Richard and John get into it over Trump’s many trials, the likelihood that he’ll receive a fair one in New York City, and the windfall he appears to have received as Truth Social’s holding company goes public. They discuss the likelihood that John Eastman loses his license to practice law and they make predictions about the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity in Trump’s cases involving Special Prosecutor Jack Smith. Finally, they preview a climate change case that could end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Subscribe to Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

There are 5 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Join Ricochet
  1. Macho Grande' Coolidge
    Macho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion
    8:58 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 31, 2024

    Great pod.  But it was interesting to hear Yoo be so hardline on the J6 trespassers, treating all of them collectively in his description of whatever hideous crime was perpetrated.

    For some help, for John, I’ll illuminate:

    1. If a guard waves you into a building, if he or she does not stop or warn you that you’re trespassing, it’s pretty reasonable to assume Joe/Jane Smith won’t know they’re committing a crime.  I know ignorance isn’t an excuse, but it also shouldn’t result in someone sitting in jail for a year for walking down a hallway that they could have walked down the day prior with no charge being made against them.
    2. There’s a difference between someone wandering the halls they’ve been escorted into by security and someone damaging or stealing things.  One is wanton destruction, the other is what, walking?
    3. Where was John’s righteous prosecutorial outrage at *other* protests that had people wandering the halls of Congress, disrupting the normal course of business in Congress, and repeated protests in multiple Senate and Congressional office buildings within walking distance of the Capitol building?  Why is one group treated one way, and one another?  Why the disparity in treatment, and Yoo-ian levels of outrage?
    4. Would anyone have been able to gain access to Congress had the recommended security been put in place, National Guard, as requested, instead of what looks like a luring of protesters into the Capitol building, where they could then be charged?

    Just a couple of questions above, but one more:  When will the Capitol Police be held liable for killing a protester?  Would they have shot anyone if it was a pro-choice rally?

    • #1
  2. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras
    10:49 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 31, 2024

    John Yoo comes across as a total jerk here, talking over Richard Epstein and not letting him get a word in.  Most of us are here to listen to Epstein, not Yoo.

    As Epstein is eventually able to point out, Yoo’s references to the “Trump Justice Department” are fatuous.  You might as well say that the “Trump FBI” sprang a perjury trap on Gen. Flynn, and that “Trump FBI Director” James Comey plotted to release damaging allegations about Trump.

    • #2
  3. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis
    7:57 AM EDT ⋅ Apr 1, 2024

    Does Jon treat the members of the FBI/DOJ who knowingly pushed “Russian Collusion” in 2016? 

     

    • #3
  4. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda
    3:25 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 2, 2024

    I am appalled at what I heard in this podcast.  @troysenik is a new father?  And he hasn’t posted baby pictures on Ricochet?

    • #4
  5. Blondie Thatcher
    Blondie
    @Blondie
    6:26 PM EDT ⋅ Apr 3, 2024

    Congratulations, @troysenik! Praying all are well. 

    • #5
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Join Ricochet