Transcript

XL Brief · Serious Trouble

0:00
SPEAKER_01: Hey, this is Josh Barrow, back with another episode of Serious Trouble.
0:03
SPEAKER_01: On this week's episode,
0:04
SPEAKER_01: Ken and I break down the 185-page memo from Jack Smith laying out the evidence he
0:09
SPEAKER_01: wants to bring against Donald Trump in the case related to January 6th and why he
0:12
SPEAKER_01: says it is not barred by the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.
0:17
SPEAKER_01: The memo has to be so long because he has to go piece by piece and explain why this
0:21
SPEAKER_01: piece of evidence and this piece of evidence and this piece of evidence is allowed
0:23
SPEAKER_01: in the case.
0:24
SPEAKER_01: It's going to set off probably years of pretrial motions,
0:27
SPEAKER_01: but Ken and I talk about what evidence Jack Smith has brought forward here and what
0:32
SPEAKER_01: his case is about why it's not barred by that Supreme Court decision that
0:35
SPEAKER_01: significantly complicated his life.
0:38
SPEAKER_01: That's the free episode of Serious Trouble this week.
0:40
SPEAKER_01: If you were a paying subscriber, you'd also hear about a bunch of other things.
0:43
SPEAKER_01: You'd hear about some extreme bitchiness in Fulton County.
0:47
SPEAKER_01: This is not the Trump RICO case, the other RICO case.
0:50
SPEAKER_01: one about YSL and Young Thug,
0:52
SPEAKER_01: the case that's probably going to go on even longer than the January 6th related
0:56
SPEAKER_01: case up in Washington.
0:58
SPEAKER_01: You have prosecutors filing a motion basically saying, judge, please stop ruling against us.
1:03
SPEAKER_01: one-page memo.
1:04
SPEAKER_01: I asked Ken if that's a thing that you do,
1:06
SPEAKER_01: and the answer to that seems to be no,
1:07
SPEAKER_01: but we talk about why you might do it anyway.
1:10
SPEAKER_01: We also talk about Garth Brooks,
1:12
SPEAKER_01: who is being sued anonymously for sexual assault and hostile work environment.
1:16
SPEAKER_01: He also tried to sue anonymously.
1:18
SPEAKER_01: He filed lawsuit in Mississippi as an anonymous celebrity trying to stop someone
1:23
SPEAKER_01: from filing an anonymous lawsuit against him.
1:26
SPEAKER_01: We also talk about Joe Gao,
1:27
SPEAKER_01: the one-time chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at La Crosse,
1:31
SPEAKER_01: who had a side career as a vegan porn star.
1:34
SPEAKER_01: They fired him not just from the chancellorship,
1:36
SPEAKER_01: but from his professorship,
1:37
SPEAKER_01: and now he's suing,
1:39
SPEAKER_01: saying that's a violation of his rights.
1:41
SPEAKER_01: He did have tenure, after all.
1:43
SPEAKER_01: We also talk about that Deadspin article you might remember from last year,
1:47
SPEAKER_01: accusing a nine-year-old who wore an Indian headdress to a Kansas City Chiefs game
1:50
SPEAKER_01: of
1:51
SPEAKER_01: of being racist and also wearing blackface,
1:53
SPEAKER_01: even though they posted a photo of only half of his face,
1:55
SPEAKER_01: not showing that half of his face was red and half of it was black for the chiefs
1:59
SPEAKER_01: rather than being blackface in the usual sense.
2:02
SPEAKER_01: We talk about Tina Peters,
2:03
SPEAKER_01: the insane Mesa County clerk out in Colorado who breached the voting machines there,
2:08
SPEAKER_01: trying to prove some sort of conspiracy against Donald Trump.
2:10
SPEAKER_01: She got nine years in prison for that, which is a lot.
2:13
SPEAKER_01: And we talk about why that happened.
2:15
SPEAKER_01: And finally, Eric Adams.
2:16
SPEAKER_01: There are updates here.
2:17
SPEAKER_01: We talk about a not crazy motion that his attorney brought,
2:21
SPEAKER_01: saying that one of the charges against him should be dismissed.
2:24
SPEAKER_01: And we also talk about some of the internal politics in the mayor's office.
2:27
SPEAKER_01: People keep resigning.
2:28
SPEAKER_01: And Ken and I talk about why you might need to resign if you haven't been charged
2:32
SPEAKER_01: yet but might be charged in a conspiracy with various other people you work with.
2:37
SPEAKER_01: So anyway, if you want to hear all that, it's a really good, quite long episode, about 50 minutes.
2:42
SPEAKER_01: And if you want to hear that episode and every full episode that we put out almost
2:45
SPEAKER_01: every week on this show,
2:46
SPEAKER_01: about 50 episodes a year,
2:48
SPEAKER_01: I encourage you to go to SeriousTrouble.show and upgrade,
2:50
SPEAKER_01: and you can become a full paying subscriber,
2:53
SPEAKER_01: and then you'll get access to everything.
2:54
SPEAKER_01: You'll be part of our community.
2:55
SPEAKER_01: You can join our comments section, and we will love you eternally.
2:59
SPEAKER_01: So again, go to SeriousTrouble.show.
3:00
SPEAKER_01: Thank you.
3:10
SPEAKER_01: Hi, it's Ken White.
3:11
SPEAKER_01: And it's Josh Barrow, and this is Serious Trouble.
3:14
SPEAKER_01: Ken, I want to start this week with a 185-page memo.
3:19
SPEAKER_01: Were you excited about this reading assignment, Jack Smith?
3:22
SPEAKER_01: First of all, I thought the limit was 180.
3:23
SPEAKER_01: How did he get up to 185?
3:24
SPEAKER_00: The limit, as you know, is 20.
3:29
SPEAKER_00: And so he had to file a request to file an oversized brief,
3:33
SPEAKER_00: which is the sort of bullshit you have to put up with if you litigate in federal court.
3:37
SPEAKER_00: So, yeah, how do I feel about this?
3:39
SPEAKER_00: I felt about as good as you would think someone who's in the middle of a trial
3:43
SPEAKER_00: called upon to read a 185-page document would feel.
3:48
SPEAKER_00: But, you know, there aren't too many redactions.
3:50
SPEAKER_00: It's written in a fairly entertaining style.
3:52
SPEAKER_00: It's not the worst document I've read this week, so not bad.
3:55
SPEAKER_01: So the reason that this document had to be so long is that there was this quite
3:59
SPEAKER_01: confusing Supreme Court ruling establishing some sort of presidential immunity from prosecution.
4:04
SPEAKER_01: Right.
4:04
SPEAKER_01: But then laying out various different categories,
4:06
SPEAKER_01: there are core functions of the presidency for which the president is absolutely
4:11
SPEAKER_01: immune from prosecution.
4:13
SPEAKER_01: And then there are other official but non-core functions for which there's some
4:16
SPEAKER_01: sort of presumption of immunity,
4:19
SPEAKER_01: but that presumption may be able to be rebutted.
4:21
SPEAKER_01: They didn't fully explain exactly how you would rebut it.
4:24
SPEAKER_01: And then finally, there's unofficial acts for which there's no immunity.
4:27
SPEAKER_01: And so Jack Smith had to go through the individual pieces of evidence that they
4:31
SPEAKER_01: presented to the grand jury,
4:32
SPEAKER_01: the new grand jury in this case.
4:34
SPEAKER_01: They had to go to a new grand jury,
4:35
SPEAKER_01: present evidence anew,
4:37
SPEAKER_01: untainted from whatever evidence had been presented in the prior version of the case.
4:41
SPEAKER_01: And now they have to lay out either,
4:43
SPEAKER_01: you know,
4:43
SPEAKER_01: these acts are unofficial or these acts were official,
4:45
SPEAKER_01: but we're going to rebut the presumption that Donald Trump is immune from
4:49
SPEAKER_01: prosecution for them.
4:51
SPEAKER_01: And because there are many acts, it's necessarily a long document.
4:54
SPEAKER_01: Is that a fair summary of what's in this document and why?
4:58
SPEAKER_00: It is,
4:58
SPEAKER_00: and you have to keep in mind that the Supreme Court required it to be so by saying
5:03
SPEAKER_00: that the analysis of whether something is an official act is very specific and fact-based.
5:09
SPEAKER_00: It can require analysis of the entire context of a single tweet.
5:15
SPEAKER_00: So they need to go into a great amount of detail in order to make their case.
5:20
SPEAKER_00: The special counsel's argument here is that
5:24
SPEAKER_00: Almost all the things that are left in the superseding indictment are not official acts.
5:28
SPEAKER_00: They're private acts done in the capacity of a candidate for president,
5:33
SPEAKER_00: not in the official capacity as the president.
5:36
SPEAKER_00: The one exception is the communications with Mike Pence,
5:41
SPEAKER_00: which they concede a certain core of communications with Pence about their
5:46
SPEAKER_00: respective functions could be official acts.
5:49
SPEAKER_00: But Jack Smith argues that he can overcome the presumption there by showing what
5:55
SPEAKER_00: the Supreme Court refers to as showing that applying a criminal prohibition to that
6:00
SPEAKER_00: act would pose no danger of intrusion into the authority and functions of the
6:04
SPEAKER_00: executive branch.
6:06
SPEAKER_00: So most of it is devoted to saying that most of the acts are not official.
6:10
SPEAKER_00: Some of it is talking about the core of Pence communications.
6:15
SPEAKER_01: And so those acts that Jack Smith is saying are not official have to do with
6:20
SPEAKER_01: President Trump interacting with various people outside the administration,
6:25
SPEAKER_01: trying to obtain the outcome that he wanted in the counting and certifying of the
6:29
SPEAKER_01: votes in this election.
6:30
SPEAKER_01: And so that might be state officials, people associated with the campaign, that sort of thing.
6:34
SPEAKER_01: Right.
6:35
SPEAKER_01: I'm thinking back to conversations we had years ago about the Westfall Act and the
6:53
SPEAKER_01: Because the president has to maintain a public image and certain things that are
6:58
SPEAKER_01: directed toward maintaining public support may be within his official capacity,
7:02
SPEAKER_01: even if they are addressing purely private conduct that occurred before he entered office.
7:09
SPEAKER_01: And so with that standard,
7:11
SPEAKER_01: the idea of what an official act was is so broad that it seems like it would
7:14
SPEAKER_01: encompass a lot of this stuff.
7:16
SPEAKER_01: The official act standard here is different than the official act standard that
7:19
SPEAKER_01: we're used to dealing with in that other context.
7:21
SPEAKER_01: Right.
7:21
SPEAKER_00: Yeah,
7:22
SPEAKER_00: it would be nice if you could say that the Supreme Court's immunity decision relied
7:27
SPEAKER_00: substantially on contours from earlier cases,
7:30
SPEAKER_00: because in those cases,
7:31
SPEAKER_00: could inform how we look at this,
7:33
SPEAKER_00: but it really didn't follow the Westfall Act case law,
7:37
SPEAKER_00: which is,
7:38
SPEAKER_00: you know,
7:38
SPEAKER_00: still developing and a little blurry at the edges anyway.
7:41
SPEAKER_00: The Supreme Court went its own way because this is not a statutory issue, but a constitutional issue.
7:47
SPEAKER_00: And its definition of official acts is somewhat different and frankly,
7:53
SPEAKER_00: not as well defined as it is with the Westfall Act.
7:56
SPEAKER_00: So, although the government tried to restrict it with that analysis, the court didn't bite.
8:01
SPEAKER_00: And so,
8:02
SPEAKER_00: now what Jack Smith is having to do is read this opinion,
8:07
SPEAKER_00: estimate where the court's going to go next and how it's going to fill in those
8:10
SPEAKER_00: blank spaces,
8:12
SPEAKER_00: and try to apply that standard,
8:15
SPEAKER_00: some of which they're sort of guessing at at the future,
8:18
SPEAKER_00: to all these acts.
8:19
SPEAKER_00: The other thing that's going on, Josh, that makes this such a long brief,
8:22
SPEAKER_00: is that, remember, they have to talk about not just crimes, but evidence of crimes.
8:26
SPEAKER_00: So the Supreme Court said that official acts could also be barred from being even evidence in a case.
8:33
SPEAKER_00: So,
8:33
SPEAKER_00: you know,
8:34
SPEAKER_00: if you did an official act and that showed your intent to do some unofficial act,
8:39
SPEAKER_00: that might still be barred.
8:41
SPEAKER_00: And that's why,
8:42
SPEAKER_00: for instance,
8:43
SPEAKER_00: there's a large section in here documenting all the different ways that are gonna
8:47
SPEAKER_00: prove
8:48
SPEAKER_00: that Donald Trump knew that he had lost the election,
8:50
SPEAKER_00: that his claims were bogus,
8:52
SPEAKER_00: because they have to trace those no longer to conversations with members of the administration,
8:58
SPEAKER_00: but trace them to conversations with family and with campaign staff and things like
9:03
SPEAKER_00: that to show that they're clean.
9:06
SPEAKER_01: So supposing that Judge Chuck can agrees with Jack Smith that all of the evidence
9:11
SPEAKER_01: in here can be allowed in and supposing that that survives on appeal,
9:15
SPEAKER_01: presumably ultimately the Supreme Court will at some point weigh in on this and
9:19
SPEAKER_01: have to clarify their prior decision on presidential immunity if this case continues.
9:25
SPEAKER_01: Has Jack Smith lost anything in the evidence here that you think is important?
9:29
SPEAKER_01: I mean,
9:30
SPEAKER_01: I know that,
9:30
SPEAKER_01: for example,
9:31
SPEAKER_01: there was a lot of discussion in the prior version of this case about interactions
9:34
SPEAKER_01: that Trump had with his own Justice Department.
9:36
SPEAKER_01: That's out of the case.
9:37
SPEAKER_01: Is it going to be harder to prove that Trump committed crimes because of the set of
9:41
SPEAKER_01: restrictions on the evidence that would be indicated by this brief?
9:44
SPEAKER_00: No,
9:45
SPEAKER_00: you do lose the theory that Trump coerced the Justice Department to open a bogus
9:50
SPEAKER_00: fraud investigation that he knew was bogus.
9:54
SPEAKER_00: And so you, you know...
9:56
SPEAKER_00: You lose the verisimilitude with Jeff Clark and telling him to,
10:01
SPEAKER_00: you know,
10:01
SPEAKER_00: we'll tell you when there's an oil spill and that sort of fun stuff.
10:04
SPEAKER_00: You lose some of the evidence of Trump learning from White House officials that he
10:12
SPEAKER_00: did in fact lose and some of his communications with them.
10:15
SPEAKER_00: But one thing that Jack Smith does in this is bring out a lot of further detail we
10:19
SPEAKER_00: haven't heard about some of the communications in particular.
10:22
SPEAKER_00: And some of the details are very convincing in that it talks about him talking to
10:27
SPEAKER_00: family and campaign staff,
10:30
SPEAKER_00: people telling him he lost,
10:31
SPEAKER_00: him saying that he doesn't care,
10:32
SPEAKER_00: that sort of thing.
10:34
SPEAKER_00: And so I would say it does not make it a whole lot more difficult,
10:39
SPEAKER_00: not substantially I think,
10:41
SPEAKER_00: to prove a crime if the Supreme Court lets them prove anything.
10:44
SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
10:45
SPEAKER_01: A lot of the focus in the news has been on facts about what Donald Trump was up to
10:50
SPEAKER_01: on January 6th following Twitter as the riot was proceeding at the Capitol,
10:56
SPEAKER_01: not taking action to protect his own vice president from mob that wanted to kill him.
11:01
SPEAKER_01: How much – I mean obviously those are bad acts that people are very bothered by
11:07
SPEAKER_01: that matter as a political matter.
11:08
SPEAKER_01: How central is that to the legal case here?
11:11
SPEAKER_00: I don't think it's at the very heart of it.
11:13
SPEAKER_00: I think it's part of the quantum of proof of the crime as it applies to trying to pressure Pence.
11:21
SPEAKER_00: And trying to pressure Pence is probably the part that I think the Supreme Court is
11:26
SPEAKER_00: most likely to find is within the zone of immunity just because they've signaled that.
11:32
SPEAKER_00: And because talking to him about their respective official capacities is probably
11:37
SPEAKER_00: closest to an arguable official act.
11:40
SPEAKER_00: But the other January 6th stuff is mostly shown to shore up the idea that he knew
11:45
SPEAKER_00: he lost and to shore up the idea that he was wrong.
11:48
SPEAKER_00: acting wrongfully in various ways to try to put pressure on Pence,
11:52
SPEAKER_00: right up to saying when someone said,
11:53
SPEAKER_00: you know,
11:54
SPEAKER_00: they're shouting,
11:55
SPEAKER_00: hang Pence,
11:56
SPEAKER_00: he doesn't care.
11:59
SPEAKER_01: If the evidence about trying to pressure Mike Pence is allowed in,
12:02
SPEAKER_01: there's two showings that the government would need to make,
12:05
SPEAKER_01: right?
12:05
SPEAKER_01: The first is that even though it's an official act, it's not within the core of
12:09
SPEAKER_01: of the presidential function.
12:10
SPEAKER_01: Correct.
12:11
SPEAKER_01: And is that because the vice president,
12:13
SPEAKER_01: when he certifies votes in Congress,
12:15
SPEAKER_01: is acting in a legislative branch function?
12:17
SPEAKER_01: And so while it's official, it is not a core executive branch function?
12:21
SPEAKER_00: It's not so much that as it's about what Trump is doing.
12:24
SPEAKER_00: So the core things are things that are within the text of the Constitution,
12:30
SPEAKER_00: you know,
12:31
SPEAKER_00: powers given to the president.
12:34
SPEAKER_00: And so a core thing would be, for instance, pardoning or appointing and firing executive branch people.
12:43
SPEAKER_00: And that's what took out
12:45
SPEAKER_00: the claim that he threatened Department of Justice people with firing.
12:49
SPEAKER_00: So the question is, is talking to Pence about his function in the Senate, is that core?
12:58
SPEAKER_00: And there's not direct constitutional language saying it is.
13:01
SPEAKER_00: So it's more likely it falls into the broader presumptive category of official acts.
13:07
SPEAKER_01: And then so to overcome the presumption of immunity,
13:11
SPEAKER_01: the standard again is that it has to – prosecution has to not interfere with some
13:16
SPEAKER_01: future proper use of presidential authority?
13:20
SPEAKER_00: The prosecution has to make a showing to the satisfaction of the court that
13:24
SPEAKER_00: applying the criminal law to this act would pose no danger of intrusion on the
13:29
SPEAKER_00: authority and functions of the executive branch,
13:33
SPEAKER_00: which to me is –
13:36
SPEAKER_00: Pure, it is what the judge says it is.
13:39
SPEAKER_00: Okay, because that's almost like a philosophical point.
13:42
SPEAKER_00: That seems like a really high bar.
13:43
SPEAKER_00: Well, it's as high as the court wants it to be.
13:45
SPEAKER_01: Well,
13:46
SPEAKER_01: but I mean,
13:46
SPEAKER_01: you know,
13:46
SPEAKER_01: you could have a future president that,
13:49
SPEAKER_01: you know,
13:49
SPEAKER_01: I mean,
13:49
SPEAKER_01: suppose the vice president was going to act unlawfully.
13:52
SPEAKER_01: In the count of the electoral votes and the president called him up and said,
13:55
SPEAKER_01: you know,
13:55
SPEAKER_01: you better do the thing that you're required to do.
13:58
SPEAKER_01: It seems like,
13:59
SPEAKER_01: you know,
14:00
SPEAKER_01: the you could conceivably have a president be worried that the courts will take a
14:04
SPEAKER_01: different view of what the vice president was supposed to do.
14:09
SPEAKER_01: I mean,
14:09
SPEAKER_01: it just seems like such a high bar because almost anything could impact how a
14:14
SPEAKER_01: future president might feel about taking a lawful exercise of related powers.
14:20
SPEAKER_00: Absolutely.
14:21
SPEAKER_00: And it's also a very high bar because the whole analysis can be manipulated by what level of generality.
14:28
SPEAKER_00: So do you use – does it intrude upon the authority in function of the executive branch?
14:34
SPEAKER_00: to try to convince the vice president not to approve votes for unlawful reasons?
14:43
SPEAKER_00: Or do you use the generality?
14:46
SPEAKER_00: Does it threaten the authority and functions of the executive branch to criminalize
14:50
SPEAKER_00: talking to other members of the executive branch about how they carry out their duties?
14:56
SPEAKER_00: So how you describe the act and the level of generality you use and whether or not
15:01
SPEAKER_00: you use motive with the decision suggests you can't very much determines the outcome.
15:07
SPEAKER_01: Jack Smith had to go get a new grand jury and do a new presentation of this
15:10
SPEAKER_01: evidence so that there wouldn't be a concern that the grand jury,
15:13
SPEAKER_01: even if they returned a new indictment on a narrower piece of evidence,
15:16
SPEAKER_01: that they weren't tainted by having seen other disallowed evidence.
15:20
SPEAKER_01: If he loses on any aspect of the evidence that he wants to bring in here –
15:24
SPEAKER_01: Now there's a new grand jury that will have seen evidence that's not allowed in the case.
15:27
SPEAKER_01: Would he have to go back a third time and get yet another fresh indictment from a
15:31
SPEAKER_01: fresh grand jury with the more limited set of evidence?
15:34
SPEAKER_00: He might.
15:34
SPEAKER_00: I mean, the court have not yet ruled on that type of taint in the.
15:40
SPEAKER_00: grand jury process.
15:41
SPEAKER_00: But the Supreme Court that decided this immunity decision,
15:45
SPEAKER_00: I think,
15:46
SPEAKER_00: can probably be counted on to argue that the whole thing's a mess if any of that
15:50
SPEAKER_00: evidence got in front of the grand jury,
15:52
SPEAKER_00: because that seems to be their attitude about evidence,
15:56
SPEAKER_00: that evidence is improper if it's of immune acts,
16:01
SPEAKER_00: even if the immune acts are not being treated as the crime.
16:05
SPEAKER_01: The former president will respond, but not until after the election, if I understand correctly.
16:10
SPEAKER_00: See, I thought that it was in October, later in October, that his response is due.
16:16
SPEAKER_00: But there have been a couple of different schedules that have floated, and it may change.
16:21
SPEAKER_00: It would not surprise me if Trump asks for more time on the grounds that this is so
16:26
SPEAKER_00: many pages,
16:26
SPEAKER_00: I need more time,
16:28
SPEAKER_00: and that's certainly what I would do.
16:29
SPEAKER_01: Right.
16:30
SPEAKER_01: And then the appeals and whatever,
16:32
SPEAKER_01: even if Kamala Harris wins and this case continues,
16:34
SPEAKER_01: it's going to be years of pretrial shit.
16:36
SPEAKER_00: Yes,
16:36
SPEAKER_00: because the courts have decided that because this is an immunity issue,
16:40
SPEAKER_00: it deals with whether you're entitled not to be put on trial,
16:45
SPEAKER_00: not just whether you should be convicted.
16:47
SPEAKER_00: And therefore, he's entitled to an immediate appeal.
16:49
SPEAKER_00: So as soon as Chutkin decides, whichever way she decides, it gets appealed to the D.C.
16:55
SPEAKER_00: Circuit and then to the Supreme Court.
16:57
SPEAKER_01: Speaking of proceedings that will still be ongoing after we're all dead,
17:02
SPEAKER_01: the YSL RICO trial in Atlanta,
17:05
SPEAKER_01: the other completely fucked up RICO case in Atlanta,
17:09
SPEAKER_01: where Judge Uriel Glanville was removed for an appearance of bias.
17:15
SPEAKER_01: And there was this whole issue with him having an ex-party meeting with the
17:18
SPEAKER_01: prosecutors and a witness and a witness's attorney pressuring the witness to testify.
17:21
SPEAKER_01: This case is proceeding with a new judge.
17:24
SPEAKER_01: The jury was brought back after a months-long delay.
17:27
SPEAKER_01: And then it continues to be a complete shitshow.
17:31
SPEAKER_01: And so the latest thing,
17:33
SPEAKER_01: there's this motion in limine from Adrian Love,
17:36
SPEAKER_01: who's the deputy district attorney overseeing this case under Fannie Willis.
17:41
SPEAKER_01: And the motion that they have brought says they hereby move this honorable court to
17:45
SPEAKER_01: allow the state to present all relevant evidence to the jury and to deny objections
17:49
SPEAKER_01: to the presentation of relevant evidence on the basis that said evidence is a,
17:53
SPEAKER_01: quote,
17:53
SPEAKER_01: waste of time,
17:54
SPEAKER_01: unquote.
17:55
SPEAKER_01: This is a motion asking the judge to rule correctly in the future?
17:59
SPEAKER_01: Is this a thing that one moves for?
18:01
SPEAKER_00: This is by far the bitchiest motion and quite possibly the most unfortunate.
18:10
SPEAKER_01: That's this week's free episode.
18:12
SPEAKER_01: If you want to hear about the bitchiest motion that Ken has seen in quite some time,
18:16
SPEAKER_01: filed in Fulton County,
18:17
SPEAKER_01: asking a judge to please stop ruling against me,
18:19
SPEAKER_01: judge,
18:20
SPEAKER_01: in writing.
18:21
SPEAKER_01: That doesn't really work.
18:22
SPEAKER_01: If you want to hear about Garth Brooks' failed effort to anonymously sue someone
18:27
SPEAKER_01: who was anonymously suing him for sexual assault.
18:30
SPEAKER_01: If you want to hear about whether you can be fired from your university
18:33
SPEAKER_01: professorship for doing vegan porn.
18:35
SPEAKER_01: If you want to hear about that Deadspin defamation case and about Tina Peters
18:38
SPEAKER_01: getting nine years in prison and about updates with Eric Adams and his rainbow
18:43
SPEAKER_01: coalition of likely future defendants in corruption-related cases in New York City,
18:49
SPEAKER_01: I encourage you to go to SeriousTrouble.show.
18:51
SPEAKER_01: You can upgrade for $6 a month or $60 a year.
18:53
SPEAKER_01: You'll get that fun,
18:54
SPEAKER_01: lengthy,
18:55
SPEAKER_01: entertaining episode and you'll get every full episode of the show and you'll be
18:59
SPEAKER_01: part of our community.
18:59
SPEAKER_01: And, you know, we will really, really appreciate you for the human being that you are.
19:04
SPEAKER_01: go to SeriousTrouble.show and join our community.
19:06
SPEAKER_01: Thank you.