Posts

Posted on

OA296: Understanding the Jeffrey Epstein Indictment

Today’s episode gives you the legal background you need to understand all of the different legal fronts in the various pending proceedings involving Jeffrey Epstein and the allegations of underage sex trafficking, including the recent criminal indictment in the Southern District of New York, currently pending civil defamation lawsuits against Epstein associates (including Alan Dershowitz), and the effort to reverse the non-prosecution agreement in Florida.

We begin, however, with a preview of some HUGE NEWS — our upcoming live show in New York City the weekend of August 9, 2019! Clear your calendars now and get ready to come see us live and in person!

Then, it’s time to unpack all of the various legal proceedings surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. (For more of a factual analysis of the Florida non-prosecution agreement, check out Episode 259.) You’ll learn about the various defamation lawsuits, their status, and what’s next. And then you’ll also learn where we stand with respect an effort that’s now 11 years old by Epstein’s victims to revoke the non-prosecution agreement. And after all that, we also break down exactly how to parse the deluge of news that’s soon to come out in all of these cases.

After that, it’s time to check back in on the Trump administration’s efforts to defy the Supreme Court and still insert a citizenship question on the census. Learn what Andrew predicts will happen at Trump’s press conference, why the New York court denied certain DOJ lawyers leave to withdraw, what’s next in both the Maryland and New York cases and more!

Of course, no episode would be complete without #TTTBE! This week’s Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is question #134 about criminal law. When a jewelry thief poses as the mayor’s rich and powerful son, what kinds of crimes could he be charged with? You’ll just have to listen and find out!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest host on Episode 100 of the Skepticrat; check it out! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Don’t forget to vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue “>> Nominations Now Open <<” box, registering with your email, and then selecting us in the drop-down boxes for “People’s Choice” and “News and Politics.” Thank you!!
  2. We last discussed the Epstein case in Episode 259.
  3. Various court documents: here’s the (a) Second Circuit’s ruling to unseal documents in Giuffre v. Maxwell; (b) the Complaint in Giuffre v. Dershowitz and (c) the 2007 Epstein non-prosecution agreement in Florida.
  4. This is the text of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Judge Marra ordered that it did violate the CVRA, but that didn’t necessarily mean that the plea deal would be torn up. Judge Marra (SDFla.)’s ruling can be found here.
  5. Here’s the Snopes article about face-swapping Clinton’s face over Trump’s.
  6. Finally, here are the Maryland local rules.


-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

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




Download Link
Posted on

OA295: A Bladensburg Post-Mortem With Monica Miller

Today’s episode welcomes Monica Miller, counsel for the American Humanist Association, back to the show! Miller, as you know, was the lead counsel and presented the AHA’s argument before the Supreme Court in the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n case involving the 40-foot Latin cross on public property in Bladensburg, Maryland.

Andrew and Monica spend the entire show doing a deep dive into the decision, trying to figure out issues like (1) is the Lemon v. Kurtzman test really dead?; (2) how can we make sense of the court’s admonition to “respect the beliefs” of those who oppose taking down the cross?; (3) how can local activists proceed in light of this decision, and much, much more!

After a wide-ranging interview, it’s time for the answer to what Andrew has dubbed the Worst, Stupidest Bar Exam question — this one involving the “equitable conversion” doctrine in the sale of land. Did Thomas somehow manage to get a crazy, stupid, awful real property question correct? Listen and find out!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest host on Episode 100 of the Skepticrat; check it out! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Don’t forget to vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue “>> Nominations Now Open <<” box, registering with your email, and then selecting us in the drop-down boxes for “People’s Choice” and “News and Politics.” Thank you!!
  2. We broke down the Bladensburg cross case in Episode 256, and interviewed Monica Miller after oral arguments in Episode 274; go check them both out!
  3. Finally, we broke down the details of the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n decision in Episode 290.

-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

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




Download Link
Posted on

OA294: How To Fix The Supreme Court!

Today’s episode reveals Andrew’s plan for how to fix the Supreme Court! Oh, and while you’re here, we’d love it if you would vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue “>> Nominations Now Open <<” box, registering with your email, and then selecting us in the drop-down boxes for “People’s Choice” and “News and Politics.” Thank you so much!

We begin with a detailed breakdown of the developments in the multiple census cases in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling last week in Department of Commerce v. New York, which we last discussed in Episode 292. Find out how a parallel case in Maryland may be the key to finally keeping the citizenship question off of the 2020 census!

Then, it’s time for a deep dive. We begin with Bernie Sanders’s answer at the first Democratic Debate, pivot to a discussion of Daniel Epps’s “Supreme Court Lottery” plan, and finally end with the option Andrew prefers. How to fix the Supreme Court? Is it Constitutional Hardball? Listen and find out!

After all that, it’s time for a quick Yodel Mountain update on the status of the Democratic effort to get Trump’s tax returns. Good news, everyone!

And then, as if that wasn’t enough, it’s time for the most pointless Thomas Takes The Bar Exam Question… ever! It’s #133, it’s Real Property, and it’s terrible. And if you would like to participate in this self-inflicted torture, just share out this episode on social media, include your answer and the hashtag #TTTBE, and we will shower one lucky winner with never-ending fame and fortune(*)! (*) – subject to the terms and conditions as set forth orally during this show.

Appearances

Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Don’t forget to vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue “>> Nominations Now Open <<” box, registering with your email, and then selecting us in the drop-down boxes for “People’s Choice” and “News and Politics.” Thank you!!
  2. We last discussed the census question and the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dep’t of Commerce v. New York in Episode 292.
  3. You’ll want to read the brief transcript of the telephonic hearing held in front of Judge Hazel in the Maryland case. And you can click here if you want to monitor the Supreme Court’s docket to look for the Government’s potential motion.
  4. This is the text of Rule 62.1, which was certainly new to Andrew.
  5. This is a transcript of the second night of the Democratic debate, which contained Bernie Sanders’s Supreme Court answer.
  6. You can click here to read Epps & Sitamaran’s law review article, “The Supreme Court Lottery,” for yourself, and you can fact-check Andrew’s points about the composition of the federal bench here.
  7. Finally, don’t forget to check out jurisdiction-stripping in Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868) and the original law review article written by Charles E. Rice (“Congress and the Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction”).

-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

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




Download Link
Posted on

OA293: My Deference & Auer Deference (Kisor v. Wilkie)

Today’s episode revisits a narrow area of administrative law we last discussed in Episode 266, namely, Auer deference. Andrew made a bold prediction in that episode, and find out where he was wrong — and where he was right now that the Supreme Court has ruled in Kisor v. Wilkie. We also discuss the recent unsealing of court records thanks to a CNN reporter and we witness the return of listener favorite segment “Are You A Cop?” with a fabulous question about drinking and driving. Buckle up!

We begin, however, with a look at a recent request made by CNN’s Katelyn Polantz regarding certain court proceedings and records relating to the Mueller Investigation. Does this mean that “BILL BARR KILLED 7 OPEN INVESTIGATIONS?” (No.) But it is significant, and you won’t want to miss why.

Then, it’s time for a deep-dive explainer that starts with a reminder on the principles of agency deference. Don’t remember the exact difference between Chevron deference and Auer deference? We’ve got you covered — including, in particular, how the latter came under attack in Kisor v. Wilkie, a case involving a retired servicemember challenging the internal agency regulations governing disability pay. Should the courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own rules, or should it be wildly activist and defer to Neil Gorsuch’s interpretation of those rules? Kisor gives us a slightly different answer than you might expect, all while angling us towards the day soon to come in which the Supreme Court greatly expands the power of the judicial branch.

After that, it’s time for Are You A Cop? featuring some truly terrible advice for how to beat a DUI arrest. (Please do not do this.) We talk about standards of evidence while debunking the notion that you should… drink more when you’re pulled over? (It’s a weird question.)

As if that wasn’t enough, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #132 about an escaped, de-fanged, venomous snake. Who’s responsible? Listen and find out!

Appearances

Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. This is the Raw Story article we criticize during the “A” segment, and to verify what we’ve said is correct, you can read (a) Polantz’s request; (b) the Court’s order; (c) Exhibit A (Search Warrants); (d) Exhibit B (Wiretapping); and (e) Exhibit C (Pen Register/Trap & Trace). Phew!
  2. We previewed Kisor v. Wilkie (read decision) in Episode 266. And, in breaking down Justice Roberts’s holding in Kisor, we also expose shoddy journalism like this Daily Beast article.

-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

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




Download Link
Posted on

OA292: The End of Democracy

Today’s rapid response episode breaks down the latest decisions from the Roberts court, including the ostensible “win” in Dep’t of Commerce v. Ross (the citizenship question case), and the crushing loss in Rucho v. Common Cause (the gerrymandering cases). Oh, and along the way we’ll also discuss the opioid crisis and the news that Robert Mueller will testify before the House Judiciary Committee. It’s going to be a long and wild ride, so strap in!

We begin by taking a quick trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss the significance and substance of the Congressional subpoena issued to Robert Mueller. What does it all mean? Listen and find out!

Then, it’s time to break down the theory and developments in State of Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma, et al., CJ-2017-816, the case that’s at the forefront of the efforts to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for their role in causing the opioid crisis in this country. Find out what a “public nuisance” is, whether manufacturing and selling opioids is one, why this case is important, and much, much more!

After all that, it’s time for the main event: breaking down the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ross and Rucho. Find out why Andrew thinks that John Roberts wrote the Ross opinion going the other way until the evidence broke regarding Thomas Hofeller, and how that means the entirety of the new game is: Shame Justice Roberts. (Oh, and also you’ll learn along the way that our democracy is screwed.)

After all that, it’s time for an all-new, all-awesome Thomas Takes The Bar Exam about strict liability and de-fanged venomous snakes. What madness transpires? Listen and find out, and then play along with #TTTBE on social media!

Appearances

Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. You can read the Court’s opinion in Dep’t of Commerce v. Ross (the citizenship question case) as well as Rucho v. Common Cause (the gerrymandering case).
  2. Click here to read the Complaint in State of Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma, et al., CJ-2017-816.
  3. Finally, you can check out the Los Angeles Times article on Purdue Pharma we referenced on the show as well as click here for more information on the MDL litigation pending before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster.

-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

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




Download Link
Posted on

OA291: Wildcard, Clownhorns! (Non-Compete Clauses & More)

Today’s SUPER SPECIAL BONUS EPISODE tackles a bunch of issues that came up during the week that we didn’t want to get buried on the whiteboard, including the Flores settlement, a deep dive into non-compete clauses, and a really good Andrew Was Right & Wrong segment about the Hatch Act. It’s everything you love about Opening Arguments, only more so!

We begin with an examination of the oral arguments before the 9th Circuit regarding ICE detainment centers and whether those comply with the conditions mandated by the Flores settlement that require “safe and sanitary” conditions for minors separated from their families at the border.

After that, it’s time for a deep dive into a really good listener question from Erin regarding covenants not to compete. Learn all about the “Legitimate Business Interest” (LBI) test and how to gauge whether a noncompete clause is (likely) enforceable, plus learn about the recent economic and political trends surrounding noncompetes that may surprise you.

Then, it’s time for a very insightful set of comments from a listener regarding the Hatch Act; it’s an Andrew Was Right/Andrew Was Wrong compliment sandwich, but we all wind up better for it!

No #TTTBE this episode since it’s a special bonus.

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. We first discussed the Flores settlement and border policy back in Episode 184. For a recent report on the oral argument, check out this Courthouse News article referenced on the show.
  2. We last discussed non-compete clauses in Episode 75.

-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

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




Download Link
Posted on

OA290: Executive Privilege, Hope Hicks & Don McGahn

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into executive privilege, evaluating the legal arguments being raised by the Trump administration asserting executive privilege over former communications director Hope Hicks and former counsel Don McGahn. Find out how good those arguments are — spoiler: some aren’t terrible! — and what’s next for the Congressional Democrats.

First, though, we begin with coverage of the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n decision from last week; that’s the Bladensburg Cross case that we’ve discussed at some length on this show. How bad is this decision? (Bad.)

Then, it’s time for the intersection of Rapid Response Friday and Deep Dive Tuesday in which we time travel all the way back to 1971 to evaluate the Trump Administration’s claims regarding executive privilege “over the last five decades.” As you’ve come to expect from OA, we tell you what the administration got right… and, of course, what they got wrong. If you want to know if and when Congress will ever get meaningful testimony out of Hope Hicks or Don McGahn, you need to listen to this show.

Then, it’s time for the answer to TTTBE #131 about the propriety of a specific question during cross-examination of a witness who testified as to the defendant’s “reputation for honesty.” If you love the Federal Rules of Evidence — and really, who doesn’t? — you’ll love this segment.

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. We first discussed the Bladensburg Cross case in Episode 256 with Sarah Henry of the AHA, and then got first-hand testimony about the oral argument in Episode 274 with Monica Miller.
  2. Click here to read the full Supreme Court opinion in American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n. If you missed our coverage of Masterpiece Cakeshop, check out Episode 180.
  3. We first broke down the importance of Hope Hicks to the Congressional investigations in Episode 259; and you can click here to read the letter and subpoena she received from Rep. Nadler.
  4. NPR confirmed that Hicks’s testimony was carefully managed by White House lawyers (and was therefore worthless).
  5. Click here to read Rehnquist’s 1971 memorandum on executive privilege, and click here to read how President Clinton’s OLC cited that memo 25 years later.
  6. Finally, this is Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F.Supp.2d 53 (2008), the district court opinion Andrew breaks down on the show.

-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

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




Download Link
Posted on

OA289: #OpposeJustinWalker

Today’s episode — #OpposeJustinWalker — tells you everything you need to know about Donald Trump’s latest nominee for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench (and Andrew’s former debate opponent) Justin Walker. You already know he’s a lifelong member of the Federalist Society. Why is it specifically worth opposing him? Listen and find out!

First, though, the guys break down the Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling in U.S. v. Gamble, affirming the “dual sovereignty” doctrine and finally putting the last nail in the coffin of a crazy lefty conspiracy theory we debunked way back in Episode 215. And, as a bonus (?), we find out why Clarence Thomas’s concurrence is “the most horrifying thing in print in the past 50 years.” Seriously!

After that breakdown, it’s time to analyze the background and writings of Justin Walker. We learn that he has virtually no litigation experience and that he’s a right-wing ideologue; you probably expected that. But you’ll also learn that his two major contributions to academic jurisprudence are (1) arguing that transparency in government is a bad, possibly unconstitutional thing; and (2) arguing that the FBI Director has a moral obligation to be the President’s lackey. We are not making any of this up.

Then, it’s time for Thomas Takes The Bar Exam and a question on the propriety of a introducing a particular fact into evidence as the predicate for a cross-examination question. Is it hearsay? Is it impeachment? Is it just hunky-dory? Listen and find out!

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. We discussed the American Legion v. AHA Bladensburg cross case in OA Episodes 256 (with Sarah Henry of the AHA) and Episode 274 with Monica Miller. Monica IS coming back on the show!
2. Click here to read Gamble v. U.S. which we first discussed in OA 215.
3. Andrew debated Justin Walker in Episode 224.
4. This is his announcement.
5. You can read Walker’s CV here.
6. Of Justin Walker’s law review articles, click here to read “Chilled Chambers” and here to read “FBI Independence as a Threat to Civil Liberties: An Analogy to Civilian Control of the Military”.
7. By the way, this is the link to the FBI investigating Deutsche Bank in connection with Jared Kushner.
8. Finally, this is Walker’s National Review article.

-Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

-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

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




Download Link
Posted on

OA288: More Led Zeppelin! (& Legal Ethics with Amy Chua)

Today’s episode explains exactly what happened with the story you probably saw about how Led Zeppelin “got a new hearing” in their lawsuit with the estate of Randy California. What’s going on? Listen and find out! We also break down the latest ethical wrangling over Yale law professor Amy Chua and Brett Kavanaugh. Is it as bad as everyone says?

We begin with the tale of “Tiger Mom” Amy Chua, the Yale law professor who wrote a stirring defense of Brett Kavanaugh as a “mentor to women” after Kavanaugh had offered Chua’s daughter a plum clerkship. Did that pot get sweetened when Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court? (Hint: yes.) We break down all of the ethics & more in this segment.

Then, it’s time to revisit the lawsuit brought by the estate of Randy California against Led Zeppelin alleging that Led Zep stole the iconic riff for “Stairway to Heaven” from California’s band, Spirit. If you haven’t listened to Episode 236, go give that a listen right now, and then come back to find out what’s new.

Then, it’s time for another Andrew Was Wrong segment — this time, involving the actual penalty for refusing to answer or giving false answers on the Census.

After all that, it’s time for the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #130 about the constitutional propriety of collecting sales tax from a private individual who will then turn around and sell the objects to the state. Did Thomas get it right? There’s only one way to know for sure!

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. Click here to read Chua’s original Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Kavanaugh Is A Mentor to Women.”
  2. After that broke, Elie Mystal criticized Chua in an Above the Law article, to which Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld tweeted that she “[w]on’t be applying to SCOTUS.” Mystal also teamed up with The Guardian to unearth more revelations regarding Chua, Kavanaugh, and how his clerks always “look like models.”
  3. Of course, it was Mystal who broke the news that Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld was chosen as a Kavanaugh SCOTUS clerk.
  4. We covered Zeppelin in Episode 236.
  5. The false answers statute is 13 U.S.C. § 221.

-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

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




Download Link
Posted on

OA287: Down the Hatch (Act)?

Today’s Rapid Response Friday covers all of the breaking developments this week, including a ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the latest news out of the House of Representatives, and the Office of Special Counsel’s latest request that Donald Trump should fire Kellyanne Conway for “flagrant” serial violations of the Hatch Act. What does all that mean? Listen and find out!

We begin by revisiting the state of Wisconsin, where Republicans in gerrymandered-safe seats in the state legislature stripped power away from the incoming Democratic Governor and Attorney General. A trial court issued an injunction preventing that law from going into effect, and just two days ago, the state Supreme Court finally ruled on that injunction. How did that go? (You know the drill.)

Then, we move into the main segment, in which we discuss all of the developments related to the census question we last discussed in Episode 286. Learn about one respondent’s petition for limited remand, the White House’s assertion of executive privilege, and then what’s next from the Democratic House.

After all that, it’s time to climb Yodel Mountain. Learn exactly who Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn hired once he fired Covington & Burlington Coat Factory, and what that (probably) means. And then, it’s time to learn allllll about the Hatch Act, and why a loyal Trump supporter thinks it means it’s time to fire Kellyanne Conway.

Then, it’s time for Thomas Takes the Bar Exam. This time, Thomas tackles a tricky question about a government agency that hires a private collector to purchase antiques. Can the state charge sales tax? Listen and find out!

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. We last discussed the census in Episode 286.
2. Click here to read the NYIC petition for limited remand.
3. This is HR 430, which is the full House vote to allow the Judiciary Committee to sue to enforce the McGahn and Barr subpoenas.
4. And here is the roll call vote.
5. The Hatch Act is 5 U.S.C. § 7323.
6. The Hatch Act was upheld in United States Civil Service Comm’n et al. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, et al., 413 U.S. 548 (1973).
7. Finally, click here to read the OSC Conway letter.

-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

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




Download Link