It’s a big week for Donald Trump being literally, physically in court — on Thursday, he'll be in court for closing arguments in the New York AG's civil case against him, and he attended Tuesday’s appellate hearing over his claim that presidential immunity shields him from Jack Smith’s prosecution related to January 6. Ken and I talked about how those arguments went — the judges had some interest in procedural issues, like whether they should even be hearing an appeal before the case is decided, and whether Trump is judicially estopped from saying he can’t be tried since Alan Dershowitz argued during his second impeachment that he was susceptible to trial and that was a reason for the Senate not to convict. But the judges also gave signs they might get to the meat of the question, and that they were unimpressed by the argument that, even if a president ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political opponent, he couldn’t be criminally tried unless he were first impeached and convicted by Congress.Plus: the pending civil case against Trump from E. Jean Carroll, Roger Stone apparently venting about killing two members of the House, Bob Menendez running his mouth on the Senate floor, and then there's Fani Willis, who just might be in very serious trouble. Visit serioustrouble.show to sign up for our newsletter and find a transcript of this episode. 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

It’s a new year and we’re back with more Serious Trouble. This week: the ongoing appeal in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, where Donald Trump argues he is presidentially immune from trial over his actions that led up to the January 6 riot. This appeal has paused the clock on the criminal case, but probably not for much longer — the appeals court is moving the appeal very fast, and it’s unclear the Supreme Court will have any interest in reviewing their decision. The case may be back in Judge Tanya Chutkan’s hands by the beginning of February.Plus: can Trump turn this trial into a circus? Why were charges dropped against SBF? Why isn't Michael Cohen going to get out of supervised release early? And was getting fired for making vegan porn a violation of a (now former) state university chancellor's First Amendment Rights? Let's find out.Visit serioustrouble.show to sign up for our newsletter, find a transcript, and support the 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThank you for all the questions you sent in this week! On a related note: take our “explicit” content warning extra seriously this week. All subscribers get our discussion about the Colorado Supreme Court deciding Donald Trump may not appear on that state’s presidential primary ballot, the multiple routes that SCOTUS has available to overturn their ruling, and what might happen if SCOTUS upholds the decision.If you've been thinking about becoming a paying subscriber to the show, this is the week to do it. serioustrouble.show/christmas gets you a discount, and you'll get to hear about:Rudy Giuliani's $148 million judgment for his lies about two election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss; another instance of citing fake cases in a brief submitted to the judge (and this time it involves Michael Cohen); the Senate sex video and the potential criminal implications of it; and the presidents of three elite universities who appeared on the Hill, seemingly more prepared for a deposition than for an argument with Elise Stefanik on national television.Finally, we have a little time to talk about George Santos, and how the justice system might interfere with the launch of his reality TV career. And we talk about what Ken hopes not to talk about in 2024. We'll be back in January! Thanks for listening.

We have two episodes coming for you this week, one right now and one near the end of the week. On the second episode, we’ll be taking your end-of-year questions — if you have a burning question for Ken, please send it to the RICO hotline by Wednesday morning so we can consider it for inclusion.On today’s show, we talk about a couple of significant matters that stand to delay former President Trump’s federal trial for actions related to the aftermath of the 2020 election. One is his appeal of Judge Tanya Chutkan’s ruling that he is not presidentially immune from trial. It seems likely an appeals court will rule as soon as mid-January, and it’s not clear the Supreme Court will have any interest in taking the case up after that. We'll see. The potentially thornier matter is a separate case the Supreme Court is considering, in which the court could reject the expansive theory of “obstruction of an official proceeding” that federal prosecutors have used in charging many cases related to January 6. Plus: the state of the gag orders on Trump and Hunter Biden. Hoo boy. He already faced a kind of weak-ass gun charge in Delaware, and his lawyers have some pretty good arguments about why that case should be dismissed. But now he’s also been indicted in Los Angeles for felony tax evasion, and the complaint in that case is brutal.There’s lots more to talk about this week, including the huge defamation award against Rudy Giuliani — we’ll be taking that and some other juicy stories up in the next episode in just a few days. 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showOne of Donald Trump’s favorite arguments is that the presidency shields him from legal proceedings. He’s made that argument in criminal cases and in civil ones, but this week, we talk about rejections of those arguments from two different judges. Plus: Jack Smith wants to introduce Trump's political statements and actions going all the way back to 2012; serious trouble for Alina Habba; gold bars do have serial numbers, you know; Rudy doesn't show up in court; and was that wrong — taking a phone call while on the witness stand?Visit serioustrouble.show to sign up for full episodes of our podcast and find episode transcripts.

Unfortunately we taped this episode before Elon Musk urged Disney CEO Bob Iger to go fuck himself. If we had waited, we would have been able to discuss how Musk had reinforced one of Ken’s points about Twitter’s lawsuit against Media Matters for America over its report showing that Twitter served up ads for major brands next to neo-Nazi content. That discussion is at the end of this episode. We also talked about Judge Tanya Chutkan’s gag order against former president Donald Trump that looks likely to produce some judicial clarity on the under-litigated question of how courts must balance the free speech rights of defendants with the prerogative of judges to oversee orderly trials. Plus: more statees debate Trump's eligibility for the ballot, Hunter Biden dares House Republicans to invite him to testify in an open hearing, and if you're a RICO defendant, is it wrong to tag witnesses on social media?At serioustrouble.show, you can find a transcript of this episode and our newsletter sign-up. 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

Donald Trump “re-truthed” a post calling for a “citizens’ arrest” of Judge Arthur Engoron and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Normally, when people ask Ken whether a statement is illegal incitement, the answer is a quick “no,” but this case is closer. Also in New York, Mayor Eric Adams looks to be in somewhat serious trouble. The FBI raided the home of his chief fundraiser and his own electronic devices were seized. Hunter Biden wants to subpoena documents about his prosecution from Trump administration officials, going all the way up to the president himself, as part of an effort to make a defense of selective prosecution. There’s one big problem — he isn’t being prosecuted by the Trump administration.In Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis says Trump’s RICO prosecution is likely to stretch into 2025 — no surprise to you if you listen to this podcast — and some of the minor defendants have been making trouble. And in Washington, something seems to be in the water at the Capitol building. Congressman Tim Burchett says former speaker Kevin McCarthy intentionally elbowed him in the kidney — which would be assault, but not the kind of assault that ever gets prosecuted. And the House Ethics Committee says George Santos spent campaign funds on botox, OnlyFans, and a modest shopping spree at Hermès — not only illegal, but behavior he’s already under indictment for. Not smart.Visit serioustrouble.show to find a transcript of this episode and sign up for our newsletter. 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

Welcome to this week’s episode of Serious Trouble, in which Josh attempts to troll Ken about maximum sentences. Sam Bankman-Fried was speedily convicted by a jury that took only several hours — one of them spent at dinner — to deliberate. Will the government bother to try him on the remaining charges? Meanwhile, also in New York, Trump and his lawyers continued on a strategy best described as “burn everything down and see what emerges from the ashes.” Plus: former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’ publisher sues him because he’s allegedly made statements to Special Counsel Jack Smith that contradict the 2020 election narrative in his book. But Josh and I want to know — what exactly did the publisher think they were paying for? Finally: John Eastman. And Lizzo.Visit serioustrouble.show to sign up for our newsletter and find a transcript of this episode. 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showDonald Trump may be in serious trouble, but Michael Cohen’s testimony isn’t the reason. On this week’s episode, Ken and I talk about the thud with which Cohen’s testimony landed at the civil trial over alleged fraud at various Trump businesses. Judge Arthur Engoron called a little impromptu hearing in which Trump took the witness stand, testifying about who exactly he was referring to when he told reporters a person sitting “alongside” the judge was even more partisan than him. In DC, Judge Tanya Chutkan has un-stayed her broader gag order, so Trump is again permitted from “targeting” court staff, the prosecution team, and likely potential witnesses.Plus: in Colorado, there’s a trial to decide whether Trump can even be on the state’s presidential ballot, or whether part of the 14th Amendment bars him from serving as president again on the grounds that he participated in an insurrection or rebellion in violation of his oath of office. And: an update on Sam Bankman-Fried, who has testified in his defense — we talk about how that went. Finally, from Long Island, an update on George Santos.Paid subscribers get this whole episode. Free subscribers get just the conversations about the proceedings before judges Engoron and Chutkan — so if you’re a free subscriber and you want to hear the full episode, sign up at serioustrouble.show.

It’s been a heated week at Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial in New York. Judge Arthur Engoron was enraged at Trump’s failure to fully comply with an order to take down a web post attacking his law clerk and he imposed a $5,000 sanction. Trump attorney Christopher Kise also drew the judge’s ire for his rude and dismissive comments to that same law clerk and to one of the attorneys from the New York Attorney General’s office. Not great.Plus: we're up to four guilty pleas in DA Fani Willis' RICO prosecution, Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a written version of the gag order she’d already announced in court, but then issued a stay pending appeal. That stay means Trump remains free to run his mouth as he likes (except about Arthur Engoron’s court staff) and he has been. In New Mexico, prosecutors plan to take Alec Baldwin’s manslaughter charge to a grand jury again — we discuss what could be going on here. And Ken and I talked some about whether it might be a good idea to put Sam Bankman-Fried on the stand to defend himself, and after recording, we learned his defense team intends to do just that.Visit serioustrouble.show to sign up for our newsletter and find a transcript of this episode. 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

When it rains, it pours: Donald Trump is now subject to not one but two gag orders, and the new one is more expansive than the first. Judge Tanya Chutkan's order isn’t as broad as the government requested — Trump is still free to criticize Judge Chutkan herself, as well as the US government and the Justice Department, though not the individual prosecuting attorneys — but it’s broad enough to be constitutionally questionable. Trump will appeal the gag order — and Ken is pleased that this case will present an opportunity to develop law in this area, since it’s currently unclear what the Constitution demands when balancing defendants’ speech rights and the courts’ needs. Of course, there’s also the open question of what Judge Chutkan will actually do if and when Trump violates her order.Also on this episode: two superseding indictments for members of Congress — Senator Bob Menendez and Representative George Santos. We take a look at Sam Bankman-Fried’s ongoing trial and at how being in federal custody might affect your access to Adderall. We talk about DA Fani Willis’s apparent intention to call Alex Jones to testify in the upcoming “cheese and crackers” RICO trial of Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell.And we have an update on the case of Prof. Francesca Gino, who sued Harvard (and several of her fellow behavioral scientists) after Harvard suspended her without pay following concerns those scientists raised about data fraud in her papers.A transcript of this episode is available 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

Donald Trump withdrew his lawsuit against Michael Cohen so he wouldn’t have to sit for a deposition on the holiday, but Columbus Day didn’t stop us from bringing you a new episode of Serious Trouble. This week, we look at Trump’s first gag order: The former president’s gratuitous social media attacks against Judge Arthur Engoron’s law clerk enraged the judge and led him to order Trump (and also the other parties in the New York AG’s civil fraud lawsuit) not to publicly criticize his staff. We also talk about scheduling. Trump has asked Judge Aileen Cannon to delay his criminal trial in the documents case, which is currently set for May. We talk about defamation litigation — Rudy Giuliani is suing Joe Biden for calling him a Russian pawn, a California college student is suing Elon Musk for accusing him of being a fake white nationalist, and a Georgia voter is suing Dinesh D’Souza for calling him a ballot mule. And we look briefly at the Georgia RICO case, where one minor defendant is pleading guilty and cooperating — though it remains to be seen how that will effect the cases DA Fani Willis can present against more prominent defendants.Visit serioustrouble.show to sign up for our newsletter and to support the 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

The McDonnell line of Supreme Court cases isn't likely to save Bob Menendez; Hunter Biden sues Rudy Giuliani and Robert Costello, who is suing Rudy Giuliani; Judge Tanya Chutkan isn't going anywhere 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showRudy Giuliani's ex-lawyer is suing him for non-payment; Hunter Biden is suing the IRS for airing his dirty laundry; the FTX bankruptcy estate is suing SBF's parents for being morons; Ray Epps, still not a Fed, is pleading guilty; Jack Smith wants a gag order on Donald Trump.

This episode starts in Georgia and with Mark Meadows, who lost harder than we expected in his efforts to keep his RICO trial in federal court. And we discuss the report of the investigative special grand jury, which recommended charges against 39 individuals — way more sweeping than the already-cumbersome 19-person indictment that DA Fani Willis got from the regular grand jury. Plus: a very strange open letter from some criminal defense attorneys to Ken Chesebro, urging him to protect his interests by pleading guilty. A reminder: You shouldn’t take unsolicited legal advice offered over the internet, and you shouldn’t really offer it either — though as Ken notes, this isn’t professional misconduct, it’s just stupid. And speaking of stupid, we talk about Peter Navarro, who walked himself into a federal criminal conviction through a set of actions even the Wall Street Journal editorial page couldn’t defend.Visit serioustrouble.show to support the podcast and to find a transcript of this episode and other relevant links. 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showHere’s what’s on tap in this week’s episode of Serious Trouble.- The sentences that have been coming down for some of the prime movers behind the January 6 riot at the Capitol- Fulton County DA Fani Willis says it will take her four months and 150 witnesses to try her big election RICO case — and that each trial will take that long, whether it involves one defendant or all 19. Really?- Sidney Powell and Ken Chesebro want to be tried separately, but the judge said no. And Trump wants to sever his case from the other 18 defendants.Plus: an even bigger Georgia RICO case, Trump takes another loss in E. Jean Carroll's other civil case against him, Elon Musk threatens to sue the ADL, and prosecutors say they might soon indict Hunter Biden on gun charges, which seems odd.Visit serioustrouble.show for episode links and a transcript and to support the show.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showRudy Giuliani and Michael Avenatti both used to be good lawyers — or, they at least used to seem to be good lawyers — but those days are long past. This week, Ken and Josh discuss Giuliani and Avenatti — a two-fer — and how Giuliani’s drinking actually poses multiple problems for Donald Trump’s likely legal defenses in Jack Smith’s January 6-related case. We also talk about the trial date that’s been set in that case — March 4 — and the mess that could ensue if Trump tries to skip his own trial, which could result in Chutkan deciding whether it’s worth the drama of having him arrested for violating his bail terms. And we talk about the expanding complications in the prosecution Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has brought against Trump and 18 alleged co-conspirators, all of whom she hopes to try in one single trial. Some of the defendants want to delay the trial, while others want to go to trial quickly.Free subscribers get our conversations about Georgia and Giuliani. Paid subscribers also get the conversation about the DC case and the March 4 trial date, and Michael Avenatti. Visit serioustrouble.show to become a paying subscriber.

The big action this week was again in Georgia, where 3 of the 19 defendants in Fulton County DA Fani Willis’s RICO case sought to remove their cases to federal court. Removal of criminal cases is unusual — it’s much more common in civil court — so the law on when a federal officer must be tried in federal court is less well developed than you might hope. Ken and Josh talked about the varying strength and creativity of the removal arguments from Jeffrey Clark, Mark Meadows and David Shafer. And we’re still waiting for the removal notice from Trump himself. The whole situation is a bit of a mess — expect Fani Willis to keep moving straight ahead — it could take years to resolve.In other news, we’ve learned more about the demise of Hunter Biden’s proposed plea agreement, including some signs that Republican political pressure was an important factor in the deal falling apart. And we talked about a remarkable and bold threat from Hunter’s lawyer — that they would seek to put Joe Biden on the stand if Hunter went on trial. Yikes. And we talked about further signs of the financial strain legal troubles are putting on Rudy Giuliani — and about the former president’s limited willingness to help him out with that.Visit serioustrouble.show to find a transcript of this episode, plus other links and how you can support our 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showOkay, now it’s RICO. Donald Trump and 18 alleged co-conspirators have been indicted on 41 counts in Fulton County, Georgia, and the headline count is RICO: District Attorney Fani Willis alleges this group constituted an enterprise trying to steal Georgia’s electoral votes (and those of other states) in violation of Georgia’s version the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. We’re skeptical of Willis’s plan to take this thing to trial within six months. In fact, we think the whole thing is overcomplicated and excessively vulnerable to constitutional challenge. Georgia defense lawyer Andrew Fleischman joins us to discuss the overreach and excessive creativity in this indictment, and the likelihood that any Georgia RICO prosecution will drag on for years, with Trump's own trial very possibly moved into Federal court. Not great.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThe big Georgia indictment came out late Monday night, conveniently released around 11pm eastern, with many counts and many defendants, including Donald Trump. We will soon have an episode for you about it — but that's not what this is. This show, taped on Monday morning, covers developments in Trump's federal criminal case in DC, Twitter's unsuccessful effort to get the right to warn Trump about a search warrant, Sam Bankman-Fried's return to jail over his improper dealings with witnesses (and why Trump gets more leeway), more legal bumbling from Rudy Giuliani, and a fancy hotel's defamation lawsuit against a very unlikable rich kid who nonetheless has constitutional rights that a court has been trampling on. We hope you enjoy the show and we'll be back with more on Georgia later this week.

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

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

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

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. 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

Happy Fourth of July Week! Josh and Sara and I will be back to breaking news next week. For now, enjoy this deep dive special episode about how to be a critical consumer of legal news, and hear a useful explainer of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines — helpful for anyone who has ever read the words "they face a maximum of __ years in prison."Visit serioustrouble.show to see notes about this epsiode, including a transcript, and we welcome you to support our podcast for $6/month or $60/year there. 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

The goat is back. You can thank Rudy Giuliani, who — for some unknown reason — sat for a voluntary interview with federal investigators. This week, we talked about The Tape — the recording of Trump bragging about his possession of a classified Iran war plan he now says he didn’t possess at all. Trump says it’s a misunderstanding: he’s a “legitimate person,” and if he was talking about having “plans,” they were probably for buildings or golf courses. But what the documents were or weren't about is, as far as his legal case goes, unimportant. The key legal thing about the recording is what it shows about his knowledge about classification. After all, the government never found the war plan document, and it never charged him for possessing it. Speaking of never finding that document — maybe it’s at Bedminster, right? Ken and I talk this week about news about Bedminster, and why the government never executed a search warrant there like they did at Mar-a-Lago. We also talk about early orders coming down from Judge Aileen Cannon — so far, they seem pretty sensible and appropriate. Finally, we talk about Hunter Biden and the IRS whistleblower who says prosecutors protected him from the felony charges he should have faced. Visit serioustrouble.show to find a transcript of this episode and other relevant links, and you can also become a member and support the show there. 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

We’re back with another episode of Serious Trouble. And this week, Ken feels compelled to summon the scream of a goat to express his feelings as we add two more items to the list of contexts in which one should just shut up if under criminal investigation. One of those contexts is a televised interview with Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier. We look at the admissions Donald Trump made about which documents he retained and why, and how those could help the government, particularly if Judge Aileen Cannon were to throw out other evidence of Trump’s knowledge and intent that is needed to prove the charges against him.Another such context is Hunter Biden’s 2021 tell-all autobiography, in which he made admissions related to a gun purchase for which he has not yet been charged with a crime. The issue is that Hunter falsely claimed not to be addicted to any illegal substances when he purchased a gun in 2018. As Ken notes, this is a crime that’s rarely prosecuted, and one that prosecutors might never have thought of if he hadn’t written the book. Also this week, we look at news reports about internal disagreement within the Department of Justice about whether the January 6 investigation should have turned sooner to the question of criminal liability on the part of Donald Trump, we also look at initial orders from Judge Aileen Cannon in the documents case — boilerplate so far — and at the complicating role that the Classified Information Procedures Act could play in the case’s early days.Visit serioustrouble.show to find a transcript of this episode and to support our work. 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showWe got a lot of listener feedback about last week’s episode, especially about Kenny Raincloud’s take on how Judge Aileen Cannon could tank the government’s case against Donald Trump if she cares to. This week, for paying subscribers, Ken responds to a lot of that feedback — getting especially specific about the attorney-client privilege issues that are likeliest to trip up the government, and how the government could (maybe) get an appeals court to remove Cannon from the case. We also talked (for all subscribers) about Trump’s arraignment, and the especially lenient conditions of release that were offered to the former president.Plus, for paying subscribers: drama between the large law firm Lewis Brisbois and a pretty large new firm founded by 140 (!) attorneys who simultaneously left Louis Brisbois. No one looks good. And we have an update on the ChatGPT case, where attorneys Steven A. Schwartz and Peter LoDuca have been in the unfortunate position of pleading stupidity to a federal judge.Visit serioustrouble.show to become a paying subscriber ($6/month or $60/year) and unlock all of our episodes.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThere is no such thing as an emergency podcast. But… this is as close as we get. Serious Trouble is back for a second time this week because Donald Trump has been indicted. Again. But this time in federal court — and on a set of charges that can’t (easily) be dismissed as chickenshit. The 49-page indictment has remarkable and hilarious detail, including Trump making the sorts of statements prosecutors can only dream of when trying to prove a crime with a challenging intent requirement. As Ken says in this episode, it’s a set of facts a prosecutor could reasonably feel cocky going into court with against a normal defendant. But Trump isn’t a normal defendant, and it won’t be a normal case.This week’s show is more than an hour — for paying subscribers. Everyone gets the first half hour. Visit serioustrouble.show to become a paying subscriber and get access to the full episode and all the other episodes we make too.

In this eye-opening episode of "The Legal Brief: Beyond the Machine," renowned attorneys Ken White and Josh Barro explore the potential risks and limitations of using AI, specifically ChatGPT, for drafting legal briefs. Joined by esteemed legal professionals and experts, they delve into the allure of technology, the nuances AI may overlook, and the potential ethical dilemmas and risks of inaccurate information. Discover why relying solely on ChatGPT for your legal briefs may not be as foolproof as it seems. Tune in to gain valuable insights that challenge conventional perceptions and reshape the way you approach legal writing in the digital era. 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

Is Rudy Giuliani in serious trouble? He’s facing two lawsuits. One is for getting a supermarket employee arrested. The other is… well, it’s for a lot of stuff. Ken and Josh discuss the prospects for ShopRite employee Daniel Gill’s lawsuit over Rudy crying “assault” over a tap on the shoulder. s for Noelle Dunphy, she has some pretty shocking claims about several areas of alleged misconduct, and we want to see what does (or doesn’t) come out in discovery to support them. We also talk about Mark Pomerantz — the former Manhattan prosecutor who somehow took the Fifth when House Republicans tried to question him about the investigation into Donald Trump — and John Durham, whose own prosecutorial endeavors have wound down with a fairly underwhelming report. We talk about signs of activity in the Trump documents case that are maybe being over-read in the press, and about new infighting in Trump’s legal team. And we talk about E. Jean Carroll’s other lawsuit — the one that’s still tied up in questions about whether Trump can be sued personally for statements he made about her while he was president — and what significance that lawsuit holds now that she’s already won a multimillion dollar judgment on closely related claims.Visit serioustrouble.show to find a transcript of this episode, relevant links and to support our work. 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

Ken and I started this week talking about the CNN town hall with Donald Trump. On CNN’s air, Trump repeated his denials of his assault of E. Jean Carroll — denials for which he was ordered (the day before the town hall) to pay a defamation judgment. Carroll has mused about suing him again, and she could, though her main challenge in court would be showing that his fresh denials further harmed her, beyond the damages she’s already been awarded compensation for. We also talked about the legal considerations facing CNN or any other network that might interview a person who is likely to make defamatory statements. We talked about George Santos, who appears to be quite enjoying his role as a federal defendant, and about whether you should give a hyped-up press conference explaining why it was okay for you to take the unemployment benefits the government has charged you over (no). And we talked about Nina Jankowicz, former head of the short-lived Disinformation Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security. That board was dissolved after extensive attacks on Jankowicz in conservative media, and now she’s suing Fox News for defamation. Ken and I discussed her uphill legal battle.Visit serioustrouble.show to find a transcript of this episode and to support our work. 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

This week, Ken and I discussed the verdict — and the $5 million judgment — in the Carroll v. Trump case, and whether Donald Trump erred, in retrospect, by not showing up for trial. We also talked about his prospects for appeal (slim) and when E. Jean Carroll can expect to get her money. We talked about Rep. George Santos, who has been indicted for crimes including unemployment insurance fraud. (How pedestrian!) We talked about his best strategy going forward from this point, and the major bargaining chip he holds — his ability to resign from the office he olds (for now) as part of any plea deal.Visit serioustrouble.show to become a support of the show — you'll find a transcript of this episode and the rest of the Serious Trouble episodes there too. 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

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 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.show*This episode contains un-bleeped profanity, as usual, but the swear jar is used once.Tucker Carlson has been dismissed from Fox News. Media accounts on why he was fired differ, but the departure looks like it was, in one way or another, downstream of the lies Fox broadcast about Dominion Voting Systems and the legal proceedings that ensued. Ken and I talked this week about the stresses that litigation can impose on any organization, and about what you can do when you want to fire an employee who’s also a key witness in a lawsuit you face. Meanwhile, the civil trial over E. Jean Carroll’s rape allegation against Donald Trump has begun in New York. We talk about the opening statements, which reflect quality representation on both sides of the case, and about when a defendant should and should not show up to court.That’s the show for free subscribers. Paying subscribers also hear about Mike Lindell, who offered up a $5 million reward to anyone who could “Prove Mike Wrong” and an arbitration panel has ordered him to pay up, which he didn’t want to do, even though he was proved wrong. Paying subscribers also get an update on Hunter Biden, who’s made some dumb choices in a custody proceeding that could hurt his position vis-a-vis the ongoing criminal investigation into his finances. And you hear an expert listener’s answer to our question about Afroman, “Under the Boardwalk,” and intellectual property. We knew the RICO Hotline would come through on that one.Visit serioustrouble.show to find a transcript of this episode and to support our show.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showWell, holy crap. As you’ve likely heard, Dominion v. Fox will not be going to trial. We recorded this episode on Tuesday morning, and then when the settlement came out, we recorded again — so this is some fresh, fresh content, looking at what forces would have driven the parties to get to ‘yes,’ and how the settlement came to be so large — likely the largest settlement ever paid in a defamation case in the US.Read more from Josh and Ken, support our show, and find other links (including Josh's lemon pound cake recipe) at serioustrouble.show.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThis week, Ken and Josh discuss major developments in Dominion Voting Systems’ lawsuit against Fox News, which will imminently go to trial in Delaware. So far, pre-trial rulings have been in Dominion's favor, but as we saw a few months ago in the Tesla shareholder lawsuit against Elon Musk, it’s possible to win big on the pre-trial motions and still lose at trial. We discussed that outlook as the parties proceed into jury selection. We also talked about a goat — you have probably read about Cedar, the goat that the Shasta County Fair Board had seized and killed after the young girl who was raising him decided she didn’t want to give him up for slaughter. Ken describes why they’re going to have a tough time getting relief in court.And for paying subscribers, we have more conversation about Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s indictment of former president Donald Trump. Many of you pointed out the case looks stronger than commentators (including us) have given it credit for, and we discuss those specifics.Visit serioustrouble.show to become a free or paying subscriber of our podcast. Thank you for your support!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showWell, this one’s a doozy. There’s a reason this week’s episode for paid subscribers is more than an hour long. After years of hearing that “the walls are closing in on Donald Trump,” after two impeachments, and after Ken and Sara and I produced hundreds of podcast episodes regarding his legal travails, Donald Trump has finally been charged with a felony — 34 of them, actually. It’s quite complicated and interesting, and we have a lot of analysis of how we got here and what’s likely to happen next. And yet. The charges that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg have brought… well, they’re a real stretch. Still, even though this looks like a weak prosecution, it’s going to be a complicated and interesting one.Become a paying subscriber to hear the entire episode and all future episodes. Sign up for $6/month or $60/year at serioustrouble.show. This is a 100% listener-funded podcast, and we are proud of it.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showKen is back from his vacation, and there were no Trump indictments while he was gone. Isn’t that nice? We discuss the evidence that led many people, including Trump himself, to declare an indictment was imminent; and we discuss what we might infer about whether there will even be an indictment. Plus, updates on other Trump-related legal proceedings: anonymity for the jury in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit, and a not-yet-released ruling that requires Mike Pence to testify about some topics for a grand jury in Washington D.C.But none of those is the big story of the week. BY OVERWHELMING REQUEST: we discuss the police raid on Afroman's house, how he turned footage of that raid into new songs and music videos and merch (including footage of a cop apparently getting a little distracted from his official duties by a lemon pound cake that was on Afroman's kitchen counter), and how he's being sued by the cops for doing so.That Afroman conversation is for paying subscribers only, as is our update on Sam Bankman-Fried, who has been indicted yet again for serious financial crimes. (Sam! Enough already.)Visit serioustrouble.show to become a paying subscriber and you'll receive all of our full episodes from now on.

It appears that E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump might actually go to trial pretty soon — the court is behaving like it does when a trial is about to begin. This week, we talked about evidence of Trump’s prior behavior — two other accusations from women who say he committed sexual crimes against them, decades apart — that Judge Lewis Kaplan has decided may be admitted in court. Usually, testimony about prior bad acts isn’t allowed in evidence because it’s prejudicial, but there’s a special, legislated exception for evidence about sexual assaults. Even the Access Hollywood tape will be admitted under this exception.We also talked about moves by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, who may be preparing to indict Donald Trump for falsifying business records related to his hush-money payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels. And we talked about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the former FBI staffers who were involved in both an extramarital affair and the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s links to Russia. He’s suing for wrongful termination and she’s suing over the release of her embarrassing text messages; long-suffering federal judge Amy Berman Jackson is presiding over their case, and she’s decided they may depose both Trump and FBI Director Christopher Wray, but only about specific topics and only for two hours each. We discussed what you have to show in order to get the right to depose a president (or former president) himself when you sue the US government.Visit serioustrouble.show to find a transcript of this episode and to support our 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

First: Yet another of SBF's top lieutenants has pleaded guilty to crimes including wire fraud and commodities fraud, and in the plea documents we learned more about SBF’s ill-advised campaign finance schemes. Plus, prosecutors and his own lawyers are proposing an agreement to further restrict SBF’s access to technology — including taking away his smartphone. Then Josh and Ken catch up on Donald Trump’s legal affairs. There are signs that special counsel Jack Smith is trying to move swiftly toward charging decisions — though “swiftly” means something different to a federal prosecutor than to most people, and legal wrangling over efforts to pierce Trump’s attorney-client privilege could delay matters. We talked about why some of Trump’s conversations with lawyers might not be privileged, and what it means for the investigation that prosecutors are so interested in his dealings with his lawyers. And then we talked about different kinds of privilege, relating to Trump’s former role as president. Trump says he can’t be sued for inciting violence on January 6 because remarks he made on the White House lawn were given in his official capacity. The Department of Justice narrowly disagrees (which is surprising). Finally, we looked at Trump’s assertion that executive privilege bars Mike Pence from testifying before a grand jury regarding events related to January 6. In doing so, he faces a legal problem we’ve discussed before: How can you assert executive privilege against the executive branch?Visit serioustrouble.show to find a transcript of this episode and to subscribe. 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

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 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

Dear listeners,We’re back with more serious trouble!On this week’s show, we take a look at the (partial) report of a Georgia special grand jury that had been investigating efforts to interfere in that state’s reporting of its 2020 presidential election results. The report says the grand jurors think they heard some perjury. And its unreleased portions may contain recommendations about criminal charges — recommendations that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis could bring to a regular grand jury for indictment.We talk about Mike Pence’s effort to avoid a subpoena from Special Counsel Jack Smith. Pence says he’s can’t be forced to testify about January 6 because of the “speech or debate” clause of the US Constitution, which protects senators and representatives from being questioned about their official duties. Except… he wasn’t a senator or a representative, he was the Vice President. The VP has an odd place in our constitutional structure — mostly executive, but also the presiding officer of one house of our legislature — and we talk about the possibility that Pence could assert testimonial protections assigned to either branch.We talk about federal prosecutors’ efforts to pierce attorney-client privilege and force one of former president Trump’s attorneys to testify about his interactions with his client — which gives us an opportunity to talk once again about the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.We talk about Alec Baldwin. As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, he has a good argument that the firearms enhancement prosecutors want to use to extend his sentence can’t be applied to him. His expensive, talented and aggressive lawyers are on that question — after a Variety reporter asked them about the issue, after hearing about it on our podcast — and they’re also looking to disqualify the currently-assigned special prosecutor on his case. Meanwhile, Baldwin is preparing to restart production on Rust… so Ken talks about why it might not be the best idea to literally act out the events that led up to your criminal charges while you face trial. 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showElon Musk got a big win in the civil trial over whether his “funding secured” statements defrauded shareholders. We talked about how “that’s Elon being Elon” can be an effective defense. We also talked about Sam Bankman-Fried and the ever-sprawling pool of potentially-cooperating witnesses who might tell prosecutors about his and FTX’s wrongdoing. For paying subscribers, there’s more: the California State Bar might disbar attorney John Eastman, Mark Pomerantz has written a book about how he thinks the Manhattan DA's investigation of Donald Trump could have been different (he quit the investigation), and the feds are investigating George Santos about the GoFundMe for that poor service dog's care.Visit serioustrouble.show to sign up for our newsletter, support the show, and find a transcript of this episode.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThis week, we talk about how not to stay out on bail (yes, once again, it's Sam Bankman-Fried), and how the judge is likely to respond to him contacting FTX employees. We also talk about David DePape, who seems pretty nuts — but not nuts enough to have an effective insanity defense for his attack on Paul Pelosi. That’s the end of the free episode. For paying subscribers, we continue on with answers to your questions about Alec Baldwin, who has officially been charged with involuntary manslaughter. And we have more Trump litigation to discuss — he’s suing Bob Woodward, saying Woodward wasn’t supposed to release the audio recordings of Trump’s interviews with him. And Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg appears to be investigating another angle on possible criminal wrongdoing — but not a very promising one.Visit serioustrouble.show to become a paying subscribe and to find relevant links and episode transcripts.

This week, Ken and I talked about a substantial sanctions order — nearly $1 million — that Donald Trump and his attorney Alina Habba must pay for the frivolous RICO lawsuit they brought against dozens of defendants. As sanctions orders go, this is really big — and Ken thinks Habba should worry about being disbarred — but is this really an effective deterrent against Trump, who got lots of publicity and fundraising opportunities from the suit? We also looked at criminal charges against Alec Baldwin. He is to be tried for involuntary manslaughter related to his fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of his film Rust in 2021. When is a terrible accident also a crime? And we talked about Brian Walshe, whose Google searches helped lead to his arrest for the murder of his still-missing wife.Visit serioustrouble.show to subscribe to our newsletter and support the show, and find relevant links and episode transcripts. 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showKen is utterly dismayed that Sam Bankman-Fried has started a Substack, where he’s writing in great detail about FTX. Then: Ken and Josh talk about the classified documents found at President Biden’s home in Wilmington and the Penn Biden Center in Pennsylvania, if there is legal exposure for the president, among other questions. For paying subscribers, Ken and Josh preview the trial in the securities fraud class action suit brought on behalf of Tesla shareholders (related to Elon Musk's famous “funding secured” tweet), and some updates on George Santos and Allen Weisselberg, who is due at Rikers soon. Visit serioustrouble.show to become a paying subscriber, sign up for our newsletter and find a transcript and other links.

In some ways, George Santos is having a pretty good year. The congressman-elect's new salary is $174,000 a year, which is a lot more than he was making at the Dish Network call center. Of course, there are some other things that aren’t going so great for him. He is a big lying liar who lies, and while lying about whether you ever worked at Goldman Sachs isn’t a crime, some of the lies Santos told could have legal consequences. We talk this week about problems that could arise from statements he made to the government about his finances, or from the manner in which he funded his campaign, and about how prosecutors will go about figuring out whether any of his lies were crimes. Plus: Sam Bankman-Fried, who’s out of Bahamian prison and confined to his parents’ home in Palo Alto, California, is fortunate to be out on bail. Two of his top lieutenants (Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang) have pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate in his prosecution. In theory, his trial is scheduled for October, and we also talked about whether — if he doesn’t eventually change his plea to guilty himself — it will be in his interest to hurry to trial or seek to delay and delay.Finally, a spat between cartoonists. Dilbert creator Scott Adams has threatened to sue right-wing political cartoonist Ben Garrison for drawing a cartoon that suggested Anthony Fauci had hypnotized him into getting vaccinated for COVID. Can a cartoon be defamatory? Maybe. But this one isn’t.Visit serioustrouble.show to sign up for our newsletter, find links and transcripts and support the 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

We talk a lot on this show about bad clients — people in legal trouble who disregard advice, talk when they should shut up, and generally make their lawyers' lives miserable while increasing their own odds of facing a large judgment award or ending up in prison for a good, long time. You know, clients like Sam Bankman-Fried and Donald Trump. So we thought it would be good to talk about what it takes to be a good client. If you're in legal trouble, what can you do to ensure you leverage your lawyer's skills to get a good outcome, instead of driving him or her to distraction and shooting yourself in the foot?Join the conversation, find transcripts and support the show at serioustrouble.show. Have a Merry Christmas, and we'll see you in January. 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showSam Bankman-Fried… boy, is he in serious trouble. He’s been indicted on several counts, with the central accusation being that he defrauded customers, lenders, and equity investors doing business with his now-bankrupt companies, FTX and Alameda Research. Importantly, the story Bankman-Fried has been relentlessly telling about himself is a story the government says is still fraud even if it’s true. Ken and I talk about Bankman-Fried as a masterclass in what-not-to-do as a criminal defendant. He seems woefully unprepared to face parallel civil and criminal actions, especially since he continues to proudly describe how he doesn’t listen to what lawyers tell him to do. He is, quite possibly, a worse client than Donald Trump. But that makes him very interesting! This show is about 20 minutes for free subscribers and 40 minutes for paying subscribers — if you want the whole show and this week’s second show on the rest of the news, upgrade now at www.serioustrouble.show.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showSam Bankman-Fried is in serious trouble! And he has a strategy: tweet through it. We talk about the legal risks that come from tweeting through your legal risks — it’s not just that SBF risks providing evidence to help the government prove he committed crimes; he may also be committing new crimes, like wire fraud, in real time. For all listeners, we have a breakdown of the lessons in what-not-to-do from SBF. For premium subscribers, we also look at serious trouble for Elon Musk. He was in the Delaware Chancery Court this week — not to be forced to buy Twitter, but to answer a shareholder lawsuit about his compensation at Tesla. And we have updates on Donald Trump. In the Mar-a-Lago documents case, his lawyers’ arguments seem designed to try the patience of Special Master Raymond Dearie. And in one civil lawsuit, his lawyers are facing Rule 11 sanctions — you have to behave really badly for that to happen — while in another lawsuit (against Elon Musk’s Twitter!) he’s picked up a prestigious, if checkered, legal advocate: former appellate judge Alex Kozinski.Visit serioustrouble.show to become a paying subscriber of the show and you'll get all of our future full length episodes.

In this episode of Serious Trouble, we discuss:- An order granting the New York Attorney General’s request for a monitor to oversee Trump Organization financial activity, and some troubles the Trumps face in this civil action that they would not face in a criminal case.- An acquittal on all counts for Tom Barrack, a businessman and associate of Donald Trump’s who was accused of acting as an unregistered agent for the United Arab Emirates.- The dismissal of Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy’s defamation case against my former employer, Insider, over Insider’s reporting on allegations regarding his sexual behavior.- Elon Musk’s offhand allegation that people trying to pressure companies to pull their ads off Twitter are engaged in “tortious interference” with Twitter’s business.Visit serioustrouble.show to find relevant links and transcripts, and to become a supporter of the 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

We answer a listener question about what’s likely to happen to InfoWars, now that Alex Jones and his companies are subject to a $965 million defamation judgment. We also talk about legal difficulties at Fox News — including one that’s overblown. And, after receiving a lot of requests from you to discuss this topic, we talk aboutd the prospects of chess prodigy Hans Niemann’s lawsuit, in which he says world chess champion Magnus Carlsen and others defamed him by accusing him of cheating. Finally, we bring you an update on Jacob Wohl and his guilty plea to a big-boy state felony — while keeping our eyes on the federal prize.Visit www.serioustrouble.show for episode links, a transcript, and to become a supporter of the 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showSomeone close to attorney Christina Bobb is making sure reporters hear it was definitely not her fault that she incorrectly told investigators in June that Trump had already handed over all the marked-classified documents remaining at Mar-a-Lago. Bobb insisted on adding a caveat to her declaration, saying it was based on information provided to her. Bobb likely did that with the intention to insulate herself from legal risk, but Ken says it could actually harm her position.For paying subscribers, we also discussed:- Hunter Biden’s legal predicament, why it would be leaking into the press that federal agents believe there’s enough evidence to charge him with tax and false statement crimes, and the likelihood that he might face indictment after the midterm elections- a risible defamation suit Donald Trump has filed against CNN.- what you do if you’re a judge or an opposing party when a litigant (such as, hypothetically, Elon Musk) promises he’s finally, really ready to perform on his commitments if you will only please, please, please delay the trial that’s about to start.Visit www.serioustrouble.show to become a paying subscriber and to read more about this episode.

There’s been a lot of legal news in the last ten days, and so today’s show is on the long side: nearly an hour and it’s also free for all listeners in its full length. We talked about the oddly snippy correspondence between Judge Aileen Cannon and the much more senior federal judge she’s named as special master overseeing the Mar-a-Lago documents, we answer a listener’s question about whether Trump’s position as a former president vests him with any added responsibilities, in the eyes of the courts, in addition to the ability to gain special dispensation, which “Real Housewives” franchise best embodies the spirit of Donald Trump’s fractious legal team, an update on prosecutions related to the January 6 riot, and a look at dueling appellate decisions in the 5th and 11th Circuits, reaching different conclusions about whether state governments can tell social media platforms what content to host on their sites.Visit www.serioustrouble.show for transcripts and more, and to become a supporter of the 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showWhew, it’s been a big news week! Big enough that we had to record this episode one and a half times: on Wednesday, following the first conference with Special Master Raymond Dearie; and again on Thursday, after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals made Dearie’s job much easier by saying the DOJ is free to use approximately 100 marked-classified documents seized from Mar-a-Lago and that Dearie need not review them. This episode covers the 11th Circuit order, what's left for Judge Dearie to review, New York Attorney General Letitia James’s new civil lawsuit against the Trumps — and for paid subscribers: the wind-down of Special Counsel John Durham’s probe into the FBI investigators who investigated Donald Trump, angry judges presiding over the Parkland shooter’s sentencing and Alex Jones’s latest defamation trial, and a civil lawsuit and a criminal investigation relating to the Venezuelan migrants who were talked — apparently under false pretenses — into boarding a plane to Martha’s Vineyard.To become a subscriber, join the conversation and to find links and a transcript for this episode, visit www.serioustrouble.show.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showIf you are a lawyer, it is important to make sure you get paid for your work, especially if your client is someone like Donald Trump, who has very complex legal needs and a history of trying not to pay his vendors. So we weren’t surprised that attorney Chris Kise, one of the big shots on Trump’s legal team, has collected a $3 million fee deposit in preparation for what could be very extensive legal billings. Plus: we discussed how it works when multiple lawyers from different firms team up on the same criminal defense — “badly,” is the short answer — and what you should do if the FBI tries to question you at a Hardee’s.For paying subscribers only, we have a discussion of Judge Aileen Cannon’s latest puzzling order in the lawsuit Trump brought over the search of Mar-a-Lago. She’s named a well-respected senior federal judge — Raymond Dearie — as special master, and given him a deadline of November 30 to complete his review of seized documents.Become a subscriber now at www.serioustrouble.show to support our podcast and to receive all full-length Serious Trouble episodes.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showDear listeners,It’s another week of serious trouble!This week, Ken and I talk about the unsealed application for the Mar-a-Lago warrant, such as it is — most of the juicy bits are blacked out, but we did learn some things about what the government is investigating and who does not seem to be a target.The government says its “privilege review team” — an alternative, loser terminology for the taint team — is already done reviewing the documents from Trump’s boxes. As such, Trump’s demand for a special master to oversee that review may be moot, but we’ll know more after Judge Aileen Cannon holds a hearing about it on Thursday.Plus, for paying subscribers: the speed with which Judge Cannon has acted on Trump’s requests has alarmed and annoyed some Trump critics. But if Trump’s objective with his motions is (as it is so often) to delay the proceedings, then her speedy responses — and her choice not to enjoin the government’s investigative activities — aren’t serving his interests so far.And we talk about Ben Shapiro, who says he was defamed. Shapiro is on better grounds than many who cry defamation — provably false statements of fact were made about his alleged receipt of PPP loans, possibly with reckless disregard for the truth — but he stumbles at the key last step: showing he suffered quantifiable harm due to the statements.Finally, at the very end of the paid version of the show, we have an outtake for fans of taint team talk.You know you want to hear it.Enjoy the show!Josh

It’s another action-packed week for Serious Trouble! On today’s episode, we talk about former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg’s plea deal that will send him to Rikers Island for about three months for tax crimes — and won’t involve testifying against Donald Trump personally. We look at the legal fight over the sealing of the application for the Mar-a-Lago search warrant, and at Trump’s… filing, of sorts, demanding the return of “his” documents and the appointment of a special master to weed out any potentially privileged materials, instead of a taint team that he considers to be tainted. Plus, we talk about Trump’s difficulties in retaining A-list legal counsel, and we apologize to a listener for doubting that he’s served on 15 juries in his lifetime. Thank you for your service, Tim!This week’s episode is free for all listeners, so if you like it, we’d encourage you to help us get the word out — share it with a friend, or post it on social media. If you’re a paid subscriber, thank you; if you’d like to become one and get every single episode, you can do that by going to http://www.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

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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showWell, there’s been some serious trouble this week. The FBI executed a search warrant, looking for documents at Mar-a-Lago. According to former president Donald Trump, they even broke into his safe! What had to happen for such a warrant to be approved, and why federal prosecutors would have sought it — can it really be just about the Presidential Records Act? Who is entitled to what information, and when? Trump has been complaining a lot about the raid, but he hasn’t shown us the search warrant detailing exactly what the Feds were supposed to be looking for and what potential offenses they were related to. Plus: Alex Jones. Will he actually have to pay close to $50 million to Sandy Hook families? And how come his lawyers failed to claw back the private documents they accidentally produced to the plaintiffs? Well, maybe they didn’t have a lot of better options. Visit serioustrouble.show to subscribe, and to access discussion threads, links and episode transcripts.

In this episode, Ken and Josh discuss the cross examination of Alex Jones in the trial that will determine the damages for the defamation claim on which he already lost to parents of a child killed in the Sandy Hook massacre. After Jones repeatedly failed to comply with orders to turn over records and documents (to the point that he lost by default because he was so uncooperative), Jones’ lawyer accidentally shared the entire contents of Jones’s phone — including texts about Sandy Hook — with the plaintiffs’ attorney and then failed to take the necessary steps to assert privilege over any of the contents and retract them. Ken and Josh also discuss the questions jurors had for Jones.For a transcript of this episode and to hear bonus material, go to www.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

On this episode of Serious Trouble, we talk about developments in Fulton County DA Fani Willis’s investigation of efforts to steal Georgia’s electoral votes in the 2020 election. Willis sent “target letters” telling all 16 members of the fake Trump slate they might be prosecuted. When do DAs send letters like that, and what should you do if you get one? Plus, we discuss a memo from Attorney General Merrick Garland, which lays out the cautions US Attorneys should take before bringing politically sensitive indictments. And, Indiana’s Attorney General called the doctor who performed an abortion for a 10-year-old girl from Ohio “an abortion activist posing as a doctor, with a history of failing to report,” on national television, and he suggested she might have committed a crime. What’s her recourse in Indiana?Visit serioustrouble.show to find episode transcripts and links, and to become a paying subscriber in order to receive all Serious Trouble episodes. 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

Elon Musk agreed to buy Twitter. He doesn’t want to buy it anymore. Twitter wants to enforce the contract that requires him to buy the company, and so they’re arguing in the chancery court in Delaware about what will happen next.What is a chancery court? What is “specific performance”? Will a Delaware court actually force this company — an entity with employees, customers, and significant societal influence — into the hands of a buyer who doesn’t want to own and operate it?Listen to this episode where we discussed all those matters. For a transcript of this episode visit 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

Ken and Josh discuss an apparent agreement for Pat Cippolone (or “Patsy Baloney,” if you ask an auto-transcription system) to talk with the January 6 committee, and why his interview will be a little complicated because of privilege issues — both attorney-client privilege and executive privilege. We look at how that might matter, and what he might say that’s of interest. Plus: grand jury subpoenas in the Atlanta DA’s investigation, what happens when an interested third party is paying your legal expenses, and a Washington Post op-ed claims it’s easier than people say to show Donald Trump had the requisite intent to commit certain crimes. Is that true? We don’t think so, and we’ll address why.For a transcript of this episode and other resources, go to www.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

Surprise! This is an extra, unscheduled episode of Serious Trouble, about some breaking news in investigations related to the January 6 riot — a federal search of attorney John Eastman’s electronic devices, and a unexpectedly scheduled hearing with testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Trump’s White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows. (We said we’d do at least 40 episodes a year, but that’s a floor, not a ceiling!) 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

To find episode notes, transcripts, a discussion thread and to become a subscriber (so that you receive all Serious Trouble episodes), visit us at serioustrouble.show.This week's episode is all about the Uvalde massacre, the botched police response, and what legal rights you have to expect the police to perform their jobs. You may be surprised to learn they’re pretty limited. Ken and Josh also talk about where the idea of qualified immunity comes from, and when it does (and doesn’t) protect police from liability for their actions. And they discuss why Texas law may put the various government agencies involved in this debacle on pretty solid ground when they refuse to disclose embarrassing documents, such as body camera footage. 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

To get this episode into your premium RSS feed, please click the button below from your phone:Dear readers,Serious Trouble is not a Trump show — it’s a show about law. But the top legal story this week is about Trump, so that’s how we’re starting: with a discussion of the theory of Trump’s criminality advanced by the January 6 investigating committee.What would it entail to prove in court that Donald Trump criminally sought to interfere with an official proceeding, and should the Justice Department try? What sort of criminal defense would Trump mount if it got to trial? Would Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani end up on the witness stand?We also talked about how some of the witnesses in deposition videos presented by the committee seemed to be almost enjoying themselves, especially former Attorney General Bill Barr. Can a deposition be fun? Ken has some thoughts on why it can be a good strategy for lawyers to try to keep things feeling fun and light even when the matters at hand are deadly serious.And we talked about our ambivalence at having missed the defamation lawsuit between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard — arguably the most prominent defamation case in decades and also a huge, embarrassing mess. We’ve talked a lot over the years about how hard it is to prove defamation, especially against a public figure — so how did they both prevail on at least some of their claims? And what does the verdict mean for future defamation litigants?We hope you enjoy the episode. If you have questions or responses, please share them in the comments section below, or you can email us at [email protected] here are some links to documents and statutes we discussed on today’s show — you might find these useful as you listen. We’ll prepare a list like this for you to accompany every episode we release.* Here’s a transcript of the episode.* Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2) is the statute prohibiting obstruction of an official federal proceeding — did Trump violate it?* Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 contains both the plain-vanilla federal law prohibiting conspiracy to violate federal statutes and the prohibition on defrauding the federal government — did Trump violate that?* What does “defraud the United States” mean? Well, we know what the Department of Justice thinks that it means — take a look at the relevant section of the United States Attorney’s Manual, which includes the case Ken quotes in the episode.* What law governed the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial, and what issues were actually before the jury? Read the jury instructions and find out:* Here’s the SNL cold open about the Depp/Heard trial being “for fun”:We’ll be back with another episode for you next week. Very seriously,Ken White, Josh Barro & Sara Fay 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