Lawfare Live: Trump's Trials and Tribulations, June 13
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- On June 13 at 4 p.m. ET, Lawfare Associate Editor Anna Hickey will be joined by Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes and Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic for this week’s episode of “Lawfare Live: Trump’s Trials and Tribulations.”
If you can’t attend the live event, the recording will be available immediately afterward on Lawfare’s RUclips channel or on the Lawfare Podcast feed later.
You can help make this coverage possible by becoming a monthly material supporter of Lawfare on Substack or our Patreon page. Or make a one-time donation to support Trump Trials coverage.
I have begun experiencing a soupsan of excitement when Quinta says, "Can I make one point about..."
Thank you, Lawfare. Another informative session.
Anna, you are the perfect host for this discussion. Well done!
Thanks!
I refuse to use twitter, so I would love if you could transfer them over to your site!
I’ve been banned from Xitter (for 7 or 8 years) and I refuse to dishonestly sneak back in with a new user account or acknowledge that the cause of the ban was legitimate.
As we talk through the Cannon debacle, I, as a citizen of the US, who wants to remain a citizen rather than a subject, wonder who is keeping the materials Trump still has out of the hands of our enemies?
I live in the town (W. Webster, NY) that was mentioned about the woman given prison time for buying the gun that resulted in deaths of firemen on Christmas Eve 2012. Terrible tragedy. Ms. Nguyen served 8 years after being convicted of first-degree falsifying business records.
OMG! Can you imagine the sturm und drang that would ensue if some legislator was brave enough to ask how the SCOTUS candidate would react to the offer of a bribe? Jesus.
Why, if Meadows is so well connected and legally savvy to bring on excellent representation, did he hitch his wagon to Trump?
Please review the following statement, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”
Also, if Trump is elected and pardons Meadows then Meadows’ legal jeopardy disappears like magic.
We need to keep hammering this point: If Trump is elected, we’ve collectively opted to replace our Republic with a dictatorship.
At what point does the System's deigning of personal malfeasance fly beyond the pale?
It will be another Republican self-pawn.
Is that granting of dismissal the ONLY way she could hoist herself?
❤❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉🎉
You have completely stripped my gears with the call to see Anna in you, Chief Wittes. My respect for you not withstanding.
I don’t agree that a meeting with probation presents “no jeopardy“ to the defendant. Who makes a report to the judge about sentencing?
Who ensures the report accurately reflects the meeting? How can a defendant appeal that, if there is a dispute?
Is that not why 45 got to have his atty?! I get the zoom accommodation re: secret service & hope others do get similar accommodations as needed going forward but - this is more than anyone else gets again.
Why does every defendant not deserve representation during the entire process, ensuring they’re treated fairly regardless of how many times they’ve been in front of the court?
We know that there are disparities. This could be just one way to mitigate that.
No way is this one of those situations where “absolute deference” should be given for regular convicted defendants. Damn.
I was sad to hear that opinion expressed on this podcast.
Wow. The particularism about the means of the crime seems to be teeing up complaints about the issues with the requirement for jury unanimity on the object crime in the Bragg case.
Haven't seen Roger recently and hope he's getting a little vacation.
When will the obviously corrupt cannon be taken off this case!
The "unlawful means" theories of the prosecution were not made clear until the Judge's jury instructions, in which Merchan seemed to interpret for the prosecution what their theory was. Obviously, that deprived the defense of the ability to know what the charges were. That's a blatant violation of the sixth amendment, panel of legal experts.
Oh. That's what you just said...
"deign"
I share your schadenfreude Chief Wittes.
Dang this Ben fellow really hates Trump ?
It’s business, not personal. By any object standard, Trump is unfit to be president and has several independent patterns of behavior that demonstrate his unfitness. There’s no hate required in wanting to see justice served and not wanting to see a convicted criminal assume the presidency. Perhaps it is you that takes this personally?