Listen now | A special grand jury wanted even more RICO charges; Peter Navarro has lost in politics and now in court; bad legal advice is published on the internet
I object to Ken's description of Judge Jones's opinion as "federal courts porn." Federal officer removal is a maybe a little risque. We aren't talking about stuff you wouldn't want your kids to see like jurisdiction-stripping or interstitial federal common law.
Maybe the Just Security letter is an attempt to spoof the whole legal pundit industry (though in rather pedantic terms). There sure seems to be no scarcity of folks willing to go on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc to provide free legal sounding advice in 30 second bites. Why should the folks at Jenner & Block be any different?
It’s either that, or they lost an inter-office challenge and were forced to write it. Either way, it was mildly entertaining
I think he still has his Cameo page. Maybe someone can pay him on behalf of Chesebro to read the Just Security letter to him, maybe like a bedtime story?
I see he is selling a 2 BR apartment in NYC, ($6 mil) which may be the one that Dunphy described in her filing (one of 5 residences she also mentions).
Some of my spouse's family lives in San Diego, and they would definitely agree with your take on the politics there. Didn't they also have a year with 5 mayors or something? Crazy
As to Navarro, I voted for him in ‘92 and had forgotten how close he came. He lost to Susan Golding who, in order to lure the RNC 1996 convention to San Diego, indulged in some accounting fuckery which details I’ve forgotten. Much bigger than just mayor & city council, scandal in early aughts about SD’s under-funding of its pension obligations. There was whistleblower who was a trustee of the program.
I’ve been a San Diegan for >50 years. What Ken says about our politics is absolutely true. See above. Several mayors have had to resign in the last 30 years for one reason or another.
I was watching his presser (complete with protesters with "Trump Won!"signs in the background on a cnn video!) when who should I see holding the sign up but DC's beloved "Anarchy Princess".
I'd love to hear a discussion on Rudy's lawyer suing him for failing to pay the bills - and the possibly of Rudy impleading Trump? If he doesn't now, does he lose his shot to sue Trump for failing to pay him? Also, if this case gets to discovery, would there be potentially incriminating stuff churned up that could be used by Jack Smith, etc.? How would Smith get eyes on it? Would he have to wait for one of the parties (presumably not Rudy) to do something with it, or could he get a grand jury to subpoena it?
I’ve got a question regarding all of Trump’s statements of late and and people talking about the prosecution just lining them up as evidence of admitting guilt. Couldn’t the defense gather all his whackado comments and just prove that nothing he says is true? Is this a strategy or endemic?
A serious question that I have yet to hear anyone (directly) address. I am perhaps more bullish than others on the 14th amendment issue and the likelihood of the Court deeming tRump disqualified. But what is the standard of proof that the courts must apply? Is it a preponderance of evidence? Or some higher standard?
Can’t swear to it, but...there isn’t one. It’s never really gone far enough in courts to establish a standard. There have been a handful of local politicians since J6 that have been booted or deemed ineligible, but from differing jurisdictions, AFAIK, and the appellate courts haven’t even weighed in yet I think.
Anarchy Princess was holding the sign (Trump Lost and you know it!) behind Navarro on a CNN clip. At the time, she also got hit with an American flag pole by an alt right streamer who goes by "Jericho" - It was caught on the TV coverage. I first ran across her via the streamers who were following the 1776 truck invasion of DC last summer.
Obviously legal acts can be part of a furthering a criminal enterprise, but can you be convicted of RICO, conspiracy or similar crime if your only provable overt acts are completely legal? How would that work?
It'd have to be towards an illegal end, but I imagine that if you agree with someone to bomb a building and then buy a legal quantity of material that can be used to make a bomb, a prosecutor could sell that to a jury.
First of all, the attorney may not be 100% sure which story is true. Secondly, there is a certain art toward directing a witnesses' testimony in a helpful avenue without ever telling them to lie. For an example of an attorney directing the client and dancing on the razor's edge of witness coaching, see the wonderful movie (or read the wonderful book) Anatomy of a Murder, where Jimmy Stewart pushes his client toward an insanity defense without ever saying so explicitly.
None of which excuses Woodward for having an obvious and terrible conflict of interest that he seems intent on pretending doesn't exist.
Maybe he just sympathized with Taveras when it seemed he might not be super-fast at telling Woodward what he had heard, been told and seen, so Woodward told Taveras something like, "Hey, I know it can be hard to recall certain things. You might never recall them. It happens." /s
To be far too pedantic, surely there must be *some* cases where it makes sense to lie to a grand jury. What if they are investigating a murder but called you as a witness bc they think someone else did it (and you have no compunction about letting them take the fall). If you take the 5th then they are going to take a serious look at you while if they can prove it's a lie then you're probably going down for murder anyway.
I dunno if that imperils your ability to take the 5th if later charged (could it?) but even so surely sometimes it's the smart thing to do (eg you figure if they ever take a serious look at you as a suspect you're screwed anyway). I can't imagine it being a good idea in anything like the case you mentioned but I've been watching too much umm, actually so can't help being a bit pedantic.
I object to Ken's description of Judge Jones's opinion as "federal courts porn." Federal officer removal is a maybe a little risque. We aren't talking about stuff you wouldn't want your kids to see like jurisdiction-stripping or interstitial federal common law.
Maybe the Just Security letter is an attempt to spoof the whole legal pundit industry (though in rather pedantic terms). There sure seems to be no scarcity of folks willing to go on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc to provide free legal sounding advice in 30 second bites. Why should the folks at Jenner & Block be any different?
It’s either that, or they lost an inter-office challenge and were forced to write it. Either way, it was mildly entertaining
Just Security letter = ChatGPT fan-fic
“The public defender will talk to you frankly and cure you of all that bullshit that your other attorney may have told you.” Lol. Can confirm :)
"You shouldn’t take unsolicited legal advice offered over the internet, and you shouldn't even offer it either."
If you're going to push this idea, how is Rudi every going to make enough money to pay off his civil lawsuits?
I think he still has his Cameo page. Maybe someone can pay him on behalf of Chesebro to read the Just Security letter to him, maybe like a bedtime story?
I see he is selling a 2 BR apartment in NYC, ($6 mil) which may be the one that Dunphy described in her filing (one of 5 residences she also mentions).
Don’t knock bedtime stories.
Some of my spouse's family lives in San Diego, and they would definitely agree with your take on the politics there. Didn't they also have a year with 5 mayors or something? Crazy
No, but we did have a year where it rained 5 times. That was pretty nuts.
True
Indeed. As one of the, apparent legion, of fans living in San Diego, I couldn’t agree more with the lunatics comment.
You’re thinking of Rome, when they had the Year of Four Popes and earlier the Year of Five Caesars.
Bob
As to Navarro, I voted for him in ‘92 and had forgotten how close he came. He lost to Susan Golding who, in order to lure the RNC 1996 convention to San Diego, indulged in some accounting fuckery which details I’ve forgotten. Much bigger than just mayor & city council, scandal in early aughts about SD’s under-funding of its pension obligations. There was whistleblower who was a trustee of the program.
I’ve been a San Diegan for >50 years. What Ken says about our politics is absolutely true. See above. Several mayors have had to resign in the last 30 years for one reason or another.
I was watching his presser (complete with protesters with "Trump Won!"signs in the background on a cnn video!) when who should I see holding the sign up but DC's beloved "Anarchy Princess".
Anarchy Princess? I love her! Please expand.
I'd love to hear a discussion on Rudy's lawyer suing him for failing to pay the bills - and the possibly of Rudy impleading Trump? If he doesn't now, does he lose his shot to sue Trump for failing to pay him? Also, if this case gets to discovery, would there be potentially incriminating stuff churned up that could be used by Jack Smith, etc.? How would Smith get eyes on it? Would he have to wait for one of the parties (presumably not Rudy) to do something with it, or could he get a grand jury to subpoena it?
I’ve got a question regarding all of Trump’s statements of late and and people talking about the prosecution just lining them up as evidence of admitting guilt. Couldn’t the defense gather all his whackado comments and just prove that nothing he says is true? Is this a strategy or endemic?
A serious question that I have yet to hear anyone (directly) address. I am perhaps more bullish than others on the 14th amendment issue and the likelihood of the Court deeming tRump disqualified. But what is the standard of proof that the courts must apply? Is it a preponderance of evidence? Or some higher standard?
Can’t swear to it, but...there isn’t one. It’s never really gone far enough in courts to establish a standard. There have been a handful of local politicians since J6 that have been booted or deemed ineligible, but from differing jurisdictions, AFAIK, and the appellate courts haven’t even weighed in yet I think.
Anarchy Princess was holding the sign (Trump Lost and you know it!) behind Navarro on a CNN clip. At the time, she also got hit with an American flag pole by an alt right streamer who goes by "Jericho" - It was caught on the TV coverage. I first ran across her via the streamers who were following the 1776 truck invasion of DC last summer.
I'm curious about the whole overt acts thing.
Obviously legal acts can be part of a furthering a criminal enterprise, but can you be convicted of RICO, conspiracy or similar crime if your only provable overt acts are completely legal? How would that work?
It'd have to be towards an illegal end, but I imagine that if you agree with someone to bomb a building and then buy a legal quantity of material that can be used to make a bomb, a prosecutor could sell that to a jury.
So I'm wondering - what is likely to happen to Woodward for advising a client to lie to a GJ?
He probably didn't tell the client to lie.
First of all, the attorney may not be 100% sure which story is true. Secondly, there is a certain art toward directing a witnesses' testimony in a helpful avenue without ever telling them to lie. For an example of an attorney directing the client and dancing on the razor's edge of witness coaching, see the wonderful movie (or read the wonderful book) Anatomy of a Murder, where Jimmy Stewart pushes his client toward an insanity defense without ever saying so explicitly.
None of which excuses Woodward for having an obvious and terrible conflict of interest that he seems intent on pretending doesn't exist.
Did he advise him to lie?
Maybe he just sympathized with Taveras when it seemed he might not be super-fast at telling Woodward what he had heard, been told and seen, so Woodward told Taveras something like, "Hey, I know it can be hard to recall certain things. You might never recall them. It happens." /s
To be far too pedantic, surely there must be *some* cases where it makes sense to lie to a grand jury. What if they are investigating a murder but called you as a witness bc they think someone else did it (and you have no compunction about letting them take the fall). If you take the 5th then they are going to take a serious look at you while if they can prove it's a lie then you're probably going down for murder anyway.
I dunno if that imperils your ability to take the 5th if later charged (could it?) but even so surely sometimes it's the smart thing to do (eg you figure if they ever take a serious look at you as a suspect you're screwed anyway). I can't imagine it being a good idea in anything like the case you mentioned but I've been watching too much umm, actually so can't help being a bit pedantic.
I think Ken has an acronym for that.