Listen now (36 mins) | E. Jean Carroll wins a $5 million judgment; George Santos is indicted; Trump is told not to talk about discovery materials
Has Ken weighed in yet on whether confessing to crimes during a televised town hall is on the list of proscribed activities?
I write concerning the "joke" Ken delivers on or about 17 minutes 10 seconds into this episode. That joke was so juvenile I'm surprised Rep. Matt Gaetz didn't try to fuck it.
I am so proud to have graduated to "friend of the pod".
Here is my contrarian take, it is not likely to be RICO, but if it is RICO, it will taste better if it is RICO w/ mayo.
“I assume it’s less than 18 minutes long” had me googling the ideal length of a podcast episode for optimal audience retention before the joke actually hit me 😅
“Extorting protected manatees” got a big snort-laugh here!! Great episode, always look forward to it -
Now that the final order has been issued, could Trump be subject to another defamation suit if he doesn't shut up and keep making statements about how he "never met" E. Jean Carroll? You'd think there is an argument to be made that there is continued harm if he continues the same actions he's done before.
Okay, I'll bite-- what is "bounce his rubble"??
"What happens *when* Trump violates the protective order?"<-- fixed it for you, Josh. 😉
Totally agree on juries being weird, from experience on a jury where the charges were possession and possession with intent to sell. Possession was easy. "intent to sell" was tough, because it wasn't a huge amount - it's conceivable that *this time* it was for consumption at a party the defendant was at; but he clearly (from other evidence) had been selling before (scales, text messages, packaging materials), but maybe not "this particular time". And then, maybe he had possession to sell before, but had sold the majority, and he was holding the remnants for personal consumption.
Analogy is "if you buy a case of whiskey, you're probably not intending personal consumption with you and a few friends", but if you have a full bottle and a half bottle left over, that could conceivably be for personal consumption.
I think we are all hoping George Santos will have a few too many boxes of rosé one night and go full-SBF on Twitter.
A Forest Service burn boss doing fuel reduction got arrested a couple summers ago by a deputy in Grant County, Oregon, which has a long and ongoing history of harassing feds and supporting things like the Malheur Occupation harassing feds there. At one point that part of Oregon also was issuing tickets to the agency green rigs for not having registration, knowing perfectly well fed rigs aren't registered in the way private vehicles are. The harassment issue happens a lot out here.
BTW, really interesting podcast (well, they all are, but I really liked this one).
I'm curious how the civil case fell into the U.S. Court System as opposed to New York state court?
The case was originally filed in New York Supreme Court. I understand it was pulled into Federal Court because US Justice Department lawyers intervened to defend Trump as he was acting in his "official" capacity as POTUS. The case was remanded to the Southern District by DC court of appeals.
It is my understanding that Carroll filed a second suit in light of the New York Adult Survivors Act.
How is it that federal courts have jurisdiction?
Tangentially, this question came up as I was watching the CNN Trump "Shit show" when he mentioned the Judge was a Clinton appointee. We didn't get much further and flipped over to watch the newest Ted Lasso.
Speaking of the CNN town hall, does double jeopardy apply if Trump is still calling Carrol a "whack job"?
Enjoy the show and keep up the good work!
Reading WaPo's coverage of the Santos stuff, his lawyer said something interesting: "We have information that I think [the prosecutors] would be interested to see." Does that suggest Santos might try to flip on whoever bought his vote, or am I reading too much into things?
Not sure if this is a place for (serious non-joke) topic suggestions for future episodes, but here goes...
This article discusses a lawsuit filed by the sister of a Saudi political dissent who’s anonymous Twitter account was unmasked by Saudi spies who infiltrated Twitter. This touches on litigation, free speech (at least the principle), obligations under user privacy agreements, and of course RICO. It could make for a good few minute segment.
The episode mentions that wonderful phrase, "political prosecution." Is that a legal term, or just a Trump epithet? Is it treated differently than any other kind of prosecution?
Ken, is it a good idea to video tape yourself committing a federal crime and post it to YouTube for views?