Lawfare Live: Trump's Trials and Tribulations, Dec. 21
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 май 2024
- On Dec. 21 at 4 p.m. ET, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes will sit down with Lawfare Legal Fellow and Courts Correspondent Anna Bower, and special guest Anthony Michael Kreis from the Georgia State University College of Law for this week’s episode of “Lawfare Live: Trump’s Trials and Tribulations.”
Material supporters will receive a link to join a Zoom webinar and will be able to ask questions during the livestream. It will be livestreamed on RUclips for all other viewers.
Excellent, thank you. Seasonal Greetings👍
At 1:04:09 they are talking about Loose Cannon overturning the jury verdict and that it would then not be appealable. My question is: then why bother with a jury trial at all if the judge can make whatever decision he or she chooses regardless of what the jury decides? This isn't a bench trial.
Just like Scott Shapiro, Ben almost never cleans his lens
The dog is so cute! He could be the mascot of the show.
Anna says “I think that (Ben) and I probably agree that...the part of the opinion that ...the statute does not apply to former Federal officials just cannot be right and is not right. I think it frustrates the purpose of the statute...”
Lets imagine the Federal government sends an official to a state to count the telegraph poles there. The state government for reasons unspecified, doesn't like having its telegraph poles counted so they set about preventing the official from doing it by indicting him on charges which are clearly specious but which the corrupt-ish state Court will undoubtedly find ways to convict on. Absent the provision allowing the Federal employee to transfer the case(s) to Federal Court, the man is going to be convicted/sentenced/imprisoned; the ability to transfer to Federal Court is his get-out-of-jail card BUT with the proviso that if whatever charges have been trumped up have merit, the Federal Court will be able to deal with those appropriately. IMHO, that scenario is an example of what the legislation was aimed at. Why is there any need to extend the treatment to former employees?
I know who Anthony is! 😁
The difficulty with the kick-the-Section-3-can strategy described by Anthony, where Trump decides not to appeal the CO ruling in the hopes of forcing SCOTUS to act in June or thereabouts when his appearance on the general ballot is more certain, is the possibility that between now and then he will actually be convicted in DC on charges related to Jan 6, which would strengthen the claim that he had in fact participated in an insurrection.
Meadows was wearing his “re-elect Trump” hat for the activities under investigation. Nothing he did here was related to his duties as Chief of Staff. The concern about other federal employees being caught in similar unintended consequences is not warranted. Don’t commit crimes in service to a leader attempting a coup and you’re safe.
Won't watch any more 2 mins viewing was enough to witness the usaul bias attacking of Trump
It’s called “lawFARE” not “lawFAIR” dude. Atleast they are open about it, which is more than many can say. (On both sides/parties & views btw)
Note: “lawFARE” is transcribed as “law FAIR” in the subtitling LOL. Glitch of the transcription software or intentional edit made in post for fear of being just a bit to blatant?
🙄 @14:07 comment on Bullet the Pup: “not named after the deadly weapon ammunition but rather cuz he’s fast.” WOW….