Source: https://openargs.com/tag/stormy-daniels/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:03:03+00:00

Document:
Today’s (thankfully) Kavanaugh-free episode — in honor of Thomas’s appearance at QED in Manchester — takes an in-depth look at the Ashers Baking Co. case, as well as developments at the state level to push for Net Neutrality. Oh, and we revisit OA’s favorite legal genius, Stormy Daniels. Strap in, it’s going to be a fun ride!
We begin with a lengthy discussion of the UK Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashers Baking Co., which has been called the “Masterpiece Cakeshop of the UK.” Is that accurate? Listen and find out!
Next, we walk through California’s effort to protect Net Neutrality in that state, and the lawsuits filed by parties on all sides. What’s going to happen? We tell you!
Click here to read the UK Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashers Baking Co.
We first discussed the Trump FCC’s decision to roll back Net Neutrality in Episode 125. You can read the 22-state lawsuit challenging that order here.
This is California’s Bill SB-822, and you can also check out the industry brief filed in the lawsuit challenging it. Oh, and if you need more Hobbs Act (28 U.S.C. § 2342) in your life, we’ve got you covered.
Finally, click here to check out Trump’s motion to dismiss Stormy’s lawsuit, and here to read her interview in “The Cut” (??) where she regrets body-shaming Trump.
Today’s extra-long, extra-early Rapid Response episode tackles the two biggest stories in the news right now: Paul Manafort’s conviction, and Michael Cohen’s plea deal. We tell you exactly what these two big stories actually mean.
We begin with Paul Manafort. What did the jury decide? Why did they fail to reach a verdict on 10 counts? What were those counts? How long is Paulie M going to stay in prison and what’s next? And, most importantly: what does this mean for Yodel Mountain? How likely is Paulie M to flip on Donald Trump? We answer all of these questions and more!
After that, we turn to everyone’s favorite weasel, Michael “I Would Take A Bullet For Donald Trump” Cohen, who… has not taken a bullet for Donald Trump but has in fact pled guilty to eight separate crimes. What are they, what does it mean, and what comes next? Listen and find out!
And if all that wasn’t enough, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #90 involving foreseeability, cross-motions for summary judgment, and tortious conduct. If you’d like to play along, 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!
You’ll want to start with the Manafort indictment, and you can also read the Manafort verdict. Of the eight guilty counts, Manafort was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), and 31 U.S.C. § 5322.
We first discussed the Federal Sentencing Guidelines back in Episode 162; you can check out the full manual (long!) and also the FSG Sentencing table to figure out how long Paulie M is going away.
And don’t forget Manafort still has another trial pending in DC! We gave you a primer on that back in Episode 194, and you can check out the pending indictment in that case.
If Paulie M flips, it will be to take advantage of Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Of course, we first covered how Stormy Daniels is a Legal Genius back in Episode 154, and then the Karen McDougal story in Episode 158.
Here’s Cohen’s plea deal; here are the conditions of his release; and here’s the article quoting his allocution.
Sneak preview of the bonus episode: here’s the DOJ manual on prosecuting campaign finance violations that proves Alan Dershowitz is lying. Again.
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!
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).
The case we discussed in the main segment was Menocal v. GEO Group (10th Cir., Feb. 9, 2018).
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.
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.
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).
The TPM article suggesting that Avenatti must have had access to SARs is here.
To understand bribery, we highly recommend this primer by Randall Eliason.
Finally, please click here to check out Thomas’s May 19 talk in New Orleans.
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!
Andrew was just a guest on Episode 141 of the God Awful Movies podcast, reviewing “Cries of the Unborn.” Check it out!
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.
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.
The money-laundering statute is 18 U.S.C. § 1956.
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.
Finally, this is the Stormy Daniels defamation complaint.
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!
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.
Click here if you want to read the Comey memos.
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.
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).
Finally, you can click here to read the government’s status report filed in Cohen’s New York investigation.

References: § 2342
 § 1344
 § 7206
 § 5322
 v. 
 § 1956
 v. 
 v.