Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Now Posting At Substack - August 27th, 2020
- The Fourth of July [rerun] - July 4th, 2020
- All The President's Lawyers: No Bill Thrill? - September 19th, 2019
- Over At Crime Story, A Post About the College Bribery Scandal - September 13th, 2019
- All The President's Lawyers: - September 11th, 2019
Hey,
The episode at the link won't play in page, and the download link throws an error as well. Are you sure it's up yet?
Ahh I figured it out. You have to remove -v2 from the podcast download url.
Hmmmm. I can't get the new episode to play, although the last one will. I'll try again later.
Can't get it to play either.
Transcript? Please?
Okay, look. I like and respect you, Ken, but seriously. If you can't even manage a post about what's going on with Cohen's lawyers? If all we have left is the occasional spent droppings from Randazza's latest masturbation session? Maybe it's time to just admit the Popehat blog is done.
You gonna write for a blog? Then write for a fucking blog. If not then call it quits.
Informative episode, thanks. Keep up the good work.
Josh kept pushing the point in the first segment (regarding the suit accusing Davidson of working WITH Cohen, against his client's best interest) asking how Avenatti knew there was something to pursue here to even file a suit and ask for discovery; to me the answer is pretty obvious – in addition to whatever actual documentation Clifford had retained, clearly Avenatti had full access to Clifford's own recollection of how everything went down. I'm picturing a lot of "he told you WHAT??" moments as she walks through her memory of the events.
I had a different question that wasn't sufficiently answered by the first segment, though: lets say, for the sake of argument, that Clifford/Avenatti prevail, that they can show (let's say there's a smoking gun audio tape) that Davidson was working WITH Cohen instead of on behalf of Clifford. Then what? You mused that actual damages, if any, were unclear, and that the CA bar hasn't historically taken meaningful action in other complex cases.
But are there broader implications? What about all the other women (there are apparently several others) who seem to have brokered similar deals, also involving both Cohen and Davidson (and plausibly Trump)? Would their deals be somehow automatically invalidated? Or would they simply have good reason to think they were similarly wronged, but would still have to (if they wanted) file separate actions on the individual merits of their own cases?
@Michael Heaney
Umm… WTF?
You are not paying for this blog. Satisfaction is not guaranteed. This is one of Ken's avocations, not his vocation. I assume that he writes as a matter of self-interest, and I know that I read as a matter of self-interest. If you're losing interest, there's the door…
Michael Heaney
Can't believe you actually stuck your name on that. Be embarrassed, dude. You earned it.
I see you've been here a long time, Michael, and commented many times, so I can't imagine how you formed the impression that I respond to pathologically entitled tools.
Ken says:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what you just did?
I think he meant to say "I don't respond well to pathologically entitled tools."
Michael Heaney
I used to be you…
Needing a Popehat fix daily….
Jonesin' bad…
I was like "WTF KEN!!! POST SOMETHING!!!"
Then I joined Twitter…
Little Popehat fixes all day long!!!
Its like I have a Popehat drip in my IV!!!
For those craving political news, here's the OIG report:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
Ken, thanks for sharing your expertise with us.
I had trouble getting it to play too…
It's not that I think I'm entitled to them or anything, but I have to agree with N/A that transcripts would be helpful. Even if I could get the thing to play, I'd rather read it. Lower impact on bandwidth/data-use too.
I don't think Ken can do anything about that, though. KCRW isn't his site.
It's not showing in iTunes either
Disregard, I was looking for "This Is What It's Like Now" my bad should have checked the date.
Second (third?) the request for a transcript if at all possible.
Yeah, regular readers would know that Ken responds to pathologically entitled tools all the time… It just usually involves ponies.
"I respond to criticism by calling anyone who criticizes me pathological."
He didn't call anyone who criticises him pathological. Just you in particular!
With all due respect, can I ask what your goal is? Posting trollish "boo Ken!" comments might get the crowd on your side on a neutral forum (where nobody has an opinion on him), but this is a blog filled with pro-Ken commenters. In fact, it might have the highest density of pro-Ken commenters on the entire internet.
This is the tactical equivalent of handing out white power flyers at an NAACP meeting. You chose the worst battlefield imaginable to make your stand.
Here's some interesting reading for anyone watching Mueller's indictment of Concord (the "Russian troll" case). I wonder how many people are going to have to look up "dithyramb"?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4515667-Memorandum-in-Opposition.html
Come on, people, this isn't 1997. Just download a podcast app and subscribe (I recommend Overcast if you are on iOS). It'll push it to you, you won't have to do a thing.
Do note that "All the President's Lawyers" is a separate podcast feed, it has been split off from the "Left, Right & Center" feed. Both are published by KCRW, if that makes it easier to find.
Ken has said previously that he's not responsible for transcripts, so bothering him about that is just a waste of space.
@BradC
Based on your comment, it would appear that you are:
1- not deaf
2- indifferent to the needs of those who are
@Pau Amma
My point regarding transcripts is that Ken has stated previously that he is only a host, not a producer, of this podcast, so the request (for which I have the upmost sympathy) is misplaced. I'd recommend contacting KCRW.
I tried using KCRW's email form but couldn't get past their spambot check despite repeated attempts. So I guess it's snail mail time.
For anyone else who feels inclined to press for transcripts, their contact info is at https://www.kcrw.com/about/contact
Yep on the first bit… it's odd that anyone anti-Ken would even be here, let alone bother to comment.
Not so sure about the second bit. There are probably some pony-forums that love him, and others who want to see a RICO case brought against him.
Manners people. If you want a post on a subject, just ask politely. Not everything is a big deal.
“But are there broader implications? What about all the other women (there are apparently several others) who seem to have brokered similar deals, also involving both Cohen and Davidson (and plausibly Trump)? Would their deals be somehow automatically invalidated? Or would they simply have good reason to think they were similarly wronged, but would still have to (if they wanted) file separate actions on the individual merits of their own cases?“
One of the under appreciated broader implications is: if there are other similarly situated other women, how did Davidson happen to get all these women as ‘clients’ so he could betray them by working with Cohen? It’s one (terrible) thing that Davidson seems to have betrayed one client. But if he did it for multiple clients, how did he happen to acquire those clients?