Source: https://openargs.com/tag/van-der-zwaan/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:33:34+00:00

Document:
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the Trump administration’s recently-announced tariffs on China, China’s response, and the future of free trade.
In the pre-show segment, it’s time for a lengthy Andrew Was Wrong segment. From .22s to time zones, Andrew cops to the things he got wrong last week, ending with a discussion of the emoluments lawsuit discussed in Episode 160.
In the main segment, Andrew discusses the Trade Act of 1974 and whether it allows Trump to wage a trade war with China.
After that, it’s time for our weekly trip to Yodel Mountain, this time with a breakdown of the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing as well as Paul Manfort’s motion to dismiss and the government’s response.
Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #70 about 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!
Andrew was wrong links: 15 U.S.C. § 260a (time zones), Florida HB 1013, and, if you want to re-listen to our discussion of the emoluments lawsuit, check out Episode 160.
In the main segment, the guys discuss the Trade Act of 1974. This is the CNN list of the 106 products on which China is raising tariffs, and this is a link to the New York Times article suggesting that the Trump administration is considering re-joining the TPP.
This is the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum; he pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 1001. If you’d like to plot that out on the Sentencing Guidelines table, you can do so by clicking here.
You can click here to read the Christopher Miller story suggesting that “Person A” is Konstantin Kilimnik; that was just validated by this report from Business Insider.
Finally, you can click here to read the DOJ’s response to Manafort’s motion to dismiss. For reference, This is Rod Rosenstein’s Order appointing Mueller, No. 3915-2017, and this is 28 U.S.C. § 515, which plainly authorizes it. We discussed this in full detail back in Episode 136.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Stormy’s expedited trial motion is pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4.
This is the Washington Post article on Alexander Butterfield, which is definitely worth a read.
Here’s the District Court’s opinion in the emoluments litigation, which we first discussed back in Episode 78.
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).

References: § 260
 § 1001
 § 515
 § 1001
 § 4
 v.