In today’s episode, we take a look at a recent claim being made by Sen. Al Franken and others that Attorney General Jeff Sessions perjured himself during his confirmation hearings.
First, we begin with an examination of some legal issues in the news related to the Trump administration. What does it mean that the ABA rated Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch “well qualified,” and does that mean Andrew is rethinking his opinions to the contrary in Episode 40 and Episode 49? (No.) We also delve into a discussion of the recent (non-)story regarding the release of Donald Trump’s 2005 form 1040, as well as the recent decisions by U.S. District Courts in Hawaii and Maryland to issue temporary restraining orders blocking Trump’s Revised Executive Order (“Muslim Ban”).
In the main segment, we break down exactly what Sessions said and whether it meets the technical requirements for perjury.
Next, we answer a question from patron Anthoni Fortier, who asks us what “cert” is and why Andrew keeps saying it.
Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #15 about eyewitness identification. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday’s show. Don’t forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)!
None. Have us on your podcast, radio or TV show, or interview us!
Show Notes & Links
- This is the full text of the Hawaii decision enjoining the Revised Executive Order.
- If you missed it, you’ll want to check out OA Episode #43, in which we first discussed the 9th Circuit’s Opinion that we revisit in this episode.
- This is the full text of President Trump’s revised Executive Order (“Muslim Ban”).
- And this is the decision in Church of Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), which Andrew continues to think is the touchstone for whether Trump’s Revised EO violates the First Amendment.
- Here is the full text of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the federal perjury statute.
- This is a timeline maintained by the Washington Post of Sessions’s relevant conduct.
- This is the tweet from John Harwood confirming that Russian officials did discuss the election with Jeff Sessions.
- And here is an article in the National Review arguing to the contrary (largely on the grounds of ‘intent’).
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
And email us at firstname.lastname@example.org