Trump Is Indicted for Trying to Steal the Election

08/02/23 • 26 min

4 Listeners

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.show

Donald Trump got indicted again. (And this time, we hadn’t started recording the week’s episode. So we set about doing so, on an urgent but non-emergency basis.) This new federal indictment, issued in Washington DC, is for trying to steal the 2020 election. This was a grave abuse of his office, for which he was impeached though not convicted. Special prosecutor Jack Smith says it was also a crime — actually, several crimes. On this week’s episode, Ken and I discuss Trump’s likely defenses. Free subscribers will hear all of that.

Paying subscribers get a lot more, including: a discussion of Trump’s six alleged co-conspirators, some of whom are likely to be indicted later; the indirect role of the January 6 riot in the government’s case, what we know about Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is likely to preside, when we can expect this trial to start (and how long it will take), and what sort of sentence Trump might face if he’s ultimately convicted.

If you are a paying subscriber to Serious Trouble, we appreciate you and we’re glad for your support, which makes this show possible. If you’re not a paying subscriber and you’d like to hear all the topics I list above, join our community and unlock this full length episode (and all of our future episodes) for $6/month or $60/year at serioustrouble.show.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.show

Previous Episode

This Episode Has Been Superseded

When Sara, Ken and I discussed when to record this week’s episode, we were concerned about when a new federal indictment of Donald Trump might drop. Naturally, one dropped literally minutes after we finished our recording session — but not the one we’d been preparing for. A federal grand jury in south Florida has issued a superseding indictment in the documents case, which adds new charges, some new amusing color about security cameras, and a new defendant.

So, we re-started the recording to produce a superseding opening segment to this week’s podcast (while preserving our original episode opening, for transparency and for your amusement). Meanwhile, in indictments that didn’t happen: Trump hasn’t been indicted in the January 6-related case for which he received a target letter over the weekend, but an imminent indictment is likely, quite possibly next week. And Hunter Biden didn’t get indicted on Wednesday even though he wanted to be, because his attorneys and the government didn’t agree on the meaning of the convoluted plea and diversion agreements they had negotiated. Oh! And Sam Bankman-Fried. He’s in trouble again. Would a gag order from the judge be more effective than a de facto gag order from....his parents? Support our show and find a transcript of this episode at serioustrouble.show!

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.serioustrouble.show/subscribe

Next Episode

Penal Colada

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.show

Another serious week on Serious Trouble! In Washington DC, Trump's attorneys are fighting with prosecutors about what Trump can say in public about his case and what's obtained in discovery. It's not a gag order, and Ken says what Trump's already saying about Mike Pence and others on social media aren't true threats either. Speaking of dumb things to post online, Ken’s been writing/complaining about bad, misleading coverage of the Trump cases: clickbait-y stories about potential sentences and whether or not Jack Smith’s charges in D.C. violate established law. That's the episode for free subscribers. Paying subscribers get our discussion of Judge Aileen Cannon's first sort of spicy order in the Trump documents case, and also, by request, a discussion of an academic scandal at Harvard with a litigation angle. It's an accusation of research dishonesty in a study about honesty — and now the professor is suing both Harvard Business School and the authors of a research integrity blog that pointed the issues out to Harvard. Juicy.

Subscribe for $6/month or $60/year to get all of our episodes at serioustrouble.show.