the anthony john, esq. podcast

anthony john, esq.
  • 5.0 (1)
  • Politics
  • Weekly

Anthony has spent his career in courtrooms and appellate courts, doing the kind of work that requires careful thought about law, power, and what the system actually is versus what it claims to be. The Anthony John, Esq. Podcast brings that same method — a lawyer's instinct for evidence, an appellate advocate's discipline for argument — to a wide range of interests: law, politics, faith, philosophy, and the uncomfortable distance between the stated principles of our institutions and how they actually behave. Some episodes are about cases and courts. Some are about current events. Others trace the deeper questions underneath. There are neither hot takes here nor cold neutrality. The goal is clarity. Honest argument. Serious thought. And, from time to time, a willingness to say plainly what everyone else is trying too hard not to say.

  1. Nov 5

    American Principles First: The Blue Tsunami Wasn't Democrats Winning

    Democrats swept the House, the Senate, and statehouses from Wisconsin to Texas. But the best evidence from election night isn't who won — it's how. A lawyer's take on the conservative pundit whiplash (and the left's version of it), why "America First" should be "American principles first," the rise of the Christian left, why "systemic racism" is the wrong fight, and what Democrats owe the country now that they've caught the car.

    American Principles First: The Blue Tsunami Wasn't Democrats Winning

  2. Oct 27

    Megyn Kelly, Jane Doe, and How Not to Have This Conversation.

    Megyn Kelly, Jane Doe, and How Not to Have This Conversation anthony john, esq. Megyn Kelly, Jane Doe, and How Not to Have This Conversation I want to like Megyn Kelly. She's a lawyer, she's quick on her feet, and in 2015 she asked Donald Trump a fair question on a debate stage and paid for it, badly enough that she needed extra security. Which is what makes her coverage of the Cornell case so strange. Episode after episode, Kelly has gone after Jane Doe's sex life and her looks. In four episodes across two weeks, she kept coming back to the same idea in different words: Jane Doe "gives it up so easily." She said that if Jane Doe's identity came out, she'd name her. Then, on Tucker Carlson's show, she floated getting "a group of us" in the media together to publish the name. Sarah Schmeiser and I are both criminal defense lawyers, and we spend this episode discussing how Kelly’s coverage is an example of how not to have this conversation: The bullying that Kelly’s platform enables and the cowardice of wanting cover from a crowd. We work through why Kelly may be presenting it this way despite—or maybe because of—what she’s been through personally and professionally. And along the way, we discuss the role of shame and gendered expectations around sex that too often go without saying. This episode discusses sexual assault.   Chapters 0:00 Cold open 0:25 Why Megyn Kelly? 6:47 The 2015 debate and the backlash 11:54 Bannon, Breitbart, and "cull her out" 17:19 What Kelly says about Jane Doe 20:53 "I am going to name her" 25:06 "Gives it up so easily," in her own words 30:36 Divorce, annulment, and shame 32:39 Kelly on Alex Cooper 38:18 Where Kelly gets it right 39:37 Tucker and "a group of us" 44:10 An anonymous website, mad about her anonymity 45:50 A little empathy, on both sides 47:24 Why I still want to like her   Clips used for commentary and criticism: - The Megyn Kelly Show (SiriusXM / YouTube), Sept. 30 to Oct. 13, 2026, and June 28, 2024 (with Steve Bannon) - The Tucker Carlson Show, Oct. 9, 2026 - Shawn Ryan Show #129, Sept. 9, 2024 - Fox News Republican primary debate, Aug. 6, 2015 (via TheBlaze) - CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, Aug. 7, 2015 - PBS Frontline   www.anthonyjohn.esq

    Megyn Kelly, Jane Doe, and How Not to Have This Conversation.

  3. Oct 12

    Cornell, Part 3: The Swatting, the New Texts, and Who Gets to Stay Anonymous

    I said there was nothing left to talk about on the Cornell case. I googled it to make sure. I was wrong. Since we last recorded, one of the accused men's lawyers has moved to disqualify New York AG Letitia James over posts she made before she was appointed. Jane Doe was swatted. More of her text messages have been published. And Bill Maher wants to do away with Greek life entirely. Sarah Schmeiser and I are both criminal defense lawyers. We disagree about the recusal, we disagree about how much the new texts tell us, and we spend a good while on something neither of us has resolved: whether anonymity for accusers makes sense if it isn't also extended to the accused. This episode discusses sexual assault. Listener discretion advised. Chapters 0:00 Cold open 0:28 Nothing left to say about Cornell? Turns out, plenty 1:15 The motion to disqualify AG Letitia James 4:28 Judges, prosecutors, and different standards for recusal 8:50 "If someone asks you to step aside" 11:25 Vigilantism, and then the swatting 12:27 CLIP: CNN, Kaitlan Collins with Jane Doe's lawyer 13:37 Nobody can defend swatting 16:15 Who knows who Jane Doe is? 17:19 #IAmJaneDoe, and why I'd represent either side 19:20 Checking myself on victim anonymity 20:23 False accusers and the anonymity tension 21:52 Protect the accused, too 24:25 Arrest charges aren't charging decisions 26:45 The new text messages, read in full 28:52 What the texts do and don't tell us 30:04 Memory, hangovers, and the recorded phone calls 31:28 CLIP: ABC News on the recorded phone calls 33:24 Consent in the moment vs. what you learn later 34:59 The prostitution analogy 36:11 Bill Maher on what a gentleman is 37:03 CLIP: Bill Maher, "a gentleman" 38:07 Is that too much to ask of 20-year-olds? 40:08 Maher: ban Greek life 40:48 CLIP: Bill Maher on Cornell and Greek life 41:49 Hierarchy, single-sex structures, and abuse 44:57 Freedom of association vs. who pays for frat row 45:53 CLIP: Bill Maher on hazing 46:39 Peer pressure and calling out your own 47:40 Wrap-up Clips used for commentary and criticism: CNN, "Inside 'Shocking' Swatting Incident and Death Threats Against Jane Doe in Cornell Rape Case" ABC News, "Newly obtained phone calls between Jane Doe and two fraternity brothers" Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO), "New Rule: Greek Out" Avengers: Endgame (Marvel Studios), "Women Assemble" scene, 3 seconds, muted

    Cornell, Part 3: The Swatting, the New Texts, and Who Gets to Stay Anonymous

  4. Oct 6

    Cornell, Part 2: Who Gets to Prosecute, and the Mob on Both Sides

    The governor took the Cornell case from the DA, Megyn Kelly says she'll name Jane Doe, and Jane Doe says she's being threatened. Sarah Schmeiser and I talk special prosecutors, Wisconsin's Kalal case, consent law in New York vs. Wisconsin, and why the mob is wrong in both directions.

    Cornell, Part 2: Who Gets to Prosecute, and the Mob on Both Sides

  5. Oct 5

    Cornell, Consent, and the Culture War: What We're Getting Wrong, and How to Get It Right

    Sarah Schmeiser and I are both criminal defense lawyers who've tried sexual assault cases, represented victims under Marsy's Law, and handled Title IX matters. This week we dig into the Cornell fraternity case: what's actually alleged, what the Title IX process is (and isn't), what ketamine does to consent, and why coverage on both the left and the right has turned it into a culture-war proxy. Along the way: where our ideas about sexual morality come from, how to talk with kids about sex, false reports and the presumption of innocence, and why having a conversation about a case is different from deciding it. This episode discusses sexual assault. Listener discretion advised. Chapters 00:00 Welcome; Sarah joins 02:55 Our qualifications to talk about this 06:40 Sarah Isgur and the trouble with true crime 13:45 Sex positivity vs. moralized sexuality 21:52 Slut-shaming and the culture-war lens 22:36 Buckley Carlson on Tucker: "no man wants…" 23:53 What Shapiro, Kelly, and Walsh are saying 32:17 Two-parent families, single mothers, and the data 40:09 The facts of the Cornell case 46:53 What ketamine does 50:55 The aftermath: texts, rumors, and the Title IX complaint 1:00:47 How Title IX proceedings actually work 1:06:06 Where consent breaks down 1:09:13 Twenty-year-olds and consent 1:11:30 Talking to kids about sex 1:18:20 Talking about a case vs. deciding it 1:22:07 Victims' rights and what justice looks like 1:23:26 There's no "right" way to respond to assault 1:28:32 Me Too and the presumption of innocence 1:31:14 The Quintez Cephus case 1:33:40 Where are the lines? Aziz Ansari and condoms 1:36:45 Proven false accusations 1:40:14 Victimhood and grievance culture 1:42:48 What Me Too got right 1:45:41 Flip the genders 1:48:11 Wrap-up Clips used for commentary and criticism: - The Tucker Carlson Show, "Buckley Carlson: Writing Trump's Speeches, Trump's Shocking Texts to MTG, and the Epstein Cover-up" (Apr. 20, 2026) - The Ben Shapiro Show, Ep. 2515, "The Reality of the Cornell Case Nobody Wants to Hear" (Sept. 29, 2026) - The Megyn Kelly Show, Ep. 1409, "The Truth About Every Angle of the Cornell Case, from Original 'Jane Doe' 2024 Story to Media Lies" (Sept. 30, 2026) - The Matt Walsh Show, Ep. 1848, "Everything You Need To Know About The Cornell 7 Allegations" (Sept. 30, 2026) Corrections: The incident was October 19, 2024 (Sarah had it right). The "free p***y" message was reportedly sent on Snapchat, not by text. Watch the full video on YouTube: https://youtu.be/s2TB_dEellY anthonyjohn.esq

    Cornell, Consent, and the Culture War: What We're Getting Wrong, and How to Get It Right

  6. Jul 28

    Madison Officer-Involved Shooting: Corey Ruiz Case — Use-of-Force Expert & Defense Attorney Review

    Two days after Corey Ruiz was shot and killed by a Madison police officer, AJ (a criminal defense attorney) and Adrian Alan (a 20-year law enforcement veteran and use-of-force expert) sat down to do what mainstream media hasn't: watch the video slowly, read the record completely, and follow the analysis wherever it goes. Full disclosure up front: Adrian is my friend. I've trained with him, I've done a ride-along with him, and we disagree about plenty — including, on past episodes, whether an officer should be charged with murder. That's the point of this show. What we cover: what the video actually shows • why the tasers failed, and the physics of why distance matters • "why not shoot him in the leg" — answered honestly • the three shots, and how fast a human brain actually works • Ruiz's public court record: dozens of Dane County cases since 2007, what he was sentenced to, and what truth-in-sentencing actually means • mental health, competency, and NGI, explained by someone who argues them for a living • race and sentencing — the real disparities and the bad arguments on both sides • the body-camera history Madison doesn't talk about • and what could actually prevent the next one: crisis response, training, and intervention that happens before the last fifteen seconds. All record information discussed comes from public court records (CCAP) and courthouse documents. Nothing in this episode is legal advice. Strong language throughout. Contains footage of the shooting. Viewer discretion advised.

    Madison Officer-Involved Shooting: Corey Ruiz Case — Use-of-Force Expert & Defense Attorney Review

  7. Apr 29

    On Political Violence: After Saturday Night

    After the assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, a careful look at when political violence has historically been held to be justified — through the Declaration of Independence and Paul Johnson's account of how Hitler dismantled Weimar — and why we're closer to that line than we should be, but not yet across it. I do not condone political violence. I condemn it. This episode is about why that condemnation is harder to make honestly than it used to be.

    On Political Violence: After Saturday Night

  8. Apr 23

    Unconditional Positive Regard for the U.S. Supreme Court

    Sarah Isgur's Last Branch Standing is the most accessible Supreme Court book we've come across — and would recommend it for every voter. Full marks. The title of this episode comes from the disposition that makes the book so good. Whether that same disposition is also its one blind spot is a question we take seriously — and answer carefully.

    Unconditional Positive Regard for the U.S. Supreme Court
See All (15)

Ratings & Reviews

About

Anthony has spent his career in courtrooms and appellate courts, doing the kind of work that requires careful thought about law, power, and what the system actually is versus what it claims to be. The Anthony John, Esq. Podcast brings that same method — a lawyer's instinct for evidence, an appellate advocate's discipline for argument — to a wide range of interests: law, politics, faith, philosophy, and the uncomfortable distance between the stated principles of our institutions and how they actually behave. Some episodes are about cases and courts. Some are about current events. Others trace the deeper questions underneath. There are neither hot takes here nor cold neutrality. The goal is clarity. Honest argument. Serious thought. And, from time to time, a willingness to say plainly what everyone else is trying too hard not to say.

Information