Listen now (47 mins) | Rudy gets a goat scream; Bedminster never got raided; IRS whistleblower says Hunter Biden got undue protection
Ken, I am currently parenting alone while my wife is on a girls trip to New York and was looking forward to this episode as a beacon of adult conversation. When I decided to play this episode with my 9 year old son in the car, I prepared him for the language he was likely to hear. A stream of profanities would have been fine; however, the goat scream has become extremely problematic. First, I had to explain to my son how frustrated attorneys get when clients don't act in their own best interest, which led to further conversations about the criminal justice system. Then, he and my 11 year old daughter became obsessed with goat screaming. They've found clips online, songs about goat screaming on Apple Music, and they've been imitating it non-stop going on about four hours. While the goat has earned the pod some younger followers, I will have to exercise greater parental discretion moving forward.
I've got to ask. While Ken was going through the many years of eduction, training, and effort to get to the top of his chosen profession, did he ever expect the words "Sara, goat me" to slip past his lips?
"Sarah, goat me."
This is a very serious™️ and professional podcast.
“You know, guys, that is so smart, that is such a good idea, *good for you.*”
I couldn’t help but chuckle a little at imagining Ken addressing that to Josh when Josh didn’t get the first twelve hints that Ken doesn’t buy that there’s really even much smoke (let alone fire) there (re the Hunter “whistleblowers”).
So, I know Ken and Josh think it's nonsense, but it seems like the heavens realized the show for this week was out and decided to troll.
From the NY Times:
"Investigation of Trump Documents Case Continues After Former President’s Indictment
A grand jury has issued more subpoenas to people involved in the case after the unveiling of a 38-count indictment this month against Donald J. Trump and an aide."
Josh calls Mark Milley "Admiral." Wow. No. "General" Milley's in the Army.
“Sarah, goat me.” Now I know what’s going to be on their next coffee mug.
So... the reporting I'm hearing today is there was a proffer agreement involved in Rudy's voluntary appearance. That would mean he's trying to get some sort of deal?
Am I correct in thinking it relevant that we are now hearing that Rudy's interview was actually a proffer?
PS... really look forward to the good consumer of legal news discussion.
Ok, I need to ask -- and I'm consistently baffled by this.
When it comes to Hunter Biden, the DOJ and IRS absolutely had to act, firmly and decisively, because we need to make it clear that high-profile public figures aren't above the law.
When it comes to Donald Trump, the DOJ and NARA had to be as deferential as possible and act with deliberation and thought, because we need to make sure we're dotting all the 'i's and crossing all the 't's because this is a high-profile case about a public figure.
What's the difference between the two?
I'm curious to know to what extent things like, "my client couldn't retain local counsel and his flight was delayed" are particularly poor excuses for a hearing to be a total waste of time for all involved. That is to say, does it merely make the attorneys look slightly foolish in a way that's recoverable, is it a major blot on their career which will follow them around, or is it simply, 'eh, shit happens'.
So what happens if Trump wins the election whilst the (federal) cases are ongoing - in the limbo period between election and being sworn in do the cases continue as normal? Once inaugurated can he pre-emptively pardon himself and stop the cases dead or, does everything get frozen for 4 years or as argued with the deformation cases does the government have to take over the case and fight itself in court until there's a verdict?
The Lawfare link didn't work for me. I think this one is correct:
For something a little different: I've been watching what I can of the John Eastman disciplinary hearing by the California Bar. How likely do you think it is that he will be disbarred for his participation in the fake electors and other schemes? He seems like a true believer even after all this time. Does it matter if he really believed that the election was "stolen" or not?
If PACER wasn’t an absolute clusterfuck to use, I’d think it wouldn’t be too hard to search Cannon’s dockets for motions to seal to see whether she treated this one any differently than is her norm. Of course, even if she did deviate from her baseline, there are plausible non-nefarious reasons for it here (all the eyeballs on her). But yeah, I’d rather scratch my eyes out than deal with PACER for that. (And no, I don’t think CourtListener is an adequate substitute for this kind of search, at least.)