Despite winning the Electoral College vote in 2016, President Donald Trump still claimed widespread voter fraud had robbed him of millions of votes. In the first part of a special five-part series of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by election law professor Rick Hasen to explore how those claims bolstered voter suppression and now threaten the integrity of the 2020 election.
Rick Hasen’s new book Election Meltdownforms the basis for this special series of Amicus.
Today's episode won't be a surprise; we're tackling all the developments in the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump, including a deep dive into the trial brief filed by his cadre of (terrible) lawyers that alleges a strange new legal defense: "duplicity." Figure out what it all means & why there's so much reason to hope on today's show!
We begin with a letter a listener received from Sen. Todd Young and a call to action to each of you to CALL YOUR SENATORS. The Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121. They'll connect you! For the Republicans, make this simple request (and be polite!):
“I’d like to speak with Senator ____’s office. Hi, I’m _____, I’m a constituent, and I’m calling to ask Senator ____ to vote in favor of allowing the Senate to subpoena documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial. I don’t know how we can decide if Trump is innocent or guilty without seeing all of the evidence. Thank you.”
For the Democrats, call them and thank them for their promise to vote for subpoenaing documents and witnesses. That's all! It's that easy and you can REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
Then, it's time for the main segment, where we delve into all of the supposed "impeachment rules" -- do they really have to drink milk? -- and why S. Res. 438 gives us some reason for optimism.
After that, it's time to deconstruct the "cargo cult legal brief" filed by Trump's lawyers. How is it lying nonsense and what's the next bizarre and false argument they're going to make in the trial? We tell you! We also explore the legal doctrine of "duplicity," and show how... duplicitous that argument is in Trump's brief.
Then, of course, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE on contemporaneously recorded notes and hearsay. Will Thomas build on his three-question winning streak? Will you get it right? There's only one way to find out....
Appearances
None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Remember that the two crimes covered by the Articles are bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) (included in Art. I, Abuse of Power) and obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (included in Art. II, Obstruction of Congress).
Believe it or not, Congress apparently does occasionally pass laws still. One such law is the SECURE Act. The stated goals of the legislation involve trying to improve the retirement plans and options for Americans who are struggling to save enough. But was the legislation well-written or will there be unintended consequences? We've got Phil Ferguson of Polaris Financial Planning and host of the Phil Ferguson show to give us the breakdown!
In the very first live show, Strict Scrutiny goes blue at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor! The full crew recaps two arguments from the January sitting (Kelly v. United States and Thole v. US Bank) and notes some uncomfortable interactions inside and outside of One First Street. They also discuss upcoming student conventions for the American Constitution Society and People’s Parity Project after Leah and Melissa explain to Kate and Jaime what GTL means. Thanks to our hosts, the ACS student chapter at the University of Michigan!
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Neil Eggleston, White House Counsel during the last three years of the Obama Administration. He also represented the Office of the President in privilege litigation against the Starr Independent Counsel’s Office during the President Clinton Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation. Together, they take a close look at the lawyers surrounding the president, and at the legal strategies in play as the impeachment process moves into its trial phase.
Today's episode is one big Andrew Was Right! As we predicted, the House transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate this week, and we unpack all of this week's news in connection with impeachment, including the new GAO report on the Impoundment Control Act, the testimony from Lev Parnas, and much, much more. By the end of this super-sized episode, we'll also give your our predictions as to who might be a surprise profile in courage. The answer WILL surprise you!
We begin with the GAO report that's being quoted everywhere. Are media sources getting it right? And what's in the report that's not being talked about? Listen and find out! Did Trump's OMB violate the Impoundment Control Act? (Hint: yes.)
Then, we take a look at the transmission of articles, the House managers named, the rules involved, the President's amazing legal team, and much, much more.
After all of that, we get to the ultimate question: will this moo the noodle? And if so, who are the Republicans that can be moo'ed? We name names! We also evaluate the Lev Parnas testimony and try and steelman Trump's arguments.
Then, of course, it's time for an all-new #T3BE on cocaine smuggling, featuring a special guest player (and next week's guest) Phil Ferguson.
Appearances
None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
In Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, the Supreme Court will determine whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act preempts state common law claims for restoration damages for pollution also addressed by an EPA-directed cleanup plan. In this case, a Montana copper smelter polluted its neighbors’ properties for decades but has also spent $450 million to remediate this pollution under a plan negotiated with EPA. Believing Montana state law entitles them to more extensive restoration than the EPA plan provides, neighboring property owners sued Atlantic Richfield for trespass and nuisance, seeking restoration damages and other relief. Jonathan Wood and Corbin Barthold join us to discuss the oral argument in this case and its implications for CERCLA and property rights. In this special, extended analysis episode, we have two guests. The first voice you will hear is Corbin Barthold, Senior Litigation Counsel at Washington Legal Foundation followed by Jonathan Wood, Senior Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Kate and Melissa preview the January sitting, including Bridge-gate, some fashion-y trademark cases, and whether they count as “older workers” for purposes of the ADEA. Plus, RBG and Sotomayor sightings in the wild.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
Here's the extra bonus we promised you! As always, Andrew is terrible at lightning rounds so we might not have gotten to the quantity of questions that we'd hoped, but the quality is fantastic and as always, you'll learn a ton!
