Legal Implications of Presidential Actions

The long memo Jack Smith promised is here: a 185-page document laying out evidence he’d like to present in his January 6-related case against Donald Trump. The memo has to be so long because the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity was so complex and vague: Smith must show, act by act, that he’s offering evidence either of Trump’s unofficial actions, or of official acts where he can overcome the presumption of immunity. Ken and I discuss how Smith argues that most of the acts he wants to present are unofficial, his case that Trump’s official efforts to coerce Pence are fair game, and how long it’s going to take courts to adjudicate all these questions before a trial can start (years). For paying subscribers, we also discuss:

* One of the bitchiest motions Ken has ever seen

* Clare Locke surviving a motion to dismiss in their nine-year-old-fan-of-Kansas-City-Chiefs client’s defamation case against Deadspin, for having accused him of wearing blackface and hating black people and Native Americans

* Garth Brooks (a.k.a. the anonymous celebrity “John Doe”) facing an anonymous lawsuit from his former hairstylist, who he also tried to sue anonymously to stop her from suing him anonymously

* Professor Joe Gow, who will sue the University of Wisconsin for dismissing him over his vegan porn side project;

* Former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters getting nine years in prison for her “Stop the Steal” efforts

* Updates on the Eric Adams scandal

To get the whole episode, subscribe at serioustrouble.show.