Trump's prosecutors and defenders choose a jury, with some assistance from social media; Judge Juan Merchan considers contempt for Trump; prosecutors' theory of an underlying crime is a bit baroque.
I am a subscriber, and a 2003 luddite. I am still using Eudora as my email client. So I really appreciated seeing "view in browser" each time you sent me an email about the latest episode. But the email alert for this episode instead offers the opportunity to "read in app". Inapt indeed (not to say inept). How about giving fossils like me a break and restoring the link to the webpage? We trust NO ONE, and hate installing apps. The data collection! The tracking! The exposure to trojans! Oy!
I don't know why Ken seems so concerned that Michael Cohen can trash Trump in public, but Trump can't trash back. I don't think there's anything Cohen can say that will lower Trump's esteem in the public eye beyond what his testimony will do very shortly.
It was super interesting to hear Ken talk about how a lawyer tries to select jurors. We get a lot of "this is the law" segments, some "this is what they write in their brief" segments, but I really enjoy the "this is what the lawyer does/did" ones when they happen.
Josh seems very angry with Michael Cohen every time he's mentioned. Did Cohen run over his pet kitten? Or, more likely, was he on the receiving end of one of Cohen's bullying tirades in his Trump Tower days?
That aside, thanks for bringing clarity to legal theory behind this prosecution. It does sound like the thin end of wedge. I wonder if the lawyers on the jury will agree. Maybe that's why the defense was happy to let them on?
Snort. Used to work for an agency where evocative names were forbidden. (Alternative 1, 2, 3... were permitted, but were much less gratifying than "The Alternative That Hands Over the Store But It Is Here for Reference" or "The Little Winged Bartender Alternative.")
So, if Trump had paid Cohen FIRST instead of reimbursing him, would that entirely remove the underlying crime here? After all, you can spend as much personal money on your campaign as you like.
The notion that Cohen was making a personal contribution to Trump's campaign seems awfully weak here.
Hearing about the jury selection process prompted me to re-watch Runaway Jury. I'm not saying that there are any parallels, but maybe there's a future treatment of the same plotline featuring a political candidate and the Secret Service. I'll waive my usual writer's fee for that one.
Not about this episode, but something I've been wondering for a while: You've talked often about the difficulties presented in proving Trump's intent and knowledge by his erratic behavior and his apparent disconnection from reality. At what point does disconnection from reality become insanity? Does it matter? Would that be a matter for a judge or a jury? How far gone does he have to be before he gets sent to the proverbial rubber room?
Here's a question for next week: has insanity ever been accepted as a defense for something other than homicide? Is getting the Republican nomination proof that you're not insane, or proof that you are?
I almost fell off my feet when I caught a bit of Trump proclaiming to reporters he never deducted the "attorney fees." Why not, if they really were attorney fees?
I, for one, welcome our betters' decision to criminalize opposition research and negative story scuttling by political campaigns. I am sure these rules will be applied without prejudice for many years.
Not having an opinion on Donald Trump sounds fucking delightful, actually.
I was laughing before I started listening. The title is brilliantly funny.
Thanks for bringing back the Google Doc transcript!
"some people claim they have a scientific process for this, there are even tv shows portraying this as scientific"
I appreciate ken taking a sideswipe out of dr phil out of nowhere.
I assumed he was taking about Bull.
I am a subscriber, and a 2003 luddite. I am still using Eudora as my email client. So I really appreciated seeing "view in browser" each time you sent me an email about the latest episode. But the email alert for this episode instead offers the opportunity to "read in app". Inapt indeed (not to say inept). How about giving fossils like me a break and restoring the link to the webpage? We trust NO ONE, and hate installing apps. The data collection! The tracking! The exposure to trojans! Oy!
When you're looking at the email, clicking the headline should take you to a window in your default browser.
I use Pocomail. It is slightly less obsolete than Eudora. I just click "View in browser" from within the message.
I don't know why Ken seems so concerned that Michael Cohen can trash Trump in public, but Trump can't trash back. I don't think there's anything Cohen can say that will lower Trump's esteem in the public eye beyond what his testimony will do very shortly.
It was super interesting to hear Ken talk about how a lawyer tries to select jurors. We get a lot of "this is the law" segments, some "this is what they write in their brief" segments, but I really enjoy the "this is what the lawyer does/did" ones when they happen.
"Well played, Josh, well played".
Can we get a golf-clap sound bite to accompany these kinds of corny jokes?
I love this title. It sounds like an episode of Boston Legal where Alan fights the TSA while Denny is forced to serve on a jury.
Josh seems very angry with Michael Cohen every time he's mentioned. Did Cohen run over his pet kitten? Or, more likely, was he on the receiving end of one of Cohen's bullying tirades in his Trump Tower days?
That aside, thanks for bringing clarity to legal theory behind this prosecution. It does sound like the thin end of wedge. I wonder if the lawyers on the jury will agree. Maybe that's why the defense was happy to let them on?
Media and podcasters alike have been calling it the porn star/hush money case, which is kinda worse. There are no good names for this critter.
They can't call it the election interference case. That name is already taken.
Snort. Used to work for an agency where evocative names were forbidden. (Alternative 1, 2, 3... were permitted, but were much less gratifying than "The Alternative That Hands Over the Store But It Is Here for Reference" or "The Little Winged Bartender Alternative.")
XXXNDAgate
The Harvey Weinstein appeal certainly appears to throw a wrench in Trump's prosecution. The timing could be coincidental, but it sure is suspicious.
So, if Trump had paid Cohen FIRST instead of reimbursing him, would that entirely remove the underlying crime here? After all, you can spend as much personal money on your campaign as you like.
The notion that Cohen was making a personal contribution to Trump's campaign seems awfully weak here.
I went back to the 2018 episode about Cohen's guilty plea, but Ken didn't discuss the merits of the charges.
I wonder if the campaign finance violations were more tacked on rather than a strong part of the indictment.
Hearing about the jury selection process prompted me to re-watch Runaway Jury. I'm not saying that there are any parallels, but maybe there's a future treatment of the same plotline featuring a political candidate and the Secret Service. I'll waive my usual writer's fee for that one.
Not about this episode, but something I've been wondering for a while: You've talked often about the difficulties presented in proving Trump's intent and knowledge by his erratic behavior and his apparent disconnection from reality. At what point does disconnection from reality become insanity? Does it matter? Would that be a matter for a judge or a jury? How far gone does he have to be before he gets sent to the proverbial rubber room?
Here's a question for next week: has insanity ever been accepted as a defense for something other than homicide? Is getting the Republican nomination proof that you're not insane, or proof that you are?
I almost fell off my feet when I caught a bit of Trump proclaiming to reporters he never deducted the "attorney fees." Why not, if they really were attorney fees?
I, for one, welcome our betters' decision to criminalize opposition research and negative story scuttling by political campaigns. I am sure these rules will be applied without prejudice for many years.
"It's the lying on the campaign finance records".
"which is a misdemeanor."
Seriously, did you not listen to the show or read the transcript? Did you somehow miss Ken's hypothetical?