in 2020, just in the very final days of trump s presidency. and she has experience in the trump documents investigation. last year she took extraordinary action in favor of trump. she temporarily blocked the justice department from reviewing material that they had seized at mar-a-lago. now that decision by judge cannon was quickly reversed and reviewed it very conservative panel at the higher judge cannon didn t even have the jurisdiction to intervene the way she did. now that trump has been indicted that same overruled, rebuked judge, judge cannon, has been assigned, apparently at random, luck of the draw, to oversee this case going forward. now given judge cannon s previous and very controversial into involvement in the matter related to an early stage of this case, there have been sustained calls, i would say increasingly impassioned
do we think that she is going to delay that calendar? delay that process? which, otherwise, seems like it is in motion, if for no other reason than to find out that she is going to get something out of office else out of the criminal trial that she might be able to use? again, i am a late person, i speak neither latin nor law, but if you look at the mar-a-lago case if it was jack smith moving forward on the january 6th investigation, i think that could be a case, like, maybe let jack smith go forced first because they are very related matters mar-a-lago is its own animal. but i will say, the expectation from various legal experts i spoke to was that the e. jean carroll case is already baked enough, if you will, where that could happen regardless of when jack smith s case happens. i have a reverse question, actually. because if you are jacks mitt, because then you also have to decide whether you are going to move forward on that second piece of his investigation, which is
vaughn hillyard, thank you for that. that is fascinating. because, if it is now going to if it is all going to boil down to not a factual contestation of the claims, but rather, i can take whatever i want, the law says i can take whatever i want, that is very easily refuted, like, in the hallway outside the court of law like, you don t even need to get before judge. that is does not fly. it is not true as a factual legal matter. and it is not a close call. so, if his rhetoric, when he gets just going to put this on, blasting to tell everybody, and this is what i want everybody to know about the case, is just gonna be smacked down by the court easily, it is not going to be a close call. right. then, steph with what you were talking about, in terms of the big lie in the disinformation and the effect it has on supporters, that is going to be a short road. but he has never had to face. that right, right. donald trump has been in the grid for decades and decades of his lif
case that letitia james is pursuing would be a completely separate matter then the mar-a-lago classified documents case and so, maybe, even though it is the same defendant, the prosecutors and judges involved in these those cases might see themselves as operating in parallel separate universes. yeah, absolutely. i totally agree with alex wagner, that it is so disparate in terms of subject matter it is just a question of scheduling. i don t think there needs to be a lot of deference. i think it is going to be mostly sort of first in time, in which case, is ready. i think the most interesting is going to be the january 6th cases. if you have a fani willis case that is really a subset of what jack smith would bring because he would have the georgia component in his case. it will be interesting to see who differs to who. that is we are, as you alluded to, rachel maddow, the feds always want to go first. and i think they are going to the first crack. and the reason for that is, if
famously always chooses delay as his favorite defense tactic. if all of the other cases that are potentially proceeding against him are now going to be live by virtue of this federal case going forward, what will that mean? we will have more on that ahead. second, the reaction from trump supporters today. ensure like holmes territory we call this the dog that didn t bark. before trump was ever indicted, he said if he was ever to be indicted, the country would rise up in protest. he said we are going to have in this country the biggest protests we have ever had. in september he said, if any prosecutor dared to indict him, quote, the people of the united states would not stand for it. it turns out people of the united states would stand for it. ahead of his first indictment in new york, trump directed his supporters in all capital