247 Comments

Oh, I remember the days when you could go an entire week without any political 'excitement'. We can't go 4 hours without something that draws our attention like a train wreck.

I'm so glad, Joyce, that you keep all this straight for us.

Expand full comment

I will try to get into the courtroom either as a press or spectator. If they accept my credentials, I will be able to tap on my mobile device. I just hope that Trump’s head explodes and I catch a piece of it to frame and sell on eBay. Imagine being able to sell a piece of Trump’s head I can’t say brain because he has none.

Expand full comment

Dang, that's a lot going on. Thank you for keeping track of it all and keeping us informed of the schedule and the details that we're likely to see.

I keep wondering when someone is going to mention to the court that little detail about a well-regulated militia being the point of the second amendment, and NOT about allowing people free rein to slaughter our fellow citizens with assault weapons.

I also want to say that possessions tend to own us: if I had a banjo, I'd want to learn to play it, if I had a new car, I'd want to drive it. If I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the morning, but if someone owns an assault rifle, wouldn't the ownership make them want to use it, just because? No one should have access to these deadly weapons except in the military. We don't, and shouldn't, have the right as citizens to bear nuclear warheads, for goodness sake. Access to and ownership of military assault weapons is inherently dangerous.

Wishing you all a safe, sane week.

Expand full comment
Nov 6·edited Nov 6

If I can stay in focus and follow what Joyce writes, it is so helpful, clear, and important - for that I am deeply grateful. But I am experiencing burn-out with a desire to shut it all out and listen to music, like nothing is amiss. I will keep at it, but the barrage is exhausting. It is uplifting to read these comments and hear that others care and what they are thinking. Thanks for the community.

Expand full comment

They absolutely should have allowed cameras in federal court decades ago. He committed these crimes in front of the whole world. We need everyone to be able to see the proceedings and there are multiple ways to protect the jury.

Expand full comment

I think we need a bonus 🐓 picture after everything

Expand full comment

Thanks for the info on Bannon. I keep wondering why it took almost a year and a half to get this hearing. The slow wheels of justice…

Expand full comment
Nov 6·edited Nov 6

Thank you Joyce for this update. Oh my lord: I have never felt so over-whelmed with school. "Be ready for a little law school 101." When do we get to move up a little bit to 102? Why do the Kardashians always stick their hips out? I can't wait to read Jack Smith's responses to Trump's dispositive motions. Jack Smith said right in the indictments that Trump was able to continue to talk about any and all of his lies because that is his First Amendment Right. Woo hoo!! "we will take up the substance of all of the motions tomorrow." It would be a gift if Steve Bannon were to go away soon. Thank you and night night.

Expand full comment
founding

I’m still not over Jack Smith having the audacity to go over 200 words without leave from the (kangaroo) Florida Court.

Expand full comment

They proceeded to decide, of course, that gun rights are more important than women’s lives...

what are horrific thing to have to write about our court.

Expand full comment

"The court concluded that “§922(g)(8)’s ban on possession of firearms is an ‘outlier[] that our ancestors would never have accepted.’…Therefore, the statute is unconstitutional.” And they, what? used a ouija board, or attended a seance to determine what our ancestors would or would no accept? Or maybe they have back -in-time extra sensory perception that allows them to KNOW. This is pure unadulterated b*** s***.. While women were considered chattel at that time, nothing I have read in the history of the United States or the British Isles gives me reason to believe that in the late 18th, early 19th Century the judiciary would either feel or rule that a man's right to shoot his wife or his lover succeeded her right to life.

Thank you, Joyce for keeping us apprised of the law cases in the week ahead. I look forward to your reports on the outcome.

Expand full comment

Joyce- I hate our criminal "justice" system to my very core. The process is stacked in favor of all these traitors to democracy.

Expand full comment

Honestly don't know how you do it Joyce! You teach actual classes to true students and then you "teach classes" to those of us who are not students but those interested in what is going on in the legal system. AND you make it understandable too! Oh yes, you also do commentary on MSNBC!!! When I see or hear you are going to comment on a program I make sure I don't miss it...I even record it if I cannot watch live! Thank you !

Expand full comment

Thank you so much again Joyce! For years now I’ve been so grateful for your commitment to help us all weather and understand the legal and moral quagmire that Trump and his followers have inflicted on the country. Your voice has always stood out from all the other good legal analyst folks in the media as the most clear and reliable voice to depend on.

Expand full comment

I feel like I just took a semester’s worth of credits in your class, Professor. Whew! My mind is swirling. That’s a lot to keep track of, and thankfully you do. I’ll be one of those Kentuckians voting for Governor Beshear on Tuesday, in a too close for comfort race. Republicans control both statehouse chambers. We can’t afford a trifecta.

Expand full comment

I could not disagree more on the TV issue. I’m old enough to remember the OJ Simpson case, and Trump is very experienced at manipulating media. Televising his trials would be a disaster.

Expand full comment