Great episode and appreciated you taking the time to address the legality of the hissy fits on the chamber floor we’ve seen from lawmakers this week. I would note that here in my home state of Kentucky we have a clause in our constitution that requires elected officials to swear they have never dueled or they are prohibited from holding office. So, I’ll be expecting an episode on the Code Duello and what constitutes a duel, should Comer get more out of pocket than *checks notes* calling a fellow lawmaker a Smurf.
Please reject the Orwellian subversion that uses the word “truth” in “truth social”, even in quotation marks. I.e., don’t use terms like “re-truthed”, or even worse “truthed”, “truth”. Call them whatever you want (“posts”, “lies”, “shits”..?) but don’t allow them to coerce the use of the word “truth” for posts that are overwhelmingly likely to be either false or (at least) calling for civil war.
Orwellian indeed. Speaking of the platform that was temporarily rescued with funds via a Caribbean bank from a Russian oligarch until they got caught in an FEC violation, I was just wondering whether anyone has seen a Devin Nunes/Biss lawsuit lately?
I hope you're writing similar comments for everyone who uses the phrases "historical truth" and "scientific truth." If the task exceeds the time you have available, I can help.
According to Michael Popok of the Meidastouch Network, it is normal for the chief law clerk to sit next to the presiding judge at trial in New York State Superior Court in his experience as a trial lawyer.
Have I qualified that statement enough to be safe, if clumsy?
Was hoping you guys could spare a brief segment for the gigantic award in the Maya Kowalski suit against Johns Hopkins, and how absurd the broad and unregulated powers that the medical child abuse investigator has to access medical records and make treatment decisions without consent or even a court order.
I was so happy to hear y’all’s commentary on Mark Wayne Mullin. I feel like his shenanigans is custom-made content for you guys. Thanks for always bringing the wit and humor.
I love this podcast, but sometimes it seems as if Ken’s offhand comments intended as jokes come straight out of the writers room for a 1976 Norman Lear sitcom that lasted barely a season (All’s Fair, look it up, but don’t watch it, you have been warned).
Jan 6 Capitol protesters being incited and mounting their Rascal scooters is not an image I got from the footage of that day.
The insinuation about the “quality” of person available to sit on a long-term jury in Georgia is another.
This was also the pattern with the offhand comment about Mario Cuomo, prior.
They seem biased in an odd, out-of-date way: ageist, classist, and a little mean. Maybe the jury one comes from his experience as a lawyer, I don’t know. I just wish he’d get a better writer, sometimes.
I’m going to keep making fun of how Trump fans, who disproportionately invoke aggressive performative masculinity and act like schoolyard bullies, seem also disproportionately out of shape.
I’m going to keep referring to a rich powerful politician shitting on his own heritage to excuse sexual harassment.
And you’re not going to talk to any trial lawyer who won’t point out that the pool of people able to sit for a nine-month trial — in any state — is different than the pool able to sit for a one-week trial.
Markwayne Mullins was an MMA fighter not UFC, he only had 3 bouts last in 2006. And much of O' Brian's taunting involved Mullins needing a box for a debate. May be closer bout than Josh thinks.
Question from a layperson about an old issue from a previous podcast.
"Seditious conspiracy" requires an "overt act". The Oathkeepers weren't convicted just for thinking about disrupting the certification of the election with violence, they brought large quantities of firearms to a hotel in Arlington 10 minutes from the Capitol Building and prepared to use them.
Can subsequent overt acts *against* the conspiracy be accepted as a valid defense? On Jan 5 if they'd said "this is crazy what are we doing" and thrown their weapons into the Potomac could this additional overt act demonstrate that they no longer had seditious intent? Is seditious conspiracy a "no harm no foul" crime or a "can't un-ring the bell" crime?
I’m not a fan of Malcolm Gladwell’s application[1] of sociologist Mark Granovetter’s “threshold theory”[2] of riots into the idea of a slow-moving riot, where, according to Gladwell, someone can be moved over a threshold to action over timescales of months rather than seconds.
Is it an argument, here, for applying the idea of a slow-motion threshold to Trump’s repost of the citizen’s arrest post? Gladwell applies the theory to school shootings, but the meticulous planning of those shooters seems to show that the threshold to action isn’t a factor. [3]
How short must the timespan be between the inciting statements or actions and the incited action to show the connection between the two? What’s the role of passionate emotional arousal? Is there some level passionate emotional arousal that the inciter must perceive in the persons they’re inciting? How does that work when you’re in front of a large crowd? Or tweeting at one you can’t see?
Fair enough. Though the Rascal reference still seems to be ageist rather than ablist, I won’t quibble about the particular nature of the slight. I don’t object to those targets, who I also hold in contempt. I just think you should use a tighter choke so you can aim more precisely with a more devastating load. Your shot is hitting targets you aren’t aiming at.
My perspective on juries is a little different, and I am not a lawyer, so bear with me. The retired folks I grew up around did a lot jury duty. They were, overwhelmingly, immigrants who took that as a sacred democratic duty. One of them was a German Jew interned as an enemy alien during WW2, so you can imagine the sense of duty there. They were able to take long-term trials, and did. And, yeah, there were a lot of Italians there, including Cuomo’s people. ;-)
I completely understand distaste for stuff like “People of Walmart” making fun of people for being obese, conventionally not attractive, or in scooters. To me the issue is that Trumpism is so overtly about ubermenchism and that schoolyard bullying about appearance and manliness is so ingrained in it — yet the adherents are so often not that ideal at all.
I get it. And maybe I’m being a bit too hifalutin here. It just seems kinds bro-y to me.
There’s a middle ground here, somewhere between Mel Brooks and Harry Shearer. Presenting these white supremacists exactly as they are and not inflicting any collateral damage.
I watched the Albert Brooks HBO documentary today, and re-learned that his dad made a living with a character that made fun of funny-sounding Greek names, like my mom’s. But Greeks never resented it (much) because we bought into the white supremacy bullshit for a variety of reasons. I didn’t get “hey, Parkyakarkas” in school because I was Greek and had a funny-sounding name, as Hari Kondabolu did because of the Simpson’s Apu, because I look white.
I think there’s a way to make fun of these hateful asshats that doesn’t use the kind of humor they use. I wish I was funny enough to give you some tips. I just know that when you make jokes like that it seems like you’re one of them, like me laughing at Harry Einstein making fun of my mom’s name.
I thank you for your effort in chatting with me about this. It’s emotional & affective labor for a creative person to listen to criticism. I truly appreciate all you do, and enjoy the podcast very much.
This is the only podcast I listen to immediately when I get the notification. Thanks Josh, Ken & Sarah!
This is the only podcast I listen to, period. But also immediately.
Is it me, or did Josh do a Bernie Sanders impression when he said "you are a united states senator"?
Sounds like you guys were really enjoying this taping. And on behalf of the audience: I quite enjoyed the listening — as usual.
Great episode and appreciated you taking the time to address the legality of the hissy fits on the chamber floor we’ve seen from lawmakers this week. I would note that here in my home state of Kentucky we have a clause in our constitution that requires elected officials to swear they have never dueled or they are prohibited from holding office. So, I’ll be expecting an episode on the Code Duello and what constitutes a duel, should Comer get more out of pocket than *checks notes* calling a fellow lawmaker a Smurf.
Love the pod.
Please reject the Orwellian subversion that uses the word “truth” in “truth social”, even in quotation marks. I.e., don’t use terms like “re-truthed”, or even worse “truthed”, “truth”. Call them whatever you want (“posts”, “lies”, “shits”..?) but don’t allow them to coerce the use of the word “truth” for posts that are overwhelmingly likely to be either false or (at least) calling for civil war.
Tim Miller calls them “bleats.”
Orwellian indeed. Speaking of the platform that was temporarily rescued with funds via a Caribbean bank from a Russian oligarch until they got caught in an FEC violation, I was just wondering whether anyone has seen a Devin Nunes/Biss lawsuit lately?
I hope you're writing similar comments for everyone who uses the phrases "historical truth" and "scientific truth." If the task exceeds the time you have available, I can help.
According to Michael Popok of the Meidastouch Network, it is normal for the chief law clerk to sit next to the presiding judge at trial in New York State Superior Court in his experience as a trial lawyer.
Have I qualified that statement enough to be safe, if clumsy?
Bob Lipton
Was hoping you guys could spare a brief segment for the gigantic award in the Maya Kowalski suit against Johns Hopkins, and how absurd the broad and unregulated powers that the medical child abuse investigator has to access medical records and make treatment decisions without consent or even a court order.
I've heard NY attorneys report that the clerk positioning is normal in that court.
I was so happy to hear y’all’s commentary on Mark Wayne Mullin. I feel like his shenanigans is custom-made content for you guys. Thanks for always bringing the wit and humor.
I love this podcast, but sometimes it seems as if Ken’s offhand comments intended as jokes come straight out of the writers room for a 1976 Norman Lear sitcom that lasted barely a season (All’s Fair, look it up, but don’t watch it, you have been warned).
Jan 6 Capitol protesters being incited and mounting their Rascal scooters is not an image I got from the footage of that day.
The insinuation about the “quality” of person available to sit on a long-term jury in Georgia is another.
This was also the pattern with the offhand comment about Mario Cuomo, prior.
They seem biased in an odd, out-of-date way: ageist, classist, and a little mean. Maybe the jury one comes from his experience as a lawyer, I don’t know. I just wish he’d get a better writer, sometimes.
I’m going to keep making fun of how Trump fans, who disproportionately invoke aggressive performative masculinity and act like schoolyard bullies, seem also disproportionately out of shape.
I’m going to keep referring to a rich powerful politician shitting on his own heritage to excuse sexual harassment.
And you’re not going to talk to any trial lawyer who won’t point out that the pool of people able to sit for a nine-month trial — in any state — is different than the pool able to sit for a one-week trial.
Sorry. That’s all me, not writers.
Markwayne Mullins was an MMA fighter not UFC, he only had 3 bouts last in 2006. And much of O' Brian's taunting involved Mullins needing a box for a debate. May be closer bout than Josh thinks.
Is it normal for the FBI to request that a local police department conduct a “wellness check” of a home the night before an FBI raid on that home? Or is the local police department about to be implicated in obstruction of justice? https://themessenger.com/news/eric-adams-nypd-wellness-check-raid-fundraising-chief-questioned-fbi-never-heard-of-practice
Could George Santos be the supplier for the Baby Merchant in Cop Rock?
https://youtu.be/R9puOuTaGPc?si=zrKrgdkk1xrtz2RF
Question from a layperson about an old issue from a previous podcast.
"Seditious conspiracy" requires an "overt act". The Oathkeepers weren't convicted just for thinking about disrupting the certification of the election with violence, they brought large quantities of firearms to a hotel in Arlington 10 minutes from the Capitol Building and prepared to use them.
Can subsequent overt acts *against* the conspiracy be accepted as a valid defense? On Jan 5 if they'd said "this is crazy what are we doing" and thrown their weapons into the Potomac could this additional overt act demonstrate that they no longer had seditious intent? Is seditious conspiracy a "no harm no foul" crime or a "can't un-ring the bell" crime?
I’m not a fan of Malcolm Gladwell’s application[1] of sociologist Mark Granovetter’s “threshold theory”[2] of riots into the idea of a slow-moving riot, where, according to Gladwell, someone can be moved over a threshold to action over timescales of months rather than seconds.
Is it an argument, here, for applying the idea of a slow-motion threshold to Trump’s repost of the citizen’s arrest post? Gladwell applies the theory to school shootings, but the meticulous planning of those shooters seems to show that the threshold to action isn’t a factor. [3]
How short must the timespan be between the inciting statements or actions and the incited action to show the connection between the two? What’s the role of passionate emotional arousal? Is there some level passionate emotional arousal that the inciter must perceive in the persons they’re inciting? How does that work when you’re in front of a large crowd? Or tweeting at one you can’t see?
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence
[2] http://snap.stanford.edu/class/cs224w-readings/granovetter78threshold.pdf
[3] https://newrepublic.com/article/123139/malcolm-gladwell-wrong-about-school-shooters
Fair enough. Though the Rascal reference still seems to be ageist rather than ablist, I won’t quibble about the particular nature of the slight. I don’t object to those targets, who I also hold in contempt. I just think you should use a tighter choke so you can aim more precisely with a more devastating load. Your shot is hitting targets you aren’t aiming at.
My perspective on juries is a little different, and I am not a lawyer, so bear with me. The retired folks I grew up around did a lot jury duty. They were, overwhelmingly, immigrants who took that as a sacred democratic duty. One of them was a German Jew interned as an enemy alien during WW2, so you can imagine the sense of duty there. They were able to take long-term trials, and did. And, yeah, there were a lot of Italians there, including Cuomo’s people. ;-)
I completely understand distaste for stuff like “People of Walmart” making fun of people for being obese, conventionally not attractive, or in scooters. To me the issue is that Trumpism is so overtly about ubermenchism and that schoolyard bullying about appearance and manliness is so ingrained in it — yet the adherents are so often not that ideal at all.
I get it. And maybe I’m being a bit too hifalutin here. It just seems kinds bro-y to me.
There’s a middle ground here, somewhere between Mel Brooks and Harry Shearer. Presenting these white supremacists exactly as they are and not inflicting any collateral damage.
I watched the Albert Brooks HBO documentary today, and re-learned that his dad made a living with a character that made fun of funny-sounding Greek names, like my mom’s. But Greeks never resented it (much) because we bought into the white supremacy bullshit for a variety of reasons. I didn’t get “hey, Parkyakarkas” in school because I was Greek and had a funny-sounding name, as Hari Kondabolu did because of the Simpson’s Apu, because I look white.
I think there’s a way to make fun of these hateful asshats that doesn’t use the kind of humor they use. I wish I was funny enough to give you some tips. I just know that when you make jokes like that it seems like you’re one of them, like me laughing at Harry Einstein making fun of my mom’s name.
I thank you for your effort in chatting with me about this. It’s emotional & affective labor for a creative person to listen to criticism. I truly appreciate all you do, and enjoy the podcast very much.
This shade from your other column literally made me spit take an excellent martini, BTW. You’ve got a gift.
“They’re excellent trial lawyers; just look at their advertisement saying so on the concourse at Burbank Airport.”