philrenato
Ken WhiteIf this result is shocking, or you think Judge Chutkan is doing something outrageous, or it shows bias for Trump, or that it’s obviously wrong, you are not being a critical consumer of legal news, and should reconsider your diet of grifters.
Jorge@Popehat You are my only legal grifter, Ken.
Jay Reding 🇺🇦@Popehat Especially given from what I'm seeing Judge Chutkan is largely giving the Government what it wants in large part and being very clear that the Court is not going to let politics dictate how the case unfolds. She's not rubber stamping anything either side does, and that's the smartest way for the Court to run this case.
Frank Bennett 🇯🇵
Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds - "It's the End of the World"
: j@fabrica:~/src; 
@Popehat I’m still waiting on my signed copy of The Grifter Diet to arrive. I am a little worried that I don’t have enough patience for it, seems like if I don’t have time for low and slow, the grifters will taste stringy.
Ceolaf@Popehat 1) You are generally a defense attorney, right? 2) You are generally -- to be very very sloppy in how I say this -- anti-Trump.
How mindful are you of balancing these two perspectives when trying to evaluate what you see in these Trump cases
Pomegranate County Irregulars@pomCountyIrregs @Popehat Ken is clearly a very thoughtful person, and I suspect that he has given this issue a lot of consideration.
I am inviting him to share his thinking.
I could try to infer what he thinks, but I could be wrong. So, I asked.
@ceolaf That’s what the podcast is all about. This week’s public portion had exactly what you were asking.
@pomCountyIrregs I pay for and listen to the podcast.
No, he has not hit exactly what I was asking.
@ceolaf Then I apologize. I thought last week (I don’t subscribe) was a fair discussion of legitimate competing interests.
Pete Zicato
EVHaste@Haste @Popehat One should always seek an appropriate balance. That appropriate balance is not always even (i.e., 50-50).
The problem with he-said/she-said journalism is that they mindlessly go for even balance, instead of carefully considering what an appropriate balance would be.
I am asking Ken about how thinks about this, in this argument. I am asking how conscious he is of it, and whether his (finely honed professional) instincts ever contradict, here.
Cat West
Robert@ceolaf "anti-trump" is synonymous with "pro-america"
@Ceronis Oh, that's garbage.
There are plenty of pols who are anti-Trump because they are just pro-themselves. There are plenty of anti-Trump people who still despise the values in our constitution and cannot abide the American people or the idea that our nation is a pluralistic one.
Or, to put that another way, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.
@ceolaf nah, what's garbage is running head first into the divide et impera schtick because you want to seem like a moderate to actual fascists.
The people who shit on the walls of the capitol and tried to install the first dictator aren't arguing in good faith and it makes me sad I have to say that.
@ceolaf @Popehat When viewing a crime, evidence of a crime, a person menacing and threatening courts, justices, staff, spouses, family, I for one would not temper my disdain with “well gee, they are of the other political party so I might be a wee bit biased…” I use common sense. So do most people. But clearly, not all.
John Brewer@ceolaf the first paragraph of a recent @Popehat essay:
There are two ways to be a public legal commentator. One is to describe, to the best of your ability, what you believe the state of the law is, how and where courts might agree or disagree with you, and how your view of what the law should be differs from how courts currently interpret it. That’s what I aspire to. I fall short all the time, I’m sure.
https://popehat.substack.com/p/the-national-review-is-still-lying
@jbrewer_jera @Popehat yes, I heard it and I read it. It was a decent take — though perhaps obvious. (Sometimes that kind of idiocy and dishonesty needs to be described, even if it is obvious. ken’s distain seems to me to be inpart because of how obvious his point was.)
But I am asking about something else.
12foxfire@Popehat
This was one small slice of today’s hearing. Kinda like trump editing video. BOO on YOU!
This was one small slice of today’s hearing. Kinda like trump editing video. BOO on YOU!
That Guy Angelo@Popehat Well if anything she angered the Trump side by doing it so quickly.
TheNP@Popehat mmmm brain clogging, information devoid, ultraprocessed grifter diet. Just like talk radio used to make it
Ted Garrison@Popehat
I read The Guardians live updates and it seems to me like she did a good job.
1) I'd assume the govt didn't plan to get what they asked for.
2) she protected the important stuff
3) by largely going with what the defense proposed, when trump violates the order, she can point out that he violated the rules they proposed when she's smacking him around.
Greg Wellman@Tedgarrison3 @Popehat This. It seems all but inevitable that Trump will cross the line at some point, likely in denigrating witnesses to his supporters either on social media or at a rally. The true test of the system is what happens then.
Jonathan HendryIs the “defense proposal” the one where Trump wants to give discovery materials to “volunteer attorneys” like catturd2 and the baby shirt guy?
Ada Ґ.@jonhendry @Popehat@mastodon.
Yes but you’ll find paragraph 4 here relevant:
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/11/1193451354/judge-delivers-mixed-ruling-on-protective-order-in-trumps-jan-6-case
Elk Muons 🛋️@jonhendry @Popehat she made a few reasonable compromises where the government was over-reaching/hadn't given a compelling argument for their proposed restrictions. All with the implication that it's not going to matter because Trump can't shut the fuck up to save his life
Cantard@Popehat I wasn’t surprised because I slept at a Holiday Inn express…and listed to the Serious Trouble podcast.
Drew Mochak@Popehat Can't see the screenshot.
Martha Howell@Popehat
I think the outrage among those of us who have paid attention these last 7 years is rooted in bemoaning that fact that the legal system still has to grant him the presumption of good faith. It should (holds nose), but really, this is starting to feel like an abusive relationship.
I think the outrage among those of us who have paid attention these last 7 years is rooted in bemoaning that fact that the legal system still has to grant him the presumption of good faith. It should (holds nose), but really, this is starting to feel like an abusive relationship.
M@MHowell Yes! That’s the metaphor I’ve been using all along. We tried not to marry him, but we got saddled with him anyway. Even after the divorce, when we should be getting on with our lives, he returns. We’ve all been chained to this malignant narcissist since 2015.
Sean McCabe@Popehat
She really didn't adopt very much of defense's argument...in fact, she made it pretty clear she was going to enforce limits on who could view the information, and that those users would be documented.
She really didn't adopt very much of defense's argument...in fact, she made it pretty clear she was going to enforce limits on who could view the information, and that those users would be documented.
Beeks@Popehat joke's on you, I have no idea what any of this means and I will never find out.
Pharaun@Popehat I only consume the finest of artisanal grifts from the Champagne region of France, to do anything else would just be Sparkling Grift.
Zoomer Antimillenarian@Popehat A former defense lawyer being scrupulous about protecting a defendant's free speech and due process rights is not especially surprising.
Nor is it a bad thing.
MattHaber@Popehat I come to your blog for information. It would be more helpful to your followers to say WHY this is a perfectly rational and normal decision by Judge Chutkan, rather than berating those who might not understand.
Anathema Device@matthaber @Popehat Dude, do you want your money back or something?