Serious Trouble

This episode of Serious Trouble, live and in person with Ken and Sara! This week, Ken and I talked about the Walt Disney Company’s lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, which raises an interesting legal question: When is an otherwise-constitutional government action made unconstitutional by the motive that elected officials had for acting? The Disney case also gave me an opportunity to make Ken talk about the rule against perpetuities, which was almost as enjoyable as when I make him read out the RICO Hotline email address.

There’s more in this episode. We also talked about developments in E. Jean Carroll’s civil lawsuit against former president Donald Trump over the rape she says he committed against her in the 1990s. And we talked about developments in other proceedings — Trump’s loss in the suit he brought against his niece and The New York Times, Mike Pence’s appearance before special counsel Jack Smith’s grand jury in Washington DC, and the dismissal of the involuntary manslaughter charge against Alec Baldwin.

This episode is free for all listeners. It also includes questions and feedback from a few of you — we appreciate all your emails and comments. Of course, if you want to join those comments, you have to be a paying subscriber... so if you’re not, maybe consider an upgrade? We’d love to have you on board. serioustrouble.show

Now we’ve seen the warrant! On this week’s show, we talk about the search of Mar-a-Lago, and what it tells us about why the FBI wanted to poke around there. We discuss how Merrick Garland avoided pulling a Comey, when we might see the affidavit supporting the search warrant, we answer a question from a listener about how the government handles public trials involving classified documents it can’t share publicly, and how we might be able to assess whether a prosecution related to the offenses at issue here is worth the trouble. For a transcript of this episode and to become a subscriber and join the Serious Trouble community, go to serioustrouble.show.

Late Friday, Judge Arthur Engoron issued his long-awaited verdict in the civil fraud lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, and it orders Trump and his affiliated entities to disgorge nearly $400 million to the state of New York for what he says are ill-gotten profits and interest savings made possible by financial misrepresentations. It’s a big judgment — and like the judgment in the E. Jean Carroll case, one he’ll have to put cash up for pretty soon, even if there will be years of appeals. Ken and I discuss what this means for Trump and his businesses, and whether (again, like in the Carroll case) he ended up with a worse legal outcome because he was so obnoxious during the trial process.

Plus: in Washington D.C., the Supreme Court is considering whether to overturn Colorado’s decision blocking Donald Trump from that state’s presidential ballot on 14th Amendment grounds. It can be hazardous to read into oral arguments, but the judges’ questions did not seem auspicious for Colorado. Meanwhile, the court must now decide (and will, probably any day now) whether to involve itself in Trump’s January 6-related federal criminal case. Special Counsel Robert Hur decided not to recommend any criminal charges against President Joe Biden related to his handling of classified documents, but the White House was less than thrilled about Hur’s report explaining why. A Biden accuser faces his own indictment — from Special Counsel David Weiss, who’s also prosecuting Hunter Biden — for making up allegations about the Bidens, Burisma and bribes. And finally, we talk about Georgia. What a mess. District Attorney Fani Willis took the stand in a hearing about whether she should be disqualified from the RICO prosecution she brought against Donald Trump on conflict-of-interest grounds related to a romantic relationship she had with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she hired to lead the case. The two-day hearing was salacious.

Visit serioustrouble.show to become a paying subscriber to our show, and then you'll be able to hear the whole episode.

Defamation litigation tends to be unavailing. Many offending statements don’t meet the definition of defamation — they may be opinions, or insults, or false statements against a public figure made without actual malice, or even true factual statements you just didn’t like hearing. This week’s episode is mostly a deep dive into defamation lawsuits brought against Fox News (and related parties) by two voting technology companies, Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic. This litigation looks different from most defamation litigation. Smartmatic and Dominion are large companies whose business has likely been impaired by the lies told about them. Those lies were broadcast extremely widely — no need to worry about the Streisand effect. One of the entities that shared many of the lies, Fox News, is a very deep pocket. And Fox has good reason to worry it could end up facing some very large judgments. Ken and Josh discuss the favorable rulings and power moves in both of these cases, plus an update on Rust shooting. (Appellate public defender Caitlin Smith, who wrote into us several weeks ago about why the enhancement was invalid, has been proved right.) And we talked about how Sam Bankman-Fried got into a position where the judge presiding over his case seems to like him less than the prosecutors do.

Visit serioustrouble.show to support the show, sign up for our newsletter and find a transcript of this episode.

This week, we talk about the arguments before Judge Aileen Cannon about when she should schedule the federal criminal trial of Donald Trump. The Trump team has made arguments for a long delay, some of them very splashy and aggressive — most prominently, their insistence that he should not be tried until he is no longer a prominent political candidate. But there are lots of other reasons a trial like this would take a long time to start and it seems likely that Trump’s side will succeed, one way or another, at pushing back the trial’s start well into next year or beyond.

We talk about Rudy Giuliani and Lin Wood — the former may lose his law license because of his 2020 election-related shenanigans, and the latter has given his license up so he can stop going to so many hearings. We talk about E. Jean Carroll, who is still trying to sue Donald Trump for statements he made while in office — and who no longer faces opposition from the Department of Justice in her effort to do so. And we talk about Elon Musk, who is suing Wachtell Lipton, the law firm that represented Twitter in its successful effort to force Musk to close the acquisition deal he’d agreed to.

Visit serioustrouble.show to sign up for our newsletter, find a transcript of this episode and support the podcast.