OOOOOH oh oh oh I understand the confusion. Trump, Santos, DeSantis, etc. etc. etc. thought this was a list of PREscribed places to confess to all of your maleficence and/or criming.
I do believe Ken has expressly said om the show onr should not to go on national television and talk about the crimes, though I don't remember which episode.
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 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 😅
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.
Someone on CNN late last night used some Latin term to note about it not being double jeopardy, but she didn't describe it well after going through her rant of Trump's discussing display.
Yeah, from what I understand continued defamation after a judgement or settlement is a thing that can happen, and it looks like Carroll is commenting on teeing it up again since he can't seem to keep his mouth shut about it.
I'm no legal expert, and maybe someone who is can correct me if necessary, but surely double jeopardy only means that you can't be reprosecuted for one instance of a crime? Say I throw a stone at a neighbour's window and break it, and am consequently sued and found guilty. If I then repeat that crime, surely I can be sued again? Similarly, isn't Trump's repetition of his claims a new instance of defamation, prosecutable in just the same way as my breaking another window would be?
Along these lines - assume Trump never stops making these statements and isn't prospectively ejected from the public spotlight by the media at some point. Does Carroll just have to keep suing him until one of them dies or runs out of money? What even happens if Trump dies with Carroll's defamation claims unresolved? Do they lapse, or would his estate be liable?
I heard it used in reference to World War II, where the 10th bomber in line is attacking a target that was already destroyed by the first nine. Also, "stirring the rubble."
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.
One of the underrated issues in the American legal system: we treat juries as "factfinders", but generally ask them legal questions rather than factual ones.
We were able to ask the judge for more definitions, covering the legal aspects. But yeah, to a certain extent it revolved around "reasonable doubt" - Basically, if there was a plausible explanation for why it wasn't going to be sold, then that is "reasonable doubt". It's not so much a legal question as "what was in the defendant's mind at that time" to establish intent.
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"?
This case was in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction — under federal statute, a state case can be brought in federal court if the plaintiff and defendant are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75k.
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?
suddenly dissapointed that the writers strike means no new SNL, cause you know they would do a weekend update piece where they say "for more its george santos' lawyer" but its actually just george santos as his own lawyer
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?
Has Ken weighed in yet on whether confessing to crimes during a televised town hall is on the list of proscribed activities?
OOOOOH oh oh oh I understand the confusion. Trump, Santos, DeSantis, etc. etc. etc. thought this was a list of PREscribed places to confess to all of your maleficence and/or criming.
English amirite?
Wierd Al's "Word Crimes" begins to play ...
“Weird Al Yankovic has a big dictionary”
I do believe Ken has expressly said om the show onr should not to go on national television and talk about the crimes, though I don't remember which episode.
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've generally found horseradish to be a lovely compliment to RICO.
“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 😅
Has Gaetz complained that Ken defamed him yet? Because Devin Nunes would have done that by now.
“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.
Someone on CNN late last night used some Latin term to note about it not being double jeopardy, but she didn't describe it well after going through her rant of Trump's discussing display.
Yeah, from what I understand continued defamation after a judgement or settlement is a thing that can happen, and it looks like Carroll is commenting on teeing it up again since he can't seem to keep his mouth shut about it.
Found the term, res iudicata.
I'm no legal expert, and maybe someone who is can correct me if necessary, but surely double jeopardy only means that you can't be reprosecuted for one instance of a crime? Say I throw a stone at a neighbour's window and break it, and am consequently sued and found guilty. If I then repeat that crime, surely I can be sued again? Similarly, isn't Trump's repetition of his claims a new instance of defamation, prosecutable in just the same way as my breaking another window would be?
You are correct. Res judicata bars a subsequent claim against the same party for the same act.
The issue with any subsequent suit is damages.
I leave to Ken to explain the use of res judicata offensively and defensively
Along these lines - assume Trump never stops making these statements and isn't prospectively ejected from the public spotlight by the media at some point. Does Carroll just have to keep suing him until one of them dies or runs out of money? What even happens if Trump dies with Carroll's defamation claims unresolved? Do they lapse, or would his estate be liable?
Okay, I'll bite-- what is "bounce his rubble"??
Cold War term for overkill. The idea being that after the first few nukes, you're just bouncing the rubble.
I heard it used in reference to World War II, where the 10th bomber in line is attacking a target that was already destroyed by the first nine. Also, "stirring the 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.
One of the underrated issues in the American legal system: we treat juries as "factfinders", but generally ask them legal questions rather than factual ones.
We were able to ask the judge for more definitions, covering the legal aspects. But yeah, to a certain extent it revolved around "reasonable doubt" - Basically, if there was a plausible explanation for why it wasn't going to be sold, then that is "reasonable doubt". It's not so much a legal question as "what was in the defendant's mind at that time" to establish intent.
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!
This case was in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction — under federal statute, a state case can be brought in federal court if the plaintiff and defendant are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75k.
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?
I think it’s naked manatee pix
Oh, the huge manatee!
Sea cow ious Trouble
suddenly dissapointed that the writers strike means no new SNL, cause you know they would do a weekend update piece where they say "for more its george santos' lawyer" but its actually just george santos as his own lawyer
Not sure if this is a place for (serious non-joke) topic suggestions for future episodes, but here goes...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/twitter-sued-over-saudi-spying-that-allegedly-landed-popular-user-in-prison/
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?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/youtuber-who-crashed-plane-admits-he-did-it-for-money-and-views/