Opening Arguments

Happy Holidays, everyone! Today, we tackle a number of issues that managed to distract us over the holidays regarding impeachment and do a deep dive into Nixon v. US -- all while weaving in a John-Roberts-as-the-Grinch-Who-Saved-the-Country-From-Mitch-McConnell story. Can it happen? Absolutely. Will it? We don't know. Do you need to listen? ABSOLUTELY. We begin, however, with the recent filing by the lawyer for the House Judiciary Committee suggesting it might "impeach Donald Trump again." What on earth does that mean, and why is he taking this position? We explain it all. Then it's time for a brief foray into the debate between Noah Feldman, Laurence Tribe (and Jonathan Turley for good measure) as to whether Trump has really been impeached given that the House has not yet transmitted the articles to the Senate. As we all know, that question is really academic -- the real issue is: what power does Mitch McConnell have to transform impeachment into a sham proceeding? The answer lies in a 1993 Supreme Court case, Nixon v. US , 506 U.S. 224 -- and it may just reside in Chief Justice John Roberts. You won't want to miss this deep dive storytelling. After all that, it's time for a brand new #T3BE involving burglary, larceny, and the world's angriest ex-employee. Remember to play along on social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the House's filing before the D.C. Circuit in the McGahn subpoena litigation. In the battle of expert turncoats, we have Noah Feldman arguing that Trump hasn't been impeached, and Jonathan Turley arguing that he has. Finally, make sure you read Nixon v. U.S., 506 U.S. 224 (1993). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode combines a deep dive into the IRS's tax exemptions with some breaking news about allegations made by a whistleblower that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (that is, the Mormon Church) has hidden over $100 billion in assets that should otherwise be taxed. Grab some yarn and pushpins, and we'll try and disentangle this conspiracy together! Joining us is the host of the Naked Mormonism and Glass Box podcasts, Bryce Blankenagel, who has first-hand knowledge of some of these events and has done serious work trying to parse through the documents and help us figure out what the mainstream reporting on this story might have missed! Along the way you'll learn a ton about the various corporate entities owned by the Mormon Church. After that, we return to a popular #T3BE question involving whether the court can instruct the jury as to one of the elements of a crime. Can Thomas add to his amazing one-question win streak??? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the whistleblower's 78-page letter to the IRS, and here to watch his 7-minute video summary. NOTE: We do not endorse all of the claims and/or analysis made in that video. Check out 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) for the statutory provisions regarding non-profits, and here to read the special rules as to when the IRS can investigate or audit a church. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the recent 5th Circuit ruling you may have heard about that... is supposed to have declared the ACA unconstitutional? How can that possibly be the case? We break it all down for you. Oh, and yeah, we also talk about the fact that the third president in American history has been impeached. We begin, however, with an Andrew Was Wrong segment about the procedural history underlying the Syed appeal. Then, it's time to break down the 5th Circuit's ACA opinion. How is it possible? How is the case ripe? Wasn't all of this decided in 2012 in the NFIB v. Sebelius case? We explain everything you need to know -- and what you need to know about the future -- in this main segment. Then, it's time to tackle some impeachment questions like, "what the hell is going on?" and "is it true that the President can't be pardoned for crimes over which he's been impeached?" (No.) You definitely won't want to miss this one. After all that, it's time for a brand new #T3BE involving jury instructions during a criminal trial. Can Thomas build on his amazing 1-question winning streak? There's only one way to know for sure! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We tackled the Syed case for the very last time in Episode 340. You can read the 5th Circuit's ACA opinion here. Finally, on impeachment, don't forget to check out (a) Episode 90 where we explain that Trump can probably pardon himself, and also (b) Laurence Tribe's article that changed how the House handles impeachment. Oh, man, and if you missed last episode's humor, check out “Larry ‘Bud’ Melman” advertising “Mr. Larry’s Toast on a Stick” from the old Late Night With David Letterman show. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into something the Supreme Court didn't do last week -- namely, it declined to grant certiorari to reverse an obviously incorrect decision of the Sixth Circuit (EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier), in which that court upheld a blatantly unconstitutional Kentucky law mandating that women undergo a medically unnecessary ultrasound and listen to a script before undergoing an abortion. We begin, however, with a delightful Frozen-themed listener question about the extent of copyright law and whether Josh Gad can start singing songs about how Brett Kavanaugh is a monster. (Hint: this is a fantastic idea.) We truly drill down on all the different ramifications of when you create an original character for yourself versus your employer. After that, it's time for the main sequence deep dive on EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier and exactly why it's surprising -- and depressing -- that the Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari in this case. Then, it's time to check in on #T3BE and see if Thomas can get this homebuying question right. Do you get to cancel a sale when the buyer hides water damages, and if so, why? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links If you want to go down memory lane, check out "Larry 'Bud' Melman" advertising "Mr. Larry's Toast on a Stick" from the old Late Night With David Letterman show. You can read the 6th Circuit's opinion in EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier, 920 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2019) for yourself. The Kentucky law at issue is KRS 311.727. The 4th circuit decision we referenced is Stuart v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238 (4th Circ. 2014). Before the Supreme Court, check out (a) the cert petition; (b) the State's opposition; and (c) the petitioner's reply brief. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode breaks down the Articles of Impeachment currently being debated in the House Judiciary Committee. Find out Andrew's disappointment, the hidden clause that lets the Senate consider Mueller evidence (if they want), and what these articles can't let the Senate evaluate in determining whether to impeach Trump. You won't want to miss it! Oh, and also, you'll get a mini-deep-dive on the Espinoza decision and so much more! We begin with an important listener question about whether Donald Trump could plead the 5th Amendment during the impeachment process. The answer might surprise you -- and you'll enjoy the deep dive into the Constitutional protections against self-incrimination. Then, during the main segment, we tackle the two articles of impeachment in depth, evaluating what crime(s) the articles consider, how they respond to the Republican arguments, and much, much more. After that, we're excited to bring you a segment in which law students can win up to $10,000 in an essay-writing contest that also gives you a chance to make a real difference in a case pending before the Supreme Court, Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue. Then, of course, it's time for another #T3BE, this time about a homeowner who paints over some water damage. Is there a viable reason for the buyer to rescind the contract, or is it "buyer beware"? Listen and play along on social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Our opening segment discusses the 1957 Supreme Court case of Watkins v. U.S. and also references this 1956 law review article. Our omnibus impeachment explainer is Episode 319 (you can also read the transcript for that episode). This is the text of Rep. Nadler's proposed two articles of impeachment. Finally, if you're a law student, please do check out the FFRF essay contest! Resources: (a) Art. X, Sec. 6 of the Montana Constitution; (b) Montana Code Ann. § 15-30-3101 et seq.; and (c) the FFRF amicus brief in Espinoza. Also, don't forget that we broke down Trinity Lutheran before the Supreme Court ruled way back in Episodes 14, 17, and 18, and then dissected the travesty of an opinion in Episodes 82 and 85. Phew! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Perhaps against our better judgment, we once again return to the Adnan Syed case narrated so beautifully in season 1 of Serial. If you haven't heard our take on the case itself, you might want to go back and listen to Episode 107. Today, we're not discussing the underlying merits but rather what the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled and why the Supreme Court declined to review that decision. Love us or hate us, if you love Serial, you won't want to miss this episode! We begin, however, with a look at how President Trump has reshaped the federal courts by the numbers. Is it as bleak as some sources say? Or is there merit to the counter-argument that Trump isn't doing anything much differently than his predecessors -- it's just that we're in the middle of his Presidency, so of course his effect is outsized. We delve beneath the op-eds to tell you what the cold hard facts are. Then, it's time to describe exactly what's happened to Adnan Syed in the courts since Serial, culminating with a 4-3 decision in the Maryland Court of Appeals that was left undisturbed by the Supreme Court when they denied certiorari last week. What does it all mean? We break it down for you. After that, it's time for a bonus mini-"Breakin' Down the Law" segment integrated with Thomas's fiendishly hard #T3BE question. If you've ever wondered about motions for new trials and Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, well, this is the show for you! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first broke down the Adnan Syed case (and Serial's portrayal of it) in Episode 107. You can check out the Brookings article we referenced ("Trump Has Reshaped the Judiciary But Not As Much As You Might Think"). For the Maryland Court of Appeals opinion (State v. Syed), click here. Then you can read Syed's cert petition, the State's response, and Syed's reply. Ultimately, the Supreme Court just denied the petition without comment.\ Finally, the underlying case we discussed regarding ineffective assistance of counsel is Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode is a timely impeachment-themed deep dive into the testimony of George Washington University law professor -- and legitimate legal scholar -- Jonathan Turley before the House Judiciary Committee. How should you evaluate his arguments? We walk you through them, of course! We begin, however, with a new segment: the Wingnut Lightning Round(TM), in which we evaluate -- or rather, make fun of -- two preposterous new lawsuits filed this week by two complete idiots. After that, it's time for an #AndrewWasWrong about Ronald Burris, the interim Senator nominated by Rod Blagojevich to fill Barack Obama's unexpired Senate seat. Find out the twists and turns to this rather fascinating story as a side bonus to Andrew's well-deserved comeuppance. Then, it's time for the main segment: the news that the House is going to draft articles of impeachment against President Trump despite the testimony of Jonathan Turley. How do the lone Republican-called witness's arguments stack up? (Hint: they're not good.) Surely the Republicans wouldn't have called someone who's on the record saying the exact opposite of what he's presently saying 20 years ago, right? (Guess.) After all that, it's time for a fiendishly hard #T3BE about a trial, a videotape, and a jogging plaintiff. You won't want to miss it -- and you'll want to play along! Appearances Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Oh man, you just have to read batshit-crazy Rep. Devin Nunes's eleventy million trillion dollar lawsuit against CNN. For more of the Roland Burris story, check out Wikipedia. Click here to read Turley's testimony for yourself. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the nondelegation doctrine in light of a recent Kavanuagh comment on a case... in which the Supreme Court didn't even grant certiorari. Is Andrew panicking? (No.) Listen and find out why not! We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Wrong on taxation that calls back to OA 336. How exactly is stock income taxed? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for the main segment, which is a deep dive into the "administrative state" and specificially the "nondelegation doctrine" at issue in U.S. v. Gundy. Why did this last week signal the beginning of the end for Andrew & Thomas? Listen and find out! After all that, it's time for a listener question/comment on LIHEAP that helps contextualize how this program works in low-income communities. You won't wan't to miss it! Then, of course, it's time for #T3BE -- the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #155 about a tenant who takes possession of an apartment only to find the previous tenant still inside. How can.. the landlord win? Listen and find out! Appearances Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links For an update on Chevron deference, check out our Episodes 40 and 136. In terms of Auer deference, check out our explainers in Episode 266 and 293. To get up to speed on the nondelegation doctrine, read Gundy v. U.S., 139 S.Ct. 2116 (2019). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Share this episode with your (open-minded) Republican friends, family, and co-workers! We're happy to bring you this Thanksgiving Special a day early in which we break down the latest "trial balloon" defense of Trump's conduct: that Trump was actually encouraging a legitimate investigation into a top-secret conspiracy in Ukraine to hack the DNC servers in 2016 and throw the election to Hillary Clinton. If you don't know what "CrowdStrike" and "Chalupa" mean, you won't want to miss this one! We begin on that key issue, breaking down the sole legal issue at stake in impeachment -- bribery -- and exactly what Congress needs to show in order to impeach and remove the President from office. From there, we turn to the next likely defense from Trumpland and explain exactly why it is bananas-in-pajamas-level bonkers. After that lengthy breakdown, it's time to check in on the status of various lawsuits seeking to compel witnesses to appear before various House committees. What's going on, and is there any cause for optimism? Listen and find out! Then, as always, it's time for #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a curious fact-pattern involving a landlord, a new tenant, an old tenant who won't move out, and a surprising legal result. Can he figure out why? Can you? Appearances Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. We broke down Amb. Sondland's testimony in Episode 335. But don't just take our word for it! You can read the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2), for yourself and figure out what it takes to prove bribery. We also cited to (a) ADNI Joseph Maguire's testimony before Congress; (b) the whistleblower's complaint (which we previously broke down in Episode 318 and a special bonus episode); (c) internal evidence as reported in the New York Times that Trump's lawyers briefed him on the whistleblower complaint in late August, before aid to Ukraine was restored; (d) the TELCON (edited transcript) of the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House; (e) the CrowdStrike report from their own website; (f) Trump's April 2017 press interview in which he began peddling the CrowdStrike conspiracy; (g) Fiona Hill's opening statement in her testimony to Congress; (i) the reporting surrounding Sen. Kennedy's appearance on Fox News Sunday; (j) the 2017 Politico story upon which Sen. Kennedy purported to rely; and (k) Vol. 2 of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the 2016 Election, authored by Republican Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC). Phew! In the closing segment, we referred to Rubin v. U.S., 524 U.S. 1301 (1998). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax. Is it constitutional? How will the arguments shape up? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with an interesting proposal for a "Congressional Review Act" for the Supreme Court by law professor -- and professional Supreme-Court-fixer -- Ganesh Sitaraman. Will this proposal meet with more approval than Sitaraman's previous "lottery" idea? Then we do a deep dive into the history of taxes in this country, looking at two very old cases -- one from 1895 (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429), and one from way back in 1796 (Hylton v. U.S.). We also cover the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, as well as check in on the most recent Supreme Court tax ruling from Chief Justice John Roberts, the NFIB v. Sebelius 2012 Obamacare decision. What do we learn from all that? Well, you'll just have to give it a listen! After all that, it's time for the answer to what some are calling the easiest #T3BE question ever about falling off a ladder. Are they right? Was Thomas? There's only one way to know for sure! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. You can read Prof. Sitaraman's latest article in The Atlantic suggesting a "Congressional Review Act for the Supreme Court." (We previously broke down the Congressional Review Act way back in Episode 61.) We last touched on Prof. Sitaraman's "How to Save the Supreme Court" lottery proposal somewhat less favorably in Episode 294. Head on over to Elizabeth Warren's campaign site to read her "Ultra-Millionaire Tax" proposal. Resources for tax law: Hylton v. U.S. (1796); Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), and NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). Finally, you can check out the scholars letters submitted in support of Warren's tax plan as well as the Johnson & Dellinger law review article, "The Constitutionality of a National Wealth Tax." -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode breaks down the significance of a packed week in Republican witness testimony before the House Intelligence Committee about the potential impeachment of Donald Trump. We continue to place everything in the context of proving that Donald Trump committed impeachable bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2), including evaluating the (increasingly desperate) defenses being raised by House Republicans. We begin, however, with a slight Andrew Was Wrong and some really interesting listener feedback about the 2019 Ukraine election. Then, it's time to take a look at the week in impeachment, with a particular focus on Amb. Gordon Sondland, a Trump donor who was hand-picked to help run the "shadow foreign policy" in Ukraine, and exactly why he's such a devastating witness. We also tease apart the legality of the OMB hold and the crafting of the narrative to show the elements of bribery. Then, it's time for a brief update on the Trump v. Mazars litigation and the significance of the administrative hold put in place by the Supreme Court. Does that mean John Roberts is 100% in the tank for Trump? (No.) After all that, it's time for a NEW ERA in #T3BE as we move to a new set of questions! This one asks about a potential lawsuit for a guy who falls off his ladder. Did Thomas get it right? Listen and find out -- and play along with us on social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. Remember that this is all about Trump's bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). Oh, the lies! We debunked the insane "the government secretly changed the whistleblower form" conspiracy back in Episode 320 and even created a handy link for you to share with Uncle Clarence to help convince him! On Trump v. Mazars, you can check out Trump's brief requesting a stay and the order issued by Chief Justice Roberts. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode features a deep dive into what used to be a core Republican program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Did you know that every year, over a thousand people -- most of them with homes -- freeze to death in the U.S.? Did you know that both political parties used to want to do something about that? We begin, however, with some listener feedback from our popular recent Episode 330 in which we broke down a recent decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court regarding "pre-embryos" and in vitro fertilization (IVF). Hear from a published scientist and an IVF mom! Then, it's time for our deep dive into LIHEAP, 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq. You'll learn all about the problem of home heating in this country and what we do about it... at least for now. You'll also learn exactly how much the Trump administration would like to fund this program, which you won't be surprised to learn is $0. But that's not all! Our "C" segment features a lengthy explanation from election law expert Beth Kingsley who answers the question "Could Donald Trump just hire Vladimir Putin to work on his 2020 re-election campaign if he discloses it?" The answer is more complicated than you'd expect and just might surprise you. After all that, it's time for the answer to Friday's #T3BE 153 about the admissibility of a doctor's note in court. Will Thomas get this one right?? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. We discussed both the IVF decision and the election hypothetical back in Episode 330. You can read the LIHEAP law for yourself; it's 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq. The data we discussed on the episode comes from Olivia Wein's study, and the funding numbers come from this government document. This is the link to the FEC's guidance we discussed in the "C" segment. Finally, check out an actual IVF contract, thanks to Valerie Smith! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

There was so much to discuss, we had to record an extra episode!

Today's episode ran so long that we're going to give you a BONUS episode tomorrow. What did we get through? Well, we break down almost everything about the first day of televised public hearings in the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry. You absolutely, positively do not want to miss this! We begin, however, with a plug for our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. After that, it's time to tackle a wide variety of legal topics related to the Taylor and Kent testimony, including: (a) how their testimony fits into the elements of the crime of bribery; (b) the Republicans' evolving defenses of Donald Trump; (c) the two lawyers picked to handle the bulk of the questioning; and much, much more. Along the way, we also discuss the significance of the D.C. Circuit's en banc refusal to rehear the subpoena decision in Trump v. Mazars and what comes next, as well as the status of Mick Mulvaney's continuing efforts to defy the Congressional subpoenas. After all that, it's time for a milestone #T3BE involving hearsay and expert witness testimony. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. Remember: this is about bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201. This is the transcript of Sen. Kennedy on Face the Nation. In terms of dirty tricks, here's the link to Taylor's closed-door deposition, where Castor outed the whistleblower, and here's a link to his laughing during Fiona Hill's deposition. BONUS! Here's the Politico article we rip apart in Episode 333 ("There’s a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Office") and... god help me.. the National Review article that actually gets it right. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode is the final -- and dare we say it, the best -- part of our live show in Los Angeles where we were joined by the co-host of the popular podcast "Oh No Ross And Carrie" Carrie Poppy, and the show's lawyer, Matthew Strugar. Join us for a fascinating discussion as to who's threatened to sue the show and why.... And stick around for a special LIVE #T3BE! After that, we also answer last week's #T3BE about breach of contract. Can Thomas continue his improbable one-question win streak? Listen and find out! Show Notes & Links You should definitely be listening to Oh No Ross and Carrie! We last had Carrie and Matthew on our show in Episode 77.

Today's episode is everything you need to walk your open-minded Uncle Clarence -- you know, the one who watches Fox News, but not religiously, and isn't quite sure what all this impeachment nonsense is about -- through the key buzzwords of the week. And, as a bonus, we discuss an important decision regarding in vitro fertilization in Connecticut. We begin, however, with the Explainer. How is this process different from (and more fair than) the Clinton impeachment? What is an impeachment "inquiry?" And why -- oh god, why?!? -- is everyone so focused on quid pro quo? You'll find out the answers to all these questions and much, much more. After that, it's time to examine Bilbao v. Goodwin, which delves into the tricky question of what happens to a couple's frozen pre-embryos after they break up? This case has been making the rounds in both pro-life and pro-choice circles -- we'll tell you exactly what it stands for and what comes next. Then, of course, it's time for an all-new #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a breach-of-contract question. Can he keep his winning streak going? Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links For the full breakdown of the House Impeachment Inquiry resolution, H.R. 660, check out our discussion in Episode 328. And you can click here to read Bilbao v. Godwin. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's show is something we absolutely love to do, which is listener questions! Our listeners pose some truly intelligent, well thought-out, and deep-dive worthy questions. Today's episode features two such deep dives inspired by our listeners. The first is regarding DC v Heller, and whether it applies to gun ownership or gun sales, or both. The second question is a chance for Andrew to talk about jury duty, and what makes a good juror. Classic OA Tuesday deep dives!

This week's Rapid Response Friday breaks down exactly what's in H.R. 660, the impeachment inquiry resolution, and what it means for the ongoing process. We also help you digest the legal significance of Alexander Vindman's testimony and much, much more, so strap in! We begin, however, with Thomas's favorite segment -- Andrew Was Wrong. Here, Andrew issues a correction regarding baseball law and the chemistry of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from our popular Pizza, Beer & Guns episode. After that, it's time for a trip up Yodel Mountain where we digest H.R. 660, the soon-to-be-passed resolution authorizing the House Intelligence Committee to take the lead on the impeachment inquiry. Is it "still without any due process for the President," as the White House claims? [No.] As a bonus, we also break down the companion change to the rules adopted by the House Rules Committee pursuant to the resolution that's managed to confuse a number of media outlets. But that's not all! While we're high atop Yodel Mountain, we also break down the significance of Alexander Vindman's testimony this week regarding the Trump administration's holding hostage of aid to Ukraine pending an "investigation" into Burisma, and Hunter and Joe Biden. After all that, it's time for #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a dreaded real property question -- this one about whether a grantee can revoke an easement. Those are words! Will Thomas decipher them? Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read H.R. 660, and here for the companion change to the rules. Here's the Democratic summary of those changes. This is the transcript of Alexander Vindman's opening statement, plus more on his testimony from the Washington Post and the (failing) New York Times, as well as the Politico story on how some Republicans are pushing back against attacks on Vindman. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

It's an all American episode, complete with 3 dives! First we have a 9th Circuit ruling on Domino's Pizza to discuss, related to accessibility concerns with their app. Then, you know those horrible, unfunny, obnoxious Bud commercials with the knights and the king and all that? Turns out in addition to being terrible, they may also be potentially tortious! They made some very specific claims about MillerCoors beers using corn syrup in their beer they have gotten them into legal trouble. And finally, we round out this all-American ep with guns - a breakdown of the Dickey Amendment.

Today's episode tackles all your latest developments from high atop Yodel Mountain, including the national security-threatening stunt led by America's Dumbest Congressman, Matt Gaetz, as well as the significance of Bill Taylor's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. We begin with a brief overview of the "due process" argument throughout history with an eye towards how it applies to the Trump impeachment. From there, we move to a specific application: the (false) claim by Matt Gaetz and others that the House impeachment inquiry violates Trump's rights of due process. Along the way, we'll learn what a SCIF is and why it was such a big deal -- a criminal big deal -- that Gaetz and others violated it. Then, it's time to dive deeply into Bill Taylor's testimony and how that fits into the overall impeachment picture and whether Trump is guilty of bribery with respect to Ukraine. (Hint: yes.) After all that, it's time for another fabulous #T3BE about an inexperienced innkeeper and a cleaning company that doesn't work on Sundays. Play along on social media, and remember to #T3BE in your answer! Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Share out the Episode 324 super-transcript with your favorite Uncle Frank today! This is the WIRED article we referenced on the technical data regarding SCIFs, and these are the 174-page technical guidelines set forth by the DNI. Laws! Obstruction of justice is 18 U.S.C. § 1505, bribery is 18 U.S.C. § 201, and the relevant portion of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act is 2 U.S.C. § 683. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's show features a few segments from the LA live show, including a medium dive on the Open Skies Treaty. We break down what it is, what Trump is intending to do with it, and why his behavior is incredibly... weird. We also break down a story involving Covington and Burling winning legal fees against the government. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

With impeachment in full swing, today's episode reminds you that we already have more than enough evidence to impeach & remove Donald Trump from office for the nine distinct crimes documented by Robert Mueller in Vol. II of the Mueller Report. We begin, however, with a pre-show update: the 4th Circuit has just voted to rehear the Maryland emoluments lawsuit en banc on Dec. 12, 2019. After that, it's time to check in on the latest Republican argument: that Democrats need to authorize an impeachment inquiry via a full floor vote in the House of Representatives. Learn why Nancy Pelosi said "Nope!" and why that might be shots fired... at the Supreme Court. Then, it's time for the deep dive into the nine unambiguous, inarguable crimes that we already have proof Donald Trump has already committed, thanks to Vol. II of the Mueller Report. You will get a choose-your-own-adventure guide for how to steer your disbelieving Uncle Frank through the Mueller Report and prove that Trump acted with criminally corrupt intent to obstruct justice. "The cover-up is [still] worse than the crime"... isn't it? After all that, it's time for an all-new #T3BE involving a hate crime. Is the Intellectual Dark Web correct that such things are protected by "free speech?" If not, why are they wrong? Play along on social media -- remember to #T3BE with your answer! Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Here's the latest ruling from the 4th Circuit on the emoluments litigation. Don't forgot to follow along with this week's episode by reading the actual Mueller Report. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

The live show in Los Angeles was an absolute blast. We had so much great content that we're going to use it in bits and pieces here for the next few Tuesday shows. But if you'd like to hear the entire live show right away, and also hear the special intro Brian and Thomas cooked up for it, go to patreon.com/law right now! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode breaks down the recent news relating to (1) legal efforts to subpoena Donald Trump's taxes, (2) the latest kerfuffle over the standing House rules and whether the impeachment inquiry is "unconstitutional" and "illegal" (it isn't), with a bonus (3) rant about PG&E's blackouts -- excuse me, "public safety power shutoff events" in Northern California. Phew! We begin with a discussion surrounding PG&E's decision to shut off power for up to five days, affecting potentially two million people. These blackouts will have a tremendous economic and social cost -- and may cost lives, as well. Why are they happening? What's the law? Can we do anything about it? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for a deep dive into breaking legal news this week. You may have heard that a court ordered the release of Trump's tax returns, and then that order was immediately appealed and blocked. What does it all mean and why? We dive deeply into this issue, and on the way you'll learn about Younger abstention, § 1983 cases, and much, much more! After that, it's time for a look at the latest goalpost-moving excuse by the Republicans, this time the honestly-not-very-good argument that the impeachment inquiry is "illegal" unless authorized by the entire House of Representatives. Find out why this just isn't so. Then, it's time for a follow-up #T3BE to last week's child-on-thin-ice. This time, we want to know: can her parents sue the day care? Listen and find out! Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! The "de-energization events" are authorized, at least implicitly, by Section 451 of the California Public Utilities Code, as further interpreted by recent rules. PG&E, of course, is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The anti-injunction act is 22 U.S.C. § 2283 , and you can brush up on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) while you're at it. We discussed the OLC memos in Episode 290, and then again in Episode 300. You should definitely read Judge Marrero's order, even though it's been appealed to the Second Circuit. Here are the standing House Rules (check out pp. 322-323), and the 2015 CRS report referenced during the show. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode is an interview and a deep dive with British solicitor Emma McClure, who helps walk us through the recent activity regarding #Brexit and also gives us some signposts as to what's next for our wacky neighbor across the pond. This episode is a follow-up to our first #Brexit show, which was Episode 315. Find out what, if anything, Andrew got wrong in that show, while Emma also helps us break down the U.K. Supreme Court's (shocking to Andrew) 11-0 decision that PM Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue Parliament was an abuse of his powers and done for an improper purpose. We compare legal systems and learn a ton about what law is like in England. You won't want to miss this episode! After the interview, we head back to a tricky #T3BE regarding a 12-year-old who sneaks out and falls in thin ice. This is one of those questions that Andrew admits he would have gotten wrong! Did Emma or Thomas manage to get it right?? Listen and find out! Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]! Download Link

Today's episode is a must-listen, timely deep dive as to what exactly constitutes "hearsay" -- and why the latest Republican talking points to discredit the whistleblower complaint as being "based on hearsay" are nonsense piled upon nonsense. Remember that this your LAST CHANCE to come see Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! We begin today's show with an (unfortunately lengthy) Andrew Was Wrong segment about the Javelin missile, Al Gore's non-tie-breaking non-vote in 1999, and more. But was Andrew actually right about anything? (Maybe one or two things.) Then, it's time for the main segment in which Andrew breaks down exactly why "hearsay" isn't the same as "stuff you maybe kinda overheard in the neighborhood." Learn what hearsay actually is, and why the latest round of unhinged Republican talking points are even more laughable than they seem. After that, it's time for a frenzied visit back to Yodel Mountain, where we explain exactly what happens next in the House impeachment investigation. As a bonus, we tackle a question many of you asked on social media: what exactly does happen if President Trump is removed from office via impeachment? Could he run again?? Listen and find out! We conclude, as always, with #T3BE, including next week's guest, solicitor Emma McClure, and a wandering 12-year-old who falls through the ice. Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! Here's the latest news from The Guardian about the President committing bribery on national television. And yes, it's bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) and not extortion or any other crime. Curious about that 1955 law review article summarizing that grand juries can issue indictments based on nothing but expert hearsay testimony? We've got you covered. And if you liked that, you probably also want to check out the Federal Rules of Evidence on hearsay, Rule 801 et seq. If you see anyone sharing the absolute lie propagated in the Federalist that the intel community "secretly gutted" the requirement that whistleblower complaints be based on first-hand knowledge, you can send them to the May 2018 form 401. If you need a quick response, just share out this graphic that clearly shows it's a complete fabrication. Oh, and don't forget to curl up with this subpoena served on Rudy Giuliani. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's Deep Dive can't help but stay high atop Yodel Mountain. We imagine that by the time you're hearing this, the House will have voted to begin an impeachment inquiry. Curious about what that means, why it matters, and what happens next? Then this is the show for you! Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! We begin, however, with a brief update on #Brexit; no, we haven't forgotten that our closest ally is also suffering under the weight of an insane leader hell-bent on a racist policy that everyone knows is an impending disaster. But unlike the U.S., it looks like the U.K. Supreme Court.... still understands the rule of law? What a novel concept. Then, it's time for a deep dive into impeachment, where we tackle: Exactly why President Trump's conduct towards Ukraine in particular is so reprehensible; Why beginning an "impeachment inquiry" matters; What the Nixon articles of impeachment looked like; The Clinton impeachment timeline; ALL the ways Mitch McConnell and the Republicans can try and screw this up; and much, much more. Then, it's time for the answer to Friday's #T3BE involving real property, and specifically, the condition to a contract requiring the buyer to procure a loan at 10% and whether that allows the seller to back out even if the buyer turns over the purchase price. Find out if Thomas got this one right! Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! This is the Time reporting on Ukraine from which Andrew quoted; and this is the New York Times story about Manafort turning over polling data to Akhmetov. Politico first reported the OMB hold on aid to Ukraine on August 28, nearly a month ago. An ongoing proceeding makes it easier to prove obstruction of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1505. Click here to read the Nixon articles of impeachment, and (show-note only bonus!) here to read the vote breakdown. We explained the "nuclear option" on Senate rules way back in Episode 59; these are the current Senate rules on impeachment (that can be modified at any time with this One Weird Trick). Finally, if you're feeling super optimistic, remember we explained that Mitch McConnell can Mitch McConnell all of this in Episode 272. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Hooooo boy! Today's episode breaks down the tipping point that finally got House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to back an impeachment inquiry: the now-disclosed whistleblower complaint that lays out exactly how Donald Trump abused our foreign policy to pressure a foreign leader to aid him in his 2020 re-election campaign. It's every bit as bad as it looks, and we walk you through exactly what it means. Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! Here's the topline: Acting DNI Maguire changed his story as to why he withheld the whistleblower complaint to a completely bogus claim of executive privilege. We'll tell you why that won't hold up. We'll also answer: What's a TELCON, and do we have reasons to believe that the "transcript" of the President's July 25 conversation with Ukranian President Zelenskyy was "Bill Barr"ed? Are we at PEAK YODEL MOUNTAIN? Did the Republicans really email their stupid talking points to Nancy Pelosi? And if so, how do we spot a hack? (Hint: he -- and they're pretty much all 'he's -- will have an "R" after his name.) What did we learn from Maguire's testimony today, and how incriminating was it? (Very.) What does the complaint say and how bad is it? And finally -- what are the FIVE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT Andrew thinks will be brought against this President? After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE, this time a dreaded real property question that Thomas feels oddly confident about his answer. Do you share his optimism? Let us know! Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! Remember that the operative statute requiring Maguire to have turned over the whistleblower complaint is 50 U.S.C. § 3033, and particularly subsection (k)(5). Here's the New York Times reporting that Trump mentioned Giuliani way back in his first call to Zelenskyy on April 21, 2019. Extortion is 18 U.S.C. § 355(c)(2); treason is 18 U.S.C. § 2381, and neither are a good fit here. What laws are a good fit? Well, how about (a) illegal solicitation of a campaign contribution, 52 U.S.C. § 30121; (b) bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201 ; (c) obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, and much more?? Finally, remember that we first discussed illegal campaign contributions back in Episode 116. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]! Download Link

Don't forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! North Carolina has been in the news and on OA a lot lately, so to help give us more context and on-the-ground info, we're fortunate enough to get to speak to NC State Representative Christy Clark! We discuss the awful stunt Republicans pulled in order to override the Governor's Veto, previously discussed in Episode 315. We also talk about gerrymandering, and Rep. Clark gives tells her inspiring story! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Folks, this whistleblower is big news. Andrew Torrez has put in some OT to research the law behind the big news. In this bonus breakdown, we find out: what we know so far, the statute that "protects" the whistleblower and ensures congress should get to hear the complaint, who is currently breaking the law in order to cover for others who are breaking the law, what is currently being done about it, and what can and should be done about it. Listen and share! Show Notes & Links Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! Sept. 10 letter from Schiff to Maquire Sept. 13 response from COUNSEL FOR DNI acting Director Sept. 17 letter back from COUNSEL -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's Rapid Response Friday spends a lot of time high atop Yodel Mountain, pondering the latest developments in the Trump Administration's efforts to keep the underlying grand jury materials (and redacted portions of the Mueller Report) from being disseminated to Congress. Oh, and we also check in on Trump's taxes, emoluments, that crazy whistleblower case and so much more from this corrupt administration. We begin, however, with few little self-congratulatory remarks and some further information about #Brexit that we covered in Episode 315. Then, it's time to tackle In re Application of the House Committee on the Judiciary regarding the unsealing of grand jury testimony. Learn how this argument interacts with McKeever v. Barr, which we last discussed in Episode 272. After that, we pause briefly to discuss the latest ruling on emoluments from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as the latest apportionment lawsuit that may have been inspired by a previous episode. And we discuss Corey Lewandowski's sideshow, and the four pending lawsuits involving Trump's taxes, and so much more.... That gives us a brief amount of time to talk about the latest whistleblower case and what we do (and don't) know. Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! We covered Brexit in Episode 315. Check out the latest Trump argument in In re Application of House Committee on the Judiciary. The operative statutory exception is Fed. Rule Crim. Pro. 6(e), and the case we discussed was McKeever v. Barr. We, of course, first discussed McKeever v. Barr way back in Episode 206 when we debunked the conspiracy theory angle, and we were proven right in Episode 272. The latest emoluments ruling from the 2nd Circuit is here; you can also check out the new apportionment lawsuit as well. Oh, and don't forget to read this great piece on Lewandowski by Elie Mystal. Finally, the two threads you must read on the whistleblower complaint are by Asha Rangappa and our friends at Mueller, She Wrote. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Don't forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! In this week's Deep Dive Tuesday, we take a look at two crazy stories -- one from last week, and one from... 2016. Yes, it's time for OA finally to tackle the mess that is Brexit now that we have various court rulings around the concept of "prorogation." What the hell is that? Listen and find out! And, as a bonus, we'll also talk about the craziest story out of North Carolina -- and believe us, that title has a lot of contenders! We begin, however, with a brief update on the settlement reached with Purdue Pharma in the Ohio MDL that we discussed in Episode 311. Hint: Andrew was definitely right about this one! Then, it's time for an absolutely bonkers story involving state legislators in North Carolina tricking Democrats into celebrating a 9/11 memorial... so that they could have a stealth session to override a gubernatorial veto. Did that really happen??!? (Yes.) How?!? And what happens next? Listen and find out! After that, it's time for the OA explainer on Brexit just in time for today's UK Supreme Court oral argument. Find out what court said what and how that all interacts! Then, it's time for #T3BE. Can Thomas stop a show-worst six-question losing streak? With a real property question??!? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We discussed a potential Purdue Pharma settlement in Episode 311; you can read media coverage of that reported settlement here. This is Section 22 of the North Carolina Constitution that allowed this crazy gamesmanship regarding the veto. Finally, click here to read the Scottish Court of Session decision regarding Brexit and proroguing. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode breaks down a 7-2 decision by the Supreme Court to stay the decision of the District Court enjoining the Trump Administration's new asylum rules from going into effect. What happened and why? Listen and find out! It's bad news -- but to balance that out, we spend a lot of time high atop Yodel Mountain, where we discuss the ongoing march towards impeachment and the latest in the Michael Flynn saga. We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Wrong(TM) segment about two casual (but wrong) comments Andrew made in previous shows. As it turns out, Devin Nunes isn't the beneficiary of gerrymandering -- we knew that, honest! -- he's... wait, why do people vote for Devin Nunes again? We're not sure. Then it's time for the main segment, which breaks down the tragic significance of the court's recent order on asylum. It's only a single paragraph long, but... it speaks volumes. Find out what's going to happen next with expedited removal proceedings and undocumented immigrants. It's a tough segment, but you need to know. Next, it's time for our weekly visit to Yodel Mountain! Find out why the most conservative Democrat in Congress thinks impeachment is "inevitable!" And while we're there... what's the deal with Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and his crackpot lawyer? We'll tell you! After all that, it's time for #T3BE. Can Thomas snap a career-worst six-question losing streak? If so, he'll have to do it on a dreaded real property question involving the sale of land. Keep your fingers crossed! Also, COME TO OUR LA LIVE SHOW!!!! Here is the link!! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We last discussed the asylum rule changes in Episode 301. You can check out the district court's well-reasoned injunction here, and the Supreme Court's one-paragraph decision to stay that order here. And, if you're not depressed enough, read this NBC News article involving Trump's decision to deny temporary protected status to Bahamians displaced by hurricane Dorian. Here's the Washington Post article about impeachment and Rep. Brindisi, and here's the evidence that (a) Brindisi's district is the second-reddest among 2018 Democratic winners and (b) that Brindisi is arguably the most conservative Democrat in Congress. On Flynn: here's Schiff's letter, and here's Flynn's plea deal. And if Flynn keeps this up, he's in danger of losing the government's initial sentencing recommendation. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the latest bizarre lawsuit filed by perhaps America's most-despised Trump sycophant, California Rep. Devin Nunes. Learn all about Nunes's thrice-disciplined lawyer and the theory so crazy it must be heard (and read) to be believed. We begin, however, with an incredibly insightful listener question regarding the bill of attainder doctrine and whether it would apply to the hypothetical Poke Ted Cruz Act of 2021 discussed during our latest live show. Then, it's time to break down Devin Nunes's lawsuit piece by piece, in which you'll learn all about civil RICO lawsuits ... and why they don't remotely apply to the paranoid conspiracy theory connecting Robert Mueller to Fusion GPS to the Daily Caller to... the Center for Accountability? It's a wild ride, so strap in! After that, it's time for another listener question regarding the guys' views on policy debates vs. "scorched earth" during the Democratic primary. And then, it's time to see if Thomas can turn around his recent losing streak with a #T3BE question involving an offer to sell a pickup truck, acceptance via mail, and revocation by phone. Who wins? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links In the opening segment, we discussed the bill of attainder doctrine explained in U.S. v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946). Oh man, you have to read the Devin Nunes lawsuit for yourself. Check out the new Larry Klayman's AVVO page detailing his prior suspensions. Civil RICO can be found at 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. In the last segment, we mention this atrocious hit piece in the Jacobin. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

This week's episode breaks down the 357-page state court gerrymandering decision in North Carolina striking down that state's legislative districts. We explain in depth exactly what happened -- and exactly why cases like there are the future for political gerrymandering claims in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Rucho v. Common Cause. We begin, however, with a couple of Andrew Was Wrong segments, including a sad update on Gavin Grimm as well as feedback from the entire state of Idaho! Then, it's time for a deep dive into the recent ruling in North Carolina, which includes an analysis of both the facts -- featuring "Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites" Dr. Evil stand-in Thomas Hofeller -- and the law. If political gerrymandering is now perfectly okay by the U.S. Supreme Court, what can we do? Listen and find out! After that, it's time for a brief Yodel Mountain update regarding Don McGahn, as well as a Jeffrey Epstein update. And then it's time for #T3BE on the formation of contract: when, exactly, does a contract to buy a truck get made? You won't want to miss this one. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We last discussed Gavin Grimm's case in Episode 306. Click here to check out the populations of the various states, including Idaho. This is the North Carolina gerrymandering opinion. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the recent landmark trial ruling in Oklahoma that the opioid epidemic constitutes a "public nuisance" in that state, and that Johnson & Johnson must pay $572 million to abate it. What do all of those crazy legal words mean? Is this a "good" result or a "bad" one? What's next? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with -- at long last! -- the in-depth discussion of the shameful history of the Mann Act in the United States as a way of answering why Jeffrey Epstein wasn't charged with offenses under it. Along the way, you'll learn about the worst guy's weekend ever! Then, it's time for the main segment about the public nuisance trial in Oklahoma that resulted in a landmark first-of-its-kind verdict. Find out what that means for future lawsuits and so much more. After all that, it's time for a quick follow-up on the Sheldon Whitehouse brief and some statistical analysis... as well as a call for more stats geekery from our highly-educated fans! And finally, we end the show with #T3BE 142 involving Not Taking Legal Advice From Your Tenant. Did Thomas finally manage to break the streak? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links On Epstein: you can read his (now-dismissed) SDNY indictment, as well as the news of its dismissal. On the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C § 2421 et seq.; you'll also want to check out the case we discussed, Caminetti v. U.S., 242 U.S. 470 (1917). We first discussed the Oklahoma trial in Episode 292, and you can read the judge's trial verdict here. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Hey folks! We thought we'd release this LAM to everyone, because it was particularly interesting and educational. We hope you enjoy it, and maybe it will inspire some new folks to hop on over to patreon.com/law to get more fun bonus stuff like this!

Today's Rapid Response Friday takes a look at the recent Trump Administration memorandum "clarifying" the rules on military citizenship for children born to U.S. employees -- largely, those in the armed forces -- serving overseas. Is it as bad as you've heard? (Yes.) Is it actually worse than that? (Yes.) First, though, we continue to revisit the apportionment question discussed in Episode 307. Have we finally crowdsourced a solution? The answer may surprise you! After that, it's time for a deep dive into the latest policy manual update from the department of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services "clarifying" that servicemembers living overseas don't actually count as "living in the United States." Will this cause Trump-supporting military members to vote for Elizabeth Warren in 2020? (No.) Should it? (Yes.) Is it way, way worse than you could possibly imagine? Oh yes. After that, it's time for a very brief Andrew Was Wrong (the best kind!). Then, it's time for an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, in which we have... something approaching "Don't Take Legal Advice From A Podcast" Law? You won't want to miss this question involving a disgruntled landlord and a put-upon law student. Can Thomas break his losing streak? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first covered the potential apportionment crisis in Episode 307. You can read the latest policy manual update from the department of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for yourself. The relevant legal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act are 8 U.S.C. § 1401, 8 U.S.C § 1431, and 8 U.S.C. § 1433. This is the August 15th, 2019 story about how the Trump administration continues to use the "out-of-wedlock" rule against LGBTQ couples. Finally, this is the garbage, racist National Review article on birthright citizenship, and this is U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S> 649 (1898). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode is one you've requested for a while now: revisiting perhaps America's greatest legal mind, Stormy Daniels. This time, we'll learn how the Stormy saga has gotten Hope Hicks to (almost certainly) have her lawyers lie to Congress... and we'll figure out what that means for the future. First, though, we take a look at some impressive research on the Roberts Court that was put together by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse -- hi, Sen. Whitehouse! We know you're listening! -- and the amicus brief it inspired. You know just how bad this Supreme Court is... but only Sen. Whitehouse has quantified it for you. And yes, that makes it much, much worse. After that, it's time for the main segment, in which we head back to Yodel Mountain to examine Hope Hicks's transparently false statements to Congress. How can we prove they're false? It's all thanks to Stormy Daniels, of course! Andrew wades through hundreds of pages of affidavit testimony in connection with the Michael Cohen search warrants to prove that Hicks's claim that she didn't know anything about the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels definitely does not hold water. Then, it's time for the conclusion to the fabulous Banana Law #T3BE! Did Thomas get it right? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links You should definitely read the comprehensive Supreme Court report prepared by Sen. Whitehouse for the ACS, and also read the amicus brief he (and others) filed in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. New York case. As everyone knows, we first broke the Stormy Daniels story in Episode 154, "Stormy Daniels is a Legal Genius." And she still is! Then, we told you that Hope Hicks is the key to all of this in Episode 259 when we examined the Congressional investigations. We predicted that she will be compelled to testify in Episode 290. We covered the release of the Cohen documents in Episode 298. Finally, click here to read Rep. Nadler's letter to Hope Hicks, and here to read her (non-truthful) reply. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down a just-released decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that has produced a ton of alarming media. Is that alarm warranted? (No.) What did the court actually decide, and how will it affect the 2020 Presidential Election? And what does any of this have to do with Lawrence Lessig?? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a grab-bag of questions arising out of Episode 307 on apportionment and revisit an issue that Andrew predicts will hang over the next Presidency. Are there any "quick fixes" to the problem or are we destined to be hung up in litigation? Then, it's time for our deep dive into Baca v. Colorado, understanding (a) how this case came about, (b) what it says, and (c) what the implications are for the 2020 Presidential election. Is it some crazy ruling in favor of Trump? What's "the saddest Hamilton?" Listen and find out! After that, it's time for a quick update on the emoluments clause litigation, this time examining a recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. What's the future for individual lawsuits against the President? (Hint: it's not good.) And then it's time for a brand-new banana law-themed #T3BE! Will this slip-and-fall question be enough to get Thomas back in the win column? Listen, and then play along! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Check out Laurence Tribe's "Optimist Prime" article in the Raw Story. For more on apportionment, you can read 2 U.S.C. § 2a and catch up on Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992), the controlling Supreme Court precedent. Click here to read the 10th Circuit's decision in Baca, and for an example of unwarranted freakout over the Baca decision, check out this wildly-misleading NBC article. If you love the deep dive, don't forget to refresh your memory by re-reading Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). We last updated you on emoluments in Episode 299 and in this fabulous Patreon-only bonus. You can also check out the latest DC ruling. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode, sadly, reminds you of an entirely new way that you should be terrified. In a "please, tell me that Donald Trump's lawyers aren't listening to this" episode, Andrew breaks down a 1990s court decision surrounding a 1920s law to talk about the ultimate endgame for Trump and the census. Is it horrible? Yes. Are you better off being prepared? Absolutely. We begin, however, with a quick trip up a rare Tuesday Yodel Mountain by examining the transfer of the House Judiciary Committee's lawsuit seeking injunctive relief against Don McGahn. Was it a "huge victory" for the President that Chief Judge Beryl Howell transferred the case? (No.) Then, it's time for a deep dive into the Presidential powers of apportionment and how Donald Trump can potentially do a court-clogging end-run around the Supreme Court's census decision even if he loses the 2020 election. After that, it's time to check out a new segment from Cybertron -- the official "Optimist Prime" versus "Negatron" segment on impeachment. Who will stand victorious? Hint: he's got the energon axe. Then, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 139, a dreaded real property question. Did Thomas manage to get it right? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links You can read Judge Howell's order in the McGahn litigation here. If you want to see a sitting federal judge call a DOJ lawyer's papers "halfhearted," check out this ruling, and turn to footnote 2 on page 6. This is the Census Bureau's non-answer to Congresswoman Pressley, and this is the NPR story confirming that the White House won't commit on apportionment. The transmittal law is 2 U.S.C. § 2. Good news! Here's the latest tally on impeachment. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode combines some very, very good news regarding young trans advocate Gavin Grimm... to some rather less good news regarding a proposed rule at the Department of Labor... to some truly bizarre news and a plea for sanity given the ever-changing circumstances surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. We begin with what looks like the close of a saga that began more than five years ago, when a Virginia public school board -- at the instigation of bigots in the larger community -- forced Gavin Grimm into "separate but hardly equal" accomodations in his high school. Today, at least, it looks like Grimm has finally won, as we break down a truly monumental decision from the Eastern District of Columbia. Then, it's time to look at proposed rulemaking from the Department of Labor that would modify one of the most important Executive Orders of all time: EO 11246, in which Lyndon Johnson required government contractors not to discriminate in their hiring practices. What does Trump propose to do to this EO? Listen and find out... and maybe someday you'll worship at the Church of Chick-Fil-A. (Seriously!) After that, it's time to check in with the conspiracy theories that abound in the world of Jeffrey Epstein. Is there really a sinister motive to think that someone had Epstein killed? Will documents continue to come out that will shed light on what really happened? (Yes.) We end, as always, with a brand new #T3BE... and yes, it's another dreaded real property question. If you sell property you don't own, and later come to own it, have you merely foolishly squandered your tomato juice? Listen and find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Gavin Grimm opinion, and here to read Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681. YOU SHOULD READ THE PROPOSED DOL RULE AND COMMENT HERE. You can also read the latest Washington Post story suggesting that Epstein's suicide may have not been. We've uploaded ALL the Epstein docs! You can check out the legal documents: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, and Part 13. Wait, where are Parts 4 and 9? Oh, they're over here! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Please enjoy the audio from our live show at the People's Improv Theater in New York City, New York! In addition to #T3BE, we have a deep dive on gun control and the recent Remington cert petition. Then, we have a lot of fun and we have nearly an hour of Q&A! Enjoy.. and come out and see us next time! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links None! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's pre-LIVE SHOW episode breaks down exactly what happened with the recent news story regarding Chelsea Manning being held in contempt of court. What's going on? Listen and find out! Oh, and we also revisit Katy Perry, discuss how Thomas Was Right! regarding John Cage, and take a brief visit to Yodel Mountain. You won't want to miss it! We begin with a couple of updates to the Katy Perry lawsuit we discussed last episode. First, as it turns out, Thomas was prescient in thinking that someone might have copied John Cage's famous 4'33" composition of silence and been sued over it. Does this mean Andrew Was Wrong? There's only one way to know for sure. But that's not all! We've also got a full discussion of the damages awarded to Flame, which gives you some insight into the profits of the song industry. Then, it's time for the main segment breaking down the recent court order regarding Chelsea Manning. If the grand jury has already issued its indictment of Julian Assange, how can she be kept in contempt? And what does this have to do with (almost) friend of the show G. Zachary Terwilliger? Listen and find out! After that, it's time for a brief trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss the recent filing by the Department of Justice in the Trump/Mazars lawsuit. Does this mean Bill Barr is corrupt? Yes, yes it does. And finally, it's time for #T3BE, this time involving a multi-structure contract in which one party simply gives up and goes home 1/3 of the way through. How does that person get paid? Can Thomas continue his improbable one-question winning streak?? Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Billboard article about the 2002 Mike Batt/John Cage settlement, and here to read the Katy Perry jury verdict on damages. And don’t forget that you can refresh your recollection by reading all the Katy Perry pleadings, including (a) the lawsuit; (b) the jury verdict; (c) the proposed jury instructions; and (d) the proposed damages instructions. We first discussed Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange in Episode 269, and you can read all of the pleadings we discuss on the show including (a) the March 6, 2018 initial (1-count) grand jury indictment of Assange; (b) the May 23, 2019 superseding indictment (18 counts); (c) the G. Zachary Terwilliger application for an order compelling Manning to testify; (d) the Court's order requiring Manning to testify; (e) Manning's motion to quash; (f) the Court's denial of Manning's motion to quash and imposition of sanctions; and (g) the recent denial of Manning's motion for reconsideration. (Phew!) Assange has been charged under 18 U.S.C. § 793, which we last discussed way back in Andrew's Favorite Episode, #13, "Hillary Clinton's Damned Emails," which was so jammed-packed with information it had its own separate blog post! We discussed the Trump-Mazars lawsuit in detail in Episode 281, and you can read the DOJ's amicus brief embedded here. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode checks in on the record-setting $5 billion settlement that Facebook reached with the Federal Trade Commission for, among other things, violating a prior consent order by enabling developers like Cambridge Analytica to access your data without your permission. Is this a good deal for American consumers? It's complicated. Oh, and you also get more music law with Katy Perry, and so much more! We begin with an update on the Senate's last-ditch push to nominate more than a dozen new Trump nominees for lifetime appointments on the federal bench. And yes, despite widespread opposition, despite minimal credentials in many cases, and despite all of them having disqualifying right-wing ideologies... all were confirmed before the Senate decided to take a break. (Sorry for the bad news.) Then, it's time for the deep dive into the Facebook-FTC settlement, which does indeed impose the single largest penalty ever for a consumer protection violation. Learn why the Democratic minority at the FTC thought it wasn't enough, and along the way you'll learn a lot about the FTC. After that, it's time to revisit music law, this time with a jury verdict that Katy Perry violated the copyright of Christian rapper Flame. Andrew gives you the law, and Thomas gives you the music -- you won't want to miss this segment! Then -- as if that wasn't enough -- it's time for the answer to a brand-new #T3BE involving beer, the Constitution, and the notions of justiciability and ripeness. It's not quite as good as having a beer, but it's still a good segment! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget that there are just 2 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they’re gone! Click here to read the FTC-Facebook settlement; click here for the Slaughter dissent; and here for the Chopra dissent. And then don't forget all the Katy Perry pleadings, including (a) the lawsuit; (b) the jury verdict; (c) the proposed jury instructions; and (d) the proposed damages instructions. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Each week, Sean Carroll hosts conversations with some of the most interesting thinkers in the world. From neuroscientists and engineers to authors and television producers, Sean and his guests talk about the biggest ideas in science, philosophy, culture and more. Start listening now at: http://wondery.fm/MindscapeAB

Today's episode is all about democracy -- from the Russian efforts to de-legitimize a Clinton victory in 2016 with the #DemocracyRIP hashtag and media storm to those very same tactics being employed right now in 2019. Is a new California law requiring a presidential candidate to disclose his or her tax returns the answer? Listen and find out! We begin with the release of the (Republican) Senate Intelligence Committee Report, Vol. I, which details the extent of the Russian government's activities to infiltrate U.S. elections in 2016, including de-legitimatizing an expected Hillary Clinton victory with social media storming (and the #DemocracyRIP hashtag). It's truly terrifying. And then we move from that report to something that looks to be in exactly the same vein after the second night of the Democratic primary debate. Coincidence or conspiracy? You decide! After that, it's time for a deep dive into California Bill SB27 which requires Presidential (and gubernatorial) candidates to disclose their tax returns. Find out what the media has mis-reported, what this bill actually does, why Andrew Was Wrong, and where the future is headed for mandatory disclosure requirements. Then, we tackle another potential conspiracy theory -- this time, that the California State Bar secretly leaked bar exam questions to certain elite law schools. Is it true? (Not really.) After all that, it's time for a brand new #T3BE on regulations regarding pasteurized beer. Will Thomas break his losing streak? Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget that there are just 3 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they’re gone! Here's a link to the (heavily redacted) Vol. I of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in U.S. elections. This is the actual evidence related to #KamalaHarrisDestroyed, including (a) the Hill article and (b) the February 2nd, 2019 NBC News story. Click here to read California SB27. This is the ABA Journal article on the California bar, and this is the letter sent out to CA law school deans. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode focuses on a number of actual good developments in the news! From the second half of the Mueller testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, to a court's issuance of an injunction blocking Trump's illegal efforts to change the rules on asylum, it's a (rare) week of good news! Oh -- and there's a brand new intro for your enjoyment as well! We begin with an update on Mueller's second round of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, and answer some questions about whether Rep. Nadler can launch "an impeachment inquiry" without Nancy Pelosi's approval. Then, it's time for some good news out of the courts, including a sweeping injunction handed down in Arkansas with respect to three laws that restrict and/or prohibit abortion, including Act 493, which purported to ban all abortions after 18 weeks. This is exactly what we predicted would happen at the district court level -- and you can learn why this particular (159-page!) decision is particularly useful going forward. But the good news doesn't stop there! We also break down the Northern District of California's injunction with respect to the joint DOJ/DHS rule regarding asylum that was rammed through without the appropriate notice-and-comment period last week. Then, it's time for a fun segment regarding disciplinary proceedings against everyone's favorite crazy person, Larry Klayman! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget that there are just 10 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they’re gone! Click here for Nadler's 2017 impeachment inquiry. This is the must-read Dana Leigh Marks article in the Washington Post that we discuss on this show. Finally, click here to read the DC panel's recommendations against crazy person Larry Klayman. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

It's Mueller Time! Today's episode drops early to give you our instant reaction to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. (This only covers the testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, not the subsequent testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.) There are just 10 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they're gone! We break down everything that transpired -- the high points, the low points, and whether anything Moved The Noodle(TM). Specifically, we point out the factual and legal background underlying Mueller's testimony, the 24 OLC memorandum that is the subject of Mueller's declination decision, and the standards for indicting a person under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). Plus, you'll learn the totally misleading takes that right-wing sources are sure to run with, and we'll equip you with everything you need to rebut those. After a lengthy breakdown of the day's events, we head to #T3BE, which involves a breach-of-contract claim against a bar exam tutor and a rather disappointed new lawyer. Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Registry Matters podcast discussing the Supreme Court, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote from the live show in Philadelphia talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links Don't forget that there are just 10 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they're gone! Click here to read the Mueller Report. Click here to read the OLC opinion. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into an 1832 decision, Worcester v. Georgia, to try and answer the question of what happens when the executive and judicial branches come into conflict. Yes, there's a lesson to be drawn to today's Supreme Court-vs.-Donald Trump showdown over the citizenship question on the census. We begin, however, with a pair of updates to previous shows, including "Joey Salads" and his nonsense "complaint" against AOC, and a listener email and update from our friend Seth Barrett Tillman regarding the status of the emoluments clauses litigation in both Maryland and DC. In fact, a late-breaking decision in the DC case led to a Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic! Then, it's time for the main event: breaking down the case that led to the famous aphorism, "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." As is usually the case with these deep dives, there isn't an easy answer as to what the outcome will be when the executive and judiciary stare each other down, but we can always learn from history. In the "C" segment, we check out an update from friend of the show Randall Eliason, who taunts us with an Andrew Was Wrong about the future of Bridgegate (from Episode 232). Learn what issue is in fact going before the Supreme Court and why Prof. Eliason thinks the Bridgegate conspirators are going to get off scot-free. After all that, it's time for #T3BE #135, in which Thomas once again manages to analyze a question absolutely perfectly... only to pick the wrong answer yet again. You won't want to miss the full discussion. Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Registry Matters podcast discussing the Supreme Court, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote from the live show in Philadelphia talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links We last discussed the Emoluments Clauses litigation in Episode 297. and for more, check out our Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic! Here's the full text of the 1832 Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia. We last discussed Bridgegate in Episode 232, and you can click here to read Prof. Eliason's latest blog on the topic. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]! Download Link