Podcast appearances and mentions of Paul Clement

As Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo rise to become the best players in the world, their rivalry takes another step closer as Ronaldo joins Real Madrid to go head to head with Messi and Barcelona.In episode two of this four-part series, Steve Crossman and Guillem Balague discuss how the Real Madrid and Barcelona years shape the Messi and Ronaldo rivalry on and off the pitch as they battle for team and individual awards.Hear from the likes of former team-mates such as Javier Mascherano and Henrik Larsson as they describe the impact Messi had on Barcelona while ex Real Madrid assistant Paul Clement reveals how the mentality of Ronaldo sets him apart.

This Day in Legal History: Abe Fortas Resigns SCOTUSOn May 15, 1969, Justice Abe Fortas resigned from the United States Supreme Court, becoming the first justice to leave the Court under the threat of impeachment. Fortas had been appointed to the Court in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, a close friend and political ally. His reputation had already been damaged in 1968, when Johnson tried to elevate him to Chief Justice and the nomination failed after senators criticized his outside income and ties to the president. The controversy deepened when it became public that Fortas had accepted a financial arrangement from the family foundation of Louis Wolfson, a financier who was later convicted of securities violations. Although Fortas returned the money, the arrangement created the appearance that a sitting Supreme Court justice might be financially entangled with someone who had legal troubles. That appearance alone was enough to cause a major crisis for the Court's legitimacy.Members of Congress began discussing impeachment, and Fortas ultimately resigned before a formal impeachment process could remove him. His departure became an important example of how judicial ethics are not limited to actual corruption, but also include conduct that undermines public confidence in judicial independence. The episode also showed the tension between life tenure and accountability for federal judges. Article III judges are protected from political pressure through lifetime appointments, but they can still face removal through impeachment for serious misconduct.Fortas's resignation left a lasting mark on debates over Supreme Court ethics, outside income, recusals, and financial disclosure. More than fifty years later, the Fortas controversy is still cited when questions arise about whether Supreme Court justices should follow clearer and more enforceable ethics rules.Closing arguments ended Thursday in Elon Musk's federal trial against OpenAI, Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and Microsoft, with the case now headed to a nine-member jury. Musk's lawyer argued that OpenAI violated its charitable mission by shifting assets, employees, and value from its nonprofit structure into a for-profit enterprise now worth hundreds of billions of dollars. He focused heavily on Altman's credibility, telling jurors that OpenAI's defense depends on believing Altman and pointing to testimony and documents that Musk says show dishonesty, conflicts, and self-enrichment. Musk's side also attacked Brockman's large equity stake and cited old journal entries as evidence that OpenAI insiders were thinking about personal wealth while controlling a nonprofit mission. Microsoft was portrayed by Musk's team as helping the alleged breach by investing billions and gaining major access to OpenAI's intellectual property and business structure. OpenAI's lawyers responded that Musk's claims are late, unsupported, and driven by his status as a competitor rather than by concern for charitable law. They argued Musk's donations were not legally restricted gifts, that he once sought control of OpenAI himself, and that he did not object to earlier restructuring documents. OpenAI also emphasized that the nonprofit remains in control and now holds a stake worth roughly $200 billion, which its lawyers described as enormous value created for the charity, not stolen from it. Microsoft's lawyer argued the company did not know of any specific conditions on Musk's donations and was not involved in the core events Musk complains about. In rebuttal, Musk's lawyer said OpenAI and Microsoft were distracting the jury from documents and texts showing that Musk funded OpenAI based on a specific nonprofit safety mission. The jury is scheduled to begin deliberations Monday.‘Who's Telling The Truth?' Musk-OpenAI Fight Goes To Jury - Law360 UKMusk accused of ‘selective amnesia,' Altman of lying as OpenAI trial nears end | ReutersThe Senate Banking Committee advanced the Clarity Act, a major crypto regulation bill that would set clearer rules for digital assets and define which regulators oversee different parts of the industry. The Republican-led committee approved the bill with support from all Republicans and two Democrats, Senators Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, giving the measure a better chance of reaching the full Senate. Even so, both Democrats warned they may not support the final version unless negotiations change. The bill is important to the crypto industry because it would help determine when tokens are treated as securities, commodities, or something else, which companies say is necessary for growth and legal certainty. Several Democrats objected that the proposal does not go far enough on anti-money laundering protections and should do more to stop public officials from profiting from crypto ventures. Banks are also fighting part of the bill because they fear crypto companies could use stablecoin rewards to compete with traditional deposits. The dispute led to tense committee negotiations, including a late compromise that Chairman Tim Scott allowed while rejecting some other Democratic amendments. Crypto groups have pushed hard for the legislation after spending heavily to support pro-crypto candidates in 2024. The White House is also backing crypto reform, and the House already passed its version of the Clarity Act last year. Supporters see the committee vote as a milestone after years of work, while critics, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, warn the bill favors the crypto industry at the expense of consumers, investors, national security, and the financial system. The bill now moves to the full Senate, where lobbying from crypto companies, banks, and consumer-protection advocates is likely to intensify.US Senate committee advances crypto bill in milestone for digital assets | ReutersA federal appeals court in Washington heard arguments over the Trump administration's attempt to revive executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey. The firms had previously won in lower court, where judges found the orders unconstitutional. The executive orders punished the firms over issues including their legal work, hiring practices, diversity policies, and political connections. They also sought to restrict the firms' lawyers from federal buildings, cancel government contracts held by their clients, and remove security clearances from firm employees. The Justice Department argued that the firms' business relationships and hiring decisions are not protected by the First Amendment, and that courts should not second-guess presidential decisions involving national security. Judges on the D.C. Circuit appeared skeptical of the administration's broad view of presidential authority, especially the claim that security clearance decisions are unreviewable even when allegedly made for improper reasons. Paul Clement, arguing for the firms, said the orders threatened the First Amendment and the ability of lawyers to represent unpopular clients without government retaliation. He warned that accepting the administration's theory could allow presidents to punish lawyers or firms based on political affiliation. Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, seemed more receptive to the administration's argument that courts have limited power to review security clearance decisions. The case is part of a broader fight over presidential power and whether the government can use executive authority to punish lawyers and firms viewed as political opponents. The appeals court also heard a related case involving lawyer Mark Zaid's security clearance. Any ruling from the D.C. Circuit could eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court.US appeals court questions Trump's push to punish major law firms | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Episode 51: Perkins Coie LLP v. Department of JusticePerkins Coie LLP v. Department of Justice, argued before Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, and Judge Neomi Rao of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 14, 2026. Argued by Paul Clement (on behalf of the Law Firm Appellees), Abbe Lowell (on behalf of Appellee Mark Zaid), and Abhishek Kambli (on behalf of the federal government).Case Summary, From the Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLP:  One year ago, the President did something no other president had done before: issue an executive order declaring a law firm whose clients and representations he dislikes “dishonest and dangerous” and deploying the levers of federal power to try to put the firm out of business. That was a perilous moment for appellee Perkins, the legal profession, and the rule of law. Nine law firms, cowed by the threat of firm-ending sanctions, “settled” with the President. But Perkins, followed by Jenner, WilmerHale, and Susman, sued to defend themselves and their clients. Four different district judges recognized the President's executive orders for what they are: shocking abuses of power that trample the constitutional rights of the law firms and their clients. This Court should recognize the same.The government cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Yet here, the President did not hide his intent to punish Perkins for its expression and that of its clients. He openly declared that he targeted Perkins because it represented his “failed” opponent in the 2016 election, challenged election laws alongside so-called “activist donors,” and brought purportedly “partisan lawsuits,” including “against the Trump Administration.” The President designed the Order to do more than just damage Perkins; he intended to intimidate the bar into submission.Case Summary, From the Brief of Appellee Mark Zaid: The government cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo. This case concerns an unconstitutional policy enacted to do just that. Shortly after taking office, the President issued a memorandum (the Presidential Memorandum) targeting the security clearances of a sprawling group of his perceived enemies, their lawyers, and their family members. As interpreted by the relevant agencies, the Presidential Memorandum constituted a directive to disregard then-existing procedures and institute a blanket revocation of the security clearances of those it named. Appellant Mark S. Zaid, an attorney who has represented government whistleblowers, is among those whose clearances were revoked...Rather than contesting whether they retaliated against Mr. Zaid or deprived him of the processes to which he was entitled under the applicable regulations, Appellants double down on the extraordinary position that their unlawful actions are entirely insulated from judicial review.Statement of Issues, From the Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLP:  Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment Whether Perkins is entitled to summary judgment on the additional ground (raised but not reached below) that Sections 1, 3, and 5 violate the separation of powers.Statement of Issues, From the Brief of Appellee Mark Zaid:  Whether a court may review a policy providing for the revocation of a group of security clearances without process or individualized review.Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.Resources:    Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLPBrief for the Government AppellantsCourtListener Docket (includes all filings for the law firms' cases)Brief of Appellee Mark ZaidBrief for the Government AppellantsCourtListener Docket (includes all filings in the appeal of Mark Zaid v. Executive Office of the President)

David Lat—founder of Above the Law and author and host of Original Jurisdiction blog and podcast—explains what these stories reveal about a legal profession navigating ideological warfare, economic disruption, and the enduring craft of persuasion.Paul Clement delivered what SCOTUSblog called "a master class in oral argument" in Trump v. Cook. Lat dissects what made it a master class—by listening for the bench's emotional temperature, pivoting through backup arguments without undercutting his primary position, and admitting to Justice Alito that his framing was "heads I win, tails you lose."Key points:VanDyke's dissental as a direct call to the public? Lat describes the theory that VanDyke is practicing "postmodern jurisprudence," calling out what he views as liberal colleagues imposing policy preferences while cloaking them in legal doctrine.For California practitioners, ask yourself: are you appearing before a lightning-rod judge on your panel? Your case might become less about the merits and more about signaling beyond your case.The BigLaw executive orders worked—not through litigation, but through capitulation: Four firms fought Trump's security clearance revocations in court and won. But nine firms settled, committing to political non-discrimination and nearly $1 billion in administration-favored pro bono work.A Washington Post study confirms the chilling effect: large firms have dramatically curtailed challenges to Trump policies compared to the first administration. Smaller boutiques are picking up the slack, but they lack BigLaw's resources. Lat predicts the government will lose in the D.C. Circuit and SCOTUS won't take the case—but the damage is already done.Jack Smith's boutique launched with a Costco run for paper towels—and it's part of a broader trend: AI and co-counseling arrangements now enable small firms to handle discovery-heavy work previously requiring armies of associates. But success still depends on established reputations; fresh graduates need BigLaw's name recognition.Clement's oral argument techniques translate to any appellate court: Listen not just for questions but for the bench's emotional temperature—”the vibes.” Stay nimble with backup arguments framed as "We stand by X, but if you're not persuaded..." Keep it conversational and candid—breaking the fourth wall builds credibility.

- Ce podcast est présenté par la marque française de sports de montagne Cimalp -[NOUVEAU FORMAT : ITW D+ / LES INTERVIEWS DE LA RÉDACTION DE DISTANCES+]Au départ du Yukon Arctic Ultra — emblématique course polaire au Canada — il y avait cette année deux favoris :

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., turn into the hottest drama in town, but here we are, listeners, on this chilly January day in 2026. Just yesterday, on January 21st, the justices wrapped up their January argument session with Trump, President of the United States v. Cook, a case that's got everyone buzzing about whether President Donald Trump can fire Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook at will. Picture this: the marble halls of One First Street, packed with lawyers, clerks, and even a few Capitol Hill interns. Paul Clement, arguing for the Trump administration, tried to push that the president has broad firing powers over Fed officials, but the justices weren't buying it. Justice Neil Gorsuch cut him off mid-sentence, saying, "I asked you to put that aside for the moment," according to live coverage from SCOTUSblog. NPR reported the court seemed doubtful of Trump's claim to fire Fed governors by fiat, while Fox News noted the justices signaling skepticism. Newsweek even hinted the Supreme Court may be preparing to deal Trump a disappointing blow, and Politico said they cast doubt on his power without proper review. An extraordinary friend-of-the-court brief from every living former Fed chair, six former Treasury secretaries, and top officials from both parties warned that letting Trump oust Cook would wreck the Federal Reserve's independence and tank the credibility of America's monetary policy, as highlighted by The New York Times.This isn't isolated—Trump's name is all over the docket. Earlier in the session, on January 12th, the court heard Trump v. Cook's opening arguments, listed right there in the Supreme Court's Monthly Argument Calendar for January 2026. SCOTUSblog's Nuts and Bolts series explained how January's the cutoff for cases to squeeze into this term's April arguments, starting April 20th at the Supreme Court Building, or they get bumped to October. Trump's push here echoes last term's Trump v. CASA, where the court expedited a birthright citizenship fight and ruled against nationwide injunctions on June 27th, 2025.But the action's not just at the Supreme Court. Down in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, January 23rd, Representative Steve Cohen from Tennessee grilled former Special Counsel Jack Smith during a hearing titled "Hearing Evidence of Donald Trump's Criminal Actions." Cohen pressed Smith on the evidence from federal grand jury indictments—Trump's alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election and illegally retaining classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Smith stood firm, detailing Trump's witness intimidation attempts, and Cohen called him a great American we can all respect, as recounted in Cohen's e-newsletter. Meanwhile, Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker notes a dismissal on January 14th in a case over Trump dismantling the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, ruled moot.And get this—House Speaker Mike Johnson, during a Wednesday press conference covered by The Hill, backed impeaching two federal judges who've ruled against Trump: Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who blocked deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, and Judge Deborah Boardman of the Maryland District Court, criticized for her sentencing of Sophie Roske, charged as Nicholas Roske for plotting to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh. California Republicans even filed an emergency application Tuesday against their state's 2026 election map for racial gerrymandering.It's a whirlwind, listeners—Trump's second term, one year in as the ACLU marked on January 20th, is a battlefield of lawsuits from the Federal Reserve to election interference probes. The justices' private conference tomorrow, January 23rd—no, wait, reports say after the 22nd—could add more cases, with opinions possibly dropping February 20th.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Hey listeners, picture this: it's been a whirlwind few days in the courts, with President Donald Trump's legal battles dominating headlines from the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., all the way to Capitol Hill. Just two days ago, on Wednesday, January 21, I was glued to the live updates from SCOTUSblog as the nation's highest court dove into Trump v. Cook, a blockbuster case over Trump's bold move to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from the Board of Governors. The arguments kicked off at 10 a.m. sharp in the majestic Supreme Court chamber, with Trump administration lawyers defending the president's authority to remove her, claiming it's essential for executive control over the independent Fed. On the other side, Lisa Cook's powerhouse attorney, Paul Clement—the guy often called the LeBron James of the Supreme Court for his wins under President George W. Bush—argued fiercely that Fed governors serve 14-year terms protected by statute, shielding them from political whims.Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell showed up in person, drawing fire from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who blasted it on CNBC as a mistake that politicizes the Fed. Bessent said, and I quote from the report, "If you're trying not to politicize the Fed, for the Fed chair to be sitting there trying to put his thumb on the scale, that's a mistake." Bloomberg Law highlighted Clement's role, noting his recent clashes with the Trump team on everything from Big Law firm executive orders to Harvard's foreign student visa fights. The justices grilled both sides intensely—Justice Amy Coney Barrett even pressed a lawyer on disagreements with the government's brief—leaving everyone buzzing about a potential ruling that could reshape presidential power over economic watchdogs.But that's not all. Shifting to Congress, yesterday, Thursday, January 22, the House Judiciary Committee in the 2141 Rayburn House Office Building held a tense 10 a.m. hearing titled "Oversight of the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith." Lawmakers zeroed in on Smith's office, scrutinizing his past investigations and prosecutions of President Trump and his co-defendants in cases tied to the 2020 election and classified documents. Tension was thick as Republicans pushed for accountability, while Democrats defended the probes' integrity—echoes of Smith's indictments that rocked the nation before Trump's return to the White House.Meanwhile, other Trump-related fights simmer. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco scheduled a June hearing on Trump's appeal of an Oregon federal judge's injunction blocking National Guard deployment to Portland, after the Supreme Court sided against a similar Illinois push last month, per The Oregonian. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker noted a dismissal as moot on January 14 in a case over dismantling the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, one of dozens tracking the administration's court clashes. And don't forget the Supreme Court's recent denials of gun rights petitions, though they punted on one involving a woman's old check-forgery conviction—Trump's influence looms large even there.As these battles unfold, from Fed independence to prosecutorial oversight, the stakes feel sky-high for our democracy and economy. Will the justices side with Trump's firing power? What's next for Jack Smith's legacy? Listeners, thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more updates. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Sarah Isgur and David French break down Paul Clement's “thousand duck-sized horses” argument before the Supreme Court in the Trump administration's case over the firing of Lisa Cook, and what it means for for-cause removal at the Federal Reserve.The Agenda:–Paul Clement the GOAT–Prediction: Lisa Cook will stay–The conservatism of the Supreme Court and MAGA's legal movement–Going “full Taft”–Tropic Thunder detour, for some reason–Gun and property rights in Hawaii–When to Martinize someone-Don Lemon's Theology of the Protest–It's not “Letter from a Birmingham Starbucks”–The best fan mail we've ever received Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen tracking court battles like they're the Super Bowl, but here we are in mid-January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal showdowns are dominating the dockets from Hawaii to the Supreme Court steps in Washington, D.C. Just this past week, as the Supreme Court wrapped up arguments in cases like Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana and Little v. Hecox, all eyes shifted to Trump's escalating clashes with federal agencies and old foes. On Friday, January 16, SCOTUSblog reported the justices huddled in private conference, voting on petitions that could add more Trump-related fireworks to their calendar.Take Trump v. Cook, heating up big time. President Trump tried firing Lisa Cook, a Democratic holdover on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, back in August 2025, calling her policies a mismatch for his America First agenda. U.S. District Judge Cobb in Washington blocked it, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her ruling 2-1. Now, the Trump administration, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is begging the Supreme Court to intervene. Oral arguments hit Wednesday, January 21, at 10 a.m. in the Supreme Court building, with Paul Clement—former Solicitor General under George W. Bush—defending Cook. Sauer blasted the lower courts as meddling in presidential removal power, echoing fights in Trump v. Slaughter, where the Court already chewed over firing FTC Chair Lina Khan's allies like Alvaro Bedoya last December. Dykema's Last Month at the Supreme Court newsletter calls it a direct shot at the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent, questioning if Congress can shield multi-member agency heads from the president's axe.It's not just agency drama. E. Jean Carroll, the former Elle writer who won $5 million defaming her after a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990s, just urged the Supreme Court to swat down his latest petition. ABC News covered her filing this week, where she argues U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in New York got evidence rules spot-on—no reversal needed.And that's barely scratching the surface. The Court's January calendar, straight from supremecourt.gov, lists Trump v. Cook smack in the middle, following Wolford v. Lopez on Tuesday, January 20—a Second Amendment tussle over Hawaii's law banning guns on private property open to the public without the owner's okay. Axios predicts 2026 bombshells like Trump v. Barbara on his executive order gutting birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, potentially stripping citizenship from kids of undocumented immigrants born on U.S. soil. Then there's Learning Resources v. Trump, challenging his national emergency tariffs on foreign goods—Axios says a loss could force $100 billion in refunds and crimp his trade wars.Over in lower courts, Just Security's litigation tracker logs fresh salvos: challenges to Executive Order 14164 jamming January 6 convicts into ADX Florence supermax in Colorado, and suits against orders targeting law firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale for alleged anti-Trump bias. Lawfare's tracker flags national security spins on these executive actions. Even California Republicans appealed a Los Angeles panel's smackdown of their gerrymander claims against Governor Gavin Newsom's maps to the Supreme Court this week, per SCOTUStoday.These cases aren't just legal jargon—they're power plays reshaping the presidency, from Fed independence to gun rights and citizenship. As Trump posts fire on Truth Social about "evil, American-hating forces," the justices gear up for a term that could torch decades of precedent.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Real Madrid are the most successful team in the history of the Champions League/European Cup with 15 titles. But how have they achieved this? Steve Crossman and Guillem Balague explore Real's relationship with the competition, looking at their early dominance in the late 1950s, through to their six triumphs since 2014. We hear from former players Clarence Seedorf and Sami Khedira on what makes Real Madrid so special. And former coach Paul Clement joins the pod to give us insight into Carlo Ancelotti and their "La Decima" win in 2014 against Atletico Madrid. To watch the TV documentary, it is available on BBC iPlayer: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m00276py/how-to-win-the-champions-league[this is re-versioned episode from the Football Daily's archive. It was first published on the 18th January 2025]

Short-term rentals—popularized by Airbnb and Vrbo—have been given modern platforms for the customary alternative to hotels: in-home stays. Yet their rapid growth has prompted a wave of local and state regulations at odds with the practice, driven by lobbying from the hotel industry, concerns about housing affordability, neighborhood character, and other regulatory assertions. While some critics, including city officials and interest groups, support increased oversight, others—including advocates of limited government and individual rights—contend that these services represent an exercise of property rights, expand consumer choice, and note that there is limited evidence of significant impact on the housing market.This panel will explore the constitutional, statutory, historical, and policy implications of short-term rental regulation. Are local governments properly protecting community interests, or are they infringing on fundamental property rights? What legal frameworks govern this space—and what should they be?Join us for a lively discussion featuring the Hon. Paul Clement, Tony Francois, and Ron Klain, moderated by Prof. Donald Kochan, that will examine the intersection of private property, regulatory authority, and economic liberty.

Christina Martin of the Pacific Legal Foundation joins to discuss litigating Hennepin County to the Supreme Court. Christina shares some stories about moot arguments ahead of oral arguments with Paul Clement, and compares the tax foreclosure sale in Hennepin to traditional bank foreclosures.  After discussing the case, Christina talks about her current work in follow up, including other property taxation issues and blight designations.    Links: Tyler v. Hennepin Co. Decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf Christina Martin at Pacific Legal: https://pacificlegal.org/staff/christina-martin/ 

And then there were three. Two more big law firms have sued the Trump administration for issuing executive orders punishing firms that Donald Trump doesn't like for one reasons or another. Paul Clement, former United States Solicitor General in the George W. Bush administration, is representing WilmerHale, one the the punished law firms. Attorney Clement wrote: " The President's sweeping attack on WilmerHale (and other firms) is unprecedented and unconstitutional." Glenn discusses these new legal developments and the implications for the rule of law if Trump is allowed to abuse his power by bullying law firms of his choice.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

And then there were three. Two more big law firms have sued the Trump administration for issuing executive orders punishing firms that Donald Trump doesn't like for one reasons or another. Paul Clement, former United States Solicitor General in the George W. Bush administration, is representing WilmerHale, one the the punished law firms. Attorney Clement wrote: " The President's sweeping attack on WilmerHale (and other firms) is unprecedented and unconstitutional." Glenn discusses these new legal developments and the implications for the rule of law if Trump is allowed to abuse his power by bullying law firms of his choice.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this week's episode of the Baldwin Bruins Sports Podcast, Blaine and Robert bring Frantz Byron & Nahkin Stevens from the Wrestling team into the studio after their successful season on the mats!  They talk about how they love the changes that Coach Horton brought to the program, how great it is working with Baldwin wrestling alumni, Paul Clement, what got them started in wrestling and to be honest, they had a very impressive showing in the Bearspot questions about wrestling.  Tune in!  

OA1138 - Is a federal judge really about to sign off on dismissing the federal corruption charges against New York City mayor Eric Adams even in the face of everything that we now know about the corrupt deal which led to DOJ's request? Why did appointed attorney Paul Clement recommend dismissing the case with prejudice, and what might it mean for future prosecutions by Trump's DOJ if Judge Ho agrees? Superstar NYC public defender Liz Skeen returns to go beyond the headlines with some local perspective on the current state of one of the most important federal criminal cases in our lifetimes.  Paul Clement's brief in support of dismissing charges with prejudice Rinaldi v. United States | 434 U.S. 22 (1977)  Rule 48. Dismissal | Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure  Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The Trump Administration is gutting the Justice Department's unit that oversees prosecutions of public officials accused of corruption.Emil Bove has fired the Chief of the Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Task Force, and Todd Blanche has fired the Justice Department Pardon Attorney.Judge Beryl Howell has blocked sections of Donald Trump's executive order punishing the Perkins Coie law firm.The top ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee calls for the Department of Justice Inspector General to open an investigation into Ed Martin, interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia.Judge Dale Ho has canceled the hearing in the Eric Adams dismissal case after amicus Paul Clement recommended he dismiss the bribery charges with prejudice.Plus listener questions.Questions for the pod? Questions from Listeners Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showFor all subscribers: we have a discussion of President Trump's jihad against Perkins Coie, and Long-Suffering Federal Judge Beryl Howell's lack of patience for it. And we talk about the arrest of green card-holder Mahmoud Khalil at Columbia University — and the efforts of the Trump Administration to expel him using little-used but very broad powers for the Secretary of State to expel aliens on the grounds that their presence would have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”For paying subscribers:* The Trump administration's effort to revoke hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to Columbia, on the grounds that the university has violated Title VI.* Ed Martin's vague-yet-menacing letter to Georgetown Law School, saying he is conducting an “inquiry” into the school's alleged teaching of DEI. * Updates on multiple cases where government lawyers say something in court and Trump administration officials say something else online that undermines their case.* The advice Paul Clement gave Dale Ho about Eric Adams, how Sam Bankman-Fried got himself thrown into solitary confinement by giving a jailhouse interview to Tucker Carlson, and some tips on best practices for distributing a podcast from federal prison, whether or not you are George Santos.

Donald Trump's Department of Justice officials have been trying to dismiss the criminal prosecution against New York City Mayor Eric Adams without prejudice, meaning they could continue holding the prosecution over his head as leverage. Judge Dale Ho appointed an outside attorney to brief and argue the issue, given that the DOJ prosecutors and defendant Adams are lockstep in their positions and no one is truly representing the interests of the American people. The outside lawyer, Paul Clement, has filed a 33-page brief arguing that the DOJ should not be permitted to dismiss the case without prejudice - meaning they could indict Adams again on the same charges any time they wanted. Clements said this is like DOJ "hanging the sword of Damocles over Adams' head."Glenn takes a look at this new court filing in the Eric Adams case.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Donald Trump's Department of Justice officials have been trying to dismiss the criminal prosecution against New York City Mayor Eric Adams without prejudice, meaning they could continue holding the prosecution over his head as leverage. Judge Dale Ho appointed an outside attorney to brief and argue the issue, given that the DOJ prosecutors and defendant Adams are lockstep in their positions and no one is truly representing the interests of the American people. The outside lawyer, Paul Clement, has filed a 33-page brief arguing that the DOJ should not be permitted to dismiss the case without prejudice - meaning they could indict Adams again on the same charges any time they wanted. Clements said this is like DOJ "hanging the sword of Damocles over Adams' head."Glenn takes a look at this new court filing in the Eric Adams case.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

After news this weekend that Columbia student and permanent legal resident Mahmoud Khalil was arrested by ICE agents, hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord explain the petition filed from his lawyer and the significance of his case as a harbinger of things to come, as a hearing is set over the effort to deport him. Then, they shift focus to the Trump administration's continued attacks on law firms and universities themselves, after the president cut federal funding to Columbia, and Georgetown was rebuked by the DC US Attorney for teaching principles related to diversity, equity and inclusion. Last up, Andrew and Mary review the latest in the Eric Adams case, with a shocking court filing containing texts from prosecutors, and they break down a few cases making their way through the courts right now: some of which have been touched by SCOTUS, others likely on their way to the High Court.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

In a news cycle that keeps on churning, Main Justice hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord wade through the nonstop dispatches to set some focal points for this episode. They begin with the hearing held by Judge Dale Ho last week over the Eric Adams dismissal and the Judge's appointment of Paul Clement as amicus, a.k.a. a friend of the court. Andrew details the important decisions Judge Ho has before him as Mary drives home why this case will reverberate beyond the embattled New York Mayor. Then, they touch on the latest resignation- this one, from Denise Cheung, the chief of the criminal division in the DC US Attorney's office, after being asked to do something by the administration she believed was unsupportable.  And last up, Andrew and Mary look at the Supreme Court denial of a stay in the case involving Trump's firing of Hampton Dellinger, and the disconnect between DOJ representations about Elon Musk's role in court versus what Musk is saying and doing in practice.Further reading: Here is Andrew's piece on Just Security: Why the Rule of Law Depends on an Evidentiary Hearing in Mayor Eric Adams' Case.And HERE is the letter of resignation from the head of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney's office in D.C.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

In today's all-new episode, our hosts Renato Mariotti and Asha Rangappa discuss the conflict of interest surrounding the peculiar case of NYC Mayor Eric Adams, and the larger implications for the entire Department of Justice going forward. Subscribe to our Patreon here, where paid members will get access to exclusive portions of this show. patreon.com/reallyamericanmedia We'll explore the recent legal drama surrounding Mayor Adams and unravel the many complexities of this intriguing case—including the appointment of a special prosecutor, and what this means for judicial impartiality. Renato kicks off the show with a breakdown of the surprising decision by Judge Ho, who appointed Paul Clement as special counsel—despite both the prosecution and defense agreeing to dismiss the case. This decision, echoing a past Supreme Court approach, raises serious questions about the role of the court in situations where both parties agree on a matter. Asha reflects on how this unexpected twist upholds the adversarial nature of the U.S. legal system, comparing it to the Supreme Court's practice of inviting the Solicitor General to argue cases where the government isn't directly involved. Our hosts discuss the possibility that Judge Ho might choose to dismiss the charges with prejudice, eliminating any future DOJ prosecutorial leverage. They also highlight the delicate balance judges must maintain in order to ensure impartiality and protect the court's integrity. We'll also reflect on historical examples of how the members of the judiciary have mobilized against politically motivated decisions in the past. The Eric Adams saga is but one microcosm of Trump's new tumultuous legal landscape, where political loyalty overshadows norms. In an era when court decisions and prosecutorial independence are highly politicized, this episode delivers a vital lesson about the significant legal and political upheaval ahead. In an era where judicial decisions and prosecutorial independence are ever more politicized, this episode is a must-listen for understanding the dynamics shaping our governance and liberty. Be sure to join us next week, as we continue to break down the complex legal issues and headlines that can't be confined to simple soundbites, right here on It's Complicated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Americans celebrate the transfer of power, Will Imboden reflects on the Israel/Hamas ceasefire, and a conversation with Supreme Court advocate Paul Clement. Plus, Daniel Darling on challenging stereotypes, a woman discovers the government thinks she died, and the Tuesday morning news Support The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donate. Additional support comes from Pensacola Christian College. Academic excellence, biblical worldview, affordable cost. go.pcci.edu/worldAnd from Chosen Gen Ministry, outfitting family discipleship through resources such as the Discipleship Parenting podcast. More at chosengenministry.org.

Real Madrid are the most successful team in the history of the Champions League/European Cup with 15 titles. But how have they achieved this? Steve Crossman and Guillem Balague explore Real's relationship with the competition, looking at their early dominance in the late 1950s, through to their six triumphs since 2014.We hear from former players Clarence Seedorf and Sami Khedira on what makes Real Madrid so special. And former coach Paul Clement joins the pod to give us insight into current head coach Carlo Ancelotti and their "La Decima" win in 2014 against Atletico Madrid.To watch the TV documentary, it is available on BBC iPlayer: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m00276py/how-to-win-the-champions-league4:30 Real Madrid's early dominance 11:40 Clarence Seedorf on the Real Madrid DNA 22:10 Paul Clement on La Decima and Carlo Ancelotti 38:30 Sami Khedira on Real's recruitment 40:30 Can they continue their dominance?

An Interview with Paul Clement, Appellate Lawyer and Distinguished Lecturer in Law The US Constitution has long been revered by its citizens, yet also robustly challenged. Knowing that it would be tested, the founders created the judiciary to serve as an independent bulwark that would protect Americans' rights.  Yet the judiciary's independence has often been called into question lately, in part due to the country's ideological divide. Further, until recently, some of its authority had been ceded to the executive branch, creating an explosion of government regulation and intrusion into citizens' daily lives.  Few understand the state of the judiciary and the US Constitution better than Paul Clement, our guest on this episode of Voices of Freedom. Clement has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than anyone in recent history, giving him distinct insights into future of the Court and the most impactful rulings of our time.  Topics Discussed on this Episode: ·         How Clement's midwestern roots have influenced his approach with the Court ·         The significance of the rule of law in America and how it's distinctive from other countries ·         The danger in straying from the US Constitution's intent ·         State of the US Supreme Court ·         Court packing  - its impact on the rule of law and the Court's make up ·         How the reversal of Chevron will impact government regulation ·         What universities should do to protect free speech and counter anti-Semitism ·         The legal profession distancing itself from controversial cases ·         How Americans can understand and uphold the rule of law Paul Clement served as the 43rd Solicitor General of the United States between 2005 and 2008. Prior to that, he served as Acting Solicitor General and as Principal Deputy Solicitor General. He is a partner at Clement & Murphy and a Bradley Foundation director. Clement is a 2013 Bradley Prize recipient.

“Prosecutors elicited perjury and a man's gonna go to his death. We can't allow that to happen.” – Paul Clement, October 9th, 2024.  This week the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the latest chapter in the complex and prolonged legal battle involving Richard Glossip, who has been on Oklahoma's death row since his conviction for a 1997 murder-for-hire. Following two independent investigations into allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, suppression of material evidence, and a history of inadequate defense counsel, Oklahoma's Attorney General took the bold step of confessing to constitutional error in the case and supporting a new trial. But Oklahoma's State Supreme Court is pressing on with Glossip's execution, and so, on Wednesday morning, the High Court heard a case long on the appearance of process and short on actual justice. Don Knight, Richard Glossip's attorney of almost 10 years, provides insights into the flawed process, and the shocking revelations from newly discovered evidence boxes. This case highlights broader questions about justice, fairness, and trust in the American legal system…. Leading us to an update from the latest inductee to the Lady Justice Hall of Fame – Amicus listener Barbara Hausman-Smith, and her one-woman protest at One First Street. Listen to the end of the show to find out what links this 76-year-old grandmother from Maine to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and SCOTUS's landmark decision to legalize equal marriage in Obergefell in 2015.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“Prosecutors elicited perjury and a man's gonna go to his death. We can't allow that to happen.” – Paul Clement, October 9th, 2024.  This week the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the latest chapter in the complex and prolonged legal battle involving Richard Glossip, who has been on Oklahoma's death row since his conviction for a 1997 murder-for-hire. Following two independent investigations into allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, suppression of material evidence, and a history of inadequate defense counsel, Oklahoma's Attorney General took the bold step of confessing to constitutional error in the case and supporting a new trial. But Oklahoma's State Supreme Court is pressing on with Glossip's execution, and so, on Wednesday morning, the High Court heard a case long on the appearance of process and short on actual justice. Don Knight, Richard Glossip's attorney of almost 10 years, provides insights into the flawed process, and the shocking revelations from newly discovered evidence boxes. This case highlights broader questions about justice, fairness, and trust in the American legal system…. Leading us to an update from the latest inductee to the Lady Justice Hall of Fame – Amicus listener Barbara Hausman-Smith, and her one-woman protest at One First Street. Listen to the end of the show to find out what links this 76-year-old grandmother from Maine to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and SCOTUS's landmark decision to legalize equal marriage in Obergefell in 2015.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“Prosecutors elicited perjury and a man's gonna go to his death. We can't allow that to happen.” – Paul Clement, October 9th, 2024.  This week the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the latest chapter in the complex and prolonged legal battle involving Richard Glossip, who has been on Oklahoma's death row since his conviction for a 1997 murder-for-hire. Following two independent investigations into allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, suppression of material evidence, and a history of inadequate defense counsel, Oklahoma's Attorney General took the bold step of confessing to constitutional error in the case and supporting a new trial. But Oklahoma's State Supreme Court is pressing on with Glossip's execution, and so, on Wednesday morning, the High Court heard a case long on the appearance of process and short on actual justice. Don Knight, Richard Glossip's attorney of almost 10 years, provides insights into the flawed process, and the shocking revelations from newly discovered evidence boxes. This case highlights broader questions about justice, fairness, and trust in the American legal system…. Leading us to an update from the latest inductee to the Lady Justice Hall of Fame – Amicus listener Barbara Hausman-Smith, and her one-woman protest at One First Street. Listen to the end of the show to find out what links this 76-year-old grandmother from Maine to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and SCOTUS's landmark decision to legalize equal marriage in Obergefell in 2015.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Marty sits down with Caitlin Long to discuss how Elizabeth Warren and crew kicked off financial panic by targeting crypto banks. Caitlin on Twitter: https://x.com/CaitlinLong_ Custodia: https://custodiabank.com/ Paul Clement amicus brief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca10.88322/gov.uscourts.ca10.88322.10011074966.0.pdf Custodia brief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca10.88322/gov.uscourts.ca10.88322.148.0.pdf 0:00 - Intro 1:39 - Overview on the Silvergate situation 6:13 - First highlight from the document 10:23 - Recap on Silvergate from the beginning 15:50 - River & Unchained 17:05 - Why crypto banks are targeted 22:35 - Stories from the legal frontline 25:17 - Architects of Choke Point 2.0 and the damage they caused 39:11 - Will justice be served? 45:29 - Gradually, Then Suddenly & Zaprite 47:06 - Crypto was the target and taxpayers felt the pain 54:51 - Political possibilities 1:03:34 - Pushing back on state overreach 1:13:46 - Clearing the way for mining 1:16:49 - The banks can't handle bitcoin 1:20:25 - Get the word out Shoutout to our sponsors: River https://river.com/tftc Unchained https://unchained.com/concierge/ Zaprite https://zaprite.com/tftc Gradually, Then Suddenly https://thesaifhouse.com/gradually TFTC Merch is Available Shop Now: https://merch.tftc.io Join the TFTC Movement: Main YT Channel https://www.youtube.com/c/TFTC21/videos Clips YT Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUQcW3jxfQfEUS8kqR5pJtQ Website https://tftc.io/ Twitter https://twitter.com/tftc21 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/tftc.io/ Follow Marty Bent: Twitter https://twitter.com/martybent Nostr https://primal.net/martybent Newsletter https://tftc.io/martys-bent/ Podcast https://www.tftc.io/tag/podcasts/

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comOne of the most consequential developments of the last Supreme Court Term was the overruling of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the 40-year-old precedent directing courts to defer to agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. It came about through two cases: Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, argued by Roman Martinez, and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, argued by former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement (a past podcast guest).Today I'm pleased to be joined by Roman Martinez. One of the leading Supreme Court advocates of his generation, Martinez, 45, has argued 14 cases before the Court. But none has been as consequential—or controversial—as the aptly named Relentless.How does Martinez respond to claims that Relentless will have relentlessly negative consequences for American society? We explore the implications of the overturning of Chevron—along with Martinez's clerkships for then-Judge Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts, his thoughts on the old versus new SCOTUS argument formats, his style as a Supreme Court advocate, and his “secret weapon” in preparing for high-court appearances—in the latest Original Jurisdiction podcast.Show Notes:* Roman Martinez bio, Latham & Watkins* Roman Martinez profile, Chambers and Partners* 40 Under 40: Roman Martinez, Washington Business JournalPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

The latest episode of the Argyle Podcast is available to listen to!Super Frank Nouble.Not many footballers, have played for 19 clubs, featuring in the top six of divisions in England, spent two years in China and has set up their own Academy. Well, Frank Nouble has amongst many other things.Growing up in south London, he and his brother Joel, both signed for Chelsea in the early 2000s. Frank flourished, under the guidance of Paul Clement and Brendan Rodgers. Blues legend Gianfranco Zola convinced him to swap Stamford Bridge for Upton Park and a three year spell followed. It was here that Frank began to rack up club after club.Frank had already played in three countries and 17 clubs by the time he appeared at Home Park in the summer of 2020 and despite a goalscoring debut, he never managed to stake a claim in Green.Even though he spent less than a season at Argyle, the impact the club had on him and his family was immense and in Frank's words, “the club is incredible.”This is the story of Frank Nouble.The podcast will also available wherever you get your podcasts, including Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Music. Click here for the RSS feed.

150 years ago the now familiar QWERTY keyboard was first used. It has become a staple of every desk and laptop across the country since then, with some letters getting more love than others. Paul Clement has been writing about this in today's Irishman's Diary in the Irish Times and joins Seán to discuss the history of the layout.

Steve Crossman is joined by John Murray, Chris Sutton and Paul Clement to reflect on Real Madrid's 2-0 victory over Borussia Dortmund in the Champions League Final. The team, live from Wembley, discuss Kroos' final game, Bellingham's impact at Los Blancos, all whilst witnessing the Real Madrid trophy presentation.Timecodes: 00:09 Intro/full time reaction 03:45 Kroos' retirement 08:20 Trophy lift 17:00 Real Madrid in the Champions League 21:55 Jude Bellingham at Los Blancos

14 time winners Real Madrid take on tournament surprise Borussia Dortmund at Wembley tonight - and you can hear it live on talkSPORT! Rio Ferdinand has his say on Jadon Sancho and Joe Cole charts the success of Jude Bellingham. Paul Clement reveals he was with Carlo Ancelotti yesterday and gives us insight into what he's like behind the scenes. Joe Cole and Peter Crouch have their say ahead of England's Euros. Eddie Hearn talks about his relationship with Frank Warren. Ally McCoist lists his talkSPORT 5v5. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The 16th Amendment gives power to congress to “lay and collect taxes.”  After all, a country has to have an ability to raise revenue. When it comes to that revenue, we have had a tradition of paying taxes on income, not the value of an investment, like paying taxes when we sell a few shares of stock in a company and not on the growth of that stock every year we own it.  Those are called realized gains.  There is discussion in the federal government to change that and tax unrealized gains meaning we would have to pay taxes on the increase in value in our homes or investments even before we sell that possession.  The genesis of this Supreme Court case was a provision in the tax cuts package passed and signed into law in 2017 to help pay for those cuts.  We know, tax code and tax law are confusing.  Fortunately, to help us navigate this confusing topic, we have a very special guest with an impressive legal career.  Paul Clement is the country's former Solicitor General (the Department of Justice's chief lawyer in front of the Supreme Court), now in private practice.  He has argued more than 100 cases in front of the Supreme Court, more than any other lawyer since 2000, in or out of government.

In this episode, Blaine sits down with our Editor/Producer Paul Clement who was the Nassau County Runner Up in his weight class in wrestling this year. The episode focuses on the injury that Paul had in the County finals and his recovery.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!How many Supreme Court advocates wind up with three or more arguments in the same Term? Some of my past podcast guests—like Lisa Blatt, Paul Clement, Neal Katyal, and Kannon Shanmugam—can claim this distinction. But it's very, very rare (especially if you don't work—or have never worked—in the Office of the Solicitor General).What's even more rare is having three oral arguments in your very first Term arguing before the Court. But Easha Anand, the 38-year-old co-director of Stanford Law School's renowned Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, just pulled off this feat—which is why I was so eager to have her as a guest on the Original Jurisdiction podcast.How did Easha wind up in law school, after a promising journalism career that included stints at the New Orleans Times-Picayune and the Wall Street Journal? How did she wind up with three Supreme Court arguments in the same Term? And what are her three pieces of advice for first-time SCOTUS advocates?Listen to our podcast interview to find out. Congratulations to Easha on the unanimous win in her first argued case, thanks to her for joining me, and good luck to her in what I predict will be a long and successful career arguing at One First Street.Show Notes:* Easha Anand bio, Stanford Law School* Stanford's Anand Argues Whistleblower Case in High Court Debut, by Lydia Wheeler for Bloomberg Law* Supreme Court Bar's Breakout Lawyer This Term Started Out in Journalism, by Jimmy Hoover for the National Law JournalPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

Here's another chance to hear my interview with Paul Clement from season one.To get somebody breaking down what matchday is like at an extraordinary level of sport is rare, but that's what you get here in part two. The tactical presentation that gave Paul palpitations; the reason they can't leave the hotel as a team; the Ronaldo effect in the tunnel before the game; the staggered nature of the celebrations – and why, at Madrid, they never last too long.Subscribe to The Big Interview YouTube channel Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Here's another chance to hear my interview with Paul Clement from season one.Season 2013/14 was a special one for Real Madrid. It was the season of La Decima, their 10th European crown. Paul, assistant to Carlo Ancelotti, saw it all. And this is his account. From a fastidious breakdown of a typical day on the training ground with Ancelotti, Zinedine Zidane and Fernando Hierro, through the positional alterations and squad characters that lifted the team at crucial times. Enjoy part one of a fascinating conversation.Subscribe to The Big Interview YouTube channel Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the last episode of 2023, Cydney and Blaine sit down with our Editor/Producer Paul Clement Jr. and Ari Guerra from the Varsity Wrestling team.  They discuss their strong start to the season, the respect that Coach Marrero has garnered from the team and their expectations for this season.  Paul and Ari have a close matchup in this week's Bear Spot segment.  Tune in to see who won.  

Another term is here! Check out what to expect when Zack hosts veteran Supreme Court advocates Paul Clement and Lisa Blatt to discuss several of the biggest cases the Court will hear this term.Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking on the button below. Thanks!Looking back over my time at Above the Law, one of the things I'm most proud of is the talent I discovered. My first full-time hire was Elie Mystal, now the justice correspondent on The Nation, frequent television commentator, and author of the bestselling Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution. My second full-time hire was Kashmir Hill, now at the New York Times, who has a book of her own: Your Face Belongs to Us: A Secretive Startup's Quest to End Privacy as We Know It, published last month by Penguin Random House.Your Face Belongs to Us is about the future of facial-recognition technology, an incredibly powerful tool with great promise and peril. The book is a story about privacy and technology, but it's also a story about the law and legal issues. The future of facial recognition will be shaped profoundly by legal responses. Can we craft laws that allow society to take advantage of the benefits of this technology while at the same time preserving the privacy that it threatens?In my podcast interview with Kashmir, I pushed back on some of the more dystopian elements of Your Face Belongs to Us. I pressed her on whether she might be underestimating the positive aspects of facial-recognition technology, such as its use by law enforcement (such as tracking down January 6 rioters for arrest and prosecution). We analyzed the crucial role played by lawyers in the story of Clearview AI, the mysterious startup at the heart of the book; they include Paul Clement, Floyd Abrams, Federal Trade Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, and attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). And we explored stories of facial-recognition technology gone wrong, including innocent people arrested for crimes they didn't commit because of false positives on Clearview and similar software.Thanks to Kashmir for joining me, as well as for her important work exploring the legal and policy aspects of a transformative but troubling technology.Show Notes:* Kashmir Hill bio, author website* Kashmir Hill archives, The New York Times* Your Face Belongs to Us: A Secretive Startup's Quest to End Privacy as We Know It, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

In the first episode of season 5 of the Baldwin Bruins Sports Podcast, the new staff introduces themselves. This year, our team is Co-Hosts, Cydney Herrera and Blaine Harding along with our Editor/Producer, Paul Clement. Tune in!

USPTO Director Kathi Vidal's decision to issue the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) is the latest major controversy surrounding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  The American Invents Act (AIA) created the PTAB to supposedly provide a cheaper, faster alternative to district court patent litigation.  However, the PTAB quickly gained a reputation for being a patent “death squad” that allows defendants to repeatedly challenge the same patents until those patents are invalidated. During the last administration, former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu tried to correct that by limiting when patents could be challenged at the PTAB.  Because those changes never finished going through the federal government's rulemaking process, Vidal was able to quickly roll them back.  The ANPRM now presents a litany of its own proposals for fixing fix how the PTAB operates and heated opposition on all sides. Nicholas Matich joins Eli to talk about the ANPRM and what's likely to happen with its proposals.  Nick, who is now Principal at the patent litigation powerhouse McKool Smith, served as USPTO's general counsel under Iancu after working at the White House and as Deputy GC of the OMB.  This provides him with an unmatched understanding of how the rulemaking process actually works for proposals emanating from the USPTO.  Nick and Eli also discuss: What Nick learned from working with Viet Dinh and/or Paul Clement at Bancroft PLLC How the OMB reviews & approves agency rules Serving as USPTO's GC Advice for influencing USPTO's rules Iancu's Fintiv factors & how to explain swift reversal Why the ANPRM was a mistake Advice for future USPTO Directors  

In this week's episode, Aaron sits down with Paul Clement Jr. and Jasmin Tiong-Smith from the Boys and Girls Lacrosse team. They chat about their seasons, playoff lacrosse, the differences between boys and girls lacrosse and so much more. Tune in.

The Texas legislature meets once every two years, and they are spending a great deal of this session on bills that would advance religion. We return to our conversation on the Ten Commandments bill in Texas, as we saw a groundswell of opposition to the bill when it headed to the state House. Amanda and Holly take a look at some viral moments, and we share an exclusive conversation with Texas state Rep. James Talarico, who spoke in opposition to this bill as a lawmaker, a former schoolteacher, and a Christian.  SHOW NOTES: Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): Why are we still talking about this? Last week's program on the Ten Commandments bill in Texas (Senate Bill 1515) is episode 20 of season 4. You can listen to it on our website. We played the viral video of state Rep. James Talarico questioning the author of the bill. You can watch it on Twitter. An advocate in Waco put together this petition opposing SB 1515, available for Texans who oppose the bill as people of faith to sign.   Segment 2 (starting at 12:39): A conversation with Texas state Rep. James Talarico You can see video clips of the interview with Amanda and Texas state Rep. James Talarico in a Twitter thread she posted. It is also available on YouTube and on a reel posted by the @endchristiannationalism Instagram account.   Segment 3 (starting at 27:32): Putting this discussion into focus For additional resources on the various ways religions interpret and list the commandments, a chart from New World Encyclopedia shows how different traditions order them. You can see a list of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) here. Visit this website for a side-by-side comparison of the Ten Commandments as listed in Deuteronomy 5 and Exodus 20. We played a clip of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioning Paul Clement in 2005 during oral arguments in the Van Orden v. Perry case. You can listen to the full argument here, and the clip we played is from 51:24 in the audio recording of the argument. Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

Stamford Chidge & Jonathan Kydd are joined by Martin Wickham to look back at a frustrating draw against Everton at the Bridge.In part one we ask why did Potter shut up shop at 1-0? Was it Brightonesque or an attempt at game management? We look at the substitutions. Gallagher for Pulisic? Why not Mudryk? Cheek for Kovacic and Chalobah for Fofana - understandable but Chukwuemeka for Felix? In part two we look at the poor defending by Koulibaly and Kepa's errors for Everton's 2nd goal. The result was frustrating and felt like a defeat and it seems like when Chelsea don't win the negativity starts. However, Chelsea looked fluid for much of the match, although still profligate and the defence was immense bar the two errors for the goals. So, are we getting in a stew about nothing? In part three we give a very warm welcome to Garry Hayes and Ceri Levy from The Chels podcast to talk about their new project: The Blueprint: How Chelsea FC Changed Football, a brand-new narrative podcast series covering the rise of Chelsea FC and the club's role in shaping modern football, has debuted with an extremely rare and exclusive interview with former Chelsea FC owner Ken Bates.From fearing for their very existence to conquering Europe and winning the Champions League all within two decades, the story of modern Chelsea FC is unlike any other. The Blueprint tells the inside story of how the club has shaped modern football.From the boardroom to the dressing room, the press room to terraces, key figures who played their part or watched history being made before their very eyes, open up and reveal all in this narrative podcast series.Featuring Frank Lampard, Ken Bates, Jody Morris, Petr Cech, Gary Cahill, Paul Clement, Scott Minto, Tore Andre Flo and many more.The two-part Blueprint Ken Bates interview is available on Apple, Spotify, Google, Amazon and all major podcast providers. The full eight-part series will be available from May 2023Follow Garry @garryhayes and Ceri @cerilevy and The Blueprint @Blueprint_pod Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Former Solicitor General Paul Clement has argued 100+ cases before the United States Supreme Court, but we really need SCOTUS to have him back to argue the merits of "chevron deference" in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises. Plus, Silicon Valley's Congressman Ro Khanna joins Hugh to discuss the "Blue Bank Bailout" of SVB and Signature Bank.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Annual gathering aims to silence woke heretics... misses spectacularly. The Federalist Society national convention kicked off with Judge William Pryor mocking Above the Law for insinuating that the organization is a bunch of ideological hacks in a monologue that was "funny" to the extent it amounted to a quarter hour of self-owns. A day later, FedSoc proved its hackery when the Board voted to bar its founder and co-chair from identifying himself to the media as either a "founder" or "co-chair" -- a move that backfired when Steven Calabresi's immediate response was to tell the media that the Board had voted to bar him from calling himself the founder or co-chair. Please do not let these people write your contracts! We also discuss "Paul Clement's Lament" that law firms care more about money than his passion project of making America objectively worse and more dangerous. And more news of bubbling layoffs!