Source: https://openargs.com/author/lawpod/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:18:55+00:00

Document:
Today’s extra-long episode contains your guide to all of the developments involving Paul Manafort over the past week. What does it all mean and what can we expect next? Listen and find out!
We begin, however, with a brief update on Episode 247 now that the Department of Defense has issued a Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM 19-004) implementing the ban on transgender service in the military. With the help of some friends of the show, we break down the most pressing issues on the near horizon.
Then, it’s time for All Things Manafort (TM), which sneakily includes a deep dive into exactly how the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines came into effect, when they were mandatory, how they became advisory, and what the hell happened in the Eastern District of Virginia.
But that’s not all! After that, we have a discussion on when sentences should run consecutively versus concurrently, and how that interacts with Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s sentencing decision in Manafort’s DC case.
AND we also have breaking news regarding new state charges brought against Manafort as soon as both federal sentences were handed down.
And if that’s not enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #118 that’s a dreaded real property question. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
We were assisted by Alice Ashton – trans Arabic linguist who contributed to the Advocate article located here and by Deirdre Anne Hendrick.
Here is a link to Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 19-004.
This is the Feb. 22, 2018 Mattis directive.
We first discussed the Sentencing Guidelines in Episode OA: 162.
The accompanying statute is 18 U.S.C. §3553.
For a primer on “variances” versus downward departures, check out the Sentencing Commission guidelines.
Judge Ellis transcript can be found here.
Concurrent/consecutive is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3554.
Manafort’s NY State indictment involves Residential Mortgage Fraud 1st degree (4 counts) under Penal Law § 187.25 and Falsifying Business Records 1st Degree (8 counts) under §175.10.
We discussed Gamble v. U.S. in Episode Episode OA: 215.
Today’s episode is inspired by a law student listener question about a recent Thomas Takes The Bar Exam hypothetical, and takes a deep dive into the wonderful and wacky world of res ipsa loquitur. What does that even mean? You’ll have to listen and find out!
We begin with a brief Andrew Was Wrong segment about Donald Trump and drone use, followed up by an Andrew Was Right segment about multiple states suing to block the implementation of Trump’s HHS regulations relating to Title X that we discussed in Episode 258.
Then it’s time for that deep dive into res ipsa loquitur that you didn’t know you wanted until now!
After all that, it’s time for some Bonus Tuesday Yodeling, in which we check in on Roger Stone’s “Motion to Clarify” that was denied by Judge Jackson and an update on the House Republicans’ hilariously misguided efforts to try and discredit Michael Cohen by pointing out that he sure seems to like to lie on behalf of his client. You won’t want to miss it!
Then, it’s time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #117. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
Here’s a link to the Daily Beast article about Trump and drone strikes we teased in the opening segment.
We’ve uploaded both Title X complaints: the one filed by California as well as the multistate complaint.
More on Title X: click here for the actual law (42 U.S.C. § 300 et seq.); click here for the accompanying regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 59), and click here to read the new final rule promulgated by HHS regarding Title X. And, of course, you can click here to read Rep. Cummings’s letter regarding the rule.
This is Rep. Jordan’s “own goal” letter.
Finally, here’s Judge Jackson’s Order regarding Roger Stone.
Today’s episode breaks down ex-Trump fixer Michael Cohen’s testimony before the House of Representatives and all the Yodel Mountain implications that stem from it. What’s next? Listen and find out!
We begin, however, with an update on the American Legion v. American Humanist Association case where Andrew recently spoke at the AHA’s #HonorThemAll rally.
After that, it’s time to find out about Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz who attempted to intimidate Michael Cohen and… may have gotten into some legal trouble thanks to this show and it’s listeners!
Then, we begin breaking down the Cohen testimony… but there’s so much here to cover, we decided to keep going for yet another hour, and you’ll get that tomorrow!
For the first time, we don’t end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question, but you’ll get #116 tomorrow. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
None! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Today’s episode takes a deep dive into the Bladensburg Cross case currently pending before the Supreme Court with special guest Sarah Henry of the American Humanist Association. You’ll learn that Andrew is going to speak at the AHA rally on Wednesday, February 27 right before oral arguments!
We bookend the interview with an Andrew Was Right segment about the recent Supreme Court ruling in Timbs v. Indiana first discussed back in Episode 234.
After all that, it’s time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #115 about whether you can use facts contained in settlement negotiations. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
Click here to check out the American Humanist Association.
We first analyzed Timbs v. Indiana back in Episode 234.
Click here to read Thomas’s concurrence in McKee v. Cosby., and here to brush up on the classic New York Times v. Sullivan.
Today’s episode features a long interview with AG, the spectacular co-host of the Mueller, She Wrote podcast. She helps break down everything in the news that’s Yodel Mountain-worthy… and along the way, you’ll learn what might be next, what we might be overplaying, and much, much more!
After the interview, it’s time for the answer to Thomas (& AG) Take The Bar Exam #114, in which you always bet on bank!. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
Somewhat coincidentally, Andrew was just a guest on S3E6 of the Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out! Andrew was also a guest on Episode 87 of So Here’s My Story. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
We begin, however, with an unfortunate Andrew Was Wrong (and a promise to get better)!
Then, it’s time for a depressing deep dive into Dunn v. Ray and what ‘religious freedom’ actually means to this Supreme Court.
After that, it’s time for a trip to Yodel Mountain where we review the latest ruling from Judge Amy Berman Jackson about exactly how big a liar Paul Manafort is. (Hint: yuge.) What does this mean for a potential Manafort pardon, and does the federal system have parole? Listen and find out!
We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas (& AG!) Take the Bar Exam Question #114 about whether banks own everything. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
Andrew was just a guest on S3E6 of the fabulous Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

References: §3553
 § 3554
 § 187
 §175
 v. 
 § 300
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.