Tag: Attorney General

Posted on

OA275: Yes, Bill Barr Perjured Himself

Today’s episode covers everything you need to know about Bill Barr’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee (and his refusal to testify before the House). Has he perjured himself? (Yes.) Is there a reasonable defense of Barr? (No.) What’s next? Listen and find out!

Also, don’t forget to show up for our monthly LIVE Q&A on our YouTube channel this Sunday, May 5th at 6 pm Eastern / 3 pm Pacific!

We begin today’s show, however, with a few Andrew Was Wrongs and one Andrew Was Right. Wrong? Andrew used “fulcrum” when he should have used “center of gravity,” and it led to this amazing listener graphic explaining the difference. Also, Andrew relied upon a mislabeled graph in a complaint in Episode 273; technically, that’s someone else who was wrong first, but hey.

But Andrew was definitely RIGHT about the RNC platform, and now we have even more evidence to confirm it — this time in the form of the testimony of J.D. Gordon to Mueller’s team of investigators. And we break that down for you (because of course we do!).

Then, it’s time to delve into everything we know about Bill Barr’s perjure-tastic trip before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Find out why Andrew thinks Barr isn’t going to last, and why he definitely committed perjury. Oh, and figure out what Rule 6(e) is — and why Barr is lying about that, too.

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #124… this time about Decomposing Snail Cola. Decomposing Snail Cola: It’s the Only One With Decomposing Snails!

-Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

-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

OA245: More on Barr and the Shutdown

Today’s episode covers the William Barr confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee to become the next Attorney General, as well as the ongoing legal battles regarding Trump’s shutdown of the government.

We begin with Barr, who’s proven to be a complex individual.  How did he fare in his testimony before the Senate?  Are there reasons for optimism? Is his notorious memorandum (which we covered in Episode 237) not really that bad?  The answers… are all over the map, and will certainly surprise you.

Then, we discuss the ongoing shutdown, which looks to prove Andrew Wrong by not ending tomorrow.  What are the legal implications?  How are they going to be resolved?  Is there any hope, either politically or legally?  Listen and find out!

Finally, it’s time for Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #110 which involves a dentist being sued for malpractice and product liability.  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 Episode 138 of the Naked Mormonism podcast.  Give it a listen!  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

1. Kamala Harris’ statements regarding her opposition to Barr’s nomination.
2. Former Justice Department official of the George H.W. Bush administration Zachary Terwiliger and the speculation that he will once again be Barr’s deputy.
3. Barr’s concerning views on executive power and reasons he has drawn so much criticism.
4. We discuss our past Episode OA 237: Lowering the Barr (Memo)
5. Jonathan Turley, GWU Law professor and gadfly, arguing about Barr
7. Jack Goldsmith, HLS professor, has written a response.  “A Qualified Defense of the Barr Memo: Part I”
8. The 1995 OLC memo: Application of 28 U.S.C. § 458 to Presidential Appointments of Federal Judges
9. 28 U.S.C. § 458: Relative of Justice or Judge Ineligible to Appointment
10. Marist polling data on the Shutdown
11. NTEU v. Mulvaney
12. Barr’s written testimony

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

 

Download Link

Posted on

OA244: Clarence Thomas vs. Thurgood Marshall

Today’s episode features a little more about Corey Robin, including the argument addressed on the show that criticisms of Clarence Thomas’s competence are a racist echo of similar claims made against Thurgood Marshall.  Find out why Andrew made the mistake he did in Episode 242, and also why Andrew still stands behind his answer to that question.

We begin with Robin, winding our way from his blog posts to the jurisprudence of two of Andrew’s heroes, Laurence Tribe and Ronald Dworkin!  Ultimately, you’ll learn why Andrew continues to defend the proposition that attacks on Thomas’s competence are not inherently racist.

After that, it’s time for some behind-the-scenes news about Attorney General nominee William Barr just in time for his confirmation hearings.  What company does he keep when it comes to interpreting the Founding Fathers?  Listen and find out!  (Hint:  this isn’t good.)

Finally, it’s time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #108 regarding real property.  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. We first discussed Robin in Episode 242 as part of a listener question.  You can click here to read his Tweet criticizing us for engaging in “tribalism” and playing identity politics.
  2. We discuss two Robin blog posts in depth:  (a) “Everything is in the Hands of Heaven Except the Fear of Heaven”, and (b) “The Scandal of Democracy”
  3. It was, in fact, Elena Kagan who said “we’re all textualists now” in 2015.
  4. Click here to check out Tribe’s 2008 book, The Invisible Constitution, which openly contests originalism (and directly engages Scalia in particular).
  5. You should also check out the Ronald Dworkin speech that was turned into an article in the Fordham Law Review.
  6. This is the 2001 Keith Whittington law review article that credits Robin with an assist.  This is Whittington’s page at the Federalist Society.
  7. We engage with this tweet from Robin listing four supposed examples of intellectual laziness leveled against Thurgood Marshall.
  8. Some Thurgood Marshall links:  (a) his confirmation as reported by the New York Times; and (b) this lovely retrospective on Thomas’s career penned by Juan Williams for the Washington Post.
  9. Finally, you can read some more stuff on Clarence Thomas:  (a) the 2014 rates of agreement among Supreme Court justices; and (b) this anecdote reported by attorney Matt Howell.
  10. If you have HeinOnline, you can read the Mark Tushnet law review article in the Georgetown Law Review we discuss on the show.  (Otherwise, you’re stuck reading the first page only.)

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

 

Download Link

Posted on

OA237: Lowering the… Barr (Memo)

Today’s Rapid Response episode takes a look at the just-released Law’d Awful Memo written by Attorney General nominee Bill Barr and sent to Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein concerning the Mueller investigation.  Are the argument(s) raised in the memo any good?  What does this mean for the future of the Mueller investigation?  Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with a brief foray into everyone’s favorite show topic:  BASEBALL LAW!  Find out about the agreement reached between MLB and Cuba, and how (of course) Donald Trump can screw it up.

After that, it’s time for an Andrew Was Wrong (and Maybe Not Wrong) on David Pecker and AMI.  Along the way, we’ll learn about the corruption case against Sun-Diamond Growers in connection with former Agriculture Secretary (and nearly-Senator) Mike Espy.

Then, we delve deeply into the Barr memo, taking apart the legal “arguments” and featuring a guest appearance from one Antonin Scalia!

Then, it’s time to tackle the rather surprising decision by Judge Sullivan in the Michael Flynn sentencing phase.  What happened?  Did he go off the rails?

After all that, we end with an all new Thomas (and Matt!) Takes The Bar Exam #106 on how to best transport heroin from Kansas City to Chicago and what the judge can instruct the jury… it’s complicated, but you won’t want to miss it!  And, as always, if you’d like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

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. Check out Matt & Mattingly’s Ice Cream Social podcast!
  2. Baseball law:  Here’s the press release from MLB.
  3. We discussed U.S. v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Calfornia, 138 F.3d 961 (D.C. Cir. 1998), aff’d, 526 U.S. 398 (1999).
  4. Don’t forget to read the Barr memo for yourself, and you can also check out the Wall Street Journal article that leaked it.
  5. …And here’s our good buddy Antonin Scalia smacking down the logic used therein.
  6. You can check out the government’s sentencing memorandum in Michael Flynn’s case as well as the memo filed by Covington & Burling on Flynn’s behalf.
  7. Here is the 18-3071 sealed case order.

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


Download Link