The jury gets Trump's Manhattan case; Jack Smith tangles with Aileen Cannon over Trump's FBI comments; the Speech or Debate Clause catches Menendez prosecutors off guard
Maybe God will reward Ken for his attempt at patriotism by giving this trial one of those juries that attend to their civic duties carefully and thoughtfully.
Last time I had jury duty, there was a jury like that...just across the hall!
I find the idea that Trump's speech could be restrained as a condition of release deeply disturbing -- even the fact that Jack Smith felt it was within bounds to even raise this really disturbs me.
I mean it's essentially saying that the government can stop you from speaking just by accusing you of something you didn't do -- and worse that they could use their power to pressure people without Trump's resources from complaining the prosecution is unjust.
First amendment speech - no. But riling up people to murder folks where it is likely to result in violence? No.
(And while the trial was concluding the folks he induced to use the talking points he marked up for them in order to get around his restrictions had got people outside the courthouse screaming about killing people.)
But that's also exactly what the government would say in a case where they really had exercised an unjust search warrant (eg as a reprisal for political activity). Yes, Trump's speech is obviously false and dangerous but the whole point of the 1a is that we can't trust the government to make that judgement.
In this case the speech isn't about targeting any witness but about accusing the FBI of misconduct. What could be more important for the 1a to protect than the ability to accuse the government of engaging in unjust and politically motivated use of law enforcement? And if the government gets to shut down that criticism on the grounds "but it's not true and makes people mad at us" then there is no real 1a protection at all because that's exactly what the government will say when it's true (heck, when true it may generate more anger at federal law enforcement)
Claiming that the search warrant was an attempt to murder him -- no matter how dumb -- is 1a protected and it obviously doesn't meet Brandenburg standard for incitement.
Eh, in this case I think Smith is playing a ball just out of bounds and it's up to the ref to blow the whistle. Surely the ideal solution under the circumstances is for the attorneys to confer and agree that it is in everyone's best interest to not try to incite violence against law enforcement so we maintain peace and civility without having to consider the Kafka route.
Regarding the ref blowing the whistle, sure but I doubt Smith would have asked had he believed the government would be laughed out of court even in a case against a normal defendant. That suggests that he probably correctly believes that if the defendant lacked Trump's special status and resources he wouldn't get slapped down which seems bad.
Regarding the lawyers working things out, I don't really understand what you are suggesting. I mean, I obviously think it would be better for Trump to be visited by three ghosts, grow a conciouss and stop saying such crap. But he clearly wants to continue saying such crap and his attornies represent him so the only reason they'd make such a deal is if there was some sanction which would apply if he didn't agree to do that. Maybe the sanction isn't made very explicit but I don't see how that would make it any less bad from a 1a POV.
The "lawyers working things out" was in reference to Cannon's admonishment of Smith for not conferring with the defense (enough) prior to filing the motion. It was meant to be tongue in cheek based on the discussion in the pod, but perhaps in an alternate universe the prosecution is legitimately trying to steer Trump's outlandish statements away from violence without undermining the first amendment, a version where the defense decides that Cannon could rule either way and voluntarily agrees to dial back the rhetoric.
“Anyway the most recent former President of the United States has been found guilty of felonies and now there’s a substantial chance people are going to die because his followers are freaks and the so-called “mainstream” GOP will just shrug and blame woke or something. Anyway good luck to jurors, the judge, court staff, and prosecutors, and all their families, with not getting murdered, and thanks to FedSoc types for bringing us to the brink of fascism so you could weaken Chevron deference“
It’s been a long journey since the early days of ATPL, I genuinely hope that Josh and Ken can enjoy a modicum of relief that the rule of law has prevailed. As much as I’d love an emergency episode for the 10 hours of driving I have this weekend, I hope they sleep a little better tonight with this verdict, despite the tumult to come.
Everyone wants an emergency podcast. I want to let Ken get enough rage built over the soon-to-come erroneous statements about possible sentences so that he breaks out some guest stars.
(sarcasm) So you're telling me he *won't* get 4 years x 34 counts of jail time? But this is State court so the Federal Sentencing Guidelines don't apply! (/sarcasm)
When Ken talked about Rudy's lawyers not being inclined to work for free, I had an idea pop into my head.
Could it be said they don't want to work pro-bonehead?
It was patriotic of you to release this episode today, presumably in an attempt to cause a jury verdict shortly after taping.
Maybe God will reward Ken for his attempt at patriotism by giving this trial one of those juries that attend to their civic duties carefully and thoughtfully.
Last time I had jury duty, there was a jury like that...just across the hall!
Hey guys, get back in the office, they found him guilty!
I feel like a kid on Christmas Eve! I can't wait to see what Josh and Ken put out.
I don’t think jurors in NYS courts get written jury instructions. They do in Federal court, but not state.
Definitely read today that it is not allowed in NYS courts.
LOOKS LIKE IT'S TIME FOR ANOTHER EMERGENCY PODCAST EPISODE JOSH
Needs a good old-fashioned Drudge siren, for old time's sake.
And I almost forgot. I have waited for years to deploy this: https://youtu.be/xwz4k4n1ezM?si=J10g3kz6sP_j9YN8
Stealing!
superb
If ever there was a time for an “emergency podcast”…. 😂
An "emergent' or 'emerging' podcast, I believe, is Josh's preference.
I find the idea that Trump's speech could be restrained as a condition of release deeply disturbing -- even the fact that Jack Smith felt it was within bounds to even raise this really disturbs me.
I mean it's essentially saying that the government can stop you from speaking just by accusing you of something you didn't do -- and worse that they could use their power to pressure people without Trump's resources from complaining the prosecution is unjust.
First amendment speech - no. But riling up people to murder folks where it is likely to result in violence? No.
(And while the trial was concluding the folks he induced to use the talking points he marked up for them in order to get around his restrictions had got people outside the courthouse screaming about killing people.)
But that's also exactly what the government would say in a case where they really had exercised an unjust search warrant (eg as a reprisal for political activity). Yes, Trump's speech is obviously false and dangerous but the whole point of the 1a is that we can't trust the government to make that judgement.
In this case the speech isn't about targeting any witness but about accusing the FBI of misconduct. What could be more important for the 1a to protect than the ability to accuse the government of engaging in unjust and politically motivated use of law enforcement? And if the government gets to shut down that criticism on the grounds "but it's not true and makes people mad at us" then there is no real 1a protection at all because that's exactly what the government will say when it's true (heck, when true it may generate more anger at federal law enforcement)
Claiming that the search warrant was an attempt to murder him -- no matter how dumb -- is 1a protected and it obviously doesn't meet Brandenburg standard for incitement.
Eh, in this case I think Smith is playing a ball just out of bounds and it's up to the ref to blow the whistle. Surely the ideal solution under the circumstances is for the attorneys to confer and agree that it is in everyone's best interest to not try to incite violence against law enforcement so we maintain peace and civility without having to consider the Kafka route.
Regarding the ref blowing the whistle, sure but I doubt Smith would have asked had he believed the government would be laughed out of court even in a case against a normal defendant. That suggests that he probably correctly believes that if the defendant lacked Trump's special status and resources he wouldn't get slapped down which seems bad.
Regarding the lawyers working things out, I don't really understand what you are suggesting. I mean, I obviously think it would be better for Trump to be visited by three ghosts, grow a conciouss and stop saying such crap. But he clearly wants to continue saying such crap and his attornies represent him so the only reason they'd make such a deal is if there was some sanction which would apply if he didn't agree to do that. Maybe the sanction isn't made very explicit but I don't see how that would make it any less bad from a 1a POV.
The "lawyers working things out" was in reference to Cannon's admonishment of Smith for not conferring with the defense (enough) prior to filing the motion. It was meant to be tongue in cheek based on the discussion in the pod, but perhaps in an alternate universe the prosecution is legitimately trying to steer Trump's outlandish statements away from violence without undermining the first amendment, a version where the defense decides that Cannon could rule either way and voluntarily agrees to dial back the rhetoric.
Ahh, sorry for misunderstanding.
From Ken on Threads:
“Anyway the most recent former President of the United States has been found guilty of felonies and now there’s a substantial chance people are going to die because his followers are freaks and the so-called “mainstream” GOP will just shrug and blame woke or something. Anyway good luck to jurors, the judge, court staff, and prosecutors, and all their families, with not getting murdered, and thanks to FedSoc types for bringing us to the brink of fascism so you could weaken Chevron deference“
It’s been a long journey since the early days of ATPL, I genuinely hope that Josh and Ken can enjoy a modicum of relief that the rule of law has prevailed. As much as I’d love an emergency episode for the 10 hours of driving I have this weekend, I hope they sleep a little better tonight with this verdict, despite the tumult to come.
Everyone wants an emergency podcast. I want to let Ken get enough rage built over the soon-to-come erroneous statements about possible sentences so that he breaks out some guest stars.
(sarcasm) So you're telling me he *won't* get 4 years x 34 counts of jail time? But this is State court so the Federal Sentencing Guidelines don't apply! (/sarcasm)
spoiler alert: 34/34
Is Aileen Cannon a good judge?
Great name!!
I meant Flume, Nom de --- not Aileen Cannon...although , Judge Aileen's Cannon is locked and loaded full of angry, victimized, MAGAt bullshit.
When will the guilty podcast drop? I spend big bucks for these updates. Can I speak to your manager?
I'd bet on Saturday, personally
This has aged like fine milk
I guess the jury decided they could eat around the cockroach.
Lots of clean, healthy protein in them there those cockroaches.
never has an episode release been more overtaken by events!
Ken please let us know what happens if Trump is convicted, goes to jail and then wins the election. Can he be the president from jail!?!?!