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

The centrist political group No Labels sent a letter to the Justice Department last week, and it’s really something. No Labels plans to run a third-party presidential ticket on dozens of state ballots later this year and mainstream Democrats really don’t like the idea. So they’ve been playing political hardball: filing objections to No Labels’ ballot petitions, conducting opposition research on potential candidates, telling operatives aligned with No Labels that they’ll never work in this town again, etcetera. That’s politics. Right? Well, No Labels says it’s actually a criminal RICO conspiracy to deprive them, their donors, and their potential voters of their civil rights, and they would like DOJ to prosecute some people over it.

Free subscribers will hear that conversation. Paying subscribers get much more — new developments in the divorce debacle that threatens to engulf Fani Willis’s prosecution of Trump and many of his associates under the Georgia RICO statute (it's messy), an update on the second E. Jean Carroll civil trial against Donald Trump in Manhattan, which has been going less than smoothly in Long-Suffering Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan’s courtroom, and Alec Baldwin’s latest indictment for involuntary manslaughter in New Mexico, and the evidentiary issue that is going to give the government a lot of trouble securing a conviction.

Visit serioustrouble.show to sign up as a paying subscriber.

Donald Trump wasn’t supposed to give a closing statement at the New York AG’s civil trial, but he gave a brief one anyway — and why not? There’s no jury to influence and, let’s be honest, Judge Engoron seems to have made his mind up. Plus: Rudy Giuliani is bankrupt and faces the creditors’ committee of his nightmares. Michael Flynn has a performative defamation lawsuit against Andrew Weissmann, over the allegation that he was actually guilty of the crime he pleaded guilty to. And Bill Ackman says he’ll sue Business Insider for reporting that his wife, former MIT professor Neri Oxman, committed plagiarism — though really, Oxman would have to sue, and an unwinnable lawsuit (as it looks to be) is likelier to serve his PR goals rather than hers.

Visit serious trouble.show to sign up for our newsletter 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

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.show

Thank 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.show

One 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