Listen now | Dear listeners, Welcome to this week’s episode of Serious Trouble, in which Josh attempts to troll me about maximum sentences and I resist exploding from schadenfreude. It was a week of FAAFO. In New York, manchild/futon stain Sam Bankman-Fried was speedily
At least Eastman was paid every cent he deserved for his legal work.
I can’t tell you how much I’ve been looking forward to this episode...
re: NY civil suit, no question that Trump is playing to his base, fundraising, etc., but is it also possible that he and his lawyers are trying to goad Engoron into making a reversible error? I assume they know they've lost in his court but are still looking ahead to the appeal.
Re: John Eastman... shouldn't Kamala Harris, current Vice President, and President of the Senate, hire Mr. Eastman to advise her regarding how to certify the upcoming 2024 vote? I should think that'd be great step to secure Mr. Eastman's position in history.
Posted this question on bsky, but I thought I might put it here for Josh and Sarah.
Can we revisit some previous characters in an upcoming show? I'm particularly interested in the Alex Jones cases. I know there've been things happening in his attempts to stiff the judgement. Think it might be interesting to have Bankston or Mattei on as a guest and I'm guessing Bankston would love to come on the show.
In the civil trial in New York are the attorneys courting sanctions or disbarment? I'm sure they're being well paid but aren't they destroying their careers? It sounds like one of them has an actual career to destroy.
My first thought when I read about Meadows being sued by his publisher, and on what grounds, was, [because of the publisher's history], that his publisher was trying to use the lawsuit as a means to force Meadows to stand by his original story, or, at worst, to undermine whatever testimony Meadows may have given to the Special Counsel... in order to help Trump. [Perhaps I've been reading too many conspiracy theories]. I've grown accustomed to Trump's handlers/lawyers seemingly overlooking no opportunity, however remote or with however low a probability of success, to "zealously" represent him (i.e. attack, especially, potentially potent witnesses against him).
SBF gets life? Ridiculous. Twenty or thirty years with the chance of parole will do. Yes, he stole money from his clients. But he didn’t breach a public trust as a regulated party on whom the public relies for a safe banking system. (Viz. Jamie Dimon.). His customers were irresponsible risk-takers seeking outsize profits from other similar clients in a game of musical chairs. As for showing willingness to prosecute improper political donations…give me a break! Federal prosecutors have shown no interest in cracking down on shenanigans in political financing.
Simply put, SBF is an easy target for prosecutors to engage in self-congratulatory virtue signaling. Let’s see them take on offenders with real power in the financial or political worlds.
Is it FAFO or FAAFO? Or should it be FAaFO? I feel like all the cool kids say/write FAFO. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So, you’re saying that unless it happened on stage, you can’t bring an anti-SLAPP motion against an anti-slap suit?
The whiff I got from the Meadows book lawsuit was that it a sort of a Trump martyr move with giggling about sticking it to the whomevers... but then I grew up with a Trumplike family where going on 60 Minutes to stick it to Bank of America was a thing.. Gah.
Ken, in the federal criminal against Backpage founder Michael Lacey, he was found guilty of one count of money laundering in the amount of $16.5 milllion. The jury hung 84 other counts against him. Under the sentencing guidelines, what is the presumptive sentice range? Will the judge take into account the totality of his conduct, rather than just the one count?
I wanted to see how you felt about the contrast with the manner in which SBF went about his post-FTX collapse media tour and that of the Alaska Airlines pilot that seemed to have a mental breakdown in October. Joseph Emerson stands charged in Oregon state court with the attempted murders of the 83 other persons aboard and federally with interfering with a flight crew. In the New York Times, Emerson gives a jailhouse interview where he accepts responsibility for having tried psychedelic mushrooms for the first time two days before the fated flight. He says these caused him to question whether the events he was experiencing were a dream he needed to wake up from..
“Mr. Emerson, who has pleaded not guilty, said he had no intention of hurting anyone that day. Instead, he said, he was desperate to awaken from a hallucinogenic state that had consumed him since taking psychedelic mushrooms two days earlier, during a weekend getaway with friends to commemorate the death of his best friend.”
I’m less interested in affirmative defenses regarding temporary insanity (I know that can be peculiar for each state) and far more intrigued by whether his intent to engage in acts that would wake him up from what he believed to be a dream defeats the intent element of attempted murder. He might be guilty of some crimes, but is it attempted murder?
Also, the article goes into some detail about the FAA’s issues with strict mental health regulations causing pilots to not seek mental health treatment, which may be a factor here. Is this one of the rare circumstances where a competent lawyer might suggest his client give his side of what happened to the press?
Trump will find out someday, inshallah
Always appreciate a Dr. Strangelove reference.