If "journalists" could distinguish between actual criminal defense efforts and defense-inspired political narratives, there would be less confusion about the real issues.
I appreciate your astute analysis. Tossed some money into the pot for you.
Probably got my name on the list if the Uniparty manages to steal the election, but I'm an old man and short of time anyway. If not for the huge success of Bidenomics in crushing the economy, I'd give more.
I missed the spif with Bongino. I use to catch all of his podcasts but recently have been a little burnt out and have opted to listen to music more. I have been well plugged in to everything since the 2015 announcement of Trumps candidacy and the congressional hearings into the wicked one and all the deleted emails. There have been a lot of ups and down since then. Now its like everything has snowballed and something big is coming down the pipe. We are just running around in circles waiting for the big smack. All the hot air and breathless commentary seems senseless anymore. Ship for one is worth the read, because he skips the hyperventalating and delivers the details.
I will find and listen to what Dan said about you, I am sure I will be dissappointed with him when I do.
Thank again Ship. You are in my top 10 all time favorite reads. You probably will find this amusing, but I think you shoud be Trumps AG. I would love to see you taking some roundup to the weeds at DOJ.
"If the Trump legal defense intended to stand on the “assassination plan” narrative as factual, this would have been the point where it embraced it, giving a full-throated endorsement of it and the conservative “journalists” who had fanned the flames of outrage using it the past few weeks. But the legal defense did not do that."
____
My respect for Trump's legal team and their abilities to play a multi-level game went up by a lot when I read this passage.
Also, in my life I've learned that what a person recognizes, says (including tone), and doesn't say is more important than many other factors I use to decide who I'm going to invest my time to read and understand what they say... Ship, I followed you from RS in large part because you rank high on all of those areas.
Thank you for the kind words Dieter. Frankly, I couldn't write that other crap -- it bores me. Writing the way I write -- trying to crawl inside the strategy and explain it to people who don't live in this world, give me satisfaction.
It's... ironic... that your style of writing doesn't fit with many audiences... some come at you with petty observations and others... something different.
As one of my favorite movies passages noted... for some people there are just "Too many notes" in what you write but, for the people that are more discerning... "There are no more, nor less notes than are required to say what you are trying to say".
Thank you Ship. I really appreciate this longer analysis. I had picked up pieces of it from your Twitter account.
This issue with Julie Kelly’s reporting (that she’s not a lawyer so legal strategy is over her heard) is a good one and as much as I appreciate her work, I’ve struggled with it for the same reason. That said, TBH, Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and your friend Andrew McCarthy have similar issues when providing commentary. They clearly do not get into the weeds of the case before they step into the Fox News studio to comment. I’d love to see any one of them really analyze that Bragg case or any J6 case for that matter. Of course, the same crappy analysis (… is it really analysis? …) happens on every other network but still - isn’t the news media’s mantra these days that we should get of social media and only rely on their info because they’ll give us the expert analysis as opposed to the talking points and spin.
On Bongino, as a listener of his show, I’m disappointed. This whole conflict has left me questioning his analysis not just on this but all matters. Would hope he apologizes, he presents as humble and authentic. An apology to you on this particular issue is both.
As a reader and listener of all of the above, I have to disagree. Julie Kelly keeps us up to date, by telling the inside story, being in person for many FL and DC cases. Dershowitz is top shelf in determining what is next, or how a defendant’s rights were abused, and what arguments to make. This article by Ship separated the legal positions from political without discounting either.
One more thing- if you’re going to watch Fox, watch Mark Levin Sat and Sunday at 8pm EST. Another excellent attorney who understands political implications of everything.
There are times when it is difficult to separate Mark's legal opinions from his bombast (particularly with regard to the radio show). That being said, he usually has a valuable take on the legal issues as they arise.
Did you know that Dan was in the secret service, the NYPD and ran for office? 😱 (That’s a running joke that my husband and I have since he mentions in every single podcast!)
You are correct, Dan owes Ship an apology. A sincere apology. He needs to get over himself and realize he is not all-knowing. He’s done serious damage here and needs to fix it… but I doubt he has the integrity to do so. That’s disappointing.
X Poster: "Oh my God!, the FBI warrant allowed for use of DEADLY FORCE against a former president!"
Shipwrecked: "That's boilerplate language, however inappropriate it may seem in this case, it's included in literally every search warrant the FBI draws up. This is a non-story."
X Poster: "Oh. Thanks for clearing that up."
The political tit-for-tat, the needless hysteria, the hyperbolic language, is the real threat to our democracy.
The initial hysteria was based on the surmised or otherwise uninformed belief that the language was specifically included to target Trump. When it became obvious that, "No, it is DOJ policy, and the FBI procedures say it goes in every Ops Plan" they "Chicken Littles" had to pivot "Can you believe NO ONE thought that maybe it was not appropriate to SOP this and didn't take the time to remove it???"
Anything to sustain the outrage.
Which as a political matter is understandable.
Just realize you're playing politics, not legal analyst, when you go down that road.
Unfortunately politics and emotion often overcome sanity. If this article doesn't persuade people then I don't think anything will.
I greatly admire the sacrifice you're making to represent these defendants and I've made multiple donations to the fund. I understand you're desire to defend your reputation and set the record straight. But as Shakespeare wrote, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. It is my fervent hope that this is your final word on the topic. I'd hate to see it jeopardize the great work you're doing on behalf of your clients.
It is -- there are some significant issues coming up that I hope to find time to write about. The motion to DQ Smith is goign to be argued this week. I hope to get something out on that tomorrow. Then I want to address the issues raised by the motion to dismiss based on spoilation of evidence. That one is very complicated and involves the use of a "Filter team" for privileged information and what they might have screwed up. THEN, if there is a suppression hearing, that is going to be Armageddon.
I don’t think I have been charged by you yet, though I am a Paid Subscriber. I will start donating to the J6 fund so that money won’t be an obstacle. Thank you for tying all of these pieces together, and separating the wheat from the chaff.
I've long been convinced that the motivation behind of all these proceedings against Trump et al, both criminal and civil, has always been Lawfare, i.e., legal proceedings brought to sway public opinion and/or influence political outcomes rather than a good-faith attempt at achieving an even arguably legitimate legal outcome.
Because if so, that would seem to go along way towards explaining why Smith and his office seem to almost gleefully step on every rake with which they are presented. A professionally disinterested legal observer would see all of these as obvious rakes to be avoided. But for Smith et al, these rakes are actually the whole point of the proceedings.
The fact that they seem consistently surprised and frustrated when the rake-step smacks them in the forehead is due to the fact that they're inept political hacks. But given their motivations, they'd be hard-pressed to avoid stepping on said rakes even if they were good at their jobs. As you point out, the audience for legal filings is supposed to consist entirely of, in descending order of importance, 1) the court and 2) opposing counsel. But Lawfare means that the audience consists of 1) public opinion, 2) the opposing party, and then 3) the court (and a very distant one at that).
In a jurisdiction like D.D.C. or a Manhattan trial court, the judge will likely be aligned with that motivation, allowing any number of legal travesties to occur so long as it advances the Lawfare goal. But Judge Cannon isn't aligned, and she isn't letting the SC's office priorities non-legal outcomes over legal ones. Hence the hyperventilating.
I wish people would not choose sides over a non-feud. A lawyer disagrees with a non-lawyer over the interpretation of legal issues. Whether we like it or not, people are allowed to disagree.
One comment though. After I read Julie Kelly's article today, I'm starting to realize how trite she sounds. I wish she would team up with shipwrecked instead of trading barbs. She has a good audience and is bringing good attention to J6.
However, her article today is weak. Sad....because a team up could be so powerful.
😂😂😂😂😂 Ship that first sentence right there man. 😂😂 That is the truest statement I've heard about some people i follow on Twitter and that is who it was directed toward too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I appreciate your astute analysis. Tossed some money into the pot for you.
Probably got my name on the list if the Uniparty manages to steal the election, but I'm an old man and short of time anyway. If not for the huge success of Bidenomics in crushing the economy, I'd give more.
I missed the spif with Bongino. I use to catch all of his podcasts but recently have been a little burnt out and have opted to listen to music more. I have been well plugged in to everything since the 2015 announcement of Trumps candidacy and the congressional hearings into the wicked one and all the deleted emails. There have been a lot of ups and down since then. Now its like everything has snowballed and something big is coming down the pipe. We are just running around in circles waiting for the big smack. All the hot air and breathless commentary seems senseless anymore. Ship for one is worth the read, because he skips the hyperventalating and delivers the details.
I will find and listen to what Dan said about you, I am sure I will be dissappointed with him when I do.
Thank again Ship. You are in my top 10 all time favorite reads. You probably will find this amusing, but I think you shoud be Trumps AG. I would love to see you taking some roundup to the weeds at DOJ.
"If the Trump legal defense intended to stand on the “assassination plan” narrative as factual, this would have been the point where it embraced it, giving a full-throated endorsement of it and the conservative “journalists” who had fanned the flames of outrage using it the past few weeks. But the legal defense did not do that."
____
My respect for Trump's legal team and their abilities to play a multi-level game went up by a lot when I read this passage.
Also, in my life I've learned that what a person recognizes, says (including tone), and doesn't say is more important than many other factors I use to decide who I'm going to invest my time to read and understand what they say... Ship, I followed you from RS in large part because you rank high on all of those areas.
Great job.
Thank you for the kind words Dieter. Frankly, I couldn't write that other crap -- it bores me. Writing the way I write -- trying to crawl inside the strategy and explain it to people who don't live in this world, give me satisfaction.
It's... ironic... that your style of writing doesn't fit with many audiences... some come at you with petty observations and others... something different.
As one of my favorite movies passages noted... for some people there are just "Too many notes" in what you write but, for the people that are more discerning... "There are no more, nor less notes than are required to say what you are trying to say".
Thank you Ship. I really appreciate this longer analysis. I had picked up pieces of it from your Twitter account.
This issue with Julie Kelly’s reporting (that she’s not a lawyer so legal strategy is over her heard) is a good one and as much as I appreciate her work, I’ve struggled with it for the same reason. That said, TBH, Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and your friend Andrew McCarthy have similar issues when providing commentary. They clearly do not get into the weeds of the case before they step into the Fox News studio to comment. I’d love to see any one of them really analyze that Bragg case or any J6 case for that matter. Of course, the same crappy analysis (… is it really analysis? …) happens on every other network but still - isn’t the news media’s mantra these days that we should get of social media and only rely on their info because they’ll give us the expert analysis as opposed to the talking points and spin.
On Bongino, as a listener of his show, I’m disappointed. This whole conflict has left me questioning his analysis not just on this but all matters. Would hope he apologizes, he presents as humble and authentic. An apology to you on this particular issue is both.
As a reader and listener of all of the above, I have to disagree. Julie Kelly keeps us up to date, by telling the inside story, being in person for many FL and DC cases. Dershowitz is top shelf in determining what is next, or how a defendant’s rights were abused, and what arguments to make. This article by Ship separated the legal positions from political without discounting either.
One more thing- if you’re going to watch Fox, watch Mark Levin Sat and Sunday at 8pm EST. Another excellent attorney who understands political implications of everything.
There are times when it is difficult to separate Mark's legal opinions from his bombast (particularly with regard to the radio show). That being said, he usually has a valuable take on the legal issues as they arise.
Did you know that Dan was in the secret service, the NYPD and ran for office? 😱 (That’s a running joke that my husband and I have since he mentions in every single podcast!)
You are correct, Dan owes Ship an apology. A sincere apology. He needs to get over himself and realize he is not all-knowing. He’s done serious damage here and needs to fix it… but I doubt he has the integrity to do so. That’s disappointing.
beth02 is on the right side of this issue.
In a sane world the story would have:
X Poster: "Oh my God!, the FBI warrant allowed for use of DEADLY FORCE against a former president!"
Shipwrecked: "That's boilerplate language, however inappropriate it may seem in this case, it's included in literally every search warrant the FBI draws up. This is a non-story."
X Poster: "Oh. Thanks for clearing that up."
The political tit-for-tat, the needless hysteria, the hyperbolic language, is the real threat to our democracy.
The initial hysteria was based on the surmised or otherwise uninformed belief that the language was specifically included to target Trump. When it became obvious that, "No, it is DOJ policy, and the FBI procedures say it goes in every Ops Plan" they "Chicken Littles" had to pivot "Can you believe NO ONE thought that maybe it was not appropriate to SOP this and didn't take the time to remove it???"
Anything to sustain the outrage.
Which as a political matter is understandable.
Just realize you're playing politics, not legal analyst, when you go down that road.
Unfortunately politics and emotion often overcome sanity. If this article doesn't persuade people then I don't think anything will.
I greatly admire the sacrifice you're making to represent these defendants and I've made multiple donations to the fund. I understand you're desire to defend your reputation and set the record straight. But as Shakespeare wrote, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. It is my fervent hope that this is your final word on the topic. I'd hate to see it jeopardize the great work you're doing on behalf of your clients.
It is -- there are some significant issues coming up that I hope to find time to write about. The motion to DQ Smith is goign to be argued this week. I hope to get something out on that tomorrow. Then I want to address the issues raised by the motion to dismiss based on spoilation of evidence. That one is very complicated and involves the use of a "Filter team" for privileged information and what they might have screwed up. THEN, if there is a suppression hearing, that is going to be Armageddon.
I don’t think I have been charged by you yet, though I am a Paid Subscriber. I will start donating to the J6 fund so that money won’t be an obstacle. Thank you for tying all of these pieces together, and separating the wheat from the chaff.
Do I click on the link to donate?
Yes -- very easy to navigate on the GSG site. Thanks for the support.
I’m there now.
I've long been convinced that the motivation behind of all these proceedings against Trump et al, both criminal and civil, has always been Lawfare, i.e., legal proceedings brought to sway public opinion and/or influence political outcomes rather than a good-faith attempt at achieving an even arguably legitimate legal outcome.
Because if so, that would seem to go along way towards explaining why Smith and his office seem to almost gleefully step on every rake with which they are presented. A professionally disinterested legal observer would see all of these as obvious rakes to be avoided. But for Smith et al, these rakes are actually the whole point of the proceedings.
The fact that they seem consistently surprised and frustrated when the rake-step smacks them in the forehead is due to the fact that they're inept political hacks. But given their motivations, they'd be hard-pressed to avoid stepping on said rakes even if they were good at their jobs. As you point out, the audience for legal filings is supposed to consist entirely of, in descending order of importance, 1) the court and 2) opposing counsel. But Lawfare means that the audience consists of 1) public opinion, 2) the opposing party, and then 3) the court (and a very distant one at that).
In a jurisdiction like D.D.C. or a Manhattan trial court, the judge will likely be aligned with that motivation, allowing any number of legal travesties to occur so long as it advances the Lawfare goal. But Judge Cannon isn't aligned, and she isn't letting the SC's office priorities non-legal outcomes over legal ones. Hence the hyperventilating.
Thoughts?
I wish people would not choose sides over a non-feud. A lawyer disagrees with a non-lawyer over the interpretation of legal issues. Whether we like it or not, people are allowed to disagree.
One comment though. After I read Julie Kelly's article today, I'm starting to realize how trite she sounds. I wish she would team up with shipwrecked instead of trading barbs. She has a good audience and is bringing good attention to J6.
However, her article today is weak. Sad....because a team up could be so powerful.
😂😂😂😂😂 Ship that first sentence right there man. 😂😂 That is the truest statement I've heard about some people i follow on Twitter and that is who it was directed toward too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This is excellent. Without doing so it illustrates another, more subtle, reason political prosecutions are a bad idea.