This piece by W Neil Eggleston tries—and fails, in my opinion—to make the case that Patsy Baloney must appear if issued a Congressional subpoena. It makes a more persuasive case that Pat can’t claim privilege if he does testify. Would love some additional context around the subpoena issue, if you also find the arguments persuasive. https://www.justsecurity.org/82201/the-law-requires-pat-cipollone-to-answer-the-jan-6-committees-questions/
What does the "imminent lawless action" part of the incitement standard mean? Is it enough to show that Trump's speech made it likely that some protesters would break the law by bringing weapons onto the capital grounds or even just move to a location where they failed to secure a permit or does the "lawless" part go beyond mere breaking of the law and require serious violent action?
When does the "trial of public opinion" become the real trial?
If Trump regains the White House, I have no doubt that he will pardon everyone who didn't testify against him and instead worked to perpetuate the Big Lie. Thus, the only trial is the trial of public opinion.
Trump has a pattern of delaying court cases for as long as possible. If he is charged criminally, and he attempts to delay his trial past the end of the Biden presidency, and a Republican is the next president, then couldn't the next president just tell the Justice department to drop the charges against Trump like Trump did with Michael Flynn, or just pardon him? Thus, the only trial is the trial of public opinion.
In my opinion, all those Trump cronies going on Fox news to complain about their treatment by the government are doing so because the only way they are going to avoid going to jail is through presidential pardon. They are making a defense in the trial of public opinion because if they don’t, then they will face jail time.
I know Ken talked about this earlier in the Trump presidency on “All the President’s Lawyers” (note the apostrophe). Has that assessment changed at all considering the Jan 6th hearings?
Popehat be like “Don’t Buy! Don’t Buy! Don’t Buy” cheers on Arrested Development re: Trump Indictment possibilities.
I half expected even more breaking news between the recording and release of this Very Special Episode of Serious Trouble.
Also, I could feel Sara's hate during the Team Taint portion. It was a tangible, palpable thing.
Nice to hear long-suffering producer Sara Fay laying down the law.
This comment is not about mustaches.
This piece by W Neil Eggleston tries—and fails, in my opinion—to make the case that Patsy Baloney must appear if issued a Congressional subpoena. It makes a more persuasive case that Pat can’t claim privilege if he does testify. Would love some additional context around the subpoena issue, if you also find the arguments persuasive. https://www.justsecurity.org/82201/the-law-requires-pat-cipollone-to-answer-the-jan-6-committees-questions/
What does the "imminent lawless action" part of the incitement standard mean? Is it enough to show that Trump's speech made it likely that some protesters would break the law by bringing weapons onto the capital grounds or even just move to a location where they failed to secure a permit or does the "lawless" part go beyond mere breaking of the law and require serious violent action?
When does the "trial of public opinion" become the real trial?
If Trump regains the White House, I have no doubt that he will pardon everyone who didn't testify against him and instead worked to perpetuate the Big Lie. Thus, the only trial is the trial of public opinion.
Trump has a pattern of delaying court cases for as long as possible. If he is charged criminally, and he attempts to delay his trial past the end of the Biden presidency, and a Republican is the next president, then couldn't the next president just tell the Justice department to drop the charges against Trump like Trump did with Michael Flynn, or just pardon him? Thus, the only trial is the trial of public opinion.
In my opinion, all those Trump cronies going on Fox news to complain about their treatment by the government are doing so because the only way they are going to avoid going to jail is through presidential pardon. They are making a defense in the trial of public opinion because if they don’t, then they will face jail time.
I know Ken talked about this earlier in the Trump presidency on “All the President’s Lawyers” (note the apostrophe). Has that assessment changed at all considering the Jan 6th hearings?
Fuck, OK, I paid for the priviledge so I'll ask the obvious, dumb question:
1. No way witness interference has an intent-requirement, RIGHT? Because if so I missed that episode of Law & Order/The Wire et al ...
1.a) Would Trump campaign funds interfacing with the person/people making those calls mean anything to anyone else, in the conspiracy context?
If I don't show up to the office until 0859 tomorrow, it's RICO.