Regarding the Alec Baldwin case, can't the defense argue that accidental/negligent destruction of the gun constitutes spoliation, and therefore the prosecution shouldn't be allowed to introduce evidence of the testing?
EDIT: Moot point, now that it's been dismissed. What a fiasco from start to finish by the prosecutors...
I've been a lawyer for many decades, and this is the first time I've ever seen a prosecutor call themselves to the stand...and then only to get eviscerated by the judge... :-o
Much discussion has been made about "seal team 6", but could (and maybe should) Biden, using this insane new immunity, order the military to arrest 6 of the Supreme Court Justices? If he did it with an order that would go into effect in say 72 hours and say he hopes the court reconsiders their position before he does so, could he force the court to fix this?
The decision incentivizes Biden to have them killed, not imprisoned. After all, they could seek judicial relief from imprisonment, which would force Biden not only to ignore the law by arresting them but defy the courts by keeping them. In addition, if another President is elected, he or she can release them.
I can't imagine Biden giving an order to kill anyone as a test case, I was hoping imprisonment would be enough. Of course, but the point would be that the Justices, in an effort not to be imprisoned (or killed!), would see the error of their ways. The hope would be that before the 72 hours would come up they would have reversed the decision, not that they would in fact go to a military jail someplace.
I have questions like this too. Since there seems to be no limit to what the president can do, why doesn't Biden just start doing all kinds of crazy shit?
Like the best kind of old fashioned Democrat, he believes in ethics, custom, and tradition. Those traits haven't served so well during a time span that's seen Republicans devolve into cultish gangsters who forgot about shame if they ever had any to begin with. Too damn polite, we liberals. That said, I'm annoyed with Democrats for not closing some loopholes when they had the chance.
Even if Biden were open to doing the crazy actions, there isn't a reason to do so until after the Democrats have fully lost the election. If Democrats win, no reason to go full crazy, if they lose and fully believe that fascism is the only course, perhaps fascism of the Democrats design? I don't think anyone is seriously contemplating going that far.
Good luck getting that passed. I don't think we'll ever see another constitutional amendment get through, at least not in the way we currently think of as "legal"
Ken, listening to the episode section on the documents case — it has me wondering. If the Trump team said in a new filing “Trump before leaving office declassified every document he took with him. And nanananana. You can’t prove we didn’t”
Because of the new Supreme Court ruling, there would be no way for the prosecution to prove this was false right? Since they can’t introduce anything from the presidency?
Or by him adding that as a defense, does that open it for discourse and entry into evidence?
I live in Missouri; the state doesn't deserve its government, which is true of most red-formerly-purple states. The last few AGs have leapfrogged from Jeff City to DC by performative lawsuits against Dem administrations. Local media has pretty much died, so I haven't seen an accounting of how much state money has been wasted this way, but it's millions that have been essentially donated to ambitious pols who wanted national office.
I understand that Trump has promised, if he becomes President again in 2025, to sic the Justice Department on Joe Biden. To prosecute Biden for crimes Biden committed while in office. But didn't Supreme Court just rule that Biden can't be prosecuted for acts using presidential powers, that Biden has presumption of immunity for most actions while president, and a prosecutor couldn't even introduce evidence concurrent with being president into a prosecution for actions not done in office.. Isn't that what SCOTUS ruling means, that Trump can never persecute Biden thru courts? ... What about vice Presidents? Does constitutional immunity extend to VPs, under SCOTUS reasoning, what immunity do VPs get?
Late on this episode/in anticipate of tomorrow's, based on Cannon tossing out the Docs case.. I saw Ken's remarks about "mask-off triumphalism" which seems very plausible, but on the other hand, could the appealability be a feature, not a bug? To the extent that Cannon is working in Trump's interest, this would means more time for more Smith filings, defense filings, more hearings, more rulings, while maintaining Trump's ability to use the proceedings as 'evidence' of government 'weaponization,' etc. Then, if it comes back around in a few months after her decision gets overturned on appeal she can dismiss it one of the other theories if he's not president.
If there's one thing I've learned from years of listening to ya'll's excellent analysis on All the President's Lawyers and Serious Trouble it's that Trump's legal strategy is always to play for time. If there's two things, it's that playing for time usually works for him too...
I'm absolutely certain the next episode is going to be so much fun. Baldwin case getting tossed, and someone taking a potshot at Trump.
But I'm still trying to understand the immunity decision. It is horribly bad in terms of prosecuting Trump. That's pretty clear. But does this not also protect Biden from the retribution that Trump has already promised if he wins?
I'm one of the few remaining naive folks who have some respect for even the right wing members of the Court, and it feels like Roberts is saying something along the lines of, "Look, Congress gets Speech/Debate immunity, so let's line up with the President getting immunity for core duties as well, and in the same way."
It feels like one could read it as the Court essentially following a "meta" message for this term. If there's a through-line that I'm not entirely imagining this term, it's that the Court is trying to get people to do their duties. Loper Bright says, "Hey Courts, do your job. You can't pawn it off on the Executive branch." Cargill says, "Hey Congress, do your job. If you want to make laws, make them. Otherwise fuck off."
Trump immunity feels like the Court is saying, "Voters, do your job. The Court can't stop you from electing terrible people, and we're not going to try. That's not our purview."
Let's go with bad facts make bad law, the Court doesn't want to make a big deal about Trump individually because he'll be a non-issue at some point, so they say what they said. On a long enough timeline, I am not sure I hate the effect? Bad man doesn't go to jail, but also bad man–if reelected–doesn't get to prosecute predecessor either.
If that's a sane way of looking at things (and I admit, maybe it's not), I don't hate it in terms of the big picture.
We know the immunity decision is bad in terms of prosecuting Trump. Is there a bigger picture beyond Trump where this has a positive outcome? It's a core part of our legal system that we should allow and be okay with some criminals escaping conviction some of the time so that innocent people don't end up persecuted.
I guess my question is this: is there a reading of the Court's opinion that aligns with that principle of not going after people who haven't done anything wrong? And could that be a good thing in the long term?
Ken, did I hear you say something about a “right to vote for president” in your answer about the basis for Missouri’s nuisance suit against NY? Where can I find this so-called “right to vote”?
Regarding the Alec Baldwin case, can't the defense argue that accidental/negligent destruction of the gun constitutes spoliation, and therefore the prosecution shouldn't be allowed to introduce evidence of the testing?
EDIT: Moot point, now that it's been dismissed. What a fiasco from start to finish by the prosecutors...
Just how bad do you screw the pooch when you take the stand yourself to explain Prosecutor decisions.
I've been a lawyer for many decades, and this is the first time I've ever seen a prosecutor call themselves to the stand...and then only to get eviscerated by the judge... :-o
"I almost can't believe this even made it to trial."
And just like that.
Much discussion has been made about "seal team 6", but could (and maybe should) Biden, using this insane new immunity, order the military to arrest 6 of the Supreme Court Justices? If he did it with an order that would go into effect in say 72 hours and say he hopes the court reconsiders their position before he does so, could he force the court to fix this?
The decision incentivizes Biden to have them killed, not imprisoned. After all, they could seek judicial relief from imprisonment, which would force Biden not only to ignore the law by arresting them but defy the courts by keeping them. In addition, if another President is elected, he or she can release them.
Is rendition on the table? I heard private plane trips are all the rage with these guys.
I can't imagine Biden giving an order to kill anyone as a test case, I was hoping imprisonment would be enough. Of course, but the point would be that the Justices, in an effort not to be imprisoned (or killed!), would see the error of their ways. The hope would be that before the 72 hours would come up they would have reversed the decision, not that they would in fact go to a military jail someplace.
"I can't imagine Biden giving an order to kill anyone as a test case"
I wish he would.
I have questions like this too. Since there seems to be no limit to what the president can do, why doesn't Biden just start doing all kinds of crazy shit?
There's almost no limit to what he is accountable for. His power is still limited.
I imagine the reason Biden isn't doing crazy shit is that he's not in office for profit or to destroy all of his opponents.
Like the best kind of old fashioned Democrat, he believes in ethics, custom, and tradition. Those traits haven't served so well during a time span that's seen Republicans devolve into cultish gangsters who forgot about shame if they ever had any to begin with. Too damn polite, we liberals. That said, I'm annoyed with Democrats for not closing some loopholes when they had the chance.
Even if Biden were open to doing the crazy actions, there isn't a reason to do so until after the Democrats have fully lost the election. If Democrats win, no reason to go full crazy, if they lose and fully believe that fascism is the only course, perhaps fascism of the Democrats design? I don't think anyone is seriously contemplating going that far.
And if that's too crazy, is there an effort somewhere to introduce a constitutional amendment "clarifying" that no one is above the law?
Good luck getting that passed. I don't think we'll ever see another constitutional amendment get through, at least not in the way we currently think of as "legal"
It has the benefit of being "bipartisan" if you sell it as applying to the "Biden crime family" BS as well
I know I'm being super negative, but I think it's clear that the GOP would rather burn down our entire democracy than work with Democrats on anything
I have a recurring nightmare that the GOP achieves the trifecta in sufficient states that they can call a new constitutional convention.
You know they want to
Am I the only one who is beginning to despair about our legal system and our country?
Ken, listening to the episode section on the documents case — it has me wondering. If the Trump team said in a new filing “Trump before leaving office declassified every document he took with him. And nanananana. You can’t prove we didn’t”
Because of the new Supreme Court ruling, there would be no way for the prosecution to prove this was false right? Since they can’t introduce anything from the presidency?
Or by him adding that as a defense, does that open it for discourse and entry into evidence?
I live in Missouri; the state doesn't deserve its government, which is true of most red-formerly-purple states. The last few AGs have leapfrogged from Jeff City to DC by performative lawsuits against Dem administrations. Local media has pretty much died, so I haven't seen an accounting of how much state money has been wasted this way, but it's millions that have been essentially donated to ambitious pols who wanted national office.
I understand that Trump has promised, if he becomes President again in 2025, to sic the Justice Department on Joe Biden. To prosecute Biden for crimes Biden committed while in office. But didn't Supreme Court just rule that Biden can't be prosecuted for acts using presidential powers, that Biden has presumption of immunity for most actions while president, and a prosecutor couldn't even introduce evidence concurrent with being president into a prosecution for actions not done in office.. Isn't that what SCOTUS ruling means, that Trump can never persecute Biden thru courts? ... What about vice Presidents? Does constitutional immunity extend to VPs, under SCOTUS reasoning, what immunity do VPs get?
Are you suggesting that Donald Trump might be saying something to his constituents that isn't anchored in reality?
My recollection is that the scotus opinion said this only applies to the president.
I got thinking of Josh and Ken after all the yeehaw of the last few days. Also found this little gem https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-drops-out-gop-threatens-to-sue-over-ballot-change-here-s-why-that-s-unlikely-to-succeed/ar-BB1qnows?ocid=BingNewsSerp
So was Smith’s venue decision just a massive own goal?
Late on this episode/in anticipate of tomorrow's, based on Cannon tossing out the Docs case.. I saw Ken's remarks about "mask-off triumphalism" which seems very plausible, but on the other hand, could the appealability be a feature, not a bug? To the extent that Cannon is working in Trump's interest, this would means more time for more Smith filings, defense filings, more hearings, more rulings, while maintaining Trump's ability to use the proceedings as 'evidence' of government 'weaponization,' etc. Then, if it comes back around in a few months after her decision gets overturned on appeal she can dismiss it one of the other theories if he's not president.
If there's one thing I've learned from years of listening to ya'll's excellent analysis on All the President's Lawyers and Serious Trouble it's that Trump's legal strategy is always to play for time. If there's two things, it's that playing for time usually works for him too...
I’m feeling the need for a non-Emergency podcast: Judge Cannon’s ruling and next steps?
And Chief Judge Glanville (re: Young Thug) has now been recused.
And Bob Menendez has been found guilty.
I'm absolutely certain the next episode is going to be so much fun. Baldwin case getting tossed, and someone taking a potshot at Trump.
But I'm still trying to understand the immunity decision. It is horribly bad in terms of prosecuting Trump. That's pretty clear. But does this not also protect Biden from the retribution that Trump has already promised if he wins?
I'm one of the few remaining naive folks who have some respect for even the right wing members of the Court, and it feels like Roberts is saying something along the lines of, "Look, Congress gets Speech/Debate immunity, so let's line up with the President getting immunity for core duties as well, and in the same way."
It feels like one could read it as the Court essentially following a "meta" message for this term. If there's a through-line that I'm not entirely imagining this term, it's that the Court is trying to get people to do their duties. Loper Bright says, "Hey Courts, do your job. You can't pawn it off on the Executive branch." Cargill says, "Hey Congress, do your job. If you want to make laws, make them. Otherwise fuck off."
Trump immunity feels like the Court is saying, "Voters, do your job. The Court can't stop you from electing terrible people, and we're not going to try. That's not our purview."
Let's go with bad facts make bad law, the Court doesn't want to make a big deal about Trump individually because he'll be a non-issue at some point, so they say what they said. On a long enough timeline, I am not sure I hate the effect? Bad man doesn't go to jail, but also bad man–if reelected–doesn't get to prosecute predecessor either.
If that's a sane way of looking at things (and I admit, maybe it's not), I don't hate it in terms of the big picture.
We know the immunity decision is bad in terms of prosecuting Trump. Is there a bigger picture beyond Trump where this has a positive outcome? It's a core part of our legal system that we should allow and be okay with some criminals escaping conviction some of the time so that innocent people don't end up persecuted.
I guess my question is this: is there a reading of the Court's opinion that aligns with that principle of not going after people who haven't done anything wrong? And could that be a good thing in the long term?
I like your style. (But can't stretch that for Anita's former boss and Flag Boy.)
Courts can't stop voters from electing terrible people, but they can hold people accountable to the law. It's a shame they threw that away.
Hey boys...I think you need to do a high priority episode................
Ken, did I hear you say something about a “right to vote for president” in your answer about the basis for Missouri’s nuisance suit against NY? Where can I find this so-called “right to vote”?
Coming soon to a red state near you: "the manner in which legislature shall direct" will be "The Republican candidate gets the electoral votes".