Vanessa Bryant verdict; Nikolas Cruz’s defense; Trump search affidavit unsealed – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Neama Rahmani joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss the verdict in Vanessa Bryant’s lawsuit against the LA County Sheriff’s Office and Fire Department, the defense presenting its case in Nikolas Cruz’s death penalty hearing, Twitter vs Elon Musk, plus the unsealed affidavit for the search of Mar-a-Lago and Trump’s request for a special master.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:00:11]
Hello and welcome to True Crime Daily’s The Sidebar, taking you inside the courtrooms of high-profile and notorious cases from across the country. I’m your host, Joshua Ritter. I’m a criminal defense lawyer based here in Los Angeles; and previously, an LA County prosecutor for nearly a decade. We are recording this on Friday, August 26, 2022.
[0:00:30]
In this week’s episode, we’ll be discussing the defense case has begun in the death penalty hearing of Nikolas Cruz. We’ll also look at Twitter lawsuit against Elon Musk and the possible effect a recent whistleblower could have on the outcome. Finally, we have breaking news in the release of the affidavit for the search warrant of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, along with his request for a special master appointment to the review of the classified documents taken in the raid. But first, we’re gonna discuss the $31 million verdict in Vanessa Bryant’s lawsuit against the LA County Sheriff’s Office for the sharing of crash site photos.
[0:01:08]
Joining us today is Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, legal commentator, President and CEO of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a friend of the show. Neama, welcome. Thank you so much for joining us again.
Neama Rahmani:
[0:01:18]
Josh, thanks for having me again. Excited to be on.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:01:21]
Absolutely. Before we begin, Neama, I know you have a couple of big news items. Please share with us what’s going on with you.
Neama Rahmani:
[0:01:28]
It’s been a big week. I released a book called Harvard to Hashtag. It talks about my journey from big law to the US Attorney's Office to, now, President of West Coast Trial Lawyers. And all proceeds from the sale of the book are gonna be donated to foster children in the Children’s Law Center. And then we’re gonna be talking about Vanessa Bryant, but this week was also Mamba Day. So on Wednesday, we unveiled the tallest Kobe mural in all of Los Angeles.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:01:57]
Wow.
Neama Rahmani:
[0:01:58]
And it’s right by Crypto.com Arena. So I know you're downtown. If anyone else is downtown, come by and check it out. And it's one of the first murals, I believe the only one that actually depicts Kobe's book writing. And Granity Studios, fortunately and Vanessa Bryant gave us a license to use some of those images.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:02:18]
Oh, wow!
Neama Rahmani:
[0:02:18]
So, something special, something unique. So, I’m really happy for that as well.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:02:21]
And I have not seen it in person, but I saw images of it on the news. And it looks absolutely incredible. Congratulations. That's very cool. And congratulations on the book. I can't wait to read it.
Neama Rahmani:
[0:02:31]
Thanks, Josh. Appreciate it.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:02:32]
All right. Let's jump right into that case, talking about the tragic death of Kobe Bryant. Vanessa Bryant was awarded $16 million, and Christopher Chester was awarded $15 million. Both plaintiffs lost family members in the tragic Calabasas helicopter crash that left nine people dead while traveling to a girls basketball game. The federal lawsuit against the LA County Sheriff's Office and Fire Department, alleged invasion of privacy, as well as emotional distress after pictures of the gruesome helicopter crash were taken without investigative purpose and subsequently shared off duty.
[0:03:07]
The jury found both the sheriff's office and fire department caused the invasion of privacy due to a lack of proper training and policy. Vanessa has indicated that the entire $16 million awarded to her will go to the Mamba and Mambacita Foundation, which offers sports education to underserved athletes.
[0:03:24]
Okay. Neama, the county had previously settled a claim with other family members of the crash victims for around $2.5 million. Still a lot of money. However, this award is several times that. Did that surprise you at all?
Neama Rahmani:
[0:03:38]
It was surprising, especially because we were in federal court and federal juries tend to be more conservative, and you typically don't see these types of verdicts in purely emotional distress or invasion of privacy cases. But this was not your typical case. Kobe Bryant, of course, is a legend here in Los Angeles. And Vanessa Bryant and her family are still very much liked. And frankly, Sheriff Alex Villanueva was not like his deputies were not credible. And I think the jury punished the sheriff's department, as well as the LA County Fire Department, as much as they wanted to compensate Vanessa Bryant and Chris Chester.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:04:14]
Yeah. A couple of points you make I wanted to talk about. One, I get asked all the time, you know, what is the celebrity status? How will that affect the jury? Do people treat these trials differently? And I think to a certain extent, depending on the level of celebrity, obviously, it's going to have some effect. But talking about Kobe Bryant, and what he means to the City of Los Angeles. I mean, you just talked about a mural that you guys were involved in. It's very few people who, regardless of their celebrity status, that when they tragically die, that you'll see murals throughout the city. But with Kobe, you see dozens of them. How much of an effect do you think that had on these jurors with the award that they gave? In other words, if it were unknown folks, but still kind of just the same kind of tragic events, do you think we would have seen these high of an award?
Neama Rahmani:
[0:05:04]
I don't think so. And part of it is, like you said, Kobe's importance to the City of Los Angeles. Look, jurors love celebrities. I mean, that's just the reality. And they want to be part of a big verdict when it involves celebrities, right? We saw it with Johnny Depp. Again, I'm not saying on the merits, Depp didn't deserve it or Vanessa Bryant didn't deserve it.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:05:25]
Right.
Neama Rahmani:
[0:05:25]
But when you have that sort of celebrity factor, jurors are going to want to be a part of that and reward those celebrities maybe a little bit more than they would ordinary folks like me and you.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:05:37]
Yeah. And you mentioned this, but this verdict definitely sends a message. And part of that is punishing the sheriff's department and these particular deputies, but the department as a whole. But I'm curious on your thoughts on this. I know you're a plaintiff's lawyer. I'm going to ask you to, kind of, put on your defense lawyer hat for a second if you can manage that. But they took the tactic of kind of trying to question the validity of Vanessa Bryant's emotional distress. Do you think that that backfired on them? And was there a better path for the defense in this case?
Neama Rahmani:
[0:06:08]
Of course, the county mishandled this case from the job. I mean, the sheriff's department, in many ways, the cover up was worse than the crime. You know, they're lying to the media. Their internal investigation was anything but. Reportedly, deputies who destroyed evidence were promoted, and those who actually complied with the law were retaliated against. And, you know, you had spoliation issues. You had cell phones and hard drives wiped. I mean, it was a bad look for the sheriff's department.
[0:06:36]
But to go after Vanessa Bryant, who got on the stand and testified of the PTSD and panic attacks, that she would suffer because she didn't want to go on social media out of fear of seeing these images. And we've seen it, you know. And obviously as prosecutors, I mean, once those images are out, there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. And that's why child pornography cases are so bad. You know, you're never going to get those images back. So, we still don't have an understanding of how far the dissemination of these pictures were because, frankly, the county didn't do an investigation like it should have.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:07:12]
Yeah. Now, we know, now, that Vanessa Bryant plans to donate the entire $16 million to the Mamba and Mambacita Foundation. This was never about money. I don't think anybody ever thought it was about money. But what's interesting to me is that there were obvious attempts to settle this beforehand. I mean, they had a seven figure settlement with other family members who were involved in that tragic crash. But why do you think Vanessa decided to take this to trial? Do you think it was more than about money? What was it about?
Neama Rahmani:
[0:07:48]
You know, I agree it wasn't about money. And it's interesting, whenever you're dealing with a government entity, because whether it's the City of LA or the County of LA, because the Board of Supervisors has to approve these large settlements, sometimes, county council, you know, they don't make the right decision because, politically, it's very hard to take a seven, eight-figure settlement to the board of supervisors, right.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:08:15]
Yeah.
Neama Rahmani:
[0:08:15]
There's going to be saying this is a waste of taxpayer money. So, sometimes, county attorneys and city attorneys, they make a mistake of, ‘You know what, I'm just going to take this case to trial. Once there's a verdict, obviously, we got to pay it.” Well, that's certainly not smart for the government entity that you're representing, much less the taxpayers. But politically, that's something I see happening a lot.
[0:08:33]
And, you know, one other big effect is, let's not forget, Villanueva is up for re-election in November. He may well lose his job. I mean, there's been one scandal after another in the sheriff's department. It started with the jails. Now, you have certain offices or deputies are, allegedly, operating like gangs. So, this is a bad look and a black eye for the LA County sheriff.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:08:54]
Yeah. Really interesting point you make, too. When your client is a politician, sometimes, factors outside of the best way to settle your case come into play. Interesting.
[0:09:03]
Let's turn to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The defense is presenting their case for life imprisonment over the death penalty in the sentencing hearing for Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz. Cruz, now 23, pled guilty in October of last year to 17 counts of first degree murder and 17 counts of attempted first degree murder for those dead and injured and the deadly school shooting.
[0:09:24]
The prosecution heavily leaned into the callousness of Cruz's actions, as well as the effects on victims showing jurors photos and videos of Cruz carrying out the killings. Even bussing the jurors to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where much of the aftermath was still intact. And we heard reports of them even seeing shattered windows, or perhaps even dried areas of blood. The defense waited until the prosecution rested its case before delivering opening statements in which they pointed to Cruz's trauma since birth. Defense attorney Melissa McNeill told jurors that Cruz's birth mother subsisted on a diet of Colt 45, Ciscowine, crack cocaine and cigarettes.
[0:10:07]
Recently, jurors heard testimony from a school therapist who raised concerns about the possibility of Cruz’ violent behavior for years prior to the shooting, Cruz had admitted to having dreams of killing others and fantasies of himself covered in blood. Neama
[0:10:21]
Neama, I know you've been watching this trial very closely. How do you feel the defense has done so far in their arguments? And was it a good strategy for them to wait till their presentation of the case to give their opening statement? What are your thoughts on that?
Neama Rahmani:
[0:10:37]
Josh, if you asked me three or four weeks ago, I would have said Nikolas Cruz will definitely get the death penalty. It was such a compelling case presented by the State of Florida. I mean, when you have the defense attorneys crying when the victims’ families are testifying about the most heinous and brutal school shooting in American history, you know, all those aggravating factors are met.
[0:11:02]
But I think the defense has done a good job, and they may actually save Cruz' life. That two-week break was a good cooling-off period from the defense perspective. I know they wanted 45 days, but even a couple of weeks gave the jurors a chance to reset and come back. And I think the defense did an outstanding job in the opening statement describing Nikolas Cruz going back all the way to the womb with his mother abusing crack cocaine, alcohol, how she didn't even want him. And they have presented witness after witness. They're starting with him as a baby, then in preschool and now in elementary school, just showing how the system has failed him, and he didn't get the support that he needed. His adopted parents both died. And again, they only need one juror to save his life and they may get it.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:11:54]
Yeah, you make a really good point. It's important to keep that in mind that they don't need a unanimous verdict. If they get one juror out of those 12 who says ,”I'm not going to go for death,” then that's it, it just defaults to life without parole. And I agree with you. I think if that was a strategy, it was a very clever strategy by the defense to give that cooling-off period. You called it a reset. I think that's absolutely what it was. It was such an emotional trial to watch the prosecution's presentation, especially ending it on that visit to the school where there's still blood on the floor, and the glass, and they can picture themselves there. You're right. I think everybody needed to take a deep breath before the defense presented their case.
[0:12:38]
One thing I wanted to ask you, because you have been following this, a lot of the witnesses that the defense has been presenting are people who've been counselors and people who have, you know, helped him and watched him. And they talked a lot about, kind of, some of the disturbing things that he dealt with. But I was thinking, I wonder and I'm curious to hear your thoughts, is there any chance that some of this backfires because he went through a lot, but there are thousands of people who've had upbringings like his, some far worse. And he had a lot of resources available to him, a lot of people trying to help him. One witness described his mother as a very loving parent. Is that going to backfire because what distinguishes him? In other words, what gives him the, for lack of a better word, excuse for his behavior if so many people are going through what he's gone through, and he had so many resources available to him? Have you thought about that?
Neama Rahmani:
[0:13:37]
I have, you know, And from the state's perspective, they are showing a violent racist Nikolas Cruz, right. Someone who attacked a prison guard after he was arrested. Someone that had racial slurs and insignia on his boots and the weapon that he used to kill all these people. So, what the defense is showing a special-needs Nikolas Cruz, right. Even if he's getting the resources, they're talking about fetal alcohol syndrome, the social disorders that he has. They floated autism out there, and all these other diagnoses to try to get, again, one or two or three of the jurors to feel sorry for him. And it's very difficult to feel sorry for someone who has pled guilty to killing 17 people.
[0:14:25]
But I think the defense has done a good job because they've come out. And in opening, the first thing they said is, “Nikolas Cruz is the only person responsible for this,” and, you know, “But it's really a life worth saving.” Again, I'm not saying it's going to work, but they have a very narrow path towards saving his life and avoiding death row. And I think they actually have a chance here; whereas, before this case started and even after the state presented their case, I thought they had no chance. If you believe in the death penalty, this is a death penalty case.
[0:14:58]
I know a lot of folks, there's a lot of public policy reasons. Obviously, here in California, we haven't had the death penalty in many years. But in states like Florida, states that do have the death penalty, and this is a death penalty panel, right? They’re much more likely to convict and obviously plead guilty, but they're much more likely to return to a death penalty verdict. This is really a death penalty case. So, the fact that we're even talking about the possibility that Nikolas Cruz, his life may be spared, really, is a testament to how good of a job the defense has done.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:15:28]
Yeah. And one thing you pointed out there that I wanted to kind of explain for people listening is this is a death penalty qualified jury. Meaning, part of the voir dire that they went through, they were all asked if the circumstances seemed appropriate, could you give a verdict of death? And so, no one's sitting on that – and they had to answer yes to that. And so, no one sitting on that jury is someone who's so ideologically and fundamentally opposed to the death penalty that they said they would never give it in under any circumstance.
[0:16:01]
So, that's what you mean, is that they're already kind of people who lean towards that side of politics, if you want to call it, to who even been sitting on this jury. Well, it is a fascinating case. We'll continue to watch it.
[0:16:14]
Let's turn now to a Delaware chancery court. Twitter is suing Elon Musk for pulling out of his $44 billion acquisition of the social media platform. Musk claims the company withheld information about the number of bots and spam accounts on the platform. Twitter's legal team believes Musk's attempt to withdraw from the deal was invalid and wrongful.
[0:16:36]
In a recent development, a former Twitter employee turned whistleblower, Peter Zatko, filed a complaint with the SEC, FTC and DOJ against the company. The former Twitter head of security alleged that the company misled regulators about the platform's security practices. Zatko further alleged that the company inflated its user base with bots prior to prioritizing, pardon me, growing users instead of reducing spam. If a settlement isn't reached, the parties could be headed for trial in October.
[0:17:07]
Neama, first of all, tell us, talk to us about what a whistleblower is, you know, from a legal perspective.
Neama Rahmani:
[0:17:14]
Sure. Whistleblowers are usually current or former employees that are disclosing an alleged violation of law. So, it can be fraud. In this particular case, you know, oftentimes, some of these public companies will have alleged to, you know, inflate certain numbers or downplay others to raise their stock price. So, I mean, really, the whistleblower may have his own agenda, but we know that Elon Musk is going to use this to try to get a better deal from Twitter because, of course, their stock price, like all stocks, have moved significantly since the time that he originally entered into the agreement to buy Twitter.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:17:55]
Yeah. Yeah. If people remember, he made an offer to buy Twitter above market value even at the time. Since then, the stock continued to kind of fall to the point of tanking, some believe. And so, this appears to be a strategy on his part. And I'm curious to hear if you think it's a good strategy or not to try to renegotiate the price by claiming that they were not honest. And it sounds like that's exactly what this whistleblower is saying, they were not honest about the bots. Talk to us about that strategy. And if you think it holds water for him.
Neama Rahmani:
[0:18:29]
I don't think it will. But ultimately, I think the parties will resolve this issue and shave off maybe a few billion off that number to get the deal done. But let's talk about the agreement itself. For Elon Musk to walk away, there has to be a materially adverse effect. And the question is, is the difference between 5% bots versus 9% bots? Really, that's what we're talking about here, potentially. Is that enough for Musk to walk away entirely? I don't think so.
[0:19:00]
And Twitter did a good job drafting this agreement because there's a very specific, specific performance provision, which means that Elon Musk has to go through with the agreement; unless, there's one or more factors that are set forth in the agreement happen. And really, the primary one is he can't get the financing. And even if he qualifies to walk away, he still has to pay Twitter $1 billion. So, the way the agreement is drafted and the way that these contracts are enforced really favors Twitter. I don't think Musk is going to be able to walk away entirely.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:19:35]
Do you think Musk is going to pay the full price that he agreed to pay or does he get anything out of this?
Neama Rahmani:
[0:19:41]
I think he'll get a slight discount. And sometimes, you know, litigation is about leverage as opposed to actually going to trial and trying to rescind the agreement entirely. I do expect the parties to come to some resolution, again, with some discount to Elon Musk. I don't think it's going to be a significant discount, but certainly there's always risk and litigation. And of course, those attorneys hired by Musk and Twitter are going to be very expensive. Those are the biggest and best law firms in the country.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:20:09]
Yeah. And I know he's a billionaire, meaning he's got several of them, but I still think that penalty of $1 billion is enough to sting that he doesn't completely walk away from this thing.
[0:20:20]
The big news, though, for this week is the release of the redacted affidavit in the search warrant for the raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago home. A federal judge has ruled that the affidavit underpinning the search of former President Trump's Palm Beach estate must be unsealed. The unsealed affidavit will be subject to redactions. And we've now seen it. Now, Trump, though, and his legal team have requested a special master to evaluate the evidence collected in the raid. This evidence includes classified documents, which the former president maintains he has declassified, as well as documents not pertinent to the investigation.
[0:20:58]
First of all, let's talk about this affidavit. I've got a copy of it here. It was released on Friday. And most of it is this - just blacked-out pages of redactions. That's the first kind of shocking thing about it is how little of it we're actually going to be able to view. Some takeaways from this, though, in my reading of it is (1), the affidavit does show that this is based upon a National Archives request. So, that's really what this case is about. The affidavit is from a FBI special agent and based upon his own personal knowledge. Now, there's no mention of a confidential informant, at least not in the unredacted portions that we've seen. We had heard reports of that possibly being someone who was involved.
[0:21:50]
Highlighted, “ Of most significant-” From page eight, I'm just going to go ahead and quote this. “Of most significant concern was the highly classified records were unfoldered, intermixed with other records, and otherwise improperly identified.” So, that's apparently a big problem that they had with it. On May 16th through 18th, a preliminary review of the documents was conducted. And so, it was several months before this raid or search warrant was actually executed. 185 unique documents bearing classification markings, including 67 documents marked as confidential, 92 documents marked as secret, and 25 documents marked as top secret.
[0:22:31]
And finally, the reason for the search, I think, all comes down to the the agents’ conclusions here that based upon this investigation, I believe the storage room, the residential suite, Pine Hall, the 45 office, and other spaces within the premises - meaning the Mar-a-Lago home - are not currently authorized locations for the storage of classified information or national defense information.
[0:22:57]
Lots to drive into here, Neama. As a former federal prosecutor, I know that you're familiar with a lot of this. So, first, let's go back to this idea of a special master. Could you, (1), tell us what that is? And is that appointment of someone like that shocking to you or is it just kind of what you expected?
Neama Rahmani:
[0:23:20]
Yeah, let's start with a special master, and then we can go back to the affidavit.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:23:23]
Sure.
Neama Rahmani:
[0:23:23]
It's not surprising that Trump's team has requested a special master, but really, it's too little, too late. The FBI has already completed its search of the documents. They have their two teams, the clean and dirty, or the investigating agents and the taint team. So, the taint team has gone through, they reviewed the documents. And whatever is potentially privileged, they set aside or irrelevant. And now, they've called the documents down to those that are relevant and that are going to go to the investigative team. And, of course, we know that they do this. So, agents and assistant US attorneys aren't disqualified by reviewing documents that may be privileged.
[0:24:01]
So what Trump's lawyers have done, which was very strange procedurally, they filed a separate lawsuit. So, they didn't file it in the underlying case. They filed a separate lawsuit way late. They didn't go in ex parte to shorten time. So, really, even if a special master comes in, the documents have already been reviewed, and he or she will simply determine whether they're privileged or not and resolve any privilege disputes. And ultimately, those are just recommendations that go to the judge in the case anyway. So, it seems like nothing more than really political posturing and a delay tactic as opposed to actually getting anything done from a legal perspective.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:24:37]
Explain to us what you mean by a taint team, and how is that different from what Trump wanted, but it sounds like it's kind of pointless at this point for him to even get it in a special master.
Neama Rahmani:
[0:24:48]
So, whenever there's the potential that government officials have seized privileged documents, they set up two teams. And we know that Trump and his lawyers were negotiating with the archives and the Department of Justice about these documents. So, there was the potential that there is some attorney-client privilege communications that. Also, maybe executive privilege documents but much less likely.
[0:25:10]
So knowing this, the Department of Justice wants to be cautious. They don't want the agents who are actually working the case to review the documents in the first instance because if they review something that's privileged, guess what, they're off the case. They can't work the case anymore. So, what you do is you have a group of other agents, other lawyers, they do the initial review. This is the taint team. That way, if they see something that's privileged, they're not going to be the ones who are actually investigating and prosecuting the case. They're walled off. That sort of protects the integrity of the investigation and those who actually may be prosecuting this from inadvertently seeing documents that may be privileged.
[0:25:48]
So, what a special master is, that's usually a retired judge, and he or she will come in and rule on any discovery disputes, including any privilege assertion. So, let's say Trump's attorneys think something is privileged, the Department of Justice disagrees, the special master will review those documents in camera - that means he or she will review them - and make a decision as to whether they're privileged, in which case they will not be disclosed to the Department of Justice or not. And if they're relevant, they will be.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:26:18]
Okay. Let's turn now to the affidavit. First of all, in your experience, how rare is it for a judge to unseal an affidavit during an ongoing investigation? And now, having had an opportunity to look at it, I highlighted some portions here. Is there anything remarkable about what's in the affidavit to you?
Neama Rahmani:
[0:26:40]
It is rare for an affidavit to be unsealed. They're usually unsealed when one of two things happens - the target is arrested or the investigation is closed. Now, we don't know if this investigation is going to go anywhere. We don't know if Trump will actually be indicted or this was just about getting the documents back, but we did get a heavily redacted version of the affidavit. Like you said, there's not a whole lot of information there, but there are some takeaways.
[0:27:04]
One of the important ones was that even though the three crimes that were alleged - the Presidential Records Act, Espionage Act and obstruction of justice - there's nothing in the unredacted portion that addresses the obstruction of justice. So, we got to believe that there's something in that redacted portion that addresses the specific violation of that law. That's certainly the most interesting of what Trump and his lawyers might have done to obstruct justice.
[0:27:30]
You know, there was a lot of discussion of classified documents, and I know there was back and forth between the Department of Justice and Trump's lawyers. And certainly, in the traditional and social media, everyone’s saying, “Well, Trump can just declassify these documents,” but there's an important footnote, because really, it doesn't matter. If you're talking about the Presidential Records Act, it addresses all documents. The Espionage Act addresses defense documents. That, actually, was passed before the classification system even came into place at the federal government. So, it's really somewhat of a red herring because the federal laws that are issued don't really distinguish between classified documents or not. So, there's some of that analysis there, at least in the affidavit.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:28:14]
Talk to us, you know, I hope you have some experience with this, but these terms have been thrown around a lot, like confidential, secret, top secret, classified. Do you understand how all of that works just because a document – I guess, my question is just because the document is classified, are we talking about nuclear submarine secrets here or could it just be inter-White House communications?
Neama Rahmani:
[0:28:44]
It could be anything. Obviously, you know, the highest would be kind of like top secret, sensitive, compartmentalized information or information about assets, what we colloquially refer to as files, but we don't know. You know, again, there's different categories that are identified, but it could be anything from nuclear secrets, information that may embarrass the president or other heads of state worldwide. I mean, it's really just, kind of, speculation. We just have sort of categories and the number of documents, but it could be anything and everything.
[0:29:19]
And the bottom line is, regardless of what it is, it does not belong at the president's personal residence in Mar-a-Lago. It belongs in the National Archives or wherever in DC these sensitive documents need to be housed. Obviously, Mar-a-Lago, you have lots of visitors, you have folks from other countries coming, and it's not a secure facility to hold these documents. And that's the issue we're dealing with here.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:29:42]
Yeah, yeah. The part that has not been answered yet, and it hasn't been – I don't think that answer has been provided by the former president is why? Why aren't you just giving these documents back? If there was such a back and forth and argument between, you know, the current administration and Trump about what he could keep and what he couldn't keep, what was so important about these documents that he was willing to kind of dig his heels in on these things? And that's something we haven't really gotten an answer to. And as this drama continues to, you know, dominate the headlines, maybe we will get an answer to all of it. But we're not going to get there this week. Neama, thank you so much for coming on. Where can people find out more about you?
Neama Rahmani:
[0:30:27]
You can find me at West Coast Trial Lawyers or @neamarahmani, N-E-A-R-A-R-A-H-M-A-N-I. Also, neamarahmani.tv, or on Twitter, on Instagram, or on TikTok, LinkedIn, Facebook, every social media platform. So, check us out. Josh, always great to be on your show.
Joshua Ritter:
[0:30:47]
Thank you so much again for coming on. It's always a pleasure to have you. And we will check out all of your social media. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter, @joshuaritteresq. You can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts. And we want to hear from you. If you've got questions or comments you'd like us to address, tweet us your question with the #tcdsidebar. And thank you for joining us at the True Crime Daily Sidebar.
