John Bolton's house is raided; Ingrid Lewis-Martin is indicted (again) for the pettiest of bribery schemes; Newsmax settles with Dominion for $67 million
In your august 22 show you indicated that the Bolton book did not go through a pre-publication review. It is my information that it did have such a review and passed it (if that is the correct term). The Trump administration (1.0) was not happy with that result and directed a further review. That second review was conducted by someone (don’t remember the name) who was subsequently appointed to a senior position with the CIA in the Trump 2.0 admin. The Bolton book did not “pass” the second review. Bolton published anyhow. I am happy to be corrected if this information is wrong. Enjoy your show. I spent 27 years practicing law and 15 years sitting as a judge in criminal court. I appreciate your lawyerly insights. I don’t always agree with Ken’s views about how judges work but they always make me smile. Keep up the good work. Josh - have a good holiday.
Ken, I’m not sure that SCOTUS will have side-eye on the Habba order. The appointments clause gives the power to Congress through advice and consent and “the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
I think you are conflating the executive power to fire appointees which SCOTUS has identified as expansive with the power to appoint where the Constitution gives Congress the stronger hand.
They mostly been issuing shadow docket decisions on temporarily relief, no? I don't see why it would be any different here - reinstate Habba because otherwise it'd be "too disruptive to the executive" and then make a final ruling three years from now when the damage is done.
That could conceivably happen. The emergency docket has been opaque on how the justices are balancing the stay factors. Justice Kavanaugh just issued a concurrence on the Mississippi age verification where he agreed the law was probably unconstitutional under the First Amendment, but believed the irreparable harm of allowing the PI to stand weighed heavier than the merits.
But I see a bigger problem on those balances for the United States here. New Jersey judges are indefinitely continuing sentencing on any cases where Habba acted as purported interim USA. Staying the decision on Habba’s disqualification does not fix that in all of the other cases in the District of New Jersey. If the Court decides later that the disqualification order was indeed correct but issues a stay now, you have dozens and dozens of cases where the purported interim USA’s actions were void and without effect. So I don’t think this one is a good vehicle for staying on the emergency docket and getting around to deciding the issue later on the merits.
The issue with classified document prosecution is the “knowingly” portion of the essential elements. Anyone can claim “oh shit that was just in a big pile of papers I threw in my briefcase. Whoops! Sorry boys!” Where Trump had messed up was hiding documents and moving them and lying about giving them all back. Prosecution is typically difficult for this one absent some action that demonstrates they knew they had it
I believe the expression “Jewish developer“ is used here in support of the thesis that bribery in New York City is a diversity equity and inclusion project.
In your august 22 show you indicated that the Bolton book did not go through a pre-publication review. It is my information that it did have such a review and passed it (if that is the correct term). The Trump administration (1.0) was not happy with that result and directed a further review. That second review was conducted by someone (don’t remember the name) who was subsequently appointed to a senior position with the CIA in the Trump 2.0 admin. The Bolton book did not “pass” the second review. Bolton published anyhow. I am happy to be corrected if this information is wrong. Enjoy your show. I spent 27 years practicing law and 15 years sitting as a judge in criminal court. I appreciate your lawyerly insights. I don’t always agree with Ken’s views about how judges work but they always make me smile. Keep up the good work. Josh - have a good holiday.
Lawfare’s Ben Wittes quotes Bulwark’s J.V. Last with a Bolton book clearance timeline here:
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation--about-that-john-bolton-search-warrant
Ken, I’m not sure that SCOTUS will have side-eye on the Habba order. The appointments clause gives the power to Congress through advice and consent and “the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
I think you are conflating the executive power to fire appointees which SCOTUS has identified as expansive with the power to appoint where the Constitution gives Congress the stronger hand.
They mostly been issuing shadow docket decisions on temporarily relief, no? I don't see why it would be any different here - reinstate Habba because otherwise it'd be "too disruptive to the executive" and then make a final ruling three years from now when the damage is done.
That could conceivably happen. The emergency docket has been opaque on how the justices are balancing the stay factors. Justice Kavanaugh just issued a concurrence on the Mississippi age verification where he agreed the law was probably unconstitutional under the First Amendment, but believed the irreparable harm of allowing the PI to stand weighed heavier than the merits.
But I see a bigger problem on those balances for the United States here. New Jersey judges are indefinitely continuing sentencing on any cases where Habba acted as purported interim USA. Staying the decision on Habba’s disqualification does not fix that in all of the other cases in the District of New Jersey. If the Court decides later that the disqualification order was indeed correct but issues a stay now, you have dozens and dozens of cases where the purported interim USA’s actions were void and without effect. So I don’t think this one is a good vehicle for staying on the emergency docket and getting around to deciding the issue later on the merits.
Would love to hear you guys cover the Timothy Burke case at some point.
The issue with classified document prosecution is the “knowingly” portion of the essential elements. Anyone can claim “oh shit that was just in a big pile of papers I threw in my briefcase. Whoops! Sorry boys!” Where Trump had messed up was hiding documents and moving them and lying about giving them all back. Prosecution is typically difficult for this one absent some action that demonstrates they knew they had it
…”Jewish developer”…? Maybe “developer” would suffice.
I believe the expression “Jewish developer“ is used here in support of the thesis that bribery in New York City is a diversity equity and inclusion project.
Maybe that’s over someone’s head?