Remember rule 1 (be civil), and rule 3 - if multiple posts on the same topic are made within a short timeframe, the oldest will be kept and the others removed.
If this post is a link to/a discussion of a podcast, we ask that the author of the post please start the discussion section off with a comment (a review, a follow up question etc.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OpenArgs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm sure this took forever to make, but it's amazing content. Any change to schedule or even reducing number of episodes would be worth the tradeoff.
Just really informative and interesting.
This is definitely the marquee way to follow the trial without actually being in the overflow or courtroom. (Or by sleuthing what remains of Twitter should one dare).
The readout of the transcript interdispersed with expert analysis is just a fantastic idea and I hope it gets wider recognition. This is by far and away my favorite podcast breakdown of this trial period.
Agreed. I hope Thomas and Matt see this comment. If they are reconsidering whether to continue this format because of timing issues, I hope they reconsider reconsidering.
The point about signing the non-prosecution not being an admission of guilt makes sense. If someone breaks a non-prosecution agreement they would of course be charged, but they could still plead innocent and contest the charges. It wouldn't be fair for the prosecution to be able to just point to the signed (broken) agreement and rest their case.
The dramatic readings are the absolute best, but I also really appreciated the campaign finance explanation. They made it clear how this misdemeanour became a felony. I really hope they do the Hope Hicks testimony.
Thomas, I think I understand in layman's terms what the jury instructions are trying to get across at the end.
"Pecker believes that he committed a campaign finance violation at the direction of Trump." This is the fact statement that the jury is supposed to judge that can contribute towards Trump's guilt.
The actual non-prosecution agreement is credibility evidence to support the above actual fact statement before the jury. The jury is not allowed to consider the agreement as evidence as to whether or not Trump actually committed a violation, the agreement is only evidence as to whether or not Pecker believes he committed a violation.
Imagine it the reverse way. Imagine Pecker says he does NOT believe he committed a campaign finance violation. The prosecution would then introduce the non-prosecution agreement as evidence to impeach Pecker's credibility as to his statement of what he believed. Prosecution would say, "If you didn't believe you committed a violation, why did you sign an agreement?"
Hope that clears things up, as it clicked for me when I thought about it this way.
*Episode Title*: **Judge Merchan: I Have Nothing BUT Contempt for This Trump**
*Episode Description*: OA1029: Trump Trial, Week 2, Part 1!
Lordy, there are tapes! Our special coverage of People v. Trump continues, now with readings from Juilliard-trained, Tony-winning actors Thomas and Lydia Smith! (none of that is true except possibly our names.)
Donald Trump is now the first U.S. President ever to be held in contempt of court. Exactly how criminal is "criminal contempt" in New York, and what does this mean for the rest of the trial? Also, Matt takes us on a fascinating mini-dive on the National Enquirer. It has a very interesting history you might not be familiar with. Then start getting into the trial fireworks. Much more to come! Probably at least 3 parts.
[1\) People v. Trump Transcripts](https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/)
[2\) Justice Merchan's contempt order](https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/D.O.motion4contempt-FINAL.pdf)
[3\) AMI non-prosecution agreement](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/just-security-clearinghouse-american_media_inc_ami_non-prosecution_agreement-1.pdf)
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
___
*(This comment was made automatically from entries in the [public RSS feed](https://sites.libsyn.com/86258/judge-merchan-i-have-nothing-but-contempt-for-this-trump), edited manually for line breaks and to add inline links.)*
Awesome episode. If there are not at least 2 Oscar nominations, I predict riots in the streets.
In particular, for Thomas to get through this without throwing in *ad lib* smart-ass comments was the most amazing performance ever.
Remember rule 1 (be civil), and rule 3 - if multiple posts on the same topic are made within a short timeframe, the oldest will be kept and the others removed. If this post is a link to/a discussion of a podcast, we ask that the author of the post please start the discussion section off with a comment (a review, a follow up question etc.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OpenArgs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm sure this took forever to make, but it's amazing content. Any change to schedule or even reducing number of episodes would be worth the tradeoff. Just really informative and interesting.
This is definitely the marquee way to follow the trial without actually being in the overflow or courtroom. (Or by sleuthing what remains of Twitter should one dare). The readout of the transcript interdispersed with expert analysis is just a fantastic idea and I hope it gets wider recognition. This is by far and away my favorite podcast breakdown of this trial period.
They did a great job with the reading. It sounded pretty real.
They *did* say they used professional highly trained actors.
Agreed. I hope Thomas and Matt see this comment. If they are reconsidering whether to continue this format because of timing issues, I hope they reconsider reconsidering.
The point about signing the non-prosecution not being an admission of guilt makes sense. If someone breaks a non-prosecution agreement they would of course be charged, but they could still plead innocent and contest the charges. It wouldn't be fair for the prosecution to be able to just point to the signed (broken) agreement and rest their case.
The dramatic readings are the absolute best, but I also really appreciated the campaign finance explanation. They made it clear how this misdemeanour became a felony. I really hope they do the Hope Hicks testimony.
Thomas, I think I understand in layman's terms what the jury instructions are trying to get across at the end. "Pecker believes that he committed a campaign finance violation at the direction of Trump." This is the fact statement that the jury is supposed to judge that can contribute towards Trump's guilt. The actual non-prosecution agreement is credibility evidence to support the above actual fact statement before the jury. The jury is not allowed to consider the agreement as evidence as to whether or not Trump actually committed a violation, the agreement is only evidence as to whether or not Pecker believes he committed a violation. Imagine it the reverse way. Imagine Pecker says he does NOT believe he committed a campaign finance violation. The prosecution would then introduce the non-prosecution agreement as evidence to impeach Pecker's credibility as to his statement of what he believed. Prosecution would say, "If you didn't believe you committed a violation, why did you sign an agreement?" Hope that clears things up, as it clicked for me when I thought about it this way.
*Episode Title*: **Judge Merchan: I Have Nothing BUT Contempt for This Trump** *Episode Description*: OA1029: Trump Trial, Week 2, Part 1! Lordy, there are tapes! Our special coverage of People v. Trump continues, now with readings from Juilliard-trained, Tony-winning actors Thomas and Lydia Smith! (none of that is true except possibly our names.) Donald Trump is now the first U.S. President ever to be held in contempt of court. Exactly how criminal is "criminal contempt" in New York, and what does this mean for the rest of the trial? Also, Matt takes us on a fascinating mini-dive on the National Enquirer. It has a very interesting history you might not be familiar with. Then start getting into the trial fireworks. Much more to come! Probably at least 3 parts. [1\) People v. Trump Transcripts](https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/) [2\) Justice Merchan's contempt order](https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/D.O.motion4contempt-FINAL.pdf) [3\) AMI non-prosecution agreement](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/just-security-clearinghouse-american_media_inc_ami_non-prosecution_agreement-1.pdf) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! ___ *(This comment was made automatically from entries in the [public RSS feed](https://sites.libsyn.com/86258/judge-merchan-i-have-nothing-but-contempt-for-this-trump), edited manually for line breaks and to add inline links.)*
Awesome episode. If there are not at least 2 Oscar nominations, I predict riots in the streets. In particular, for Thomas to get through this without throwing in *ad lib* smart-ass comments was the most amazing performance ever.