Nate DiMeo is the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Artist in Residence for 2016/2017. He is producing ten pieces inspired by the collection and by the museum itself. This is the sixth episode of that residency.
This residency is made possible by the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Chester Dale Fund.
This episode is written and produced and stuff by Nate DiMeo with engineering assistance from Elizabeth Aubert. Its Executive Producer is Limor Tomer, General Manager Live Arts, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
The wink-and-nudge questioning of former FBI director James Comey in the Senate seemed to indicate that there may be far more to the Russia election tampering probe than we now know. And yet, several important issues weren’t covered at all. Cato's Julian Sanchez and Patrick Eddington comment.
If it's Friday, it's a current events episode, and if it's current events, we're probably talking about Donald Trump. We begin, however, with the second installment of a hopefully infrequent segment about stuff Andrew gets wrong. In this case, it's actually two things. First, Andrew clarifies the terminology related to immunity, and second, Andrew admits to falling for a hoax (!) In our main segment, we look at James Comey's testimony before the Senate regarding his firing. How far up Yodel Mountain does this take us? Listen and find out! After that, fan favorite Breakin' Down the Law returns with an analysis of what's going on with the Trump Administration's appeal of Executive Order 13780, the so-called "Muslim Ban," which we last discussed in Episode #51. Finally, we end with a brand new (and tricky) Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #27 about the admissibility of a question on cross-examination regarding the availability of insurance proceeds. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was a recent guest on Episode #84 of the Cellar Door Skeptics podcast; give it a listen. Show Notes & Links
We first discussed obstruction of justice in Episode #70, and analyzed the status of Executive Order 13780 in Episode #51.
The two cases Andrew found that involve valid prosecutions for obstruction of justice where the defendant used the "I hope" construction in threatening a witness are U.S. v. Bedoy, 827 F.3d 495 (5th Cir. 2016) and U.S. v. McDonald, 521 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2008).
Not much has changed (legally speaking) following the testimony of former FBI director James Comey before the intelligence committee in the Senate. So says Cato's Ilya Shapiro.
Jim Comey builds a case for obstruction of justice in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff joins Jon and Dan to break it down. Then, Trumpcare 2.0 gets new life in the Senate, and Ana Marie Cox joins to talk about the Republican reaction to Comey's testimony.
