Today’s rapid-response episode begins with a discussion of the tragedy in Las Vegas and whether we can do anything about it. Before you dig in, you might want to take a refresher on our two-part masterclass on the Second Amendment in Episode 21 (Part 1) and Episode 26 (Part 2).
Then, we take our first of two separate trips to Yodel Mountain with the recent revelation that the Trump DOJ disregarded decades of advice before issuing an opinion memo that authorized the (blatantly illegal) hiring of Jared Kushner. Is this really a Hillary Clinton story? Listen and find out!
After that, we trek back up Yodel Mountain with the breaking news that the New York Attorney General’s office was about to indict Donald Trump, Jr. and Ivanka Trump in 2012… until the AG received a visit (and a bag of money!) from Donald Trump’s lawyer, Marc Kasowitz.
Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #44 about hearsay… and Thomas is joined by next week’s guest, Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!
None! Have us on your show!
Show Notes & Links
- Our two-part masterclass on the Second Amendment begins with Episode 21 (Part 1) and continues in Episode 26 (Part 2).
- After that, we discussed Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017), which we also covered in depth in Episode 47.
- You can read the Trump Administration’s talking points on Las Vegas here.
- This is the breaking story by Politico about the DOJ ignoring precedent.
- The case Andrew discusses at length is AAPS v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1993). It is being grossly misreported in the media; see, for example, this NPR story.
- This is 5 U.S.C. App. § 1, the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
- You can read the ProPublica story here that suggests that Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump were about to be indicted in 2012.
- The federal bribery law is 18 U.S.C. § 201; the relevant case is McDonnell v. U.S., 579 U.S. ____, 136 S.Ct. 2355 (2016); and you can check out our friend Randall Eliason’s great analysis of the bribery statute here.
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
And email us at firstname.lastname@example.org