Tag Archives: Stormy Daniels

OA178: Trump and the NFL

Join us for yet another Rapid Response Friday, in which we continue to evaluate claims on the left challenging the legality of the NFL’s policy regarding the national anthem, as well as discuss two items that are also of interest to Donald Trump.

We begin with a listener question we didn’t get to during our Q&A regarding the similarities and differences between the John Edwards affair and the Stormy Daniels affair.  Is this the kind of thing that should give Trump comfort?  (Hint:  no.)  Oh, and you might also learn something about an “Allen charge” if you follow us all the way down all our rabbit trails!

After that, we break down the “state action doctrine” while considering some liberal arguments making the rounds ostensibly challenging the legality or constitutionality of the NFL’s new rules.  Andrew still isn’t buying it!

Then, we trek back to Yodel Mountain to discuss the recent developments in Michael Cohen’s case in the Southern District of New York.  Was Andrew… wrong?  Listen and find out!

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #78 regarding whether the jury can read a treatise on mill grinding.  It’s more interesting than it sounds, we promise!  If you’d like to play along , just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent 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. In the pre-show, we (don’t) discuss, among other things, the Trump administration’s breaking decisions on steel tariffs; for analysis, we refer you to our coverage of this issue back in Episode 162.
  2. This is the text of the 6-count John Edwards indictment, and we also quoted from the coverage of the acquittal by ABC News.
  3. We covered the “Paid Patriotism in the NFL” report in Episode 108; you can also read that report directly by clicking here.  Oh, and this is the Mike Florio PFT article, if you want to read more about how the NFL is in Jerry Jones’s pocket.
  4. If you like semi-old-timey Supreme Court decisions, you should definitely read Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) about First Amendment rights in a company town.  Once you’ve gotten through that, you can tackle Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961) on the entanglement doctrine.
  5. This is the Ben Sachs Vox article we discussed.
  6. Your guide to Yodel Mountain includes this awesome NYT flowchart as well as this solid narrative article in Politico.
  7. Finally, this is the full text of Avenatti’s withdrawal of his pro hac vice motion.

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

OA174: Is Michael Avenatti Fit To Practice Law In New York?

It’s time for another Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down Michael Avenatti’s response to the opposition to his motion to appear pro hac vice in the Southern District of New York — amongst many, many other issues!

We begin, however,  with a brief Andrew Lived Through The 1980s segment (formerly: Andrew Was Wrong), that segues into an update on the Panmunjom Declaration discussed in Episode 173.

After that, it’s time to go yodeling, where we break down Paul Manafort’s other criminal trial, Michael Avenatti’s ethical responsibilities regarding SARs,  Donald Trump’s financial disclosures, and (sadly) much, much more.

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #76 regarding the admissibility of witness testimony.  If you’d like to play along with our new Patreon perk, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent 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. Here is the text of the Panmunjom Declaration we first discussed in Episode 173.
  2. You can read Judge Jackson’s ruling denying Manafort’s Motion to Dismiss, and also Avenatti’s Response to Michael Cohen’s Opposition to his motion to appear pro hac vice.
  3. The primary case relied upon by Avenatti in his response is In re JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., 799 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2015), which is directly on point.
  4. We’ve also uploaded a copy of Trump’s 2018 Financial Disclosures, which admits the Cohen payment.
  5. Finally, we highly recommend Ronan Farrow’s New Yorker reporting regarding the Cohen SARs.

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

OA172: Private Prisons, Judge Ellis & More

It’s time for another SUPER-SIZED Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down Judge Ellis’s statements in the Paul Manafort criminal trial (amongst many, many other issues)!

We begin, however,  with a brief Andrew (well, mostly ABC and NBC) Was Wrong.

After that, the guys discuss a recent 10th Circuit opinion regarding the treatment of detainees in private prisons.  What does it mean for the future of class action litigation?  Listen and find out!

After that, it’s back to Yodel Mountain, where we break down not only Judge Ellis, but all the developments in or connected to the Mueller investigation, including Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen’s “follow the money” report.  Phew!

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #75 about a contract and a subsequent oral modification that Andrew admits he would have muffed.  If you’d like to play along and show Andrew you’re the better lawyer, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent 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. Here’s the link to a Washington Times story covering the correction regarding Michael Cohen’s supposed “wiretap” (that turned out to be a pen register).
  2. The case we discussed in the main segment was Menocal v. GEO Group (10th Cir., Feb. 9, 2018).
  3. Click here to read the 2016 Obama directive on ending privatized prisons, or (if you’re a masochist) here to read the 2017 Trump directive rescinding it.
  4. If you only read one thing from this show, please do read the transcript of the May 4 hearing before Judge Ellis.  It’s great.  I love this guy.
  5. The opposition to Michael Avenatti’s pro hac vice motion is here; it also contains the “Executive Summary” laying out Avenatti’s “follow the money.”  If you prefer to see it in chart form, click here (H/T Washington Post).
  6. The TPM article suggesting that Avenatti must have had access to SARs is here.
  7. To understand bribery, we highly recommend this primer by Randall Eliason.
  8. Finally, please click here to check out Thomas’s May 19 talk in New Orleans.

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

OA170: All Yodel, All the Time

Well, it’s another Rapid Response Friday, and we’re here with everything you need to know about Yodel Mountain, including:

  • Breaking news regarding the wiretap of Michael Cohen’s office several weeks before the search warrant issued and that the SDNY has at least one conversation between Cohen and Trump
  • Rudy Giuliani’s rather bizarre appearance on Hannity, during which he admitted that President Trump is DD and paid Michael Cohen back for the $130,000 in hush money paid to Stormy Daniels — directly contradicting the President’s own earlier statement
  • Whether the repayment scheme alleged by Giuliani (a) makes sense and/or (b) constitutes money laundering
  • The “leaked questions” regarding Mueller’s efforts to interview Trump
  • Trump’s decision to replace Ty Cobb with Emmett Flood
  • The House Freedom Caucus’s efforts to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein; and, of course
  • Stormy Daniels’s latest defamation lawsuit against President Trump

Our tip to journalists — the  question you want to ask is “What ‘information’ does Stormy Daniels have under Paragraph 2.1 of the Agreement?”

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas (and next week’s guest Andrew Seidel) Take The Bar Exam #74 that’s not about real property, but is instead about the rules of evidence and whether a particular line of questioning is permissible.  If you’d like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was just a guest on Episode 141 of the God Awful Movies podcast, reviewing “Cries of the Unborn.”  Check it out!

Show Notes & Links

  1. We first discussed how unhinged Rudy Giuliani is way back in Episode 13, “Hillary Clinton’s Damned Emails” — which is one of our all-time favorites.
  2. This is the not-to-be-missed Laura Ingraham reaction video to Giuliani’s Hannity appearance, which led to this set of tweets from the President.
  3. The money-laundering statute is 18 U.S.C. § 1956.
  4. This is the New York Times article we mentioned that breaks down the political implications of the switch from Cobb to Flood, and here is the list of questions Mueller wants to ask Trump.
  5. Finally, this is the Stormy Daniels defamation complaint.

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

OA168: Michael Cohen Takes Five

In the main segment, we discuss the intersection between the Paul Manafort criminal trial and the public’s right to know about the Mueller investigation.  Oh, and … isn’t there a bill pending to protect Mueller?  We break down that, too.

But we’re not done!  After that we delve into all things Michael Cohen, including his efforts to stay the California civil suit and his less-than-likely efforts to stay out of criminal trouble in New York.  If you love Stormy Daniels — and who doesn’t? — you won’t want to miss it.

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #73 about landlord-tenant-friend relationships.  If you’d like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent 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. From our grab bag:  here is a link to the Kobach memo that’s PROBABLY NOT WORTH ARGUING; this is the New York Post report on the hilarious Make America Great Again bar lawsuit; and this is the link to all the gun control bills passed in Maryland.
  2. Click here if you want to read the Comey memos.
  3. We first discussed the Manafort trial back in Episode 118; this is the Government’s Memorandum in Opposition to Manafort’s Motion to Suppress, and here is the press motion to unseal portions of the Mueller investigation.  Oh, and this is Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), discussed during the show.
  4. Here’s the link to the Washington Post article reporting that Trump has conceded that Michael Cohen “represents me with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal.”  In this segment, we discuss Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441 (1972).
  5. Finally, you can click here to read the government’s status report filed in Cohen’s New York investigation.

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

OA166: The Taint Team (& Also, Alex Jones)

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the attorney-client privilege issues relating to the FBI’s search of the offices of Michael Cohen, alleged lawyer to Donald Trump and… Sean Hannity?!?

First, we begin with a finishing move from one of our pro wrestler listeners, updating our story that we first covered in Episode 163.  (Is it the Million Dollar Dream?  Listen and find out!)

In the main segment, we break down all that happened (and all that’s yet to come!) in the ongoing legal case against Michael Cohen we first discussed in Episode 164.  How strong is Cohen’s argument that he’s entitled to protect the privilege of his legal clients?

After that, we take a  look at three lawsuits against Alex Jones and InfoWars and start the discussion about what to do about blatantly false, politically-motivated conspiracy theories.  Are defamation lawsuits the answer?

Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #72 about real property law.  If you’ve ever thought about playing along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent 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 search of Cohen’s offices in Episode 164.  You can read Michael Cohen’s Motion for TRO, which was denied on Monday April 15, as well as his revised request for a special master, which remains pending.
  2. This is the Gilmore Complaint filed and Alex Jones, and here is a New York Times story on the other two defamation complaints filed by parents of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting.

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

OA164: As American As Baseball, Hush Money, and… Segregated Schools?

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the FBI’s search of the offices of Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer and alleged “fixer.”

First, we begin with a discussion of a curious legal move by the Miami Marlins, alleging that they are, in fact, a … citizen of the British Virgin Islands??

In the main segment, we find out that Andrew Was Right when he declared Stormy Daniels “A Legal Genius.”  How right?  Listen and find out!

Next, we take a return trip to Yodel Mountain, where we discuss Paul Ryan’s impending retirement, Wendy Vitter’s comically bad confirmation hearing, and more!

Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #71 about constitutional law that is the toughest question we’ve asked to date.  If you’ve ever thought about playing along, now’s the time; just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent 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. This is Alphr’s list of the “15 Best Podcasts of 2018” — and wow, we’re in some good company!
  2. If you love procedural questions (and you hate Derek Jeter), you’ll want to read the Marlins Notice of Removal as well as Miami’s Opposition.  Oh, and this is the relevant legal provision, 9 U.S.C. § 202.
  3. This is the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual; § 9-13.420 governs searching law firm offices.
  4. Here’s the report on Paul Ryan’s fundraising from Politico, announced two days before he decided to retire.
  5. Finally, here’s a link to the video of Wendy Vitter refusing to answer whether she supports Brown v. Board of Education.

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

OA160: Schrodinger’s Andrew

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the things Andrew Was Right about over the past few weeks (yay!) as well as the things Andrew Was Wrong about (boo!).  It’s Schrödinger’s Andrew Day!

In the pre-show segment, the guys go through the scenario for all of our Opening Arguments Community March Madness potential winners.  After that, it’s time for Andrew Was Right! (TM).  We cover the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum and what it means for Yodel Mountain, as well as both the Amended Complaint and the Motion for Expedited Trial filed by our next Attorney General, Stormy Daniels.  You won’t want to miss it!

After that, it’s time for Andrew Was Wrong (TM), in Andrew owns up to a few corrections about Watergate and revisits the emoluments lawsuit discussed way back in Episode 78.  Andrew was skeptical then; has he changed his mind?

Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #69 that questions your knowledge of the “firefighter’s rule” and whether it protects cops who get sideswiped.  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!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was recently a guest on Episode 255 of the Phil Ferguson Show and Episode 96 of the Naked Mormonism Podcast.  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. This is the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum; he pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 1001.  You can click here to read the Christopher Miller story suggesting that “Person A” is Konstantin Kilimnik.
  2. This is the Amended Complaint filed by Stormy Daniels; you can also read the Notice of Removal filed by EC and the Motion for Expedited Trial filed by Daniels.
  3. Stormy’s expedited trial motion is pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4.
  4. This is the Washington Post article on Alexander Butterfield, which is definitely worth a read.
  5. Here’s the District Court’s opinion in the emoluments litigation, which we first discussed back in Episode 78.
  6. If you want to dive more into emoluments, you can read Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1867), or listen to our two-parter with originalist Seth Barrett Tillman:  Episode 35 (Part 1) and Episode 36 (Part 2).

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

OA158: Cambridge Analytica

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss the scandal regarding Cambridge Analytica.  Is there a legal angle?  Have crimes been committed?  Listen and find out!

In the pre-show segment, Andrew helps out our reporters by giving theme the question they need to be asking regarding Stormy Daniels, which is:  “Now that you’ve acknowledged that you’re DD, and you’ve sued Stormy Daniels for $20 million, can you tell us what claims you had against Ms. Daniels that you believe you settled in that agreement?  What could you have sued her for?”  You’re welcome.

That segues into the “A” segment, where the guys discuss the differences (and one strange overlap) between the recent lawsuit filed by Karen McDougal and the top-of-Yodel-Mountain Stormy Daniels lawsuit.

After the main segment, we tackle a listener question regarding the difference between textualism and originalism, inspired by our most recent episode, Episode 157.

Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #68 that requires some math to figure out the appropriate measure of damages for breach of contract.  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!

Recent Appearances

None!  Have us on your show!

Show Notes & Links

  1. This is the National Review article that actually gets Stormy’s story right.
  2. Here’s Mike Murphy’s article expressing skepticism of CA’s claims.
  3. This is the Price v. Facebook class action civil lawsuit, arising out of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.  And here’s the statement from NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
  4. If you wanted to set up a SuperPAC, Andrew’s old pals at Covington & Burling have drafted a simple how-to guide for you.
  5. Finally, here’s a hilarious Tweet from Peter Drice Wright that highlights a key problem with textualism.

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

OA156: Conor Lamb & Pennsylvania Recounts

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss Congressman-elect Conor Lamb’s victory in Tuesday’s PA-18 special election and whether the Republicans will be able to recount the results.

After that, Andrew walks through the history of prior restraint under the First Amendment in light of a recent Nevada decision denying the request of the family of one of the Las Vegas massacre victims to suppress his autopsy report… and what that might mean for friend of the show Stormy Daniels.

That segues into another Q&A segment where we tackle Yet More Of Your Stormy Questions; this time relating to (1) choice of law and (2) whether Stormy can simply buy back the settlement for $130,000.

Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #67 about a gang party where the boss just wanted to “send a message.”  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!

Recent Appearances

None!  Have us on your show!

Show Notes & Links

  1. Thomas discussed the political implications of the Lamb election on Episode 128 of Serious Inquiries Only.
  2. We discussed con artist Jill Stein’s “recounts” way back in Episode 25 of this show, and the Pennsylvania order denying standing is here.  You can also read up on Pennsylvania’s Election law, Title 25, Chapter 14.; we specifically discussed §§ 3154(g) (mandatory recounts); 3261-63 (voluntary recounts); and 3459 (bonding requirement).
  3. The key case for prior restraint is New York Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971); you can also read the Nevada Supreme Court opinion.
  4. Please also check out David Michael’s new podcast, The Quorum!

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download