Today's episode takes a deep dive into H.R. 965, which (quite sensibly) permits proxy voting in the House of Representatives in light of the COVID-19 crisis, and the lawsuit filed by various Republican lawmakers to try and stop it. Good news! The lawsuit has no chance of success thanks to... litigation prompted by Donald Trump.

We begin, however, with an update on the DOJ probe into insider trading allegations against four Senators that allegedly -- either on their own behalf or via another party -- sold off stock prior to the public pronouncements about COVID-19 that tanked the stock market. Who got off? Who's left under the microscope? Is there anything nefarious here? We break it all down for you!

After that it's time to delve into the recent legislation and accompanying (nonsense) lawsuit by Republicans challenging the House's simple resolution, H.R. 965 (and the implementing legislation, H.R. 967). Find out how the whole thing is going to be precluded thanks to the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling in Blumenthal v. Trump, which was of course hailed as a victory for the President at the time.

Then, it's time to check back in with #T3BE involving potential negligence for a factory that failed to install sprinklers. Can Thomas pull this one out? Listen and find out!

Patreon Bonuses

If you missed our Live Q&A #32, the audio is now up for all Patrons! Also remember that Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief!

Appearances

None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. DOJ probe links: (a) here's the NPR link to the story; and (b) here's the GovTrack link to the fact that Marco Rubio still doesn't do his damn job.
2. On remote voting, check out (a) H.R. 965 (and the implementing legislation, H.R. 967; (b) the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling in Blumenthal v. Trump; (c) our discussion of that case in Episode 361; (d) the Congressional Research Service article we discussed; and (e) United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892).

-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

-Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials!

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!