Opening Arguments

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 openarguments@gmail.com. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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 openarguments@gmail.com. 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 openarguments@gmail.com 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 openarguments@gmail.com. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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 openarguments@gmail.com. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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 openarguments@gmail.com. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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 openarguments@gmail.com. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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 openarguments@gmail.com. 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 openarguments@gmail.com 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 openarguments@gmail.com. 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 openarguments@gmail.com  

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 openarguments@gmail.com 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 openarguments@gmail.com. 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 openarguments@gmail.com