Today’s episode concludes the discussion begun in Episode 125 about antitrust law in light of the proposed AT&T/Time Warner merger.
First, though, we begin with some news items, including an update on Patreon practices and the status of Leandra English’s lawsuit to become Acting Director of the CFPB.
In the main segment, Andrew breaks down the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against AT&T and Time Warner with an eye towards answering the question “is this just an effort to punish CNN?”
After the main segment, fan favorite “Closed Arguments!” returns with an evaluation of Alan Dershowitz and John Dowd’s claims that the President cannot obstruct justice.
Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #53 about witness impeachment. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!
Show Notes & Links
- Here’s the update on the Leandra English lawsuit.
- Before tackling this week’s episode you might want to re-listen to Episode 125 and read the Department of Justice’s lawsuit.
- The principal case that applies to Trump’s claims of immunity is U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).
- And as always, we recommend friend-of-the-show Randall Eliason’s Washington Post article on the practical implications of the immunity argument.
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
And email us at firstname.lastname@example.org