Opening Arguments

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

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the recent abortion bans passed in Georgia and Alabama, breaking down exactly what these laws say (and don't say!) to help you sort through the panic from the actual news. It's not always a pleasant trip, but it's a journey worth taking to figure out exactly what's at stake. We begin, however, with a listener question about abortion -- and specifically, about whether the federal government can preemptively prevent the states from doing the kinds of things we talked about back in Episode 276. Find out why Andrew thinks the conservative Supreme Court isn't likely to uphold the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting states from recognizing abortion rights. After that, it's time for a deep dive in to the very confusing Georgia statute , HB 481. Exactly what does this bill do (and not do), and how scared should you be? Listen and find out. And if that's not enough, we also walk you through the more straightforward (but still terrifying) Alabama statute, HB 314. Is it true that the bill fails to exempt rape victims? (Yes.) Is there anything to mitigate how awful this bill is? (Sort of.) After all that, it's time to find out the answer to TTTBE #126 about a man who shoots a would-be assailant three times, including once after the assailant is lying on the ground and whimpering. What kind of crime could this be? 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. You can check out Georgia HB 481 and Alabama HB 314 to read these bills for yourself.

Today's episode breaks down everything you need to know about the pending Trump v. Deutsche Bank lawsuit over the pending Congressional subpoenas for Donald Trump's (and Don Jr.'s, and Eric's, and Ivanka's, and the Trump Organization's) financial records. Why is Trump suing Deutsche Bank, and what's going to happen? Find out why Andrew is still optimistic! We begin, however, with the breaking news that Trump has pardoned Conrad Black. Who is he? Should this be a scandal? (Yes.) Will it be? (No.) And is Conrad Black a gigantic racist? (Guess.) Then, it's time for the main segment about Trump v. Deutsche Bank. We talk about the unique legal standard in the Second Circuit that gives the Trump legal team a legitimate thread by which to argue for their injunction preventing Deutsche Bank from disclosing Trump's financial records to the House Committee. Then, it's time to answer a listener question from Rob Bate about conspiracy, obstruction, and the Mueller Report. After all that, it's time for a brand-new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #126 involving whether shooting a would-be assailant who has broken off her attack is homicide, and if so, what kind. 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 a link to Conrad Black’s disgusting “Who Was Really At Fault In Charlottesville?” essay. Check out the Wikipedia entry on Michael McFaul. And his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. Here are the Trump v. Deutsche Bank documents -The Complaint -Trump’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction -Deutsche Bank’s statement -The House Committee’s Opposition -Trump’s reply memorandum We cited Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30 (2010) for the proposition that the 2nd Circuit recognizes an alternative test. And, of course, credit for the fabulous “Deutsche Wanna Loan?” goes to 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/ 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]

Today's episode features a long-form interview with one of our favorite recurring guests, Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He's on to discuss his just-released book, The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American. Because Andrew, Andrew, and Thomas could easily talk for a full hour (and then some)... why, that's exactly what they do. We hold Andrew Seidel's feet to the fire on the threat that Christian Nationalism poses to the U.S. judicial system, including an in-depth discussion of the future of the Establishment Clause. And if you haven't heard of "Project Blitz," you will after this interview. You don't want to miss it! After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas (& Andrew) Take the Bar Exam Question #125 on the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence. Can the prosecutor introduce evidence of the "Ol' Switcheroo" on cross-examination? Listen and find out!

Today's episode breaks down everything you need to know about what's going to happen with the House Judiciary Committee's vote to recommend holding Bill Barr in contempt of Congress. Is this all going to go nowhere in a Trump-dominated executive and a right-wing judiciary? Find out why Andrew's optimistic, and why he calls the underlying dynamic the coming Republican Civil War! All that and we revisit the Republican Andrew called the "key to the apex of Yodel Mountain" over a year ago! We begin, however, with a big MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner: you did it! Opening Arguments listeners opened up bar complaints with the Florida Bar about Congressman and nasty little troll Matt Gaetz, and now he faces a state bar disciplinary proceeding. He's not the only one, either; we got breaking news today that Paulie Manafort has indeed been disbarred by the District of Columbia! During the main segment, we break down (1) the contempt recommendation by the House Judiciary committee and exactly what is going to happen next; (2) what the House's "inherent sanctions" powers are, and whether they can really sic the Sergeant-at-Arms on Bill Barr (hint: yes!); (3) assertions of executive privilege; and (4) the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Donald Trump Jr. Is Richard Burr (R-NC) the next In Rod We Trust? Listen and find out... and brace yourself for the coming Republican Civil War! After all that, it's time for a Thomas Takes the Bar Exam featuring special guest Andrew Seidel. Together, the two sit in for an evidence question about the admissibility of prior bad acts. Brush up on your "Ol' Switcheroo" law and play along with us for #TTTBE!

Today's episode features an in-depth analysis of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, a recent decision out of the Kansas Supreme Court holding that -- whatever the U.S. Supreme Court does -- the Kansas state constitution protects a woman's right to choose. Join us to understand how this decision is important not only for Kansans but for all of us as we deal with the challenges created by the increasingly Trump-ified federal bench. We begin, however, with a brief update as to the status of the Jeffrey Epstein plea deal that's been questioned by a recent ruling in Florida. We first covered this story in Episode 259. After that, it's time for fan-favorite "Are You A Cop?" combined with a listener question about whether (and how much) "corporations are people, my friend." Then, it's time for the main breakdown of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, with brief stopovers in Alabama (to discuss Bill 314), a prediction on the future of Roe v. Wade before this Supreme Court, and a full breakdown of the Kansas opinion and why it matters. After all that, it's time for yet another listener question, this time about the dissent in Hodes, what it means, and why the court spent so much time talking about the police power of the state, John Locke, and natural law. Confused? You won't be, after listening to this segment. And as if that wasn't enough, after all that, it's time for the answer to TTTBE #124 about Decomposing Snail Soda(TM) ("It's Maddeningly Addictive"). Find out if Thomas got this question right! Download Link

Today's episode covers everything you need to know about Bill Barr's testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee (and his refusal to testify before the House). Has he perjured himself? (Yes.) Is there a reasonable defense of Barr? (No.) What's next? Listen and find out! Also, don't forget to show up for our monthly LIVE Q&A on our YouTube channel this Sunday, May 5th at 6 pm Eastern / 3 pm Pacific! We begin today's show, however, with a few Andrew Was Wrongs and one Andrew Was Right. Wrong? Andrew used "fulcrum" when he should have used "center of gravity," and it led to this amazing listener graphic explaining the difference. Also, Andrew relied upon a mislabeled graph in a complaint in Episode 273; technically, that's someone else who was wrong first, but hey. But Andrew was definitely RIGHT about the RNC platform, and now we have even more evidence to confirm it -- this time in the form of the testimony of J.D. Gordon to Mueller's team of investigators. And we break that down for you (because of course we do!). Then, it's time to delve into everything we know about Bill Barr's perjure-tastic trip before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Find out why Andrew thinks Barr isn't going to last, and why he definitely committed perjury. Oh, and figure out what Rule 6(e) is -- and why Barr is lying about that, too. After all that, it's time for a brand-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #124... this time about Decomposing Snail Cola. Decomposing Snail Cola: It's the Only One With Decomposing Snails!

Today's episode features an in-depth interview with Monica Miller, counsel for the American Humanist Association and (we think!) the second-youngest person ever to argue before the Supreme Court! Just last month, Monica argued the AHA's position in Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association before the Supreme Court, and we get to learn all sort of amazing behind-the-scenes information about the case. We spend the full hour with Monica Miller and learn how the AHA came to take this case, the roller-coaster-highs-and-lows of prevailing in the Fourth Circuit only to see it get taken up by a very conservative SCOTUS, and you get Monica's prediction as to how she thinks the Court might rule... as well as which members of the Court's conservative bloc were receptive to her arguments. Along the way, you'll also learn exactly how Monica got ready for her big day! After that, it's time for the answer to T(&M)TTBE #123, the dreaded real property question involving the subsequent sale of property, the doctrine of merger, and... well, let's just say this was a hard one! Did anyone get it right? You'll just have to 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 Bladensburg cross case in Episode 256. 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]

Today's episode features a deep dive into a just-filed lawsuit by Sears against its CEO, Eddie Lampert, and certain directors, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The lawsuit alleges that Eddie & Steve managed to wreck not one but two long-standing American institutions. How? Why? And what does any of this have to do with one of the best comedies of all time, The Producers? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a very brief Andrew Was Wrong malapropism in which he confused a journalist with a philosopher. (There's a comedy setup in there somewhere.) Then, it's time for the main segment, which breaks down the background on Mnuchin, especially how he teamed up with billionaire Eddie Lampert, and then how the two of them managed to turn less than a billion dollars into full ownership of both Kmart and Sears, each of which had eight-figure valuations at the time. And, as if that wasn't enough, you can find out how Lampert (allegedly) ripped off the public on Mnuchin's watch, all while enriching himself. Drain the Swamp! You'll also learn all about The Producers-style fraud. You can make more money with a flop than with a hit! After all that, it's time for the glorious return of Thomas Takes the Bar Exam -- this time, featuring guest Monica Miller, who will be joining us for a full-length interview next episode. TTTBE question #123, however, is a dreaded real property question...will anyone be able to 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 Click here to read the Sears lawsuit, and here to check out Mnuchin's Wikipedia page. This page contains a good explanation of Delaware corporate law regarding duty of loyalty. 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]

Today's episode brings you a trio of stories about the changing political landscape in the wake of the release of the [REDACTED] Mueller report; namely (1) will the President be impeached (and if so, can the Senate block the impeachment), (2) will we see a full, unredacted version of the report, and (3) just how pro-Russia is this administration, anyway? We begin with a question asked by listener Thomas S. as to whether Mitch McConnell can... well, Mitch McConnell any impeachment hearings. And while the answer may not surprise you, we think you'll want to know why. Then, we move on to another listener question, this one about whether the Trump campaign actually did soften language in the GOP platform related to Russia. Was that story actually "debunked?" (No.) We debunk the debunking for your edification! After that, it's time for a two-fer of embedded stories that bear on the question of redactions. We look briefly at McKeever v. Barr and evaluate whether that will prevent the ultimate release of the full Mueller Report as well as check in on developments in a FOIA case. No #TTTBE this week! 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 the Lawfareblog article that inspired Thomas S.'s question on impeachment. This is the full text of the 2016 Republican platform. Click here to read the Byron York article in the Washington Examiner that we debunk; here to read the original Washington Post article by Josh Rogin; and here to read the Politifact transcript of the Trump interview. Finally, check out McKeever v. Barr. 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]

Today, we break down the just-released [REDACTED] Mueller report. The top-line analysis? This is much worse than we anticipated in Episode 264. This report may not be the end of the road for Trump -- but it almost certainly is the end of the road for Attorney General William Barr. That's it! We spend nearly 90 minutes delving through the minutiae and correcting the egregious misquotations in Barr's now-laughable "summary" of the report. Show Notes & Links 1. You can click here to read the full Mueller report, and here for the searchable PDF. 2. We first covered Barr's summary in Episode 264, and you can read his laughably dishonest letter again right here. Oh, and we followed up with Prof. Randall Eliason in Episode 265. 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

Today's episode brings you a trio of timely stories that all revolve around taxes: the Michael Avenatti indictment (for 29 courts of tax fraud), proposed legislation that some are arguing hamstrings the IRS, and (of course) the status of Congress's efforts to get Trump's tax returns. We also learned about very cool free online tax filing (Free File)... albeit too late to help most of you. Sorry about that. We begin with the lawyer who will never come on our show -- Michael Avenatti, who rose to fame on the back of the genius of Stormy Daniels, and whom we first debunked as a grifter just a few months later (way back in Episode 181!) Turns out he's been arrested for tax fraud. Who could have seen that coming? (Oh yeah, everyone.) After that, it's time for a deep dive into HR 1957, the Taxpayer First Act of 2019. Is it really a Democratic-sponsored sellout to Turbotax, as some folks are saying? Listen and find out! Then, it's time to revisit the question of Trump's taxes. Can Trump really stonewall indefinitely on his taxes? (No.) Does the law pave the way for Democrats to get his tax returns? (Yes.) After all that, it's time for the answer to TTTBE #122 regarding the nonexistence of official documents. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! Andrew will be at the American Atheist convention in Cincinnati, Ohio this weekend, April 19-21. 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 For 2020: Click here to access Free File. You can read Avenatti's indictment, and/or catch up on all his scumbaggery by re-listening to Episode 181. This is the text of H.R. 1957, this is the text of the Eighth Memoradum of Understanding between the IRS and Free File, and this is the text of 67 Fed. Red. 67247 which references the MOU. Here's an example of an alarmist op-ed in the Washington Post, and this is the initial article from ProPublica. We first outlined how to get Trump's tax returns back in Episode 226; that's still the right plan. We covered Rep. Neal's request in Episode 267. The applicable statute is 26 U.S.C. § 6013. You can read Consovoy's totally crazy crazypants letter here. 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]

Today's episode breaks down the recent arrest of Julian Assange in England and what it means for Chelsea Manning (and Donald Trump!) We begin, however, with two separate sports-related stories: the improbable success of Marcus Rademacher in the Opening Arguments March Madness pool, and the (far sadder) saga of the Trump Administration's indefensible decision to overrule the MLB's deal with Cuba that would have brought an end to the dangerous human trafficking of ballplayers. After that, it's time for our deep dive into the sealed Julian Assange indictment and his arrest in England. We also discuss at great length exactly why Chelsea Manning is apparently being held in solitary confinement in prison -- even though her crime was commuted by President Obama -- and whether this indictment is relevant to the Mueller investigation. Oh, and Thomas gives you something to look out for! And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #122 involving hearsay and a search for public records. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! 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. Marcus Rademacher’s winning entry is linked here. 2. If you want football-themed Opening Arguments, check out Episode 57 and Episode 58, which tell the tale of Donald Trump singlehandedly destroyed the USFL. 3. Trump reportedly wanted to buy the Cubs in 2006. 4. We covered the MLB-Cuba deal in OA 237. 5. The Assange Indictment. 6. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (computer fraud) 7. Chelsea Manning’s 4th Circuit brief can be found here. 8. And the Government’s response written by G. Zachary Terwilliger, who we covered in OA 212. 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]

Today's episode revisits the topic Andrew discussed briefly in Episode 252: Article V conventions convened for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. Joining Andrew is Prof. Lawrence Lessig, perhaps the most vocal liberal proponent of such conventions. Andrew, you may recall, was skeptical and concerned about the risks that such conventions could pose. Join Thomas, Andrew, and Prof. Lessig for a special 70-minute very deep dive and see if either one changes their minds! After that, it's time for TTTBE #121 regarding executive orders. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest on Episode 464 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast as their legal expert. 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 are the 14 states with Democratic legislatures and governors. This is the CNN/ORC poll Andrew referenced showing consistent high support for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And this is the Koch Brothers-funded ALEC initiative to convene Article V conventions. Click here to read Owings v. Speed, 18 U.S. 420 (1820), the first case Andrew discussed. Andrew also discussed Dyer v. Blair, 390 F.Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1975), and both lawyers talked about Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) as the primary case for the political question doctrine. 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]

Today's breaking news episode takes an in-depth look at Bucklew v. Precythe, a recent Supreme Court decision that lays bare the "originalist" view of the Eighth Amendment. Is it as bad as you think it is? (Yes.) We begin, however, with a look at Texas v. U.S. and the recent news that the Trump administration "changed its mind" and "will no longer defend" the Affordable Care Act. What does that mean? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for our deep dive into Bucklew v. Precythe, the Supreme Court's analysis of how the 8th Amendment applies in capital punishment cases. After that, we go back to Yodel Mountain for some updates on the congressional investigations, including the Congressional request for Trump's tax returns and an EPIC FOIA request. And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #121 involving the constitutionality of Presidential executive orders. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Thomas was just a guest on the Cognitive Dissonance podcast; go check it out! 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. Wikipedia entry on sodium thiopental can be found here. 2. Glossip v. Gross (2015) 3. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bucklew v. Precythe (Apr. 1, 2019) 4. 8th Circuit’s opinion below in Bucklew 5. Congressional letter requesting Trump’s taxes 6. Bonus! Zuckerman amicus brief in the ACA litigation. 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]

Today's classic, deep-dive Tuesday takes an in-depth look at two critical issues in the news: first, the recent effort by the Republican governor and state legislature in Florida to undo the broadly popular Constitutional Amendment passed during the 2018 midterms to restore voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences, and second, the Supreme Court's next assault on the "administrative state," this time, by likely ending the doctrine of Auer deference. We begin with an update about pending oral arguments before the Supreme Court, as well as a notice that this episode was bumped from last Tuesday to make way for our emergency Barr Summary episode. Then, it's time for a deep-dive into Florida, the process of citizen-driven ballot initiatives, and exactly what the state legislature intends to do to undermine the will of the public. After that, it's time for yet another deep dive, this time into Kisor v. Schulkin, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court, in which the petitioners have asked the Court to flat-out overrule yet another well-established conservative doctrine simply on the grounds that the Federalist Society doesn't like it. Then, as always, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #120 regarding a light touch on the bus. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was recently a guest on Episode 19 of the Glass Box podcast discussing this same subject (but with respect to Utah). 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 pre-show, we discuss gerrymandering, which we last talked about in depth in Episode 251. We mentioned the Washington Post story about the DC City council overturning the $15/hr minimum wage initiative. This is the text of PCB CRJ 19-03, the Florida bill under consideration. And here, by the way, is the link to Andrew Gillum's voter registration initiative, Bring It Home Florida. We've never talked about Auer deference before, but we have discussed Chevron deference at great length, most recently in Episode 136. You can click here to read Auer v. Robbins, that 9-0 liberal decision authored by noted socialist Antonin Scalia. Finally, click here to read the underlying CAFC-Opinion in Kisor v. Schulkin. 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]

Today's breaking news episode contains a long interview with everyone's favorite former prosecutor, Randall Eliason, who helps answer some nagging questions about what we do know about the Mueller Report (alongside all the things we don't). We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Right (about the Barr Summary and the news cycle!) and Wrong (about the specifics of the Assange indictment). Then, it's time for our main segment with Professor Eliason; you won't want to miss it! And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #120 involving touching a very sensitive woman on the bus. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was recently a guest on Episode 19 of the Glass Box podcast discussing Utah referendums, and Episode 188 of God Awful Movies (reviewing "Dead Man Rising"). 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/ 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]

Today's emergency, late-breaking episode breaks down the Barr Summary of the Mueller Report and gives you some advance warning that the narrative on the Mueller report is about to shift very quickly in the opposite direction. Get ahead of the story by listening today! Due to the length of the breakdown, we don't have our regular segments today, but we do have (as always), the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #119 regarding contracts for the sale of wheat. Can Thomas keep his streak alive? Listen and find out! And, as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! 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 Barr Summary of the Mueller Report. 2. Ken Dilanian's tweet. 3. Glenn Greenwald's tweet. 4. We discussed disaggregation of the investigations in Episode OA: 259. 5. Confirms the Senate Intelligence Committee report we talked about in Episode OA: 190. 6. Russian Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya’s OPEN SDNY criminal trial as of 1/8/2019 for obstruction of justice. 7. Mueller’s NFL report is here. 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]

Today's breaking news episode contains your guide to the hotly-debated Supreme Court decision in Nielsen v. Preap, regarding how and whether aliens can be detained without due process. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a brief update on the Congressional Investigations we discussed in Episode 259 with the news that Hope Hicks will cooperate. Listen to our past episode if you don't realize how huge this is. Then, we move on to some news regarding a recent order handed down by Judge Kollar-Kotelly in the District Court for the District of Columbia with respect to the trans ban. We dive into the unique procedural issues giving rise to this order and tamp down on your enthusiasm that this may put the trans ban in jeopardy. Then, it's time for our main segment breaking down Nielsen v. Preap. We tell you exactly what this decision means along with the reasons why the Court reached the result it did. But that's not all! After that, we have our weekly trip to Yodel Mountain with two items: (1) an Andrew Was Right about the source of the National Enquirer's acquisition of compromising material about Jeff Bezos; and (2) a follow-up on the New York indictment of Paul Manafort. And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #119 involving long-term contracts for the sale of wheat. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! 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. First discussed trans ban back in Episode OA: 247 2. We were assisted by Alice Ashton – trans Arabic linguist who contributed to the Advocate article located here and by Deirdre Anne Hendrick. 3. Here is a link to Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 19-004. 4. Pre Show: Hicks to cooperate. This is HUGE! 5. 1/4 – DC Cir. Reversed and vacated the injunction. 6. 1/22 – Supreme Court lifted the stays in two of those cases. We covered it the next day on Episode OA: 247. 7. Next day, on 3/8, the government filed a notice and this is the Plaintiffs’ response. 8. Here is the link DC Circuit's Opinions issued 3/8 9. Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s 3/19 Order 10. 3/20 Gov’ts Motion to Clarify 11. Nielsen v. Preap is linked Here 12. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) vs. (c) – 1952 13. Demore v. Kim, 538 US 510 - Supreme Court 2003 14. Wall Street Journal article on Becker/Bezos 15. CHN article on the problems with New York’s double jeopardy. 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]

Today's episode is inspired by the 56th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, one of the most famous and celebrated landmark Supreme Court cases that guarantees indigent defendants the right to a court-appointed lawyer. Is it under attack from our right-wing Supreme Court? (You bet it is.) We begin with a quick update on the recent district court opinion in California v. Ross and what that means for the 2020 Census. Then, it's time for an Andrew Was Right segment a update on the New York appellate court's ruling in the Summer Zervos lawsuit. As it turns out, Donald Trump does have to respond to Summer Zervos's lawsuit -- just like Bill Clinton had to respond to Paula Jones's. Then it's time for a terrifying deep dive into Clarence Thomas's dissent in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Garza v. Idaho. What's the case about, and why is Thomas using it as a vehicle to try and overturn one of the most basic and fundamental rights criminal defendants enjoy today? Listen and (sadly) find out. After all that, it's time for a fun listener question about footballer Wayne Rooney and public obscenity laws. Then, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #118. Did Thomas get a dreaded real property question correct?? Listen and find out! And, as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! 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 recent district court opinion in California v. Ross. Check out the New York appellate court's ruling in the Summer Zervos lawsuit. If you have the stomach for it, read Clarence Thomas's dissent in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Garza v. Idaho. In the question-and-answer section, we discussed this statute, Rooney's arrest record, and Cohen v. California. 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]

Today's extra-long episode contains your guide to all of the developments involving Paul Manafort over the past week. What does it all mean and what can we expect next? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a brief update on Episode 247 now that the Department of Defense has issued a Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM 19-004) implementing the ban on transgender service in the military. With the help of some friends of the show, we break down the most pressing issues on the near horizon. Then, it's time for All Things Manafort (TM), which sneakily includes a deep dive into exactly how the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines came into effect, when they were mandatory, how they became advisory, and what the hell happened in the Eastern District of Virginia. But that's not all! After that, we have a discussion on when sentences should run consecutively versus concurrently, and how that interacts with Judge Amy Berman Jackson's sentencing decision in Manafort's DC case. AND we also have breaking news regarding new state charges brought against Manafort as soon as both federal sentences were handed down. And if that's not enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #118 that's a dreaded real property question. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! 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 First discussed trans ban back in Episode OA: 247 We were assisted by Alice Ashton – trans Arabic linguist who contributed to the Advocate article located here and by Deirdre Anne Hendrick. Here is a link to Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 19-004. This is the Feb. 22, 2018 Mattis directive. Here are the DSM-5 guidelines on gender dysphoria We first discussed the Sentencing Guidelines in Episode OA: 162. The accompanying statute is 18 U.S.C. §3553. For a primer on “variances” versus downward departures, check out the Sentencing Commission guidelines. Judge Ellis transcript can be found here. Concurrent/consecutive is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3554. Manafort’s NY State indictment involves Residential Mortgage Fraud 1st degree (4 counts) under Penal Law § 187.25 and Falsifying Business Records 1st Degree (8 counts) under §175.10. We discussed Gamble v. U.S. in Episode Episode OA: 215. 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]

Today's episode is inspired by a law student listener question about a recent Thomas Takes The Bar Exam hypothetical, and takes a deep dive into the wonderful and wacky world of res ipsa loquitur. What does that even mean? You'll have to listen and find out! We begin with a brief Andrew Was Wrong segment about Donald Trump and drone use, followed up by an Andrew Was Right segment about multiple states suing to block the implementation of Trump's HHS regulations relating to Title X that we discussed in Episode 258. Then it's time for that deep dive into res ipsa loquitur that you didn't know you wanted until now! After all that, it's time for some Bonus Tuesday Yodeling, in which we check in on Roger Stone's "Motion to Clarify" that was denied by Judge Jackson and an update on the House Republicans' hilariously misguided efforts to try and discredit Michael Cohen by pointing out that he sure seems to like to lie on behalf of his client. You won't want to miss it! Then, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #117. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! 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 a link to the Daily Beast article about Trump and drone strikes we teased in the opening segment. We've uploaded both Title X complaints: the one filed by California as well as the multistate complaint. More on Title X: click here for the actual law (42 U.S.C. § 300 et seq.); click here for the accompanying regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 59), and click here to read the new final rule promulgated by HHS regarding Title X. And, of course, you can click here to read Rep. Cummings's letter regarding the rule. This is Rep. Jordan's "own goal" letter. Finally, here's Judge Jackson's Order regarding Roger Stone. 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]

Today's extra-long episode contains your guide to the Congressional Investigations, and specifically the 81 document requests sent out by Rep. Jerry Nadler to various Trump-related individuals and entities in connection with the Democratic Congress's larger investigation into corruption, ties with Russia, and general criminal behavior by the administration. What does it all mean? Who are the key players? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Right -- Michael Cohen is producing drafts of his Congressional testimony, which may support his claim that Trump's personal lawyer, Jay "ACLJ" Sekulow edited his testimony to suborn perjury. Then, it's time for an in-depth look at the various documents requested by Rep. Nadler. What does it all mean? We break down the four major "buckets" of inquiries and tell you about some familiar faces... and some surprising new ones. After that, it's time to take a look into recent developments in the Jeffrey Epstein case and correct some reporting as to whether his non-prosecution agreement has really been torn up by the courts. (It hasn't.) We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #117 about the use of university space for a debate on affirmative action. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest host on Episode 91 of the Skepticrat; go check it out! 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 1. Cohen to produce drafts of his testimony to Congress. 2. Congressional Investigations 162 documents served on 81 different people. Documents here: 3. Here’s a handy guide to who’s who in the investigation. 4. Here’s Hope Hicks’s documents request. 5. Here’s our tweet out to Rep. Nadler regarding Nader’s document requests: 6. Epstein. This is the text of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. 7. Judge Marra’s ruling can be found here. 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]

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the latest regulations promulgated by Trump's Department of Health and Human Services regarding Title X funding. What does all this mean? Listen and find out! We begin by breaking down Title X, the only federal grant program to poor people for family planning. And -- as you might imagine -- Title X explicitly excludes funding for abortions, but remains a critical source of funding for the critical work Planned Parenthood does with low-income women, including breast and pelvic examinations, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and screenings and treatments for sexually-transmitted infections and HIV. So, of course, the Trump Administration just defunded all of that. Find out how terrifying the new regulations are. After that, it's time for a ... lighter(?) segment in which we discuss the difference between clickwrap, browsewrap, and sign-in-wrap (?) agreements and learn about interesting new research into the readability (or lack thereof) of those agreements. Then, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #116 about a Weekend-at-Bernie's-style auto accident. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest host on Episode 91 of the Skepticrat; go check it out! 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 On Title X: click here for the actual law (42 U.S.C. § 300 et seq.); click here for the accompanying regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 59), and click here to read the new final rule promulgated by HHS regarding Title X. Here's the Sacramento Bee article indicating that California and other states intend to sue to block this rule from going into effect; and click here to read Rep. Cummings's letter regarding the rule. Here's a link to "The Duty to Read the Unreadable," the research paper we discussed in the last segment. 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]

Today's episode continues our breakdown of ex-Trump fixer Michael Cohen's testimony before the House of Representatives and all the Yodel Mountain implications that stem from it that we started in Episode 257. What's next? Listen and find out! We begin where we left off -- with Michael Cohen. Find out how Cohen's testimony (and documents) implicate our favorite legal genius, Stormy Daniels! After that, it's time to check in on Roger Stone's former flunky, Andrew Miller, and his quixotic quest to undo the Mueller investigation. That effort was just slapped down by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and we've got the full opinion covered for you. Then, it's time to check in on an odd development in the sentencing saga of Paul Manafort. What does the government's latest (redacted) filing portend? We're not entirely sure... but we want you to know what we know. And then -- after all that! -- we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #116 regarding a rather odd traffic accident. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest on HBO's Vice News! 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 & Links1. Here are the documents Michael Cohen brought to Congress. 2. Marcy Wheeler’s article: How Trump Suborns Perjury. 3. DC Circuit’s opinion in Andrew Miller’s In Re: Grand Jury appeal. 4. Court’s sua sponte order. 5. Government’s sentencing memo in Manafort’s DC trial. 6. Manafort’s response memo. 7. Government’s Supplemental heavily redacted memo. 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

Today's episode breaks down ex-Trump fixer Michael Cohen's testimony before the House of Representatives and all the Yodel Mountain implications that stem from it. What's next? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with an update on the American Legion v. American Humanist Association case where Andrew recently spoke at the AHA's #HonorThemAll rally. After that, it's time to find out about Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz who attempted to intimidate Michael Cohen and... may have gotten into some legal trouble thanks to this show and it's listeners! Then, we begin breaking down the Cohen testimony... but there's so much here to cover, we decided to keep going for yet another hour, and you'll get that tomorrow! For the first time, we don't end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question, but you'll get #116 tomorrow. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! 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 & Links1.18 U.S.C. § 1512 Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. (B) governs witness tampering 2. Gaetz timeline from The Washington Post 3. Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4-8.4(d) "prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." 4. Isaac Dovere at the Atlantic tweeting about Gaetz 5. Cohen is subject to 18 U.S.C. § 1001: Statements or entries generally (a)(2) "makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or" 6. 18 U.S.C. § 1622 Subornation of perjury 7. Marcy Wheeler’s article: How Trump Suborns Perjury 8. Here are the documents Michael Cohen brought to Congress 9. Kansas potential emoluments violation 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]

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the Bladensburg Cross case currently pending before the Supreme Court with special guest Sarah Henry of the American Humanist Association. You'll learn that Andrew is going to speak at the AHA rally on Wednesday, February 27 right before oral arguments! We bookend the interview with an Andrew Was Right segment about the recent Supreme Court ruling in Timbs v. Indiana first discussed back in Episode 234. And on the back end, we briefly discuss Clarence Thomas's bizarre and dangerous concurrence in McKee v. Cosby. Did Justice Thomas really call for the reversal of New York Times v. Sullivan? (Hint: yes, yes he did.) After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #115 about whether you can use facts contained in settlement negotiations. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest on Episode 87 of the So Here's My Story podcast; go check it out! 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 Click here to check out the American Humanist Association. We first analyzed Timbs v. Indiana back in Episode 234. Click here to read Thomas's concurrence in McKee v. Cosby., and here to brush up on the classic New York Times v. Sullivan. 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]

Today's episode breaks down Trump's recent declaration of a state of national emergency as a pretext to build his big, dumb wall. What's being done about it? What can be done about it? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a trip up Yodel Mountain to observe one of its most bizarre members, Roger Stone, who recently posted a "notice of apology" after having uploaded a picture to Instagram of Judge Jackson with a reticule nearby. What does this mean for the gag order entered in his case? We tell all -- even before the court ruled! Next, it's time for our main segment about the wall. Andrew breaks down exactly where the funding is going to come from, and details all the lawsuits to try and block it. We end the segment, of course, with a (pessimistic) prediction. Then, it's time for even more yodeling. Is the Mueller investigation really coming to an end? If so, what's next? And what about We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #115 about offers to compromise. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest on Episode 87 of the So Here's My Story podcast; go check it out! 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 & Links1. Stone's notice of apology. 2. Stone's original partial gag order. 3. 18 U.S. Code § 1512: Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. 4. The Emergency Declaration. 5. The Presidential Border Security Victory Proclamation 6. Episode OA 243: BUILD THAT WALL!! where we first discussed states of emergency. 7. The Landowners lawsuit filed in DC, Sierra Club/ACLU lawsuit, and finally the California lawsuit filed by 16 states discussed in the show: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Virginia. 8. 31 U.S.C. § 9703 (TFF). 9. Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. 10. 10 U.S. Code § 284 - Support for counterdrug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime. 11. 10 U.S. Code § 2808 - Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency - discussed in OA: 243 and "Military construction" defined in 10 U.S.C. § 2801(a). 12. Cummings report on Saudi Arabia. 13. Manafort sentencing discussed DC in OA 253: Religious Freedom and Domineque Ray 14. The transcript of Judge Jackson's findings on Manafort's lies 15. Manafort gets a 38 in the E.D.Va sentencing memo 16. Cohen to testify publicly before the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 27th. 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]

Today's episode features a long interview with AG, the spectacular co-host of the Mueller, She Wrote podcast. She helps break down everything in the news that's Yodel Mountain-worthy... and along the way, you'll learn what might be next, what we might be overplaying, and much, much more! After the interview, it's time for the answer to Thomas (& AG) Take The Bar Exam #114, in which you always bet on bank!. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Somewhat coincidentally, Andrew was just a guest on S3E6 of the Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out! Andrew was also a guest on Episode 87 of So Here's My Story. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. 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]

Today's episode tackles the recent Dunn v. Ray decision in which the Supreme Court used a procedural mechanism to allow the State of Alabama to execute a devout Muslim without affording him the same sorts of religious freedom they do to Christian inmates. Is it as bad as it looks? (Yes.) We begin, however, with an unfortunate Andrew Was Wrong (and a promise to get better)! Then, it's time for a depressing deep dive into Dunn v. Ray and what 'religious freedom' actually means to this Supreme Court. After that, it's time for a trip to Yodel Mountain where we review the latest ruling from Judge Amy Berman Jackson about exactly how big a liar Paul Manafort is. (Hint: yuge.) What does this mean for a potential Manafort pardon, and does the federal system have parole? Listen and find out! We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas (& AG!) Take the Bar Exam Question #114 about whether banks own everything. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on S3E6 of the fabulous Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links1. Supreme Court – Dunn v. Ray order 2. 11th Circuit ruling in Dunn v. Ray 3. We discussed Manafort’s plea on Episode OA: 211 4. Text of Manafort plea deal 5. Judge Jackson’s determination 6. 18 U.S.C. § 3624 Release of a prisoner (b) Credit Toward Service of Sentence for Satisfactory Behavior 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

Today's episode features a deep dive into a listener question about Article V Constitutional Conventions. Are they dangerous? (Yes.) Are they a good idea? (No.) We also discuss the latest ridiculous defamation lawsuit.. and discover why this one is a little different. How? You'll have to listen and find out. We begin with a little bit of news you might have missed regarding Attorney General nominee Bill Barr. After that, it's time to answer a listener question about liberal and conservative groups that are angling for an "Article V" Constitutional Convention to overturn Citizens United (or do other things). We delve deeply into this provision of the Constitution and discuss the plusses and (mainly) minuses of this procedure. Then, it's time to dissect the recent lawsuit brought by Gavin McInnes, founder of the "Proud Boys," which Wikipedia calls "a far-right neo-fascist organization that admits only men as members and promotes political violence." Find out why at least one formerly respectable lawyer thinks it's just crazy (and actionable!) that the Southern Poverty Law Center called this a "hate group." And find out why the real question in this lawsuit involves something called "tortious interference" and not defamation. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #113, which involved the constitutionality of abortion regulations. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on S3E6 of the fabulous Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out! And, as always, 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 This is the lawsuit filed by the "Proud Boys" against the SPLC. This is the Wikipedia entry on the "Proud Boys." Here's the full text of Article V of the Constitution. 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 And email us at [email protected]

This rapid-response bonus episode tackles the Supreme Court's late-breaking stay of the 5th Circuit's opinion in June Medical Services v. Gee, with a particular emphasis on dissecting Justice Brett Kavanaugh's dissent. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! We have also continued the episode with a deep dive into res judicata and the truly ominous implications of Kavanaugh's dissent at our Patreon page for supporters of the show at any level. Show Notes & Links Check out Episodes OA: 249 "Overturning Roe v. Wade Starts Today" and OA 251 for reference to our past discussion on this cases. Click here to read the Court's granting of the stay (which includes Kavanaugh's dissent), and here for the Supreme Court’s docket in June Medical Services v. Gee. This is the reply brief filed by the petitioners. Here is the prior 2016 Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. 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

Today's episode returns to one of the most critical political issues of our time: gerrymandering of congressional districts, and in particular, the state of MD-6, which pits the Democrats as villains and Republican voters as the plaintiffs alleging disenfranchisement. Will that role reversal be enough to win approval from SCOTUS? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with an update on the June Medical Services v. Gee lawsuit we first discussed in Episode 249. After that, it's time for the deep dive into gerrymandering, which takes a look at the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland's 3-judge panel decision invalidating Maryland's 6th district; the motion to stay before the Supreme Court filed by the Plaintiffs; the opposition by the State of Maryland; and an amicus brief filed on behalf of the incumbent, Democrat David Trone. Then, we quickly clear up the status of Stormy Daniels' lawsuits. Did the recent dismissal with prejudice have anything to do with Donald Trump? (No.) We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #113 that's coincidentally about the constitutionality of abortion restrictions. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! 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. Episode OA: 249 "Overturning Roe v. Wade Starts Today" for reference to our past discussion on the abortion cases. 2. Supreme Court’s docket in June Medical Services v. Gee 3. If you’re curious, this is what MD-6 looks like today, and this is what it looked like before the 2011 redistricting. 4. We last discussed gerrymandering in Episode OA: 185 5. We also did a deep dive into the Wisconsin case in Episode OA: 80 6. Here is the Maryland district court’s ruling court’s ruling 7. You can read the Plaintiffs’ brief 8. The state's opposition, filed by Brian Frosh 9. And the Trone amicus brief filed by Andrew’s friends at Zuckerman 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]