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?
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?
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 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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.