E. Jean Carroll receives an enormous damage award, which is likely to hold up on appeal; Peter Navarro is sentenced to jail; three listeners with good memories win Serious Trouble mugs
Long-time listener, first-time commenter. Ken and Josh are usually pretty funny, but the back and forth on long-suffering judge Otero was great. Thanks for the lols. A cheery wave from Chile
I always find that when people continue to behave badly such that I and others need Marshal protection from the pitchfork crowd that it is likely that damage not only continues but is exacerbated.
maybe im reading into this, but was the angry judge re: tax leak quoting the TV show the West Wing? In the show's final season we see one character admit to massive a leak of national security secrets for reasons that he states were for a greater good. In his last scene with Martin Sheen, pissed that the leaks have both forced his hand during a major crisis and created a new diplomatic crisis, we hear almost the exact same quote: "lots of people will call you a hero for this, just dont mistake me for one of them"
Looking forward to Ken's analysis of Trump's latest reply in the SCOTUS insurrection case.
On the one hand, his argument that since Congress could hypothetically waive the disability at any future time, the court cannot therefore say with certainty that he is or will be ineligible to hold office, seems rather stupid.
However, I was intrigued by the analogy he made to residency requirements for congress, and that the constitution only requires that they 'inhabit' the state "when elected", and that they do not need to satisfy the constitutional requirement until the actual election day. Therefore, the argument goes, if you can't keep a politician off the primary or general ballot for not complying with a constitutional requirement that they might be able to satisfy by the time of actual election, then you can't keep Trump off the ballot for something he might get a waiver for by the time of the election.
My questions:
1) Is that a true statement of law regarding congress? If so, is there any reason why the analogy is not sound? If the possibility of becoming eligible by the time of the election is a complete answer to the residency requirement, why wouldn't it be a complete answer to the "don't be an insurrectionist unless waived" requirement?
2) I interpret this argument as presuming that he is actually currently ineligible but-for a waiver. If the court agrees with this argument and the ballot/hold office distinction, would they have to find that he is currently ineligible to hold the office, but because he might become eligible later, he has to remain on the ballot due to a potential congressional waiver? Or could they rely on this argument to punt on the eligibility question in the first place?
Would you please explain why you think Peter Navarro is likely to go to jail imminently, but Steve Bannon is still walking around a free man? Weren't they convicted of the same offense? Thanks from Florida.
Off-topic-ish. Trump loses yet another legal action. The Russian pee-pee story just won't die. In computer games zombies are much easier to kill. Is Trump a long-lost cousin of Barbara Streisand?
Ken, did I detect a LOTR reference with “I was there when Avenatti’s strength failed”?
Well played.
Long-time listener, first-time commenter. Ken and Josh are usually pretty funny, but the back and forth on long-suffering judge Otero was great. Thanks for the lols. A cheery wave from Chile
Ken,
Saw you on last nights "FRONTLINE." As Billy Crystal's Fernando would say, "You looked maaavalous!"
Thanks for your insights, too.
83 million is about the price of one used 757.
I always find that when people continue to behave badly such that I and others need Marshal protection from the pitchfork crowd that it is likely that damage not only continues but is exacerbated.
Congratulations to the 3 lucky winners, and of course to E Jean Carroll and her attorney.
I am very interested to hear Ken’s thoughts on Michael Mann’s defamation trial:
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/06/1228720142/michael-mann-climate-scientist-in-court-suing-for-defamation?ft=nprml&f=191676894
maybe im reading into this, but was the angry judge re: tax leak quoting the TV show the West Wing? In the show's final season we see one character admit to massive a leak of national security secrets for reasons that he states were for a greater good. In his last scene with Martin Sheen, pissed that the leaks have both forced his hand during a major crisis and created a new diplomatic crisis, we hear almost the exact same quote: "lots of people will call you a hero for this, just dont mistake me for one of them"
Looking forward to Ken's analysis of Trump's latest reply in the SCOTUS insurrection case.
On the one hand, his argument that since Congress could hypothetically waive the disability at any future time, the court cannot therefore say with certainty that he is or will be ineligible to hold office, seems rather stupid.
However, I was intrigued by the analogy he made to residency requirements for congress, and that the constitution only requires that they 'inhabit' the state "when elected", and that they do not need to satisfy the constitutional requirement until the actual election day. Therefore, the argument goes, if you can't keep a politician off the primary or general ballot for not complying with a constitutional requirement that they might be able to satisfy by the time of actual election, then you can't keep Trump off the ballot for something he might get a waiver for by the time of the election.
My questions:
1) Is that a true statement of law regarding congress? If so, is there any reason why the analogy is not sound? If the possibility of becoming eligible by the time of the election is a complete answer to the residency requirement, why wouldn't it be a complete answer to the "don't be an insurrectionist unless waived" requirement?
2) I interpret this argument as presuming that he is actually currently ineligible but-for a waiver. If the court agrees with this argument and the ballot/hold office distinction, would they have to find that he is currently ineligible to hold the office, but because he might become eligible later, he has to remain on the ballot due to a potential congressional waiver? Or could they rely on this argument to punt on the eligibility question in the first place?
Excellent show, guys. Especially liked the ‘long suffering’ discussion.
Great episode, guys.
Would you please explain why you think Peter Navarro is likely to go to jail imminently, but Steve Bannon is still walking around a free man? Weren't they convicted of the same offense? Thanks from Florida.
A couple drag queens won a suit (in the UK) against a right-wing activist for calling them pedophiles. Could this happen in the US? https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/jan/29/laurence-fox-loses-libel-battle-with-twitter-x-users-he-called-paedophiles
Off-topic-ish. Trump loses yet another legal action. The Russian pee-pee story just won't die. In computer games zombies are much easier to kill. Is Trump a long-lost cousin of Barbara Streisand?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/01/donald-trump-sex-bribes-data-protection-claim-rejected-by-uk-court