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.
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!)
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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!)
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?
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"?
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?