Tulsi Gabbard – Opening Arguments

May 28, 2020May 29, 2020

OA390: Trump’s War on Twitter (A Deep Dive on Section 230)

Today’s episode breaks down the latest temper tantrum and accompanying executive order by our game show host president attacking social media platforms for having the temerity to engage in fact-checking. You’re going to be hearing a lot about “Section 230” — so we’re here to tell you exactly what that means, what Trump is trying to do, and why it matters.

We begin, however, with a pretty straightforward Andrew Was Right now that Tulsi Gabbard has voluntarily dismissed her defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton that we covered back in Episode 354 (“A Russian Asset Sues What?”).

Then it’s time for our deep dive into CompuServe, Prodigy, section 230 of the Telecommunications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 — which ended internet porn forever — and what all of that has to do with Trump’s latest tantrum over being fact-checked on Twitter. You won’t want to miss it!

After that, it’s time for an update on the amicus brief we’re filing in the Flynn case. We tell you what Flynn’s best case is, and walk through how it does and does not inform Judge Sullivan’s discretion under Rule 48(a).

And then, of course, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam involving a fire at one warehouse spreading to another. If you want to play along, just share out this episode on social media using the hashtag #T3BE and we might pick you as next week’s winner!

Patreon Bonuses

We’ve got an all-new Live Q&A scheduled for Sunday, May 31 at 7 pm Eastern / 4 pm Pacific, and Patrons can click here to suggest questions and vote on the ones they want answered. Also remember that Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest on the latest episode of The Daily Beans. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

Tulsi links: (a) click here for the news that Tulsi Gabbard has voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit; (b) here to read the original defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton; (c) the Time magazine story on how strong a case Tulsi Gabbard had; and (d) be sure to listen to our coverage of this from Episode 354 (“A Russian Asset Sues What?”).
Trump links: (a) click here for the fact-check on Trump; (b) here is the text of 47 U.S.C. § 230; (c) for the draft of the Executive Order, check out Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, and Page 6.
OA brief: Click here to read U.S. v Fokker Svcs. BV, 818 F.3d 733 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

-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

-Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials!

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

Download Link

January 30, 2020January 30, 2020

Transcript of OA354: A Russian Asset Sues What?

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 354. I’m Thomas Smith. I’m a new man!

Andrew: [Laughs]

Thomas: I went in that water tank that Luke is in in the beginning of Empire Strikes Back, you know?

Andrew: [Laughs]

Thomas: I mean, I still sound like crap but not as bad. How’re you doin’?

Andrew: I wanted to say I’ve been frozen in carbonite or something but, [Laughs] I’m doing great, Thomas. Glad to hear you’re on the mend.

Thomas: Aside from the fact that you had to watch Jay Sekulow talk, right?

Andrew: [Sighs] Oh my god, yeah. That is-

Thomas: That takes a toll.

January 27, 2020January 28, 2020

OA354: A Russian Asset Sues What?

Today’s episode breaks down the (spoiler: ridiculous) defamation lawsuit filed by Tulsi Gabbard against Hillary Clinton for calling her (sort of) a “Russian asset.” We do the patented Opening Arguments reading-the-complaint-backwards method (sort of) to figure out exactly what this means and what comes next.

We begin, however, with some instant response to the Saturday Republican “defense” of Trump in the impeachment proceedings. It’s… well, it’s a thing. Is Jay Sekulow still America’s dumbest lawyer? (Hint: yes.) Learn the arguments that they’re actually trying to advance, and why they’re not actually a thing.

And again: please don’t forget to CALL YOUR SENATOR! Remember, this is preposterously easy:

Call. (202) 224-3121.

CALL YOUR SENATORS, if you need help connecting to them, use @resistbot. Text the word RESIST to the bot on Messenger, Twitter, Telegram, or to 50409 on SMS. First time setup is quick, then calling both should take 3-5 minutes.

Here’s what you say:

“I’d like to speak with Senator ____’s office. Hi, I’m _____, I’m a constituent, and I’m calling to ask Senator ____ to vote in favor of allowing the Senate to subpoena documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial. I don’t know how we can decide if Trump is innocent or guilty without seeing all of the evidence. Thank you.”

Then, it’s time to break down everything about Tulsi Gabbard’s lawsuit. That means defamation law, Tulsi’s lawyers, the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, and much, much more. You’ll be surprised to learn that Tulsi Gabbard’s lawyers are… actual lawyers? But you’ll also be surprised to learn some facts about them. Don’t go all crazy conspiracy-theory on us, but… definitely listen.

After all that, it’s time for the answer to #T3BE 163 involving contemporaneous notes and whether they’re admissible as hearsay.

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

Check out Tulsi’s defamation lawsuit here.