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!

Expand full comment
John Appel's avatar

Beat me to it!

Expand full comment
Gazeboist's avatar

Victory is mine!

Expand full comment
WRD'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?

Expand full comment
Tony's avatar

Glad to see we had the same impulse

Expand full comment
lagaya's avatar

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

Expand full comment
Gisele Dubson's avatar

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

Expand full comment
Laurence Yarosh's avatar

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

Expand full comment
Gisele Dubson's avatar

That’s congress, not a court of law.

Expand full comment
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.

Expand full comment
Ignorant Fool's avatar

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

Expand full comment
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.

Expand full comment
Ry Young's avatar

Hope everyone is feeling better!

Expand full comment
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...

Expand full comment
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.

Expand full comment
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.

Expand full comment
DLC's avatar

Sigh, GUN not fun.

Expand full comment
KathyintheWallowas's avatar

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

Expand full comment
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

Expand full comment
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?

Expand full comment
Katie's avatar

Funniest episode ever : )

Expand full comment
Katie's avatar

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

Expand full comment
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!!!

Expand full comment
KathyintheWallowas's avatar

... heh.

Expand full comment
LawZag's avatar

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

Expand full comment
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.

Expand full comment
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.

Expand full comment