Such a privilege is not usually granted to typical defendants.
- Kevin voices his concerns over the defense's public statements, questioning the judge's hesitance in issuing gag orders. Kenyen speculates that the choice of the federal district for this case could be strategic on the part of the Justice Department, aiming for a more credible verdict.
- They discuss Trump's announcement about receiving a target letter from Jack Smith, and its implications. They believe that it indicates that the Special Counsel believes there is already probable cause to indict Trump.
- Tom wonders if Smith's motivation was to pre-empt any indictment that might have been made by the state of Georgia.
- Kevin speculates that the Justice Department might have been embarrassed by the January 6 Committee progressing far ahead of their investigation. He posits that it would be even more mortifying if a smaller District Attorney's office managed to build a significant conspiracy and racketeering case against the President while the DOJ was lagging behind.
- Kenyen emphasizes that justice should be their main focus and he would hope that the pace of Smith's actions is determined by the facts and evidence he has, rather than being influenced by a state prosecutor's progress.
- Would the District of Columbia be an appropriate venue for a case involving the January 6 insurrection? Kevin believes so since most of the activity relating to January 6, including the preparation and the event itself, happened in DC.
- Tom asks Kenyen and Kevin for their views on this matter of the recent announcement from the Attorney General of Michigan, who charged a series of persons claiming to be electors from Michigan but who were in fact fraudulent.
KEY QUOTES
"I would hope that federal authorities are not motivated by what might be taking place in a parallel state jurisdiction. In other words, your master in these circumstances is supposed to be justice…" - Kenyen Brown
"The only thing worse than getting a target letter from the Justice Department is when everybody else who was involved in the crime, except you, didn't get a target letter, they suggest that everybody's cooperating against you." - Kevin Carroll
Resources
Hughes Hubbard & Reed website
Kein Carroll on LinkedIn
Kenyen Brown on LinkedIn