Even as he praises judicial decisions that made room for "dissenters" and protected "robust political debate," Tim Wu pushes sweeping rationales for censorship.
That take on the former president's New York conviction echoes similarly puzzling claims by many people who should know better.
The lack of a clear rationale for charging Trump with 34 felonies raises a due process issue that is likely to figure in his appeals.
Whatever Trump did after the 2016 presidential election, it seems safe to say that it did not retroactively promote his victory.
There was a glaring mismatch between the charges against the former president and what prosecutors described as the essence of his crime.
The judge said the jurors need not agree about the "unlawful means" that Trump allegedly used to promote his 2016 election.
Closing arguments in the former president's trial highlight the mismatch between the charges and the "election fraud" he supposedly committed.
This week the judge presiding over Trump's trial ruled that jurors do not have to agree on any particular legal theory.
To convert a hush payment into 34 felonies, prosecutors are relying on a chain of assumptions with several weak links.
Contrary to what prosecutors say, the former president is not charged with "conspiracy" or "election fraud."
Under the prosecution's theory, Trump would be guilty of falsifying business records even if Daniels made the whole thing up.
New York prosecutors are relying on testimony from several people who do not seem trustworthy.
To convert a hush money payment into 34 felonies, prosecutors are invoking an obscure state election law that experts say has never been used before.
Since Donald Trump's alleged falsification of business records happened after he was elected president, he clearly was not trying to ensure that outcome.
The leading possibilities are all problematic in one way or another.
Plus: A listener asks about the absurdity of Social Security entitlements.
Neither Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg nor New York Attorney General Letitia James can explain exactly who was victimized by the dishonesty they cite.
The essence of the case, the Manhattan D.A. says, is that Trump "corrupt[ed] a presidential election" by concealing embarrassing information.
Those sounding the loudest alarms about possible shutdowns are largely silent when Congress ignores its own budgetary rules. All that seems to matter is that government is metaphorically funded.
The Manhattan case stinks of partisan politics, but Trump faces more serious legal jeopardy on at least three other fronts.
The case against the former president is both morally dubious and legally shaky.
Trump very much deserves to be prosecuted and punished. But the New York case is far more dubious than the other charges likely to be brought against him.
The continuing ambiguity reflects the legal challenges that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg faces in transforming one hush payment into 34 felonies.
Plus: Debating whether GPT-4 actually understands language, U.S. immigration law stops a college basketball star from scoring, and more...
Plus: the terrible case for pausing A.I. innovation
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is relying on debatable facts and untested legal theories to transform minor misconduct into a felony.
Plus: Evidence that social media causes teen health problems "isn't convincing," more states ban gender transition treatments for minors, and more...
Plus: A listener asks the editors if the nation is indeed unraveling or if she is just one of "The Olds" now.
The case hinges on the claim that the former president tried to cover up a campaign finance violation with which he was never charged.
Plus: Libertarians ask Supreme Court to consider New York ballot access rule change, Wyoming bans abortion pills, and more...
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg reportedly intends to prosecute Trump for falsifying business records.
The massive power of federal government attracts frauds.
And is this a good precedent to be setting?
Fifth post in the symposium on the National Constitution Center "Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy" project. Walter Olson of Team Libertarian comments on similarities and differences between the three reports.
Fourth post in the symposium on the National Constitution Center "Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy" project. David French presents the Team Conservative Report.
Republicans take a page from the Democrats’ book by crying “dark money” during Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing.
Two lessons from the Canadian truckers' protest
A California rule and a bill approved by the House seem designed to chill freedom of speech and freedom of association.
With a lot of money spent for little results, the most recent election was a rebuttal to arguments for campaign finance reform.
Democrats and Republicans agree on that point, although they disagree about what it means in practice.
The Texas senator notes the opposing party's blind spots on freedom of speech and the right to arms.
The 5th Circuit judge is a mixed bag from a libertarian perspective.
No amount of money can buy victory for candidates who fail to persuade voters.
No amount of money can buy victory for candidates who fail to persuade voters.
The former New York City mayor has never been good at concealing his conviction that he is smarter and better than the rest of us.
Michael Bloomberg spent at least $500 million in his bid for a Super Tuesday blitz. He came away with...American Samoa.
"I hope our country will never see the time, when either riches or the want of them will be the leading considerations in the choice of public officers," Adams wrote in 1776.
The two Democratic billionaires have spent a combined $200 million on campaign ads already. That doesn't mean much to them, but the opportunity costs are staggering.
