Opening Arguments

If you or anyone you know is President Biden, please dear god listen to this episode and then get the word out. The FEC has been broken and corrupted by Trump appointees. Biden could have easily done something about it from day 1 of his administration and he just... hasn't. Listen to the full story and see example #9,576 of why Trump and Republicans can never be trusted in office. In the first segment, we get a big update on the Musk Twitter deal. Andrew nailed another one! Links: 52 US Code § 30106 - FEC, 52 US Code § 30107 - Powers of Commission, 52 US Code § 30108 - Advisory opinions, 52 US Code § 30104 - Reporting requirements, Hillary campaign FEC, FEC ruling, conciliation

We haven't gotten a chance to pat Andrew on the back enough for nailing the Cipollone prediction, so let's do so! Tuesday was the first hearing since that bombshell news, and it featured a little bit of Cipollone testimony, but also teased much more to come. Andrew takes us through the hearing, with some clips. And, he has another prediction! Given his track record, we'd better take note! Links: Meadows docs, Cleta Mitchell docs

In the wake of the Dobbs decision, Andrew gave a brilliant talk to the Houston Oasis group on how we got here and what we can do. Note in the QnA section, the questions were not recorded, sorry. They are reasonably easy to figure out with context clues though! Check out his slides here. 

Today's episode pays off a bet Andrew made last month that the January 6 Committee would eventually secure the testimony of White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. Find out why that's such a big deal! In addition to explaining how the J6 Committee came to secure Pets of Belonging's testimony, Andrew answers your questions regarding whether this is some kind of elaborate con (No), how Cipollone's answers are likely to interact with executive and attorney-client privilege (frequently), and the likelihood that he will help round out the successful case for prosecuting Donald Trump for crimes in connection with the 1/6 Insurrection (EXTREMELY!). It's a big deal! After the main breakdown, we share a thoughtful and informative letter from a listener who helps put the Supreme Court's recent (atrocious) decision in Carson v. Makin (that we broke down in Episode 608) permitting direct government aid to expressly religious schools into a fuller context. It's an Andrew Was Wrong (About Rural Maine) and an important obje

As Andrew flagged for us before any other sources (that I saw), Elon Musk's deal to buy Twitter was never a guarantee. Well, now it's moved from not a guarantee to very unlikely. Today, we look at what happened. Also, there are two interesting possibilities being debated online. For one, that he'll be able to get out of it because of the "bots," and on the other side, that he may be forced to buy Twitter by a judge. Are either of these possible or even likely? Find out! In the first segment, we talk about our amazingly successful fundraiser ($160,000+ raised!) and what's going on in Texas right now. hint: it's not good. Links: Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe, 1925 Texas abortion law, ACLU TRO, Ken Paxton Writ of Mandamus, TX supreme court says no, Twitter agreement 4/22, Twitter 10-Q 3/31/22, Musk SEC letter, IN RE IBP INC. v. TYSON FOODS INC

Wow. What a hearing! BUT FIRST!!! We have an incredibly exciting announcement which we spend the first 11 minutes talking about! Feel free to skip it if you would like to be dead to us, it's completely up to you. But we worked our butts off to get you this episode an entire day early to give you a little more heads up that you need to... Join us Friday for the Aiding and Abetting Abortion fundraiser, presented by our friends, Cognitive Dissonance! The event starts at 5pm Pacific/8pm Eastern, but our time slot is 6:30! Here's the link to sit there and wait for it to start streaming! To donate, head to OAfund.org! And after all that, we still have an amazing breakdown of the hearing, and lordy there are tapes!

The hits just keep on coming with this disgraceful, illegitimate Supreme Court. Andrew Seidel joins us to break down Carson v. Makin, and explains why precedent is meaningless, and the only thing that matters to this court when it comes to Church/State cases is: Christians win. Then, Ace Associate Morgan Stringer joins us to explain why the entire internet is wrong about Biden "banning Juuls and cigarettes."

If you watched Tuesday's hearing, you saw the heartbreaking story of how these two amazing women were viciously slandered by Rudy Giuliani and other members of the big lie insurrectionists. Their lives were absolutely turned upside down by complete racist fabrications. Do they have recourse? What will happen? Then, Andrew breaks down the complete breakdown of the legal fabric of our society. Say goodbye to any meaningful sense in which you have the right to remain silent! The Supreme Court has gutted Miranda rights, because why the f not, apparently. Oh but they make up for it by eroding states' ability to restrict open carry of guns. So that's cool. Links: environmental lawyer quote, Freeman and Moss v Giuliani, Giuliani idiot motion to dismiss, Maryland Code, Public Safety § 5-306, Vega v. Tekoh, 42 US Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

You may have recently seen people posting about a disturbing Supreme Court decision (what else is new) with images of how much of the US is within 100 miles of a border, and how federal agents can basically get away with anything in most of the country. What was that about? Was it overblown? Welp. Attorney Matt Cameron is here to tell us no, actually. It was underblown, if anything. Not blown enough. Listen for the full breakdown, including classic Bivens. Before that, Andrew does a quick refresher on pocket pardons and why they... are not a thing.

Today is two entire show's worth of things somehow crammed into one! First, Jan 6 hearing #3 is in the books. Some amazing bombshells! Also, I grill Andrew on intent and how it could possibly be that we have to prove what Trump had going on in his dumb brain. It's an extended cross examination but hopefully it will provide more understanding! THEN, you've likely seen the headlines: GEICO has to pay $5.2m for car sex? Really? Well, we might have another McDonald's coffee lawsuit on our hands! Get the break down! Links: Geico ordered to pay $5.2 million for STD in a car, RMCo 537.065, GEICO opinion

Surprise! An early episode for everyone! Here's why: the first Jan 6 hearing is in the books. The next one is Monday AM. Listen for Andrew's breakdown of hearing 1, and what to look for in hearing 2!

Given that the Jan 6 hearing is AFTER we record, we're doing a little switcheroo! Today is a Tuesday-esque deep dive! What's with this California court ruling that bees are fish? Is Elon Musk right to mock it? Find out all about it and how it relates to when Reagan designated ketchup as a vegetable! Links: Reagan cuts eat into school lunches - CSMonitor.com, 46 CFR 44452, California Endangered Species Act, § 2070, State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California, Forestry Ass’n v. Fish & Game Commission

About a week ago, there was yet another smoking gun document trove delivered to us by the Jan. 6 Committee in relation to the Eastman trial. Andrew gives us the full breakdown, including a couple new insurrectionist characters we haven't yet been introduced to. All of this, plus the first primetime Jan 6. Committee hearing is this Thursday! Listen and be primed for what's coming.

The way you know the Supreme Court is ruining the law in this country is if their lips are moving. Well, this time they've decided that a 10 year old precedent is already too old for them, and that if you were given a terrible lawyer by the state, you should have thought of that before you decided to be poor. Shinn v. Ramirez Also, check out Thomas's new podcast Dear Old Dads, with Eli Bosnick and Tom Curry!

In the wake of the pathetic police response to the Uvalde shooting, you have likely come across posts and memes talking about how police don't actually have any obligation to protect you or really do anything. Is this true or is it overblown internet leftist hyperbole? Well, it's true, and it's infuriating. Andrew breaks down the case in question. THEN! A special episode 600 celebration!!! We asked our patrons what terms/phrases/references/inside jokes they wanted us to explain, and we've got a fun list of 20! It's a fun stroll down memory lane as we talk the oranges of motions in lemonade, clownhorning, Konrad Michaels, and more! Links: Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

Another horrific mass shooting has us all asking WTF can we actually do about this? There is plenty of reason for pessimism, but Opening Arguments is here to break down what might realistically be done. This is part 1, focusing on why gun companies are immune from civil actions and what we should do about that. Part 2 will be about the police response. In the first segment, we give an update on Elon Musk. There was a filing that went virtually unnoticed but sheds more light on the Twitter situation. Links: Musk SEC filing, letter to himself, 15 US Code § 7902, Definition: qualified civil liability action from 15 USC § 7903, Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of US Mass Shootings

Some folks on the internet have been trying to "one weird trick" our way to saving Roe by claiming that tribal sovereignty could help ensure abortion access. Well, not only is this wrong, it's offensively wrong. OA brings you the deep-dive on Indian Law (yes, that's what it's called...) with a refresher on McGirt v. Oklahoma, and why none of that equals an instant abortion rights fix. After that, a wildcard question – now that Roe is being overturned, does that mean justices committed perjury in their confirmation hearings? Links: McGirt v. Oklahoma, 18 US Code § 1153 - Offenses committed within Indian country, The Hyde Amendment, Indigenous Women's Reproductive Rights: The Indian Health Service and Its Inconsistent Application of the Hyde Amendment

The 5th Circuit has never been in the top 10 circuits in terms of not being insane, but now it has gone even more off the rails. Andrew takes us through the deep dive on a terrible decision that will decimate the SEC's ability to do anything, and why the logic will be applied elsewhere. Before that, a quick update on how much Elon Musk sucks and has completely blown it with the Twitter deal. And a quick word on primaries. Links: Twitter says it will 'enforce' Elon Musk's $44 billion acquisition deal, 28Patriot” v. SEC, 15 US Code § 78u–2 - Civil remedies in administrative proceedings, Jellum & Tincher, “The Shadow of Free Enterprise”, Are the SEC's Administrative Law Judges Biased? An Empirical Investigation, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 138 S.Ct. 1365 (2018), Summary of Administrative Law Judge Responsibilities

By popular demand, we old out of touch guys have invited Ace Associate and Poplaw Expert Morgan Stringer on to explain to us just what in the h is happening in the Depp v. Heard lawsuit. Who is suing whom and for what? Can we take what we're seeing on TikTok at face value? Also who is Amber Heard? All these answers and more(gan)!

According to a lawsuit filed by some shareholders, Twitter may have failed to disclose important information about the Musk deal, and it might be Musk's doing! Get the full breakdown on this very interesting lawsuit that isn't getting much coverage elsewhere! Also, a Connecticut Bill paves the way for how other states might fight against abortion restrictions. Something to fight for in your state! Also, why Andrew is definitely right about Clarence Thomas. Links: Code of Conduct for US Judges, 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, WHPA fails, CT bill, Orlando Police Pension Fund v Twitter, 8 Del. Code § 203, disclosure in merger agreement