Scripps News: Legal Implications of Trump Audio Tape: Andrew Lieb Analyzes the Case

Attorney Andrew Lieb joins Scripps News to provide a comprehensive analysis on the legal implications of a recently surfaced audio tape involving former President Trump. The tape suggests potential violations of federal law, as it indicates the showing of a classified document to an individual without proper clearance. Lieb offers insights into the significance of the recording, potential defense strategies, and the challenges associated with securing convictions in high-profile cases. 

Key quotes from Attorney Andrew Lieb:

•  "The thing is, we read about in the indictment itself recordings and it wasn't as bad as even this recording from Bedminster. And I would bet everything I own that Jack Smith has a lot more than just this recording."
• "Trump not only pays to get the evidence taken against him, then he goes on truth social and gives us a play by play commentary when it comes out. It couldn't get better for a prosecutor than this."
• "The laws you just played the recording dealt, but what they're going to do is they're going to say, 'But you don't believe that we don't need to believe that he wouldn't do that.'"
• "The big hurdle is he's a very popular fella, and can you get enough jurors to want to convict them? But that's not saying does Jack Smith have the law and the facts Jack Smith has the law on the facts, though."
• "At the end of the day, it's really hard to get around a recording of yourself that you paid for admitting that something was still secret top secret, and you were showing it to someone else. That's a problem."
• "If I was Trump's lawyers today, I would be taking Valium after Valium and just say, 'Please turn off your social media man.' He's killing them."
• 
  

Scripps News: Supreme Court Allows Biden Administration to Limit Immigration Arrests. Analysis w/ Attorney Andrew Lieb

In a recent interview with Scripps News, Attorney Andrew Lieb provided insights into the Supreme Court's decision to allow the Biden administration to prioritize immigration arrests. Lieb's analysis shed light on the factors influencing the liberal and conservative justices' perspectives, the implications for the states involved, and the broader constitutional considerations arising from the ruling.

Two Approaches to Decision-Making: Lieb noted that the liberal justices likely based their decision on a broader consideration of immigration policy as a whole. Conversely, the conservative justices focused on history and tradition, drawing parallels to previous cases like Dobbs v. Jackson that overturned Roe v. Wade. This dichotomy highlighted how different groups of people can arrive at the same conclusion through distinct approaches.

Standing and State Involvement: Lieb explained that the ruling determined that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing on the issue at hand. This ruling does not indicate support for President Biden's policy or establish the executive branch's ultimate authority. Instead, it signifies that these particular states cannot present their arguments in this specific case.

Implications on a Personal Level: Lieb highlighted that not everyone can realistically be subject to deportation due to limited governmental resources and prioritization. The ruling allows the Biden administration greater flexibility in implementing its immigration policies.

Constitutional Considerations: Lieb underscored the importance of historical perspectives and past interpretations in cases brought before the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. He emphasized that a deeper understanding of history is crucial when presenting a case to this particular Court.

Tightened Rules for State Challenges: The ruling against the states by SCOTUS has resulted in tightened rules concerning when states may challenge federal policies they disagree with. This development clarifies the parameters for state involvement in legal challenges to federal decisions.

Analyzing the Legal Implications of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

The U.S. employment law landscape has been transformed with the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). This law, endorsed by President Joe Biden, extends protections to employees dealing with pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will now begin processing discrimination charges under this fresh statute, opening a new chapter in labor rights.

Legal Provisions:

The PWFA mandates employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions, except when these adjustments impose an undue hardship on the employer. The PWFA thus augments protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. As EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows stated, the PWFA aids workers in securing their entitlements under this new law.

EEOC's Role and Resources:

The EEOC has introduced educational materials to aid workers and employers in understanding the new law. These include a "Know Your Rights" video series, a revised poster, and a guide to the PWFA. The EEOC is also set to accept discrimination charges under PWFA.

The Bottom Line:

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act fills a gap in employment rights, fostering a more equitable and inclusive working environment. It is a substantial step towards legally addressing the unique challenges faced by pregnant workers, fostering a fair workspace for all.

If you are a victim, you can bring a discrimination case and recovery monetary damages for your lost pay and emotional distress. You have rights. 

5th Cir Decision that Religion Lets Businesses Discriminate Against LGBTQ Employees Welcomes SCOTUS

 Attention SCOTUS, America needs you. 

On June 20, 2023, the 5th Cir undercut Title VII's promise to be free from employment discrimination in Bear Creek Bible Church v. EEOC, et at. 

The employer here, Bear Creek Bible Church, "is a nondenominational church" that "does not permit Braidwood to employ individuals who engage in behavior he considers sexually immoral or gender non-conforming, nor does he allow Braidwood to recognize homosexual marriage."

Bear Creek sued the EEOC asserting "that Title VII, as interpreted in the EEOC’s guidance and Bostock, prevents them from operating their places of employment in a way compatible with their Christian beliefs."

The 5th Cir held that "Title VII post-Bostock would substantially burden its ability to operate per its religious beliefs about homosexual and transgender conduct."

However, the 5th Cir called for SCOTUS by writing - "Although the Supreme Court may some day determine that preventing commercial businesses from discriminating on factors specific to sexual orientation or gender identity is such a compelling government interest that it overrides religious liberty in all cases, it has never so far held that."

Oh SCOTUS, what say you? 

FOX LiveNOW: Attorney Andrew Lieb Shares Key Insights on Hunter Biden Case and Trump's Trial

Political Commentator and Legal Analyst Attorney Andrew Lieb recently shared his analysis and insights on the Hunter Biden case and former President Donald Trump's trial during an exclusive interview on LiveNOW from FOX. 

Hunter Biden Case:

• Investigation and Charges: The investigation into Hunter Biden's case spanned four to five years before specific charges were brought forward. Charges include felony gun charges and two misdemeanors related to unpaid taxes in 2017-2018. 
• Cooperation and Plea Deal: Lieb emphasizes the importance of cooperation with prosecutors to achieve a favorable plea deal when facing potential exposure. Cooperation before formal charges are brought can lead to more favorable outcomes.
• Potential Penalties: Lieb expresses doubt regarding the likelihood of jail time for Hunter Biden. The felony firearm charge is to be addressed through a pretrial diversion program focused on rehabilitation rather than punitive measures. Hunter Biden has already paid back taxes and penalties, reducing the possibility of incarceration by the Judge where the prosecutors are said not to be seeking jail time.

Former President Trump's Trial:

• Trial Date and Venue: Tentative trial date set for August 14, although delays due to motions and discovery are expected. The trial will take place in Fort Pierce, Florida, a location considered more favorable for Trump compared to Miami. Lieb explains the significance of trial venue and its potential impact on the proceedings.

Congressman George Santos' Case:

• Judge denies Santos' attempt to keep bond backers' identities sealed. The order mandates unsealing of identities on June 22 at 12 pm, allowing Santos or bond suretors the opportunity to modify the release to incarceration before the disclosure. Lieb questions if Santo's family-member suretors are actually even family members given Santos' track record for the truth.