Trump Fumes as a Trump Judge Suggests He May Dismiss Case Against BBC & Let Hutchinson Testify

0:00Michael Popok:We got a new order in Donald Trump's suit against the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation, suing them for defamation because he doesn't like the way they edited his Jan 6 Ellipse speech, in which they suggested to everybody watching that he help foment the discontent and the violence during the speech. Donald Trump doesn't like the way it was portrayed in a BBC documentary, and so he sued him over it. And now there's a fight over whether Cassidy Hutchinson, the executive assistant who courageously testified against Donald Trump and his plans to stop the peaceful transfer of power. She had been an executive assistant within the White House and had the vantage point, a fly on the wall to observe Donald Trump's actions or non-actions in the dining room when he ignored the attack.

0:48Michael Popok:Conversations that she had with the Secret Service chief about Donald Trump's actions inside of that SUV. and lots of other testimony. She gave 30 hours of testimony, which is now public. And the issue before Judge Kuntz, and I'm going to talk about Judge Kuntz in a minute because he's got a connection to Donald Trump, the new federal judge appointed and sitting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, his new ruling is while the BBC is not going to be able to subpoena her for deposition, they are able to use her 30 hours of sworn testimony should they need it. And if things change in the case, like he grants the BBC's motion to dismiss the case because they shouldn't be sued in Florida, or he doesn't grant the motion to dismiss, he will revisit the issue as to whether Cassidy Hutchinson or anybody like her can be forced to testify.

1:41Michael Popok:As of right now, he sees it as a bit of a fishing expedition, and he wants the parties to focus on the speech and the defamation. Of course, they have the right, the BBC argues, to prove that it was all true, which is the ultimate defense to defamation. Let me turn my attention now to Cassidy Hutchinson. And is this really the thing that Donald Trump wants rearing its ugly head just before the midterms? You've already got Jack Smith testifying. He's actually testifying today up on, you know, up on our live stream here on Legal AF before the Senate Judiciary Committee so he can unburden himself of all the things that Donald Trump did wrong in the D.C.

2:21Michael Popok:election interference case, in the Mar-a-Lago espionage and obstruction of justice case. And do they really need Cassidy Hutchinson making another appearance? She's the one that said that she was told by the Secret Service that Donald Trump commandeered the beast, the SUV, to try to drag it back to the Capitol to follow those insurrectionists and those that attacked the Capitol and Capitol Police and Metro Police. And she had other things to say as well. And as soon as she broke free from a Trump paid for lawyer and got her hands into a proper lawyer who had her testify under oath and, of course, write a book as well.

3:01Michael Popok:I'm Michael Popak. Let's break down the BBC case, which is back. It's in my neck of the woods, the Southern District of Florida. And we can talk about Judge Kuntz and how he got the job while we're at it. Take a moment. If you like this kind of content, you're already joined us. So subscribe to us. Hit the free subscribe button. Help us to continue to grow our pro-democracy channel. Okay, here we go. Case was originally assigned when it was filed to a different judge, a judge down in Miami. Southern District of Florida runs from Fort Pierce, where Judge Cannon sits, all the way through Key West with stops in West Palm, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami.

3:41Michael Popok:Judge Altman was the original judge. However, when Judge Kuntz got the job, it has now been the latest Trump judge picked out of the state court. He was an appellate judge in the middle of the state in the Orlando region. He's now a federal lifetime appointed judge sitting in Fort Lauderdale. He needed some cases. So each judge shaves off a bit of their own docket, which the clerk gives them a list. These are the cases we're proposing taken off of you. And unless you have an objection, Those are the first initial cases that a new judge gets. See, a new judge doesn't just get the brand new cases.

4:17Michael Popok:They get a mix of existing cases that are set for trial, not set for trial, just got filed, you know, a whole mix. Except this particular judge, well, he had a little bit of a problem when he was being cross-examined during his confirmation hearing because he did not recuse himself, nor did another judge who got the federal, the plum federal job from a case involving Donald Trump and ruled in his favor. Play the clip. I have this same answer as my colleague, Senator. Same answer as the previous one. The previous nominee. The Senate did. Mr. Coons, how about you? Thank you, Senator. And I have the same answer as Mr.

4:55Hendershot. Same answer. Unwilling to say that Joe Biden won the election, correct? As Mr. Hendershot said, it has become a matter of political concern, and Joe Biden... Well, it's a matter of political concern, but it's also an issue of fact, is it not? Joe Biden was, in fact, certified the winner of the 2020 election. Mr. Mark? Same answer, Senator. I am amazed and really appalled that nominees for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench are unwilling to respond on an issue of fact. And I'm not going to try to get an answer out of you because clearly you've been rehearsed to provide a stock answer, which I think really reflects not only on your honesty, but really on your fitness to be a federal judge.

6:04Because you are supposed to be independent and to arrive at the truth based on the evidence before you. and I think it's pretty irrefutable that Joe Biden won the election, but you're unwilling to use that word because you are afraid. You are afraid. Of what? Of President Trump?

6:35That is exactly what we do not need on the federal bench today. We need jurists who are fearless and strong, not weak and pathetic.

6:58And I can't tell you how disappointed I am. We can disagree on issues of law. We can disagree on issues of fact, but for you to simply avoid a factual and responsive answer, I think, is a disrespect to this committee as well as.

7:22Michael Popok:That's Judge Kuntz. I don't normally have a confirmation hearing where somebody said, I just ruled for the guy that nominated me. But, you know, I could be fair and impartial. OK, so we got the order consolidating cases and quashing subpoena right here. We'll put it up on Legal AF Substack today for you to review as well. Now, it's on a motion to quash, meaning Cassidy Hutchinson came forward and said, I'd rather not. For one big major reason, there's ample reporting and she's confirmed it here that she's the target of a criminal investigation led by Donald Trump and his Department of Justice because they said she somehow lied under oath.

8:00Michael Popok:We know she didn't, but they're going after her along with all the other political enemies and critics of Donald Trump. So the BBC issued 47 non-party subpoenas, including some of the children of Donald Trump who watched him in action or inaction during Jan 6th. But now we're up for this particular one, which is about the central defense that the BBC has, that he incited or fomented the riot and the attack on the U.S. Capitol. Here's what Hutchinson notes. This is on page three, that the United States Department of Justice is allegedly investigating her conduct and President Trump oversees the agency investigating her.

8:44Michael Popok:She also argues that I already did this. I've got 30 hours of testimony under oath. Just use that. Here's what the judge says on page four. Ms. Hutchinson testified for over 30 hours under oath before Congress. Her sworn testimony is available to both parties in this lawsuit. And her testimony seems largely irrelevant to the narrow issue in this lawsuit. I don't agree with the judge there. I think that's the judge bending over backwards to avoid the ire of Donald Trump. Now facing a potential criminal investigation, Ms. Hutchinson has other reasons to avoid the deposition, and she said she will invoke her Fifth Amendment rights because she's the target of a criminal investigation.

9:23Michael Popok:For those that don't remember Cassidy Hutchinson, let me play a compilation clip. Play the clip. When you returned to the White House in the motorcade after the president's speech, where did you go? When I returned to the White House, I walked upstairs towards the chief of staff's office, and I noticed Mr. Renato lingering outside of the office. Once we had made eye contact, he quickly waved me to go into his office, which was just across the hall from mine. When I went in, he shut the door, and I noticed Bobby Engle, who was the head of Mr. Trump's security detail, sitting in a chair, just looking somewhat discombobulated and a little lost.

10:00I looked at Tony and he had said, did you effing hear what happened in the Beast? I said, no, Tony, I just got back. What happened? Tony proceeded to tell me that when the president got in the Beast, he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the off-the-record movement to the Capitol was still possible and likely to happen, but that Bobby had more information. So once the president had gotten into the vehicle with Bobby, he thought that they were going up to the Capitol. And when Bobby had relayed to him, we're not, we don't have the assets to do it. It's not secure. We're going back to the West Wing.

10:44The president had a very strong, very angry response to that. Tony described him as being irate. the president said something to the effect of I'm the effing president take me up to the capitol now to which Bobby responded sir we have to go back to the west wing the president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel Mr. Engel grabbed his arm said sir you need to take your hand off the steering wheel we're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engle. And when Mr. Renato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles.

11:38Michael Popok:Do you see why this would not be a great thing for Donald Trump right now at the midterms? To remind people, which Donald Trump loves to do about 2020, because he constantly lives in the past. Both feet are always in the past. It's always about Joe Biden. or Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton or anybody in the Obama administration or the Jan Sixers or Jan, you know, all of that, always looking in the rearview mirror, actually turning around in his seat in the car and just driving backwards. So here's what he should be a little worried about, because even that Trump-friendly judge said the following on page five of his order.

12:15Michael Popok:For the reasons, for these reasons, the court quashes the subpoena. However, the court notes that the parties are at a preliminary stage of this proceeding. In fact, a motion to dismiss remains pending. See, the BBC has moved to dismiss saying, why are we being sued in Florida? We have no nexus or connection to Florida. You can't exert long-arm jurisdiction. It would be unfair. There's a notion of fairness that I'm being sued in a place and being dragged to a place that we could not have foreseen that we would be sued in. And it's unfair. You know, we have a concept of personal jurisdiction. We have cases on this particular point, like International Shoe and Helicopteros and all these cases that I learned 35 years ago when I went to law school that are still operative.

13:05Michael Popok:There's some additional cases that have come up since in the area of personal jurisdiction and long-arm jurisdiction, but it still comes down to a two-part inquiry. Is there a statute that allows for this jurisdiction? And even if there is, does the basic notion of fairness allow a party to be dragged across the pond to defend themselves in this jurisdiction? The judge hasn't decided it yet. It got kicked from Judge Altman to Judge Kuntz. He's saying, let me get to the motion to dismiss. I may not have to do anything else. Should circumstances change, meaning should I rule against the BBC, they're permitted to file a motion seeking leave to issue a new subpoena.

13:43Michael Popok:See, I think this is the judge. This is terrible for Trump. This is the judge signaling, let me get to the motion to dismiss because you may no longer be a party. We won't have to bother Ms. Hutchinson or Don Jr. or Eric ever again. If they do, the motion must be served on counsel from Ms. Hutchinson and must explain in great detail the circumstances that change since the issuance of this order. OK, so that's the judge. That's the BBC case. Donald Trump has a lot of these civil lawsuits out there that are that are like submarine cases that are just waiting to explode in his face, especially the timing of it.

14:22Michael Popok:I mean, this is what Donald Trump wants the American people to be talking about and focused on 35 days or so to the midterms. I don't think so, but we'll do it while you're here. If you like what we're doing, I'm Michael Popak. Hit that free subscribe button. Come over to Substack. And if you become a paid member, you get access to the filings. Until my next report, this is Michael Popak. Can't get your fill of Legal AF? Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF Substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the Substack.

14:54Michael Popok:You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, Morning AF. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AF are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes. Where? Legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe. you