27 Comments

This episode reminds me again to say that I would gladly pay extra for more episodes on FA issues and/or abuse of power specifically.

Expand full comment

Not-A-Lawyer here (and definitely Not-A-Constitutional-Scholar) asking whether it means anything that the 14th Amendment specifically mentions Senators and Representatives and even bothers to single out presidential electors and yet doesn't list the President and Vice President. Seems that if you meant to include POTUS, you'd say so? And while I might consider that just common sense, is it relevant for a judge to consider that when forming a decision?

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Expand full comment

It's not simply "an oath to support the Constitution" though.

"having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States..."

The argument is that the Presidential oath is not included here. An "officer of the United States" is defined in the Appointments Clause as those appointed by the President. So while President or a Member of Congress is also "an office" it is an elected office, not an "Office of the United States."

That is the actual argument, of course. Trump's argument is of lesser quality.

Expand full comment

Bravo. I follow the trials and tribulations of Trump and the republicans intermittently, Sometimes it seems like they're deliberately trying to drown out everything else. I enjoy listening to these episodes and reading the comments.

Expand full comment

Mistake made by Ken on when you can file in federal court. Has nothing to do with electronic filing. Even in 1970, Fed. R. Civ. P. 77 stated that the Court is "always" open. As a result, in the old days if you dropped your pleading after hours for filing in the Court's drop box before the next business day, the document would be filed stamped the previous day. Obviously, with electronic filing you can literally file 24/7 but, technically, that has always been the federal rule.

Expand full comment

Did Judge Sarah Wallace deliberately keep her reasoning on the “officer” part light and lean into the “insurrection” reasoning because she doesn’t care about reversals on the former, but cares about the insurrection part? Is it like putting a crappy graf in your article so your editor will have something they’ll focus on that you don’t care about?

Expand full comment

I'd really like to see someone who thinks Trump clearly participated in an insurection propose a test for what it means to participate in an insurection.

I think that's going to be very hard to do that in a sensible way that includes seizing power by asking congress to do something unconstitutional when the violence only plays an indirect roll in the scheme (few people think Trump planned to have the Jan 6th rioters either hold the capital or put a gun to Pence's head and demand he not certify)

Expand full comment

I only became a paying subscriber to officially request that the curse jar sound effect be reinstated.

Expand full comment

There was the funniest (I guess) discussion by Floyd's attorneys about tagging, starting with saying "tags begin with &" and demonstrating (perhaps deliberate) unawareness of "how social media even works." There was only one line of questioning by that attorney about threats, but even that appeared to be trying to elicit hearsay evaluation.

They did have comments from the "targets" of the communication. I've been mulling other words than target... victim? attackee? "the person I'm trying to get the flying monkeys to swarm"?

Expand full comment

In a moral sense, absolutely. But it's hard to fit his behavior into one of the three categories:

1) Levying war against the us

2) Giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the us

3) Adhering to the enemies of the united statea

The constitution limits treason to.

Expand full comment

The Chutkan immunity ruling was a fun read. Trump's talking point about not being able to be sued because he's a candidate for the office of president got me thinking about Avenatti. Ken, should Michael Avenatti have "just done it" and run for president after all to keep out of jail? Pfft.

Expand full comment

Ken,

You mentioned on social media that you thought Judge Chutkan might remand Trump into custody in the event that he is found guilty in the D.C. case, even prior to sentencing. I have heard other commenters (including Chris Christie on the Dispatch podcast) state that he believed Trump would remain on bond pending appeal under 18 U.S.C. 3143. Can you explain the standard of proof Trump would have to demonstrate to be released on bond pending appeal (would he have to show substantial question on all counts likely to lead to a term of imprisonment or just one?) and the standard of review by the court of appeals if Judge Chutkan denies a motion for release pending appeal?

Thank you.

Expand full comment

Have we lost the ability to download mp3s with the new layout?

Expand full comment