Source: https://openargs.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 19:54:47+00:00

Document:
Opening Arguments - The legal podcast that helps you make sense of the news.
Today’s episode brings you a trio of stories about the changing political landscape in the wake of the release of the [REDACTED] Mueller report; namely (1) will the President be impeached (and if so, can the Senate block the impeachment), (2) will we see a full, unredacted version of the report, and (3) just how pro-Russia is this administration, anyway?
We begin with a question asked by listener Thomas S. as to whether Mitch McConnell can… well, Mitch McConnell any impeachment hearings. And while the answer may not surprise you, we think you’ll want to know why.
Then, we move on to another listener question, this one about whether the Trump campaign actually did soften language in the GOP platform related to Russia. Was that story actually “debunked?” (No.) We debunk the debunking for your edification!
After that, it’s time for a two-fer of embedded stories that bear on the question of redactions. We look briefly at McKeever v. Barr and evaluate whether that will prevent the ultimate release of the full Mueller Report as well as check in on developments in a FOIA case.
You can read the Lawfareblog article that inspired Thomas S.’s question on impeachment.
This is the full text of the 2016 Republican platform.
Click here to read the Byron York article in the Washington Examiner that we debunk; here to read the original Washington Post article by Josh Rogin; and here to read the Politifact transcript of the Trump interview.
Finally, check out McKeever v. Barr.
Today, we break down the just-released [REDACTED] Mueller report. The top-line analysis? This is much worse than we anticipated in Episode 264. This report may not be the end of the road for Trump — but it almost certainly is the end of the road for Attorney General William Barr.
That’s it! We spend nearly 90 minutes delving through the minutiae and correcting the egregious misquotations in Barr’s now-laughable “summary” of the report.
1. You can click here to read the full Mueller report, and here for the searchable PDF.
2. We first covered Barr’s summary in Episode 264, and you can read his laughably dishonest letter again right here. Oh, and we followed up with Prof. Randall Eliason in Episode 265.
Today’s episode brings you a trio of timely stories that all revolve around taxes: the Michael Avenatti indictment (for 29 courts of tax fraud), proposed legislation that some are arguing hamstrings the IRS, and (of course) the status of Congress’s efforts to get Trump’s tax returns. We also learned about very cool free online tax filing (Free File)… albeit too late to help most of you. Sorry about that.
After that, it’s time for a deep dive into HR 1957, the Taxpayer First Act of 2019. Is it really a Democratic-sponsored sellout to Turbotax, as some folks are saying? Listen and find out!
After all that, it’s time for the answer to TTTBE #122 regarding the nonexistence of official documents. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
None! Andrew will be at the American Atheist convention in Cincinnati, Ohio this weekend, April 19-21. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
For 2020: Click here to access Free File.
You can read Avenatti’s indictment, and/or catch up on all his scumbaggery by re-listening to Episode 181.
This is the text of H.R. 1957, this is the text of the Eighth Memoradum of Understanding between the IRS and Free File, and this is the text of 67 Fed. Red. 67247 which references the MOU.
Here’s an example of an alarmist op-ed in the Washington Post, and this is the initial article from ProPublica.
We first outlined how to get Trump’s tax returns back in Episode 226; that’s still the right plan. We covered Rep. Neal’s request in Episode 267. The applicable statute is 26 U.S.C. § 6013.
You can read Consovoy’s totally crazy crazypants letter here.
We begin, however, with two separate sports-related stories: the improbable success of Marcus Rademacher in the Opening Arguments March Madness pool, and the (far sadder) saga of the Trump Administration’s indefensible decision to overrule the MLB’s deal with Cuba that would have brought an end to the dangerous human trafficking of ballplayers.
After that, it’s time for our deep dive into the sealed Julian Assange indictment and his arrest in England. We also discuss at great length exactly why Chelsea Manning is apparently being held in solitary confinement in prison — even though her crime was commuted by President Obama — and whether this indictment is relevant to the Mueller investigation. Oh, and Thomas gives you something to look out for!
And if all that isn’t enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #122 involving hearsay and a search for public records. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
1. Marcus Rademacher’s winning entry is linked here.
2. If you want football-themed Opening Arguments, check out Episode 57 and Episode 58, which tell the tale of Donald Trump singlehandedly destroyed the USFL.
3. Trump reportedly wanted to buy the Cubs in 2006.
4. We covered the MLB-Cuba deal in OA 237.
7. Chelsea Manning’s 4th Circuit brief can be found here.
8. And the Government’s response written by G. Zachary Terwilliger, who we covered in OA 212.
Today’s classic, deep-dive Tuesday takes an in-depth look at two critical issues in the news: first, the recent effort by the Republican governor and state legislature in Florida to undo the broadly popular Constitutional Amendment passed during the 2018 midterms to restore voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences, and second, the Supreme Court’s next assault on the “administrative state,” this time, by likely ending the doctrine of Auer deference.
We begin with an update about pending oral arguments before the Supreme Court, as well as a notice that this episode was bumped from last Tuesday to make way for our emergency Barr Summary episode.
Then, it’s time for a deep-dive into Florida, the process of citizen-driven ballot initiatives, and exactly what the state legislature intends to do to undermine the will of the public.
After that, it’s time for yet another deep dive, this time into Kisor v. Schulkin, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court, in which the petitioners have asked the Court to flat-out overrule yet another well-established conservative doctrine simply on the grounds that the Federalist Society doesn’t like it.
Then, as always, it’s time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #120 regarding a light touch on the bus. 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 recently a guest on Episode 19 of the Glass Box podcast discussing this same subject (but with respect to Utah). If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
In the pre-show, we discuss gerrymandering, which we last talked about in depth in Episode 251.
We mentioned the Washington Post story about the DC City council overturning the $15/hr minimum wage initiative.
This is the text of PCB CRJ 19-03, the Florida bill under consideration. And here, by the way, is the link to Andrew Gillum’s voter registration initiative, Bring It Home Florida.
We’ve never talked about Auer deference before, but we have discussed Chevron deference at great length, most recently in Episode 136.
You can click here to read Auer v. Robbins, that 9-0 liberal decision authored by noted socialist Antonin Scalia.
Finally, click here to read the underlying CAFC-Opinion in Kisor v. Schulkin.
Today’s breaking news episode contains a long interview with everyone’s favorite former prosecutor, Randall Eliason, who helps answer some nagging questions about what we do know about the Mueller Report (alongside all the things we don’t).
We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Right (about the Barr Summary and the news cycle!) and Wrong (about the specifics of the Assange indictment).
Then, it’s time for our main segment with Professor Eliason; you won’t want to miss it!
And if all that isn’t enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #120 involving touching a very sensitive woman on the bus. 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 recently a guest on Episode 19 of the Glass Box podcast discussing Utah referendums, and Episode 188 of God Awful Movies (reviewing “Dead Man Rising”). 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 emergency, late-breaking episode breaks down the Barr Summary of the Mueller Report and gives you some advance warning that the narrative on the Mueller report is about to shift very quickly in the opposite direction. Get ahead of the story by listening today!
Due to the length of the breakdown, we don’t have our regular segments today, but we do have (as always), the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #119 regarding contracts for the sale of wheat. Can Thomas keep his streak alive? Listen and find out! And, as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
1. This is the Barr Summary of the Mueller Report.
4. We discussed disaggregation of the investigations in Episode OA: 259.
5. Confirms the Senate Intelligence Committee report we talked about in Episode OA: 190.
6. Russian Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya’s OPEN SDNY criminal trial as of 1/8/2019 for obstruction of justice.
7. Mueller’s NFL report is here.
Today’s breaking news episode contains your guide to the hotly-debated Supreme Court decision in Nielsen v. Preap, regarding how and whether aliens can be detained without due process. What does it all mean? Listen and find out!
We begin, however, with a brief update on the Congressional Investigations we discussed in Episode 259 with the news that Hope Hicks will cooperate. Listen to our past episode if you don’t realize how huge this is.
Then, we move on to some news regarding a recent order handed down by Judge Kollar-Kotelly in the District Court for the District of Columbia with respect to the trans ban. We dive into the unique procedural issues giving rise to this order and tamp down on your enthusiasm that this may put the trans ban in jeopardy.
Then, it’s time for our main segment breaking down Nielsen v. Preap. We tell you exactly what this decision means along with the reasons why the Court reached the result it did.
But that’s not all! After that, we have our weekly trip to Yodel Mountain with two items: (1) an Andrew Was Right about the source of the National Enquirer‘s acquisition of compromising material about Jeff Bezos; and (2) a follow-up on the New York indictment of Paul Manafort.
And if all that isn’t enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #119 involving long-term contracts for the sale of wheat. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
2. We were assisted by Alice Ashton – trans Arabic linguist who contributed to the Advocate article located here and by Deirdre Anne Hendrick.
3. Here is a link to Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 19-004.
4. Pre Show: Hicks to cooperate. This is HUGE!
5. 1/4 – DC Cir. Reversed and vacated the injunction.
6. 1/22 – Supreme Court lifted the stays in two of those cases. We covered it the next day on Episode OA: 247.
7. Next day, on 3/8, the government filed a notice and this is the Plaintiffs’ response.
15. CHN article on the problems with New York’s double jeopardy.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 6013
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.