A DC Circuit panel rejects Trump's immunity arguments, but SCOTUS looms; Taylor Swift's lawyers threaten a college student who tracks her private plane; Senate Twink beats the rap
I was really hoping the Gina Carano lawsuit would make it into this week’s show. I guess I will have to wait until next week to hear Ken’s insight on this beauty.
I’m enjoying the tone ya’ll settled into for Serious Trouble. Not better or worse than All The President(‘)s(‘) Lawyers but a bit different: less scathing at baseline but occasionally Ken or Josh throw out these hilarious savage quips that seem very genuine, especially when you make each other break.
e.g. Josh: “It’s been so long since we’ve talked about Jack Burkman that some listeners might not even know who he is. So who is this fucken moron?”
It feels a bit less radioy and a bit more like eavesdropping on a rant between Josh and Ken, which is thumbs.
I think Josh really missed the point with his question about whether or not it’s a good idea to sleep an attorney you’ve hired to do work for you or are otherwise professionally entangled with.
Obviously, no one should ever sleep with any attorney for any reason. It’s just a terrible idea to encourage them, and no one wants to get fucked by a lawyer.
Regarding the issue of a conflict of interest for receiving compensation if the case goes on longer -- isn't this just an inherent problem with hiring any special prosecutor?
The fact that the person who has pretty broad authority and day to day control of how the case is handled has a financial interest in keeping it going isn't really made much worse if their boss has a vague secondary interest in the money they make.
True, but if the special prosecutor was (as alleged) hired before that relationship existed and the extent of the work assigned decided then doesn't that kinda undermine that worry?
Aren't special prosecutors often given substantial freedom within the ambit of their initial assignment?
Another great episode. I catch myself in the moment thinking, "When did I get interested in this type of law and why?"* I found Ken to be my favorite Twitter follow, and I actually avoided most politics until I got on Bluesky. There goes my peace of mind.
*It was Ken snarking on idiots, and Trump and his legal crap, and Greg Doucette and the Threadnought. (I'm fully on board with Ken's sharp comments!)
Since 2018 I've been physically down, too chronically ill to work, which doesn't matter as I'm now a senior citizen (although I miss work!). My brain needs constant information for me to be happy. After Trump was elected, I ended up way too immersed in all of this stuff.* I think I ended up with a lot of knowledge, but in the end I'm not interested in fighting politics with loved ones.
my brain is much the same way; if i'm lucky i have a decade or two before the other stuff kicks in; hard to imagine myself missing work, but I understand that stranger things have happened... here's hoping you stick around long enough to be glad you did, or stay glad that you've seen, are still seeing, etc.
regarding politics, i tuned out [not for the first time] during Trump's first year in office. COVID-19 made that avoidance practically impossible, and then came the cascading election result denial horrorshow...
regarding law, i've been a Ken White fan for nearly 20 years, get to pick the brains of my sister-in-law & brother-in-law-in-law (both lawyers working in government), and the overlap (particularly since "All the President's Lawyers") has been a feast.
I didn't tune out of Trump. And in retrospect, I am glad I knew things but it was too much. There are so many excellent podcasts and blogs, and my brain tries to trick me into reading them all. It's a good thing there are other fascinating things out there.
Oh... one other item... back in the day, letters threatening to sue were called 32 cent lawsuits. Gives you an idea of how long ago it was, and whether they were even using attorneys for the threats.
My folk dance group in Portland, Oregon got one such from Intel because one of their employees used Intel's email to share our dance schedule. As you can imagine we pleaded with the membership not to do that, nothing more happened, but the Intel employees didn't get to dance with the better dancers for a while.
The SCOTUS 14A oral arguments, Willis testimony & Engoron verdict could each warrant an entire episode dedicated to them, and instead there's been nothing for 10 days.
Hope you can comment on Fani Willis' courtroom testimony in the next episode. It seemed like she did everything a client could possibly do up there to earn a goat scream.
If New York gives the Trump Organization the corporate "death penalty," what will the other 49 states do? Will they follow suit? Does the NY ruling make it easier for a state like California to implement its own "death penalty"?
The issue is equity and the sales price of assets. With the current issue of close to $90,000,000 owed to E. Jean Carroll (sp?), Trump’s ongoing legal expenses, something in the ballpark of half a billion dollars in clawbacks from New York State, and the current and mid-term bad market for commercial real estate in New York, a corporate death penalty could easily reduce net worth by a billion dollars…. Plus bear in mind that Trump carries these assets at inflated prices.
Tax issues would also come into play. There’s the reported $48,000,000 in phantom loans in Chicago, the capital gains on long-held real estate. Plus I asked my accountant about the money Trump has been getting from his various PACs. While corporate legal expenses, he assured me, are tax deductible, personal criminal defense expenses and penalties are not. So it’s either income, and taxable, or a gift, and taxed at the source.
Plus the money he owes Rudy, of course, as reported in Giuliani’s bankruptcy filing. All together, these undoubtedly bust the covenants on current loans. Which means those are immediately payable or the assets can be seized by creditors. It’s a cascade effect that is absolutely ruinous, regardless of what other states might do.
Some people (e.g. Norm Eisen) are seeing the impropriety of Cannon's latest decision on unsealing documents and Jack Smith's formal request for reconsideration as a big step towards him actually seeking recusal.
I know Ken's been rightfully cautious on how much it takes for there to be justification for recusal. Does this latest order move the needle much? Is Smith's request for reconsideration a Big Deal and suggest he might consider a recusal motion, if denied?
The senate twink got off!
And he didn't face any charges
I do so love Josh’s snarky takes.
I was really hoping the Gina Carano lawsuit would make it into this week’s show. I guess I will have to wait until next week to hear Ken’s insight on this beauty.
I’m enjoying the tone ya’ll settled into for Serious Trouble. Not better or worse than All The President(‘)s(‘) Lawyers but a bit different: less scathing at baseline but occasionally Ken or Josh throw out these hilarious savage quips that seem very genuine, especially when you make each other break.
e.g. Josh: “It’s been so long since we’ve talked about Jack Burkman that some listeners might not even know who he is. So who is this fucken moron?”
It feels a bit less radioy and a bit more like eavesdropping on a rant between Josh and Ken, which is thumbs.
I think Josh really missed the point with his question about whether or not it’s a good idea to sleep an attorney you’ve hired to do work for you or are otherwise professionally entangled with.
Obviously, no one should ever sleep with any attorney for any reason. It’s just a terrible idea to encourage them, and no one wants to get fucked by a lawyer.
I also was fully expecting Ken's response to be self-deprecating and say that it's never a good idea to sleep with a lawyer, full stop.
Regarding the issue of a conflict of interest for receiving compensation if the case goes on longer -- isn't this just an inherent problem with hiring any special prosecutor?
The fact that the person who has pretty broad authority and day to day control of how the case is handled has a financial interest in keeping it going isn't really made much worse if their boss has a vague secondary interest in the money they make.
Right. But generally the person assigning work to the special prosecutor doesn’t have a personal relationship with them.
True, but if the special prosecutor was (as alleged) hired before that relationship existed and the extent of the work assigned decided then doesn't that kinda undermine that worry?
Aren't special prosecutors often given substantial freedom within the ambit of their initial assignment?
Another great episode. I catch myself in the moment thinking, "When did I get interested in this type of law and why?"* I found Ken to be my favorite Twitter follow, and I actually avoided most politics until I got on Bluesky. There goes my peace of mind.
*It was Ken snarking on idiots, and Trump and his legal crap, and Greg Doucette and the Threadnought. (I'm fully on board with Ken's sharp comments!)
only because the phrasing "...avoided most politics until..." triggered my curiosity:
1) what fraction of politics did you *not* avoid previously?
2) is/are there any politics you still avoid?
3) (possibly making 1 &or 2 irrelevant) was the entire context of your comment limited to law-focused online content?
Since 2018 I've been physically down, too chronically ill to work, which doesn't matter as I'm now a senior citizen (although I miss work!). My brain needs constant information for me to be happy. After Trump was elected, I ended up way too immersed in all of this stuff.* I think I ended up with a lot of knowledge, but in the end I'm not interested in fighting politics with loved ones.
*Politics, legal politics.
my brain is much the same way; if i'm lucky i have a decade or two before the other stuff kicks in; hard to imagine myself missing work, but I understand that stranger things have happened... here's hoping you stick around long enough to be glad you did, or stay glad that you've seen, are still seeing, etc.
regarding politics, i tuned out [not for the first time] during Trump's first year in office. COVID-19 made that avoidance practically impossible, and then came the cascading election result denial horrorshow...
regarding law, i've been a Ken White fan for nearly 20 years, get to pick the brains of my sister-in-law & brother-in-law-in-law (both lawyers working in government), and the overlap (particularly since "All the President's Lawyers") has been a feast.
I didn't tune out of Trump. And in retrospect, I am glad I knew things but it was too much. There are so many excellent podcasts and blogs, and my brain tries to trick me into reading them all. It's a good thing there are other fascinating things out there.
Still, I'm enjoying Bluesky.
Oh... one other item... back in the day, letters threatening to sue were called 32 cent lawsuits. Gives you an idea of how long ago it was, and whether they were even using attorneys for the threats.
My folk dance group in Portland, Oregon got one such from Intel because one of their employees used Intel's email to share our dance schedule. As you can imagine we pleaded with the membership not to do that, nothing more happened, but the Intel employees didn't get to dance with the better dancers for a while.
"Fani Willis and the Very Large RICO Prosecution" sounds like a children's book.
40:05 Joshua.
Hope you come back to timing this week — when does the Supreme Court decide whether to hear this or not?
Question for Ken and Josh:
Apropos of nothing in particular, Is $364 million enough for a "no-such-thing-as-an-emergency" podcast?
The SCOTUS 14A oral arguments, Willis testimony & Engoron verdict could each warrant an entire episode dedicated to them, and instead there's been nothing for 10 days.
Hope you can comment on Fani Willis' courtroom testimony in the next episode. It seemed like she did everything a client could possibly do up there to earn a goat scream.
I cannot wait to hear Ken’s and Josh’s opinion of Fani’s testimony. I think that she does not know when to shut up.
If New York gives the Trump Organization the corporate "death penalty," what will the other 49 states do? Will they follow suit? Does the NY ruling make it easier for a state like California to implement its own "death penalty"?
The issue is equity and the sales price of assets. With the current issue of close to $90,000,000 owed to E. Jean Carroll (sp?), Trump’s ongoing legal expenses, something in the ballpark of half a billion dollars in clawbacks from New York State, and the current and mid-term bad market for commercial real estate in New York, a corporate death penalty could easily reduce net worth by a billion dollars…. Plus bear in mind that Trump carries these assets at inflated prices.
Tax issues would also come into play. There’s the reported $48,000,000 in phantom loans in Chicago, the capital gains on long-held real estate. Plus I asked my accountant about the money Trump has been getting from his various PACs. While corporate legal expenses, he assured me, are tax deductible, personal criminal defense expenses and penalties are not. So it’s either income, and taxable, or a gift, and taxed at the source.
Plus the money he owes Rudy, of course, as reported in Giuliani’s bankruptcy filing. All together, these undoubtedly bust the covenants on current loans. Which means those are immediately payable or the assets can be seized by creditors. It’s a cascade effect that is absolutely ruinous, regardless of what other states might do.
Bob Lipton
Some people (e.g. Norm Eisen) are seeing the impropriety of Cannon's latest decision on unsealing documents and Jack Smith's formal request for reconsideration as a big step towards him actually seeking recusal.
I know Ken's been rightfully cautious on how much it takes for there to be justification for recusal. Does this latest order move the needle much? Is Smith's request for reconsideration a Big Deal and suggest he might consider a recusal motion, if denied?