27 Comments
User's avatar
Gazeboist's avatar

Good news, everyone! The looming specter of a Serious Trouble episode has prompted the Colorado Supreme Court to strike Trump from the primary ballot!

WRDinDC's avatar

I hope we don't get from Serious Trouble yet another recap of the technical merits of the Baude/Paulsen paper.

Instead, I'll suggest a different crazy Paulsen paper to discuss: Is West Virginia Unconstitutional?

Tony's avatar

Glad to see we had the same impulse

lagaya's avatar

Oh my god, so much time spent on Hunter Biden. I've decided not to vote for him.

Gisele Dubson's avatar

Hunter can take his lump in court. It’s not going to change a single vote.

Laurence Yarosh's avatar

If they can force him to testify in secret, they can force anybody to testify in secret.

Gisele Dubson's avatar

That’s congress, not a court of law.

Chuchundra's avatar

Unrelated to this week's episode, but I watched the first season of Slow Horses last week and it's instructive to note that Ken's rules about how to identify the Fed in your criminal/terrorist enterprise also apply if your crimes are being committed in the UK and the Feds are MI-5.

Ignorant Fool's avatar

Thank God! I was having withdrawal! I basically live for these every week...

BJW's avatar

I'm glad Ken was able to get over Covid and is still fighting for justice. We definitely need a true Pope signal.

Ry Young's avatar

Hope everyone is feeling better!

DLC's avatar

I just can't care about Hunter. Any federal conviction will surely get pardoned by his dad. Most people would do it if we were President and one of our relatives (that we didn't hate) was convicted of something.

It's just a matter of timing.

Isn't that fun charge being used in another case? I remember a woman. Just read about it in the past few weeks. Texas or California...

lagaya's avatar

I don't believe Joe Biden would pardon his son. Joe Biden is a traditionalist in things like that. That's more of a Trump-type move, pardoning his friends and relatives.

KathyintheWallowas's avatar

Caveat: I think Trump requires $2 million, no matter who you are. Or that seemed to be the implication in the Dunphy v. Guiliani filings.

KathyintheWallowas's avatar

Depends on where you are whether that's a synonym.

CJ L's avatar

You guys have remarked a few times on the perhaps peculiar fact of Judge Engoron's clerk sitting beside him in court, but this absolutely wild scene from a Las Vegas courtroom suggests one reason for it: bodyguard duties

https://twitter.com/LasVegasLocally/status/1742670392849060162

adam's avatar

The tax case has me a little confused. If he paid all his back taxes, interest, fees, and penalties then how is this case going to be anything but a time suck for people and a paycheck for lawyers? Like, people hate taxes, and will a jury(if it even makes it that far) actually convict a guy that paid their taxes late?

Katie's avatar

Funniest episode ever : )

Katie's avatar

Oops, sorry, I meant that about the Uncivil Procedure episode 🤦🏻‍♀️

Diane's Less Hostile Username's avatar

Oh my god, when Josh said he and his husband went to find the bathroom where Larry Craig was arrested I LOST IT! Love you Josh!!!

LawZag's avatar

Well, so much for a Q&A episode...

Troy McClure's avatar

I can't wait for the textualists on the Supreme Court to say the DOJ must ignore the text of the obstruction of an official proceeding criminal statute based on what they believe the legislative history says about the purpose for Congress adding the crime.

LawZag's avatar

For what its worth, in Yates it was Kagan, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas in the dissent arguing that cutting up fish was destruction of a tangible object to impede a federal investigation. I don't think the January 6th case obstruction of an official proceeding case is likely to fall under conservative/liberal framework.