Opening Arguments

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

Today's episode tackles the recently-released trove of unredacted documents in the Southern District of New York in Michael Cohen's case and explains why Hope Hicks might have been ensnared by America's greatest legal mind, Stormy Daniels. Oh, and have you heard that the Congress ordered the DOJ to investigate... whether the military weaponized ticks and if so, whether those ticks were released against Americans? It's a weird story that can't possibly be true... can it? We begin, however, with the resolution to last episode's #T3BE (formerly #TTTBE) controversy regarding the definition and conditions required for assault. Learn the results of whether "hissing" constitutes a physical threat... and whether that even matters! Then, it's time for long trip up Yodel Mountain. We begin by discussing the... conclusion? of the citizenship question and Andrew lets you know what's still to come in those cases. After that, it's time to discuss the House's resolution of criminal contempt against Bill Barr and Wilbur Ross, and what that likely means going forward. And while we're still on Yodel Mountain... hey, how about those Michael Cohen docs? Now that the other cases have been concluded, the judge ordered the Cohen search warrants to be released in (mostly) unredacted form, and you won't believe what they show. After all that, it's time for the segment you've all been waiting for: WEAPONIZED TICKS. This is a segment so powerful, you won't believe it (and we won't spoil it here in the show notes)! And then it's time for a new #T3BE involving the rules of evidence and an oral contract. Think you have what it takes to hang with Thomas? Play along online by sharing out this episode, using our new hashtag, #T3BE, and we will reward one winner with Never Ending Fame & Fortune (TM). Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Left at the Valley podcast discussing abortion, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links It's not too late! Click here to get tickets for the Opening Arguments LIVE SHOW, live in New York City on August 10th. If you want to read the Cohen docs yourself, they're linked 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 features a grab-bag of stories that have been making the rounds, including the recent ruling out of the Second Circuit regarding Donald Trump's use of Twitter, a setback for our buddy Brian Frosh's efforts to enforce the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, and an update on the real-word consequences of the Janus v. AFSCME decision we decry so much around here. We begin with the Second Circuit's ruling in Knight First Amendment Inst. v. Trump, which established that a government official may convert a social media platform such as Twitter into a "limited use public forum," from which he may not block users on the basis of the political content of their speech -- i.e., viewpoint discrimination. Almost no one understands this decision; we'll make sure you're one of the lucky ones who do! Then, it's time for a breakdown of the 4th Circuit's ruling in In re Trump, which directs the lower court to dismiss the lawsuit (and pending discovery) against Trump in the lawsuit brought by Maryland and D.C. alleging violations of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. Find out what this case is all about, whether the outcome is reasonable, and what's next. After that, it's time for a quick look at the real-world implications of the Janus v. AFSCME decision allowing public-sector union employees to withhold a portion of their dues otherwise allocated for administrative duties under... some crazy right-wing theory that something something something, because Sam Alito knows diminishing the power of unions will hurt Democrats. But what else did that decision do? Listen and find out! After all that, it's time for the most controversial #TTTBE yet, in which we discover the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam (regarding larceny and robbery) ... or do we? You won't want to miss this one! Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Left at the Valley podcast discussing abortion, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Second Circuit's ruling in Knight First Amendment Inst. v. Trump (the Twitter case), and here to check out the Fourth Circuit's ruling in In Re Trump (the Emoluments case). We first covered the emoluments case way back in Episode 78, and we interviewed Seth Barrett Tillman for his unique take in Episode 35 and Episode 36. We learned that bad stuff was coming in the emoluments litigation in Episode 239 when the 4th Circuit issued a stay of all discovery; you can read that stay order here. Finally, click here to read the LA Progressive article on Mark Janus and his conservative activism. -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 gives you the legal background you need to understand all of the different legal fronts in the various pending proceedings involving Jeffrey Epstein and the allegations of underage sex trafficking, including the recent criminal indictment in the Southern District of New York, currently pending civil defamation lawsuits against Epstein associates (including Alan Dershowitz), and the effort to reverse the non-prosecution agreement in Florida. We begin, however, with a preview of some HUGE NEWS -- our upcoming live show in New York City the weekend of August 9, 2019! Clear your calendars now and get ready to come see us live and in person! Then, it's time to unpack all of the various legal proceedings surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. (For more of a factual analysis of the Florida non-prosecution agreement, check out Episode 259.) You'll learn about the various defamation lawsuits, their status, and what's next. And then you'll also learn where we stand with respect an effort that's now 11 years old by Epstein's victims to revoke the non-prosecution agreement. And after all that, we also break down exactly how to parse the deluge of news that's soon to come out in all of these cases. After that, it's time to check back in on the Trump administration's efforts to defy the Supreme Court and still insert a citizenship question on the census. Learn what Andrew predicts will happen at Trump's press conference, why the New York court denied certain DOJ lawyers leave to withdraw, what's next in both the Maryland and New York cases and more! Of course, no episode would be complete without #TTTBE! This week's Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is question #134 about criminal law. When a jewelry thief poses as the mayor's rich and powerful son, what kinds of crimes could he be charged with? You'll just have to listen and find out! Appearances Andrew was just a guest host on Episode 100 of the Skepticrat; check it out! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget to vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue “>> Nominations Now Open We last discussed the Epstein case in Episode 259. Various court documents: here’s the (a) Second Circuit’s ruling to unseal documents in Giuffre v. Maxwell; (b) the Complaint in Giuffre v. Dershowitz and (c) the 2007 Epstein non-prosecution agreement in Florida. This is the text of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Judge Marra ordered that it did violate the CVRA, but that didn’t necessarily mean that the plea deal would be torn up. Judge Marra (SDFla.)’s ruling can be found here. Here’s the Snopes article about face-swapping Clinton’s face over Trump’s. Finally, here are the Maryland local rules. -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 welcomes Monica Miller, counsel for the American Humanist Association, back to the show! Miller, as you know, was the lead counsel and presented the AHA's argument before the Supreme Court in the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n case involving the 40-foot Latin cross on public property in Bladensburg, Maryland. Andrew and Monica spend the entire show doing a deep dive into the decision, trying to figure out issues like (1) is the Lemon v. Kurtzman test really dead?; (2) how can we make sense of the court's admonition to "respect the beliefs" of those who oppose taking down the cross?; (3) how can local activists proceed in light of this decision, and much, much more! After a wide-ranging interview, it's time for the answer to what Andrew has dubbed the Worst, Stupidest Bar Exam question -- this one involving the "equitable conversion" doctrine in the sale of land. Did Thomas somehow manage to get a crazy, stupid, awful real property question correct? Listen and find out! Appearances Andrew was just a guest host on Episode 100 of the Skepticrat; check it out! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don’t forget to vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue “>> Nominations Now Open We broke down the Bladensburg cross case in Episode 256, and interviewed Monica Miller after oral arguments in Episode 274; go check them both out! Finally, we broke down the details of the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n decision in Episode 290. -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 reveals Andrew's plan for how to fix the Supreme Court! Oh, and while you're here, we'd love it if you would vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue ">> Nominations Now Open We begin with a detailed breakdown of the developments in the multiple census cases in light of the Supreme Court's ruling last week in Department of Commerce v. New York, which we last discussed in Episode 292. Find out how a parallel case in Maryland may be the key to finally keeping the citizenship question off of the 2020 census! Then, it's time for a deep dive. We begin with Bernie Sanders's answer at the first Democratic Debate, pivot to a discussion of Daniel Epps's "Supreme Court Lottery" plan, and finally end with the option Andrew prefers. How to fix the Supreme Court? Is it Constitutional Hardball? Listen and find out! After all that, it's time for a quick Yodel Mountain update on the status of the Democratic effort to get Trump's tax returns. Good news, everyone! And then, as if that wasn't enough, it's time for the most pointless Thomas Takes The Bar Exam Question... ever! It's #133, it's Real Property, and it's terrible. And if you would like to participate in this self-inflicted torture, just share out this episode on social media, include your answer and the hashtag #TTTBE, and we will shower one lucky winner with never-ending fame and fortune(*)! (*) - subject to the terms and conditions as set forth orally during this show. Appearances Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don't forget to vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue ">> Nominations Now Open We last discussed the census question and the Supreme Court's opinion in Dep't of Commerce v. New York in Episode 292. You'll want to read the brief transcript of the telephonic hearing held in front of Judge Hazel in the Maryland case. And you can click here if you want to monitor the Supreme Court's docket to look for the Government's potential motion. This is the text of Rule 62.1, which was certainly new to Andrew. This is a transcript of the second night of the Democratic debate, which contained Bernie Sanders's Supreme Court answer. You can click here to read Epps & Sitamaran's law review article, "The Supreme Court Lottery," for yourself, and you can fact-check Andrew's points about the composition of the federal bench here. Finally, don't forget to check out jurisdiction-stripping in Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868) and the original law review article written by Charles E. Rice ("Congress and the Supreme Court's Jurisdiction"). -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 revisits a narrow area of administrative law we last discussed in Episode 266, namely, Auer deference. Andrew made a bold prediction in that episode, and find out where he was wrong -- and where he was right now that the Supreme Court has ruled in Kisor v. Wilkie. We also discuss the recent unsealing of court records thanks to a CNN reporter and we witness the return of listener favorite segment "Are You A Cop?" with a fabulous question about drinking and driving. Buckle up! We begin, however, with a look at a recent request made by CNN's Katelyn Polantz regarding certain court proceedings and records relating to the Mueller Investigation. Does this mean that "BILL BARR KILLED 7 OPEN INVESTIGATIONS?" (No.) But it is significant, and you won't want to miss why. Then, it's time for a deep-dive explainer that starts with a reminder on the principles of agency deference. Don't remember the exact difference between Chevron deference and Auer deference? We've got you covered -- including, in particular, how the latter came under attack in Kisor v. Wilkie, a case involving a retired servicemember challenging the internal agency regulations governing disability pay. Should the courts defer to an agency's interpretation of its own rules, or should it be wildly activist and defer to Neil Gorsuch's interpretation of those rules? Kisor gives us a slightly different answer than you might expect, all while angling us towards the day soon to come in which the Supreme Court greatly expands the power of the judicial branch. After that, it's time for Are You A Cop? featuring some truly terrible advice for how to beat a DUI arrest. (Please do not do this.) We talk about standards of evidence while debunking the notion that you should... drink more when you're pulled over? (It's a weird question.) As if that wasn't enough, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #132 about an escaped, de-fanged, venomous snake. Who's responsible? Listen and find out! Appearances Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This is the Raw Story article we criticize during the "A" segment, and to verify what we've said is correct, you can read (a) Polantz's request; (b) the Court's order; (c) Exhibit A (Search Warrants); (d) Exhibit B (Wiretapping); and (e) Exhibit C (Pen Register/Trap & Trace). Phew! We previewed Kisor v. Wilkie (read decision) in Episode 266. And, in breaking down Justice Roberts's holding in Kisor, we also expose shoddy journalism like this Daily Beast article. -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 episode breaks down the latest decisions from the Roberts court, including the ostensible "win" in Dep't of Commerce v. Ross (the citizenship question case), and the crushing loss in Rucho v. Common Cause (the gerrymandering cases). Oh, and along the way we'll also discuss the opioid crisis and the news that Robert Mueller will testify before the House Judiciary Committee. It's going to be a long and wild ride, so strap in! We begin by taking a quick trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss the significance and substance of the Congressional subpoena issued to Robert Mueller. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! Then, it's time to break down the theory and developments in State of Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma, et al., CJ-2017-816, the case that's at the forefront of the efforts to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for their role in causing the opioid crisis in this country. Find out what a "public nuisance" is, whether manufacturing and selling opioids is one, why this case is important, and much, much more! After all that, it's time for the main event: breaking down the Supreme Court's decisions in Ross and Rucho. Find out why Andrew thinks that John Roberts wrote the Ross opinion going the other way until the evidence broke regarding Thomas Hofeller, and how that means the entirety of the new game is: Shame Justice Roberts. (Oh, and also you'll learn along the way that our democracy is screwed.) After all that, it's time for an all-new, all-awesome Thomas Takes The Bar Exam about strict liability and de-fanged venomous snakes. What madness transpires? Listen and find out, and then play along with #TTTBE on social media! Appearances Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links You can read the Court's opinion in Dep't of Commerce v. Ross (the citizenship question case) as well as Rucho v. Common Cause (the gerrymandering case). Click here to read the Complaint in State of Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma, et al., CJ-2017-816. Finally, you can check out the Los Angeles Times article on Purdue Pharma we referenced on the show as well as click here for more information on the MDL litigation pending before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster. -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 SUPER SPECIAL BONUS EPISODE tackles a bunch of issues that came up during the week that we didn't want to get buried on the whiteboard, including the Flores settlement, a deep dive into non-compete clauses, and a really good Andrew Was Right & Wrong segment about the Hatch Act. It's everything you love about Opening Arguments, only more so! We begin with an examination of the oral arguments before the 9th Circuit regarding ICE detainment centers and whether those comply with the conditions mandated by the Flores settlement that require "safe and sanitary" conditions for minors separated from their families at the border. After that, it's time for a deep dive into a really good listener question from Erin regarding covenants not to compete. Learn all about the "Legitimate Business Interest" (LBI) test and how to gauge whether a noncompete clause is (likely) enforceable, plus learn about the recent economic and political trends surrounding noncompetes that may surprise you. Then, it's time for a very insightful set of comments from a listener regarding the Hatch Act; it's an Andrew Was Right/Andrew Was Wrong compliment sandwich, but we all wind up better for it! No #TTTBE this episode since it's a special bonus. 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 discussed the Flores settlement and border policy back in Episode 184. For a recent report on the oral argument, check out this Courthouse News article referenced on the show. We last discussed non-compete clauses in Episode 75. -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 executive privilege, evaluating the legal arguments being raised by the Trump administration asserting executive privilege over former communications director Hope Hicks and former counsel Don McGahn. Find out how good those arguments are -- spoiler: some aren't terrible! -- and what's next for the Congressional Democrats. First, though, we begin with coverage of the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n decision from last week; that's the Bladensburg Cross case that we've discussed at some length on this show. How bad is this decision? (Bad.) Then, it's time for the intersection of Rapid Response Friday and Deep Dive Tuesday in which we time travel all the way back to 1971 to evaluate the Trump Administration's claims regarding executive privilege "over the last five decades." As you've come to expect from OA, we tell you what the administration got right... and, of course, what they got wrong. If you want to know if and when Congress will ever get meaningful testimony out of Hope Hicks or Don McGahn, you need to listen to this show. Then, it's time for the answer to TTTBE #131 about the propriety of a specific question during cross-examination of a witness who testified as to the defendant's "reputation for honesty." If you love the Federal Rules of Evidence -- and really, who doesn't? -- you'll love this 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 We first discussed the Bladensburg Cross case in Episode 256 with Sarah Henry of the AHA, and then got first-hand testimony about the oral argument in Episode 274 with Monica Miller. Click here to read the full Supreme Court opinion in American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n. If you missed our coverage of Masterpiece Cakeshop, check out Episode 180. We first broke down the importance of Hope Hicks to the Congressional investigations in Episode 259; and you can click here to read the letter and subpoena she received from Rep. Nadler. NPR confirmed that Hicks's testimony was carefully managed by White House lawyers (and was therefore worthless). Click here to read Rehnquist's 1971 memorandum on executive privilege, and click here to read how President Clinton's OLC cited that memo 25 years later. Finally, this is Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F.Supp.2d 53 (2008), the district court opinion Andrew breaks down on 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 -- #OpposeJustinWalker -- tells you everything you need to know about Donald Trump's latest nominee for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench (and Andrew's former debate opponent) Justin Walker. You already know he's a lifelong member of the Federalist Society. Why is it specifically worth opposing him? Listen and find out! First, though, the guys break down the Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling in U.S. v. Gamble, affirming the "dual sovereignty" doctrine and finally putting the last nail in the coffin of a crazy lefty conspiracy theory we debunked way back in Episode 215. And, as a bonus (?), we find out why Clarence Thomas's concurrence is "the most horrifying thing in print in the past 50 years." Seriously! After that breakdown, it's time to analyze the background and writings of Justin Walker. We learn that he has virtually no litigation experience and that he's a right-wing ideologue; you probably expected that. But you'll also learn that his two major contributions to academic jurisprudence are (1) arguing that transparency in government is a bad, possibly unconstitutional thing; and (2) arguing that the FBI Director has a moral obligation to be the President's lackey. We are not making any of this up. Then, it's time for Thomas Takes The Bar Exam and a question on the propriety of a introducing a particular fact into evidence as the predicate for a cross-examination question. Is it hearsay? Is it impeachment? Is it just hunky-dory? 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 1. We discussed the American Legion v. AHA Bladensburg cross case in OA Episodes 256 (with Sarah Henry of the AHA) and Episode 274 with Monica Miller. Monica IS coming back on the show! 2. Click here to read Gamble v. U.S. which we first discussed in OA 215. 3. Andrew debated Justin Walker in Episode 224. 4. This is his announcement. 5. You can read Walker’s CV here. 6. Of Justin Walker’s law review articles, click here to read “Chilled Chambers" and here to read “FBI Independence as a Threat to Civil Liberties: An Analogy to Civilian Control of the Military”. 7. By the way, this is the link to the FBI investigating Deutsche Bank in connection with Jared Kushner. 8. Finally, this is Walker’s National Review article. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -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 explains exactly what happened with the story you probably saw about how Led Zeppelin "got a new hearing" in their lawsuit with the estate of Randy California. What's going on? Listen and find out! We also break down the latest ethical wrangling over Yale law professor Amy Chua and Brett Kavanaugh. Is it as bad as everyone says? We begin with the tale of "Tiger Mom" Amy Chua, the Yale law professor who wrote a stirring defense of Brett Kavanaugh as a "mentor to women" after Kavanaugh had offered Chua's daughter a plum clerkship. Did that pot get sweetened when Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court? (Hint: yes.) We break down all of the ethics & more in this segment. Then, it's time to revisit the lawsuit brought by the estate of Randy California against Led Zeppelin alleging that Led Zep stole the iconic riff for "Stairway to Heaven" from California's band, Spirit. If you haven't listened to Episode 236, go give that a listen right now, and then come back to find out what's new. Then, it's time for another Andrew Was Wrong segment -- this time, involving the actual penalty for refusing to answer or giving false answers on the Census. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #130 about the constitutional propriety of collecting sales tax from a private individual who will then turn around and sell the objects to the state. Did Thomas get it right? 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 Click here to read Chua's original Wall Street Journal op-ed, "Kavanaugh Is A Mentor to Women." After that broke, Elie Mystal criticized Chua in an Above the Law article, to which Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld tweeted that she "[w]on't be applying to SCOTUS." Mystal also teamed up with The Guardian to unearth more revelations regarding Chua, Kavanaugh, and how his clerks always "look like models." Of course, it was Mystal who broke the news that Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld was chosen as a Kavanaugh SCOTUS clerk. We covered Zeppelin in Episode 236. The false answers statute is 13 U.S.C. § 221. -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 covers all of the breaking developments this week, including a ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the latest news out of the House of Representatives, and the Office of Special Counsel's latest request that Donald Trump should fire Kellyanne Conway for "flagrant" serial violations of the Hatch Act. What does all that mean? Listen and find out! We begin by revisiting the state of Wisconsin, where Republicans in gerrymandered-safe seats in the state legislature stripped power away from the incoming Democratic Governor and Attorney General. A trial court issued an injunction preventing that law from going into effect, and just two days ago, the state Supreme Court finally ruled on that injunction. How did that go? (You know the drill.) Then, we move into the main segment, in which we discuss all of the developments related to the census question we last discussed in Episode 286. Learn about one respondent's petition for limited remand, the White House's assertion of executive privilege, and then what's next from the Democratic House. After all that, it's time to climb Yodel Mountain. Learn exactly who Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn hired once he fired Covington & Burlington Coat Factory, and what that (probably) means. And then, it's time to learn allllll about the Hatch Act, and why a loyal Trump supporter thinks it means it's time to fire Kellyanne Conway. Then, it's time for Thomas Takes the Bar Exam. This time, Thomas tackles a tricky question about a government agency that hires a private collector to purchase antiques. Can the state charge sales tax? 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 1. We last discussed the census in Episode 286. 2. Click here to read the NYIC petition for limited remand. 3. This is HR 430, which is the full House vote to allow the Judiciary Committee to sue to enforce the McGahn and Barr subpoenas. 4. And here is the roll call vote. 5. The Hatch Act is 5 U.S.C. § 7323. 6. The Hatch Act was upheld in United States Civil Service Comm’n et al. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, et al., 413 U.S. 548 (1973). 7. Finally, click here to read the OSC Conway letter. -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 recent developments following the death of Republican operative Thomas Hofeller -- the architect of the REDMAP -- that may impact the census question case currently pending before the Supreme Court, Department of Commerce v. New York. First, however, we begin with an Andrew Was Wrong about the 2006 midterm elections and the Pension Protection Act. That was, in fact, a Democratic wave year -- but the PPA was passed in August, nearly five months before that new Democratic congress was seated. Oops. Then it's time to delve into the strange files of Thomas Hofeller, the architect of REDMAP -- you know, the gerrymandering strategy and software that turned Republican minorities into majorities in states like Wisconsin and tiny Republican majorities into one-sided dominance in states like North Carolina. Want to know his plan for helping "Non-Hispanic Whites?" Of course you do! We break down exactly how this development may affect Dep't of Commerce v. New York, which has already been briefed and argued before the Supreme Court, and the interesting strategy that the respondents used to make SCOTUS aware of what Hofeller was up to. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas (and the Entire Puzzle in a Thunderstorm Crew) Takes the Bar Exam #129 involving comparative negligence, joint and several liability, and intra-family liability in connection with a car accident. Did you get it right? Remember you can play along every Friday by sharing our show on social media using the hashtag #TTTBE. Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 98 of the Skepticrat breaking down everyone's second-favorite Democratic 2020 Presidential contenders; you won't want to miss it! And 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 citizenship question on Episode 232 You can access the briefs filed in Department of Commerce v. New York: Here This is the letter filed by respondents and copied to the Supreme Court setting forth the new evidence relating to Hofeller. And, in the interests of balance, here's the response filed by the government. And finally, here's the ruling and scheduling order from Judge Furman in the District Court case (No. 18-2921) setting forth the time to brief and seek discovery regarding potential sanctions on the government witnesses. -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 instant-breaking episode takes a look at the significance of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's decision to fire his lawyers, Andrew's buddies over at Covington & Burling. Oh, and we also take a semi-deep-dive into President Trump's decision to impose tariffs on "all goods" imported from Mexico. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a slight preview of next week's show, which will break down the impending tariffs on goods imported from Mexico. How is this like (or unlike) Trump's decision to impose steel tariffs on China? You'll have to listen and find out! Then, it's time for the main segment in which we learn that Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has fired his lawyers at Covington & Burling? What does that mean? Only time will tell. For the "C" segment, we break down the upcoming DNC debate, who's qualified, and what legal remedies some of the "loser" candidates might have. After all that, it's time for #TTTBE involving torts, contributory negligence, and joint and several liability. 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 discussed Trump's tariffs on China in episode 162 Trump's statement on Mexican tariffs is here The prior authority relied upon by Trump is the IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. § 1702 Click here to read a CNBC piece on the likelihood of a trade war. You can read Vol I. and Vol. II of the Mueller in searchable PDF. Here's the evidence C&B was fired. Here are the DNC rules and you can check out "Bernie Sanders's" failed lawsuit 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 is a tragedy in three acts, bringing together three seemingly-unrelated stories: (1) understanding the looming crisis at the Pension Benefits ordonuarantee Corporation; (2) figuring out who Gordon Hartogensis is and why he's about to gain control over potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in assets; and finally, (3) putting together all the pieces to see how President Trump has acted to protect his crony, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, from potential criminal and civil liability in connection with his management of Sears. Strap in; it's going to be a bumpy ride! We begin in Act I, in which the guys break down the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), its creation, the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), and the developments over the last 45 years that have pushed the PBGC to the brink of collapse. Act II, then, takes over with the recently-appointed International Man of Mystery, Gordon Hartogensis, to lead the PBGC. Who is this guy, and what has he done to inspire confidence that he can right the ship? Listen and find out! Act III weaves these stories together with the ongoing civil lawsuit by Sears against Steven Mnuchin and his buddy Eddie Lampert, who are alleged to have looted Sears's assets, driving it into bankruptcy. You'll never guess who bought those assets in bankruptcy... or, perhaps you'll instantly guess who did. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #128 involving a crazy fast-food heist involving an imaginary sniper and the drive-thru lane. Did you get it right?? 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 ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. You can also read the text and a breakdown of the key provisions of the PPA, which passed the Senate 93-5. For a sad laugh, check out the PBGC's own scant "Who the hell is Gordon Hartogensis?" page. The first person to break this story was Politico's Ian Kullgren, who wrote this article. We first covered the Sears/Lampert/Mnuchin story back in Episode 273, and you can read the Warren/Ocasio-Cortez letter 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 breaks down the statement made this week by Robert Mueller in connection with his report and investigation. Is it a good sign? Is it a bad sign? Is it both? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a bit of housekeeping, including a recommendation that you check out Episode 194 of Serious Inquiries Only (featuring Eli Bosnick!) for the official OA answer to all things milkshaking. We also preview a bit of next week's show, which involves revisiting Eddie Lampert, Steve Mnuchin, and the alleged looting of Sears. Is it worse than you think? (It's always worse than you think.) Next, we check in on four Supreme Court orders that relate to gerrymandering. Is that worse than you think? (It's always worse than you think.) After all that, we're not even halfway done! Our main segment breaks down the Supreme Court's brief, two-page per curiam order in Box v. Planned Parenthood... and the sprawling, nonsensical 20-page concurrence written by Clarence Thomas that literally repeats David Barton-level falsehoods. You'll be angry, but you won't want to miss it. Then, it's time to Yodel! We carefully break down Robert Mueller's statement regarding his investigation and what it means for the future. In so doing, we also analyze Mueller's claims regarding the now-infamous 2000 OLC memo as to whether a sitting president can be indicted. After all that, it's time for an all-new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #128 involving a crazy criminal effort to steal money from a fast-food drive-through by pretending to have a sniper... look, you'll just have to listen and play along, okay?!? 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 correct take on milkshaking, check out Serious Inquiries Only Episode 194 with Eli Bosnick. We first covered the alleged looting of Sears by Eddie Lampert and Steve Mnuchin in Episode 273 and that was picked up by our friends Elizabeth Warren and AOC. These are the four orders the Supreme Court granted in gerrymandering cases: A. HOUSEHOLDER, LARRY, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL. B. CHABOT, STEVE, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL C. MICHIGAN SENATE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL. D. CHATFIELD, LEE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL. Click here to read the Supreme Court’s Opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood Click here for the peer-reviewed research showing that Sanger was not a eugenicist; and here for the article showing she wasn’t a racist. This is a transcript of Robert Mueller’s testimony and this is the 2000 OLC Memo. 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]!

Lost in the (justifiable) concern over Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson's apparent lack of understanding of REOs, OREO, and just about anything pertinent to his job is a recently-proposed HUD rule that would deliberately reverse an Obama-era regulation requiring nondiscrimination in the provision of services to the homeless based on gender identity. Is it as bad as you think? (Yes.) First, however, we begin with an Andrew Was Wrong and a bit more discussion on abortion, including the difference between Plan B and the oral abortifacient RU-486, and the difference between a zygote and a blastocyst. After that, it's time for our deep dive into Secretary Carson's laughable testimony... and the real issue hiding beneath the surface, which involves crafting a religious exception to the Equality Rule of 2016. Then, it's time to debut Optimist Prime(TM) vs. Negatron(TM) on impeachment. Find out why Andrew thinks the tide is turning and Thomas... doesn't. Where do you wind up? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for the answer to an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #127 -- a dreaded real property question about a man who tries to convey his property to an overseas nephew before dying. Can 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 We first discussed the rise of state-level constitutional protections to the right to choose back in Episode 276. and analyzed Georgia HB 481 and Alabama HB 314 in Episode 280. You can read HUD proposed rule FR-6152 (currently RIN 2506-AC53) for yourself.

Today's episode breaks down Judge Mehta's recent order in the Trump v. Mazars litigation, which is parallel to the Deutsche Bank lawsuit we discussed on last week's show. Why is this ruling significant, how does it accelerate the House's efforts to uncover crucial financial documents, and what does this mean for the future of the Trump Presidency? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a look at some late-breaking news from Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have requested information from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin related to his tenure at Sears (that we discussed in Episode 273) and whether that conduct continued during his time working for the Trump administration. Then, it's time for the main segment, in which we discuss Judge Mehta's order, what it means for the future of the Trump investigations (and for future presidential administrations!), as well as deal with skeptical questions about the potential timeframe. Learn how the Congressional Democrats maneuvered to get this case fast-tracked so as to avoid endless delays -- and listen to Andrew's possibly-surprising prediction about what he thinks the Supreme Court won't do to protect Trump! After all that, it's time for a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #127... and yes, it's another dreaded real property question. Worse, it's a hard one -- in which the question gives you the answer but asks for the best reason why. Find out what happens when someone conveys property and dies while the gift recipient is overseas serving in the military. And if you'd like to play along with #TTTBE, just share out this episode on social media for a chance to be next week's winner! Appearances Andrew was a guest on the most recent episode of Pod Therapy, discussing the "Goldwater Rule," and Thomas was a guest on Episode 196 of God Awful Movies, "Alien Intrusion: Unmasking a Deception." 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 1. This is the link to the Warren/AOC letter to Mnuchin 2. We most recently discussed the Congressional subpoenas into Trump's finances in Episode 279. 3. Text of Judge Mehta's order in the Mazars case. 4. This is the New York Times story about the Deutsche Bank whistleblower; and for an in-depth discussion of SARs reports, check out Carla McCadden in Episode 174. 5. This is the report that some lenders have already provided documents to the House, and we discussed the Wells Fargo penalties in Episode 146 and 169. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 email us at [email protected] Download Link