21 Comments
Jan 11Liked by Ken White

That title! I’m afraid to listen to the episode now, my expectations are already too high.

Expand full comment
founding
Jan 11·edited Jan 11

A complete side question:

If Trump dramatically overvalued assets to secure better loans, what are the odds he undervalued assets and business operations on his taxes? Will there soon be a wave of state and federal tax investigations into the Trump Org? What about International Investigations of the same? Surely Trump is cheating on his taxes.... And all these videos of him claiming fabulous values of his assets must be great evidence for the IRS? Perhaps Kens list of stupid stuff clients shouldn't say, is to make exorbitant claims of riches if you don't want to get audited by the IRS?

Expand full comment

Had to run right over here before even listening just to offer my *chef's kiss* for that phenomenal title

Expand full comment

Does anyone anywhere maintain a list of the private individuals who have become entangled in the most criminal charges and/or civil actions, including appeals? Surely Trump must be somewhere in that Top Ten by now? Possibly Guinness Book of World Records territory?

Expand full comment

If the accusation against District Attorney Willis turns out to be true, how likely is it that her office is removed from the prosecution rather than, say, giving it to a subordinate?

Expand full comment

I'm in the middle of listening now but I have a confession: when Ken was talking about the California law against a public official having a financial interest in a contract they administer, and Josh said, "Isn't this a particularly large part of YOUR legal practice, Ken?" my initial interpretation was Josh pretending Ken's job involves drawing up those kinds of illegal contracts 😅 I was like, damn, I don't even get the joke but I think that's a harsh burn!

Expand full comment
Jan 14·edited Jan 14

You mentioned in the show that Trump was trying to find out who was funding E. Jean Carroll's lawsuits. Is there any right for a party to force disclosure on who is paying their opponent's fees?

Expand full comment

If impeachment is a quasi-judicial proceeding, does it result in quasi-judicial precedents? If the Senate held that presidential crimes should result in prosecution, not impeachment, can't the court just follow that?

Expand full comment

Can Fani Willis sharing a vacation with Nathan Wade really be the type of corruption that would be prosecuted if she was in California? That sounds awfully broad

Expand full comment
founding

Judicial estoppel does seem a little bit ticky-tacky, but it also seems like a convenient way to avoid reaching the merits for case-specific reasons without relying on an expansive reading of Midland Asphalt. At least as importantly, it's a great way to avoid having to craft an opinion that defines when a former President can and cannot be prosecuted for his official actions. If I was a judge on this panel, I'd kick the tires on that pretty hard to see if I could give enough SCOTUS justices cover to deny cert.

Expand full comment

Question for Ken--in the NY case, if (when) Trump gets hit with a large judgment, will he have to post a bond equivalent to the judgment as a condition of appeal, as he would (I believe) in Federal Court? Assuming so, and assuming for a moment that he gets re-elected, can he argue that the appeal process must be stayed, as well as any attempts to execute on the judgment? I would hope not, since those things really wouldn't require much personal attention from him...

Expand full comment
Jan 11·edited Jan 11

I do hope Trump loses his immunity claim, not least because it may instill some modicum of accountability for the vast swathes of presidential illegality that aren't ever prosecuted. Assassinating people as both Obama and Trump have admitted doing is illegal and both should be prosecuted for those assassinations, especially the ones of US citizens. The ongoing unconstitutional warrantless domestic dragnets come to mind as both illegal and in violation of the oath of office. I'll leave it at that, but there are many more executive branch behaviors that we as a society have become innured to that are completely illegal. I am not naive: it's clear that the prosecution and judges have not contemplated the second order implications of their actions, and I for one am glad they're this stupid (or suddenly and inexplicably taken with the notion that presidents ought not to be above the law.)

Expand full comment

Isn't Trump entitled to give his own closing argument if he chooses?

Expand full comment