Listen now (39 mins) | E. Jean Carroll could sue Trump again; Nina Jankowicz sues Fox News; George Santos appears to be enjoying his indictment
An episode on the Durham report would be interesting
If next week’s episode isn’t titled “Rudy for the Defense”, I will seriously consider canceling my subscription
I cannot imagine a court/jury finding a media outlet liable for defamation for stating that "Notwithstanding the jury verdict that he was liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of E. Jean Carroll, Donald Trump continues to insist that he never met the woman and that the jury's verdict was wrong."
I can imagine a court/jury finding a media outlet liable for defamation for allowing the former President (or one of his defenders) to assert that he never met Ms. Carroll and that she was lying about the sexual assault, without mentioning that the jury found to the contrary.
This is, in my opinion, NOT an abridgement of the First Amendment. As Ken said, we rely upon court cases to resolve issues. The verdict is the TRUTH (hence, the word "verdict"), whether or not an omnipotent & omniscient being would agree with it.
Ken and Josh,
I find it disconcerting that someone who just received a guilty verdict from a jury for defamation along with a major dollar judgment, can then start spouting further defamation about the litigant, who then has little redress in gaining a further monetary judgment.
If that is so, it is obvious why Trump wouldn't give a damn and just keep on spouting on.
Josh seemed like he was in a combative mood this recording; been a while since we've seen him offer this much pushback. Not complaining!
So, Josh, is the jury verdict based on a preponderance of evidence? I didn't quite get that. :)
It strikes me after this discussion that Carroll's best move might be to go for some form of restraining order rather than relitigating. That puts it on the courts to actually enforce it. If nothing else, that kind of literal slow-motion train crash might be fun to watch.
"Unpedigreed dogs." ROTFLMAO.
My biggest question about the Giuliani lawsuit came from somebody still on Twitter: Does being fellated by a third party negate attorney-client privilege?
I don't understand something about the (I know, remote) possibility of CNN being sued. When Tucker Carlson and Fox were sued, Tucker was saying bullshit a. night after night and b. as an employee of Fox and on their behalf.
Trump said this thing on a TownHall that was Live. When Ken and Josh talked about that tonight, it sounded like they were saying "Well, obviously, CNN should have predicted that he would say exactly what he did." In retrospect, sure it's easy to say that. Really anytime Trump says something insane, it seems obvious in retrospect that he would say it. But it seems weird for any responsibility for any lie of Trump's to shift to CNN on the basis of "obviously if you ask him this question, he will answer it slanderously."
That seems so odd that I feel like I must have misunderstood. Where am I confused?
While I generally find Josh's contrarian takes annoying (e.g., the 'doesn't this obviously exceptional case with Mike Lindell show that arbitration is actually a great thing for the little guy?' bit from last episode) I have to say that I felt his pain here. It just seems odd that a jury finding that Trump *probably* was guilty of sexual abuse means that the law takes it as "proving" that he committed sexual abuse, to at least some extent that must be recognized by not just Trump, but third parties, at risk of legal problems. At least, I believe that was the language Ken used. Maybe it's the mathematician in me, but that just seems really weird.
I mean, what if they had found the opposite -- that Trump had probably not committed sexual abuse? Would Jean Carroll be forbidden from saying that he did, or would CNN interviewing her about it, knowing what she would claim, put them at legal risk in some way? That seems extremely unlikely, but I don't know the legal difference, other than obviously she brought the suit against him initially.
I know that in a criminal trial, it's not guilty vs innocent, it's guilty vs not-guilty, but I thought that was because of the higher burden of proof. If this is literally "probably did it vs probably not" and it counts as a determination of fact to some degree, it seems it'd be more symmetric. I'm sure I'm missing some subtlety in exactly what "preponderance of the evidence" means, though, and it's more like "probably did it vs probably didn't *or* we just have no idea"
This episode seems to have generated more than usual reactions of, “the law says what?” And, “why is the law ambiguous on this?”
I wonder if we have trod into territory that should be familiar to Trump observers: the reaction of a normal person would be different. Most people would at least shut up while they licked their wounds. most people wouldn’t ask for or be given the platform to be quite so loud in response to the verdict.and wouldn’t have been able to easily access such a platform either.
I loved the flourish that the dogs eating your children wouldn't have a pedigree.
I don’t blame you for delaying the Giuliani suit. It’s noteworthy but disgusting.
If a network ended each of it's shows with an insult against a particular person, could that person have legal recourse? i.e. at the top of every hour they broadcast "Bob Jones of Nowhereville Indiana is a dumbass." It wouldn't be defamation as it doesn't involve a statement of fact. Could Bob sue for harassment? Would it change the legality if Bob was a public figure? If there was some news story about Bob?
Just curious if there are other types of lawsuits that could arise from publicly attacking a person while not technically defaming them, since we mostly seem to hear about defamation suits on these big cases.
I usually love this show and hurriedly listen to it. I play it when it first airs and then, disappointed that I don’t have a new episode to listen to, listen to it twice. This week’s episode stuck in my craw. At first it just seemed like Josh was pushing back against Ken unnecessarily. Then it dawned on me: Josh was yet another person who did not believe a woman when she says she was raped. This show and Josh know better and perform better.
Some fodder today for the podcast: "Standing silent" and not entering a plea. How much of a thing is this? Is there an element of legal strategy or is it more about (for want of a better term) PR?
Oh hey can you guys talk a whole lot about Devin Nunes and his cow while discussing the new Truth Social lawsuit against the WaPo?
Since E Jean Carroll was only awarded $20,000 in punitive damages. If she sues again, for trumps continued defamation. Could she ask a court to increase the punitive damages from the previous case, as it has clearly not had any preventative effect?