Podcast appearances and mentions of randall eliason

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Randall Eliason, law professor and former Assistant U.S. Attorney provides an excellent account of the days leading up to the recent sentencing of political operative Roger Stone. The Department of Justice's unprecedented interference in--and reversal of--its prosecutorial team's recommendation led to the resignation from the case of all four prosecutors. Over 2000 former DOJ officials have called on Attorney General Barr to resign in the wake of his interference in the case.   Orignally Published: March 4, 2020

It's Hump Day! Sam and Emma speak with Randall Eliason, white collar crime professor at George Washington University Law School and author of the Sidebars newsletter, to discuss the recent developments in all of Trump's criminal cases. First, they run through updates on Israel's mass slaughter of civilians in Rafah, failing US aid to Gaza, the Texas GOP, Biden's nomination for President, South African politics, Alito's absurd alibi, and the future of the Clean Water Act, before watching John Kirby claim offense over an incredibly reasonable question that happens to acknowledge the horrors occurring in Gaza. Professor Randall Eliason then joins, as he dives right into a summary of the central arguments on either side of Trump's ongoing hush money case, parsing particularly through Trump's Defense's decision to step away from the incredibly viable route of undermining the “proof of intent” in Trump's payments to Michael Cohen, instead going all in on the Trumpian route of character assassinations against Stormy Daniels and Cohen, and relying on claims that these were legitimate legal expenses (they weren't). Next, Professor Eliason explores the concept of the broader fraud arguments Alvin Bragg's prosecution could have used against Donald Trump, before wrapping up their Hush Money conversation by assessing the impact of a hung jury on the future of the case. Randall then looks to Trump's January 6th case, and Jack Smith's special council indictment as the second most likely case to be heard before November, and tackles Judge Aileen Cannon's successful attempts to slow-walk the “Stolen Documents” case in Florida, before wrapping up the interview with the Supreme Court's role in Trump's various legal woes, and whether the recent charges against Alito will have any impact on the Court. Sam and Emma also examine the major holes in Justice Alito's recent attempt to shirk responsibility for hoisting various blatantly anti-Democratic and conspiratorial flags at his house. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma watch Donald Trump Jr. call out notorious grifter… Robert De Niro? walk through major issues around polling and turnout as November's presidential election draws near, and parse through Tim Pool's warning to teenage women that if they don't try to fuck him, they'll be single forever. They also dive into Samuel Alito's refusal to recuse himself from the Trump case in the wake of the Justice's January 6th flag waving, American Airlines' stunning display of racial discrimination, and RFK's claim that US history, in the context of confederate statues, should be celebrated and protected. Seinfeld goes full latte liberal (or a frappé fascist perhaps), plus, your calls and IMs! Check out "Sidebars" here: https://www.sidebarsblog.com/ Check out this video from Public Citizen here: https://x.com/Public_Citizen/status/1795792636302729682 Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Join Sam on the Nation Magazine Cruise! 7 days in December 2024!!: https://nationcruise.com/mr/ Check out the "Repair Gaza" campaign courtesy of the Glia Project here: https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/rebuild_gaza_help_repair_and_rebuild_the_lives_and_work_of_our_glia_team#!/ Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: HelloFresh: Go to https://HelloFresh.com/majoritysweet for FREE dessert for life! One dessert item per box while subscription is active. That's free dessert for life at https://HelloFresh.com/majoritysweet. Neoplants: Go to https://neoplants.com/majority to get your 7th sachet of Power Drops free of charge at checkout (note: you must use this link for the discount to apply - look out for the free product that will be automatically added to your cart). Thanks to Neoplants for sponsoring today's video! Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

It's News Day Tuesday! But first, Emma speaks with Randall Eliason, white collar crime professor at George Washington University Law School and author of the Sidebars newsletter, to discuss the recent developments in all of Trump's criminal cases. First, Emma runs through updates on today's Pennsylvania primaries, Trump's ongoing hush money case, primary polling, growing backlash to Zionist repression on college campuses, Israel's bombardment on Rafah, Senate legislation, solar subsidies, FTC policy, Starbucks v. NLRB, Tennessee's charter voucher bill, and the UK's new migrant deportation program, before parsing through the Supreme Court's ongoing case likely to uphold Grants Pass, Oregon's effective ban on homelessness. Professor Randal Eliason then joins, first reminding us of the general tally of Trump's myriad civil and criminal legal cases, before diving deeper into the ongoing trial surrounding his hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, including the state's attempt to spin the genuine falsification of legal and business records into an attempt to interfere in the development of the 2016 election. After assessing what he sees as the weak points in the state's arguments, and quickly running through the role of the already-convicted Michael Cohen in these payments, Professor Eliason explores the extreme stance being taken by Trump's legal team, not just arguing against the election interference claims but attempting to claim that the records themselves are legitimate. Next, Emma and Randall look to the civil cases facing Trump, including the massive bond he currently owes New York, and parse a little deeper through the major cases out of Florida – surrounding his mishandling of classified documents – and D.C. – on the role he played in the January 6th insurrection attempt. Wrapping up, they tackle the role of Trump's Supreme Court immunity hearings in preventing either of these cases from impacting his candidacy, and explore what a second Trump presidency would mean for the future of any of these cases. Emma also touches on the ongoing anti-war and anti-genocide protests coming out of Columbia University, and the powerful display by faculty to stand with the students. And in the Fun Half: Emma gets some primary previews from John from San Antonio, Jesse Watters is astonished the criminal justice system is treating Trump like a criminal, and the State Department has an unsurprising need to know more before commenting on the mass grave revelations out of Gaza. Raz from Ojai asks for some pointers on debating universal healthcare, the MR Team unpacks the absurd conversation around crime (from all sides of the political spectrum), and Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan ponder the legitimacy of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Randall's Sidebars newsletter here: https://www.sidebarsblog.com/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Check out Seder's Seeds here!: https://www.sedersseeds.com/ ALSO, if you have pictures of your Seder's Seeds, send them here!: hello@sedersseeds.com Check out this GoFundMe in support of Mohammad Aldaghma's niece in Gaza, who has Down Syndrome: http://tinyurl.com/7zb4hujt Check out the "Repair Gaza" campaign courtesy of the Glia Project here: https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/rebuild_gaza_help_repair_and_rebuild_the_lives_and_work_of_our_glia_team#!/ Get emails on the IRS pilot program for tax filing here!: https://service.govdelivery.com/accounts/USIRS/subscriber/new Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Babbel: Here's a special, (limited time) deal for our listeners. Right now get up to 60% off your Babbel subscription - but only for our listeners - at https://Babbel.com/MAJORITY. Get up to 60% off at https://Babbel.com/MAJORITY. Rules and restrictions may apply. Liquid IV: Turn your ordinary water into extraordinary hydration with Liquid I.V. Get 20% off your first order of Liquid I.V. when you go to https://LiquidIV.com and use code MAJORITYREP at checkout. That's 20% off your first order when you shop better hydration today using promo code MAJORITYREP at https://LiquidIV.com.  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Randall Eliason talks about extortion, conspiracy, cover-up crimes and plea bargains – topics covered in his excellent new 24 lecture course available through Great Courses. He also takes us through some examples from recent headlines. Originally Posted on Sep. 29, 2020

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

In a dip into the Q&A archives, an interview from 2017 with former federal prosecutor and George Washington University Law School professor Randall Eliason. He talked about the 2017 trial of Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and other prominent political corruption cases including Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, Sen Ted Stevens and Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a dip into the Q&A archives, an interview from 2017 with former federal prosecutor and George Washington University Law School professor Randall Eliason. He talked about the ongoing trial of Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and other prominent political corruption cases that came before. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In light of the latest developments in Donald Trump's legal battles, we're bringing you this episode from our archive. Every week it seems that more and more evidence of Donald Trump's attempts at election subversion are revealed but where is the Department of Justice in their investigations. With some of the crimes outlined in the Mueller Report reaching their statute of limitations, swift action is necessary to preserve our democracy. At this pivotal moment, DSR host David Rothkopf and co-host Kavita Patel talk with Richard Painter, former ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, and Randall Eliason, former AUSA and Chief of the Public Corruption/Government Fraud section at the DC US Attorney's Office about the path forward for bringing Trump to justice. How do we know if Merrick Garland is moving fast enough? What laws need to be adjusted to prevent corruption in the future? Will Trump be charged with obstruction of justice. All these questions and more are discussed in this timely conversation. Join us. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In light of the latest developments in Donald Trump's legal battles, we're bringing you this episode from our archive. Every week it seems that more and more evidence of Donald Trump's attempts at election subversion are revealed but where is the Department of Justice in their investigations. With some of the crimes outlined in the Mueller Report reaching their statute of limitations, swift action is necessary to preserve our democracy. At this pivotal moment, DSR host David Rothkopf and co-host Kavita Patel talk with Richard Painter, former ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, and Randall Eliason, former AUSA and Chief of the Public Corruption/Government Fraud section at the DC US Attorney's Office about the path forward for bringing Trump to justice. How do we know if Merrick Garland is moving fast enough? What laws need to be adjusted to prevent corruption in the future? Will Trump be charged with obstruction of justice. All these questions and more are discussed in this timely conversation. Join us. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Holyoke Media, en asociación con WHMP radio, emiten diariamente la Síntesis informativa en español a través del 101.5 FM y en el 1240 / 1400 AM. Esta es la síntesis informativa del martes 12 de julio de 2022: - Un juez federal se negó el lunes a retrasar el próximo juicio de Steve Bannon, ex asesor del expresidente Donald Trump que enfrenta cargos de desacato al Congreso luego de negarse durante meses a cooperar con el comité de la Cámara que investiga la insurrección del Capitolio del 6 de enero. Bannon todavía tiene programado ir a juicio la próxima semana a pesar de que le dijo al comité de la Cámara el sábado por la noche que ahora está preparado para testificar. No está claro si Bannon volverá a negarse a comparecer ante el comité con el juicio pendiente. A Bannon también se le prohibió afirmar varias posibles defensas o llamar al estrado a la presidenta de la Cámara de Representantes, Nancy Pelosi, o a los miembros del comité de la Cámara. La serie de fallos del juez federal de distrito Carl Nichols hizo que uno de sus abogados se quejara de que el ex alto funcionario de la Casa Blanca, no podría defenderse en absoluto. A menos que haya un fallo de la corte de apelaciones u otra demora, el juicio comenzará mientras el comité continúa con sus audiencias de alto perfil durante los disturbios. El testimonio de exasesores de la Casa Blanca reveló nuevas acusaciones de que Trump sabía que la multitud estaba fuertemente armada y que trató de unirse a la gente que marchaba hacia el Capitolio. Nichols se negó a retrasar el juicio desde su inicio actual el 18 de julio, diciendo que cualquier inquietud sobre la publicidad previa al juicio debido a las audiencias podría abordarse durante la selección del jurado. Si resulta imposible elegir un jurado imparcial, el juez dijo que reconsideraría conceder un aplazamiento. Los fiscales federales argumentaron el lunes que la nueva oferta de comparecencia de Bannon no cambiaría ningún delito penal cometido por no comparecer antes. Randall Eliason, un exfiscal que ahora enseña derecho en la Universidad George Washington, estuvo de acuerdo con esa opinión y expresó que “Esto es un desacato criminal. No puedes borrar el cargo decidiendo aparecer más tarde". FUENTE: AP - La Corte Judicial Suprema de Massachusetts dice que la votación por correo no viola la constitución del estado. El Partido Republicano de Massachusetts había estado desafiando la nueva ley del estado, denominada Ley de VOTOS, que permite que cualquier persona vote por correo por cualquier motivo. El proyecto de ley fue promulgado el mes pasado por el gobernador republicano Charlie Baker. El Partido Republicano del estado argumentó que permitir permanentemente la votación por correo conduciría al fraude electoral. La orden de SJC emitida el lunes decía: "Se niega la solicitud de los demandantes de prohibir al Secretario que ponga en vigencia la ley VOTES". La Ley VOTES requiere que el secretario de estado envíe por correo las solicitudes de boletas a todos los votantes registrados 45 días antes de las elecciones primarias, lo que significa que el secretario William Galvin debe enviar las boletas por correo el 23 de julio de este año. En un comunicado, el Partido Republicano de Mass. dijo que tiene la intención de apelar ante la Corte Suprema porque el caso "presentó problemas importantes tanto de la ley estatal como federal". Galvin dice que no le preocupa una posible apelación del partido republicano del estado. Agregó que la decisión envía un mensaje al resto del país. “En un momento en que tantos estados están revirtiendo los derechos de los votantes, reduciéndolos, los estamos ampliando”, dijo. “Y creo que ese es el camino correcto a seguir”. La votación por correo se ha permitido durante los últimos dos años debido a la pandemia. FUENTE: WBUR

Wednesday, June 29th, 2022 Today, in the Hot Notes: explosive testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson during the last minute hearing on the 1/6 attack on the Capitol building; Ghislaine Maxwell is sentenced to 20 years in prison; There's no chance that Supreme Court justices could be charged with perjury during their confirmation hearings; Turkey has dropped its opposition of Finland and Sweden joining NATO; and filmmaker Alex Holder has been contacted by the Fulton County DA Fani Willis; plus Dana and Allison deliver your Good News. Follow the Podcast on Apple: http://apple.co/beans Follow our guest on Twitter: Randall Eliason https://twitter.com/rdeliason Follow AG and Dana on Twitter: Dr. Allison Gill  https://twitter.com/allisongill https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote https://twitter.com/dailybeanspod Dana Goldberg https://twitter.com/DGComedy Follow Aimee on Instagram: Aimee Carrero (@aimeecarrero) How We Win Fund swingleft.org/fundraise/howwewin Listener Survey: http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short Have some good news, a confession, a correction, or a case for Beans Court? https://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Want to support the show and get it ad-free and early? https://dailybeans.supercast.tech/ Or https://patreon.com/thedailybeans Promo Code Thanks to Thuma for supporting The Daily Beans. Create that feeling of checking in to your favorite hotel  at home, with The Bed, by Thuma. Go to thuma.co/beans and use code BEANS to receive a twenty-five dollar credit towards your purchase of The Bed plus free shipping in the continental U.S.

Independent, investigative news, reporting, interviews and commentary

Independent, investigative news, reporting, interviews and commentary

Frequent OA guest, Professor Randall Eliason recently wrote an article for the Washington Post called "Forget what you heard. The DOJ's Jan. 6 probe is moving at a good pace." So, we thought we'd have him on the show for a conversation around just that. Is justice for Jan 6 taking too long? Are prosecutors being "chicken shits?" Will Trump get away with everything?

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Every week it seems that more and more evidence of Donald Trump's attempts at election subversion are revealed but where is the Department of Justice in their investigations. With some of the crimes outlined in the Mueller Report reaching their statute of limitations, swift action is necessary to preserve our democracy. At this pivotal moment, DSR host David Rothkopf and co-host Kavita Patel talk with Richard Painter, former ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, and Randall Eliason, former AUSA and Chief of the Public Corruption/Government Fraud section at the DC US Attorney's Office about the path forward for bringing Trump to justice. How do we know if Merrick Garland is moving fast enough? What laws need to be adjusted to prevent corruption in the future? Will Trump be charged with obstruction of justice. All these questions and more are discussed in this timely conversation. Join us.In the bonus segment, David and Kavita are joined by Asha Rangappa of Yale University and Norm Eisen of the Brookings Institution to continue the conversation, determine the likelihood of a seditious conspiracy charge, and discuss the potential of prosecution at the state level.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/deepstateradio. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Every week it seems that more and more evidence of Donald Trump's attempts at election subversion are revealed but where is the Department of Justice in their investigations. With some of the crimes outlined in the Mueller Report reaching their statute of limitations, swift action is necessary to preserve our democracy. At this pivotal moment, DSR host David Rothkopf and co-host Kavita Patel talk with Richard Painter, former ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, and Randall Eliason, former AUSA and Chief of the Public Corruption/Government Fraud section at the DC US Attorney's Office about the path forward for bringing Trump to justice. How do we know if Merrick Garland is moving fast enough? What laws need to be adjusted to prevent corruption in the future? Will Trump be charged with obstruction of justice. All these questions and more are discussed in this timely conversation. Join us.In the bonus segment, David and Kavita are joined by Asha Rangappa of Yale University and Norm Eisen of the Brookings Institution to continue the conversation, determine the likelihood of a seditious conspiracy charge, and discuss the potential of prosecution at the state level.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/deepstateradio. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week: Weisselberg's attorney says that there is strong reason to believe more indictments are coming from the Trump Org investigation; many federal agencies adopted policies explicitly prohibiting the use of “chokeholds” and “carotid restraints” unless deadly force is authorized; Randall Eliason joins us to talk about Durham's flimsy Sussman indictment; plus five more Biden nominations are announced. Follow our guest on Twitter: Randall Eliason https://twitter.com/RDEliason https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/17/after-two-years-this-is-best-trumps-chosen-investigator-can-do/ Follow your hosts on Twitter: https://twitter.com/allisongill https://twitter.com/patorrezlaw https://twitter.com/aisle45pod Want to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early? Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45pod Promo Codes: Their top-notch service has earned Policygenius thousands of 5-star reviews across Trustpilot and Google. Head to http://Policygenius.com to get started right now.  The Feals Customer Service team is dedicated to making sure you get the best use of your CBD. Start feeling better with Feals! Become a member today by going to Feals.com/CLEANUP and you'll get 50% off your first order with free shipping.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial begins today, just over a year after he was acquitted of two charges — obstructing Congress and abuse of power — in his first impeachment trial.  The new trial asks senators to consider whether President Trump is responsible for inciting the violent insurrection on Jan. 6  where his supporters stormed the Capitol to stop Congress from affirming then President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the Electoral College.  Timeline What Trump told supporters for months before they attacked Related Trump lawyers blast impeachment trial as 'political theater' MPR News host Kerri Miller, a political science professor and two legal experts answered listener questions about how this trial will be different from the first. Guests: Andra Gillespie is an associate professor of political science at Emory University. Randall Eliason is a former federal prosecutor and professorial lecturer in law at George Washington University. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy is a professor at Stetson University’s College of Law and a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice. Subscribe to the MPR News with Kerri Miller podcast on: Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify or RSS

Recently, friend of the show Randall Eliason published an opinion piece for the Washington Post that got a ton of pushback. We voiced our strong disagreement to it on OA443: The (Terrible) Case Against Indicting Trump. We're very pleased to have Randall on the show to have a lively debate on the topic! Make sure to listen to part 1 if you haven't heard it yet! Appearances Andrew did QnA on my new game channel, check it out here! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Recently, friend of the show Randall Eliason published an opinion piece for the Washington Post that got a ton of pushback. We voiced our strong disagreement to it on OA443: The (Terrible) Case Against Indicting Trump. We're very pleased to have Randall on the show to have a lively debate on the topic! We went so long that there is a part 2 airing next week! Make sure to become a patron and gain access to part 2 very early!

Friend of the show Randall Eliason wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post called "The case against indicting Trump." Both of us on the show strongly disagree with the arguments presented and humbly submit our enthusiastic rebuke of it. Before that, Andrew answers the clickbaity question of whether or not Trump made a major mistake in pardoning Flynn. As with all clickbait, the answer is no. Finally, we briefly touch on the terrible new decision out of the Amy Coney Barrett era that is our new hell. Links: Last election nail, Biden hopes to avoid divisive Trump investigations, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses Seventh Edition May 2007, REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE, 20A87 Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (11/25/2020)

Randall Eliason talks about extortion, conspiracy, cover-up crimes and plea bargains – topics covered in his excellent new 24-lecture course available through Great Courses. He also takes us through some examples from recent headlines.

*note that this episode was recorded before RBG's death and the resulting tenfold increase in existential doom feelings* If you're a keen listener, you might remember last time we had Prof. Randall Eliason on, he teased his forthcoming Great Courses Course! Well, it has now forth-come. Here's his new course! It's on White Collar Criminal Law, and boy does that sound relevant to.. *gestures broadly at the entire current administration*. In the first segment we answer whether or not Trump could be charged with manslaughter for all the slaughtering of man he did by lying about COVID-19.

Returning to the show is Randall D. Eliason, a law professor, writer and commentator on corporate and white collar criminal law! We discuss the Flynn case in more depth, as well as a bribery angle on the Roger Stone commutation. Check out Prof. Eliason's Sidebars Blog. Before that, Andrew has on voting by mail. Nevada has passed a bill AB4 that Trump in challenging in a truly ridiculous way. Find out why!

Randall Eliason, law professor and former Assistant US Attorney, provides an excellent account of the days leading up to the recent sentencing of political operative Roger Stone. The Department of Justice’s unprecedented interference in--and reversal of--its prosecutorial team’s recommendation led to the resignation from the case of all four prosecutors. Over 2000 former DOJ officials have called on Attorney General Barr to resign in the wake of his interference in the case.

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the just-filed briefs in the Trump v. Mazars litigation pending before the Supreme Court regarding the legitimacy of the House's subpoenas for Trump's tax returns. Is the law on the House's side? (Yes, yes it is.) Are we confident that the Supreme Court will rule the right way in a case this bad? (Maybe?) In any event, you'll want to listen! Announcements Don't forget our YouTube Live Q&A this Sunday, March 1, at 1:30 pm Eastern / 10:30 am Pacific! You still have two days to register for Voter Protection Law School Boot Camp! We begin with an Andrew Was Wrong(-ish) from our good friend Randall Eliason on the actual frequency of below-guidelines sentences in light of Roger Stone's downward variance. Then it's time for a deep dive into Mazars v. Trump, where we look at the briefs filed by the parties and evaluate the arguments made by the Trump administration that the subpoenas issued by the House are invalid. How bad are these arguments? They're bad. Then, it's time to tackle the recent defamation lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign against the New York Times regarding a March 2019 op-ed by Max Frankel, in which Mr. Frankel argued that the campaign didn't need to coordinate with Russia to benefit from foreign assistance. Does this pave the way for really good discovery? (No.) After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE involving a law prohibiting providing assistance to undocumented aliens. Can Thomas start a new winning streak? Listen and find out. And, of course, you can always play along on social media by using the hashtag #T3BE! 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. Show Notes & Links Remember to check out our YouTube Channel ! If you're thinking about Democratic Voter Protection Law School Bootcamp, check out the flyer and then apply online. n the opening segment, Andrew references the U.S. Sentencing Commission (2018) report on sentences. in Mazars v. Trump, check out the President's Jay Sekulow-penned brief as well as the just-filed response by the House of Representatives. You can also read the Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (2019) decision. Finally, check out the Trump Campaign v. New York Times defamation lawsuit. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

'Bridgegate' and Electors: SCOTUS Deep Dive The U.S. Supreme Court kicked off 2020 with blockbuster grants and notable oral arguments, and Chief Justice John Roberts presided over an impeachment trial. In this deep dive episode of "Cases and Controversies," Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin get you current with the latest Obamacare case and the challenge to "faithless electors." They also highlight star-powered arguments that featured tense rebuttals and even millennial slang. George Washington University law professor Randall Eliason also explains why there wasn't "a lot of love" for the prosecution of "Bridgegate" figures Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin Guest: George Washington University Law Professor Randall Eliason Producer: RJ Jewell

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Today's episode takes a deep dive into an 1832 decision, Worcester v. Georgia, to try and answer the question of what happens when the executive and judicial branches come into conflict. Yes, there's a lesson to be drawn to today's Supreme Court-vs.-Donald Trump showdown over the citizenship question on the census. We begin, however, with a pair of updates to previous shows, including "Joey Salads" and his nonsense "complaint" against AOC, and a listener email and update from our friend Seth Barrett Tillman regarding the status of the emoluments clauses litigation in both Maryland and DC. In fact, a late-breaking decision in the DC case led to a Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic! Then, it's time for the main event: breaking down the case that led to the famous aphorism, "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." As is usually the case with these deep dives, there isn't an easy answer as to what the outcome will be when the executive and judiciary stare each other down, but we can always learn from history. In the "C" segment, we check out an update from friend of the show Randall Eliason, who taunts us with an Andrew Was Wrong about the future of Bridgegate (from Episode 232). Learn what issue is in fact going before the Supreme Court and why Prof. Eliason thinks the Bridgegate conspirators are going to get off scot-free. After all that, it's time for #T3BE #135, in which Thomas once again manages to analyze a question absolutely perfectly... only to pick the wrong answer yet again. You won't want to miss the full discussion. Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Registry Matters podcast discussing the Supreme Court, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote from the live show in Philadelphia talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links We last discussed the Emoluments Clauses litigation in Episode 297. and for more, check out our Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic! Here's the full text of the 1832 Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia. We last discussed Bridgegate in Episode 232, and you can click here to read Prof. Eliason's latest blog on the topic. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! Download Link

Today, we break down the just-released [REDACTED] Mueller report. The top-line analysis? This is much worse than we anticipated in Episode 264. This report may not be the end of the road for Trump -- but it almost certainly is the end of the road for Attorney General William Barr. That's it! We spend nearly 90 minutes delving through the minutiae and correcting the egregious misquotations in Barr's now-laughable "summary" of the report. Show Notes & Links 1. You can click here to read the full Mueller report, and here for the searchable PDF. 2. We first covered Barr's summary in Episode 264, and you can read his laughably dishonest letter again right here. Oh, and we followed up with Prof. Randall Eliason in Episode 265. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Download Link

Today's breaking news episode contains a long interview with everyone's favorite former prosecutor, Randall Eliason, who helps answer some nagging questions about what we do know about the Mueller Report (alongside all the things we don't). We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Right (about the Barr Summary and the news cycle!) and Wrong (about the specifics of the Assange indictment). Then, it's time for our main segment with Professor Eliason; you won't want to miss it! And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #120 involving touching a very sensitive woman on the bus.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was recently a guest on Episode 19 of the Glass Box podcast discussing Utah referendums, and Episode 188 of God Awful Movies (reviewing "Dead Man Rising").  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links [None] Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." - Winston Churchill.  And yes, today does, in fact, mark the end of the beginning of the Mueller Investigation... and perhaps for Donald Trump.  Why?  You'll just have to listen and find out! In this super-sized episode, we tackle: (1) Michael Cohen's just-announced plea to a new count of lying -- this time in connection with his prior testimony before the Senate and House Intelligence Committees investigating Russian interference in the 2016 elections; (2) A follow-up on Andrew Miller and Concord Management and Consulting, including a fascinating new blog written by Randall Eliason with Yodel Mountain implications; (3) Paul Manafort's apparent repudiation of his plea deal with Mueller, what that means and when we'll know; (4) Jerome Corsi's public refusal to plead and cooperate with the Mueller investigation over WikiLeaks and Julian Assange; and (5) An update in the Brain Frosh Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #103 on a property owner who has the rug pulled out from under him due to a new law.   If you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! 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. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the new Information to which Cohen pled guilty to today. This is the BuzzFeed article on Cohen, Felix Sater, and Trump's efforts to get a building in Moscow over the past 30 years.  Oh, and here's a link to Trump's tweet that he has "ZERO INVESTMENTS IN RUSSIA." We discussed the Andrew Miller lawsuit in OA 229; you'll definitely want to read the two new filings: Silbey's supplemental amicus "letter", and Christenson's... something. You'll definitely want to check out Randall Eliason's blog analyzing the Concord Management and Consulting lawsuit and what it means for 18 U.S.C. § 371 conspiracy charges (of the sort that might be filed against Trump). Here's Manafort's original plea deal, and this is the Joint Status Report filed earlier this week. Oh, and this is Manafort's waiver of his right to appear at the scheduling conference. This is the Marcy Wheeler article we broke down; for the other side, here's the Wall Street Journal report suggesting Manafort lied about non-Trump-related personal business dealings. This is the Guardian article connecting Manafort to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks; here is the fantastic Washington Post article and timeline on what that means if true. Here's Corsi's draft deal with Manafort that he rejected. Finally, we discussed the Brian Frosh lawsuit against Matthew Whitaker in Episode 227; you can now read the amicus brief filed by 15 state attorneys general.  Phew! Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode welcomes back one of our favorite guest experts, former prosecutor and current law professor Randall Eliason of the Sidebars blog, who will help us break down what exactly a "perjury trap" is -- and whether Robert Mueller is laying one for the President. Of course, when we have a guest this good, we also have to take advantage of his expertise in a couple of other areas.  So we begin by checking in on the news of the day:  Mueller has already reportedly offered immunity to David Pecker, the CEO of the National Inquirer, whom we discussed at great length on Episode 203 in connection with the Cohen plea. After that, we delve into Rudy Giuliani's contention that Mueller is laying a "perjury trap" for the President.  Is that a thing?  Is that what he's doing?  Listen and find out! After that, we revisit the issue of reporters and confidential sources, where Professor Eliason has been a consistent voice opposing a federal privilege.  Is that a view he still holds?  There's only one way to know for sure! Finally, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, where our intrepid hero tries to inch closer to the coveted 60% mark with a question about torts.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent 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. Show Notes & Links Prof. Eliason first guested on the show way back in Episode 70. Here is the link to the NPR interview with Prof. Eliason discussed on the show. To read more of Prof. Eliason's work, click here to visit the Sidebars blog. Here is a transcript of Prof. Eliason's statement on reporter's privilege in the age of Trump. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

Today's Rapid Response Friday is actually a Follow Up Friday!  We revisit four stories from recent episodes and go into more depth on each one, particularly in light of recent developments. We begin with our most recent story regarding reporter's privilege in Episode 200.  What's the other side of the argument?  Find out why friend of the show Randall Eliason thinks that reporter's ought not to have the right to keep their sources confidential! After that, we move back one more episode to Episode 199 and tackle some important listener questions about asbestos.  Along the way, we discuss the difference between strict liability and negligence and delve into theories of market share liability. Our main segment covers the unsurprising fact that Masterpiece Cakeshop is back in the news.  What does this mean?  How has the Supreme Court's decision changed the landscape for religious exemptions to laws?  Listen and find out! After that, we go back to Yodel Mountain and check in with the conclusion of the Manafort trial.  Phew! And if all that wasn't enough, we end with an all new Thomas (and Yvette) Take The Bar Exam #89 involving the appropriate damages for breach of contract. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent 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. Show Notes & Links We discussed reporter's privilege in Episode 200; for the other side, check out this 2007 article by Randall Eliason on the BALCO scandal or this law review article in the American University Law Review. Of course, we discussed asbestos in Episode 199, but we first broke down the law of negligence way back in Episode 29.  We cite to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 and Sindell v. Abbott Labs, 607 P.2d 924 (1980). Click here to read the new Masterpiece Cakeshop complaint. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at Donald Trump's favorite "liberal," Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz as seen through the eyes of one of his former students. We begin, however, with an update from the Paul Manafort trial, taking a look at the prosecution's strategy, witness list, and some preliminary rulings by Judge Ellis. After that, we dive very deeply into what looks like a very weird phenomenon:  why is Alan Dershowitz carrying water for a President whom he ostensibly opposes?  Why is he saying things that are demonstrably and indefensibly untrue about the law? Andrew has a theory.  Mostly, though, he has stories and research... but they lead to a theory (we promise)! Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #87 regarding constitutional law and a state vs. the federal Confrontation Clause.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent 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. Show Notes & Links This is the article in The Hill indicating that the prosecution would, in fact, call Rick Gates; earlier, friend of the show Randall Eliason gave a bunch of reasons why they might not.  Oh, and Eliason also has you covered as to why 'collusion' is, in fact, a crime. This is the laughable Fox News report on how Judge Ellis hates the prosecution; for a dose of reality, you might want to check out this other article in The Hill about how Judge Ellis chastised both sides's lawyers. If you missed it, this is our Episode 107 where we tackled Serial. Here's the PBS retrospective on Dershowitz and the OJ trial. Our Dershowitz story on 'testilying' begins with Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) and the origins of the exclusionary rule; Dershowitz coined the term 'testilying' in this New York Times article from 1994. Testilying is, of course, a consistent problem today (see A, B) -- but Dershowitz hasn't spoken about it since 1998 (and even then, in an entirely different context). Instead, he attacked Baltimore's decision to indict the police in the Freddie Gray case in 2015. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

It's time for another SUPER-SIZED Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down Judge Ellis's statements in the Paul Manafort criminal trial (amongst many, many other issues)! We begin, however,  with a brief Andrew (well, mostly ABC and NBC) Was Wrong. After that, the guys discuss a recent 10th Circuit opinion regarding the treatment of detainees in private prisons.  What does it mean for the future of class action litigation?  Listen and find out! After that, it's back to Yodel Mountain, where we break down not only Judge Ellis, but all the developments in or connected to the Mueller investigation, including Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen's "follow the money" report.  Phew! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #75 about a contract and a subsequent oral modification that Andrew admits he would have muffed.  If you'd like to play along and show Andrew you're the better lawyer, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent 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. Show Notes & Links Here's the link to a Washington Times story covering the correction regarding Michael Cohen's supposed "wiretap" (that turned out to be a pen register). The case we discussed in the main segment was Menocal v. GEO Group (10th Cir., Feb. 9, 2018). Click here to read the 2016 Obama directive on ending privatized prisons, or (if you're a masochist) here to read the 2017 Trump directive rescinding it. If you only read one thing from this show, please do read the transcript of the May 4 hearing before Judge Ellis.  It's great.  I love this guy. The opposition to Michael Avenatti's pro hac vice motion is here; it also contains the "Executive Summary" laying out Avenatti's "follow the money."  If you prefer to see it in chart form, click here (H/T Washington Post). The TPM article suggesting that Avenatti must have had access to SARs is here. To understand bribery, we highly recommend this primer by Randall Eliason. Finally, please click here to check out Thomas's May 19 talk in New Orleans. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life. All that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” Albert Einstein No books today, but a selected list of questions asked by Listeners! Neil and Nat answer one by one detailed questions about topics you had but they never talked about. We cover a wide range of topics, including: What Neil and Nat do to survive Routines to get into flow Favorite podcast show and why they stopped listening to Tim Ferriss The future (and present of work) Balancing power and happiness And much more. Please enjoy, and be sure to ask more questions replying the mailing list! (What? You still haven’t signed up for the mailing list?!) If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to check out our episode on Daily Rituals by Mason Currey, a book that discuss the crazy schedule creative people have to get into the flow, as well as our episode on Homo Deus by Yuval Harari where we talk about how AI may make humans useless.   Be sure to join our mailing list to find out about what books are coming up, giveaways we're running, special events, and more. Links from the Episode Mentioned in the show Unlimited Brewing [4:22] Made You Drink Beer. Coming Soon? [5:14] US regulation doesn't allow to sell beer online [5:14] Brewmaster’ Reserve, Neil’s beer blog [5:49] Neil Soni on Nat Chat [6:40] LegalZoom [8:45] Maryland Government incorporation website [8:47] Incorporate.com [9:51] W-2 Form [10:52] Nat Chat [11:22] Growth Machine [11:47] Nat's personal site [12:15] Wendy’s Twitter campaign [16:52] Deep House Relax playlist [27:56] Asana [33:03] Evernote [33:12] Sam Sheridan [36:42] Fat Tony [40:05] PwC [52:33] Tiago Forte’s Progressive Summarization [55:05] Flatgeologist [57:32] Slack [1:04:02] Vitalik Buteron, founder of Ethereum [1:10:53] Nat’s articles on sex [1:14:21] Stamena app - Nat’s app [1:14:21] Black Mirror [1:38:46] Trump-Miller story [1:41:55] Books mentioned Daily Rituals by Mason Currey [28:59] (Nat’s Notes) (book episode) Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder by Nassim Taleb [32:21] (Nat’s notes) (book episode) Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand [37:58] Darwin’s Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennet [38:07] (book episode) The Goal [44:29] (Nat’s Notes) (book episode) Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter [37:58] (Nat’s notes) (book episode) Homo Deus by Yuval Harari [43:20] (book episode) Work Clean [44:29] (Nat’s Notes) (book episode) Principles [44:33] (Nat’s Notes) (book episode) The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene [46:30] (Nat’s Notes) Skin in the Game by Nassim Taleb [48:12] (Nat’s notes) (book episode) The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins [57:13] Finite and Infinite Games [57:42] (Nat’s Notes) (Made You Think episode) 12 Rules for Life by Dr. Jordan B. Peterson [58:06] (Nat’s notes) (Neil’s notes) (book episode) East of Eden by John Steinbeck [58:48] (Nat’s notes) Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk [59:22] (Nat’s notes) Deep Work by Cal Newport [1:03:01] (Nat’s notes) So Good They Can’t Ignore You [1:03:01] (Nat’s notes) Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault [1:10:10] (Nat’s Notes) (book episode) The Sovereign Individual [1:19:29] (Nat’s notes) (book episode) Mastery by Robert Greene [1:28:04] (Nat’s notes) (book episode) People mentioned Albert Einstein [0:00] Donald Trump [18:28] Elon Musk [18:28] (on this podcast) Dan Bilzerian [18:33] Adil Majid [19:17] (on this podcast 1, 2, 3) Pepper the Poochon [32:54] Taylor Pearson [44:20] Nassim Nicholas Taleb [48:02] (Antifragile episode) (Skin in the Game episode) Flatgeologists – Flat Earth Society [57:32] Jeff Bezos [1:11:31] Bill Gates [1:11:31] Mark Zuckerberg [1:11:31] Warren Buffet [1:11:31] Randall Eliason [1:42:42] Show Topics 0:00 – Perfect drinks to enjoy the warm weather. 3:38 – Question #1. Why do you actually do for a living and how you've got there? Neil has a company that helps you build your brand beer, either for events (weddings, parties, conference, etc), venues (chef that wants to pair beers), and already established brands. How Neil bootstrapped his company while trying to have reduce his home brewing costs, and even before having customers. If you ask enough, you can see the Made You Drink beer soon. “You don't know where things are going to go until you actually start working on them”. 8:20 – Nat helps ecommerce and tech startups appear on the front page of Google and increase traffic from Google through SEO and content. Stats of his company. 1428 – Funny fact, Nat and Neil went to the same university in Pittsburg, and went through the same Startup Accelerator, but never met before. Why Twitter is the catalyst for the best friendships, and why it's so hard to monetize it. Paying twice to build and reach your audience on Facebook. Who controls Twitter and Facebook celebrities' accounts. 19:58 – Question #2. Favorite podcasts. Mentioned Jocko Podcast Joe Rogan Experience Sam Harris’ Waking Up Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Invest Like the Best podcast History on Fire Unchained A16z Kevin Rose Shane Parrish’s The Knowledge Project Rhonda Patrick’s Found my Fitness Bill Simmons Podcast Skip and Shannon: Undisputed Podcast Good Beer Hunting Brewers' Journal Podcast Episodes: Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan’s, Daniele Bolelli from the Drunken Taoist on Joe Rogan’s, Jordan Peterson's Biblical Series, Al Pacino and Kevin Durant on Bill Simmons’. Recommended Tim Ferriss Episodes: Jamie Foxx, Jocko Willink, The Erotic Playbook of a Top-Earning Sex Worker (NSFW), Naval Ravikant, Peter Thiel, Dom D’Agostino, Kevin Rose, Kelly Starrett, Derek Sivers, Kevin Kelly, Ed Cooke 27:56 – Question #3. Routines to get into flow, specially If you need to write a 2-3000 words blog post. How much coffee Neil needs to get into flow. Neil's realization to keep going until getting a decent piece of work. The playlist to get into the mood. Nat tips: making super easy to start, getting all notifications off, being super clear on what are the next steps, changing context. The template Nat use for writing a massive article, and why he doesn’t starts with the intro. The endure-for-20min-and-then-you-can-quit psychological trick. Being in-interruptible. 28:18 – Question #4. Is doing business an intellectual challenging activity? What if it is not? The overlap of intellectually curious people and entrepreneurs. Early days of a business are very intellectual and exploration, while growth stage is a lot tweaking and optimization. Why intellectual people have the need to compulsively start new companies. Books that coincided with the business stage. How to find motivation to start exploring. 48:23 – Question #5. Advice for college student graduating in 2018? What problems to work on? First thing: think before graduating. Find an internship that has the potential to get you full time, in an area you are interested in. The problem with Ivy League students going to Google, Facebook or big consulting firms. Realize how low risk your life is. Focusing on skills rather than problems. The awareness that you may not know what problems are out there. 55:05 – Question #6. How do you apply the insights from books? Start a podcast and speak with your friends every week :). How Nat takes detailed notes "reading" the book 4 times. Writing as an exercise to build the synopsis with other books' concepts. No need to change the structure of your business. New concepts are useful to see problems from different angles, not overhauling processes. 59:39 – Question #7. How to network online? Tips to connect through the most powerful platforms, Twitter and cold email. 1:02:59 – Question #8. Future of Work: Deep Work vs Shallow Work, solopreneurship, and attention deficit, etc. Trade off between Improved communication and increased interruptibility. The problem with open office workspaces. Trends: remote working, polarization of work between employees and contractors, performance based work environment. Before, power was a function of the organizational structure or buildings, now it's a function of ability or what you do, because it's much easier to show usefulness. 1:13:20 – Single person companies that make over $1 million a year. Personal branding. Having proof of concept on our own site. 1:14:21 – Nat’s proof of concept that you can have 1 person business based on SEO. How Nat arrived to get 8k daily visitors by chance writing sex articles. 1:19:00 – More trends about work: It will be possible for fewer people to do more. The Internet as the effect of compounding of technology. AI is starting to replace White collar jobs. How AI would be able to replace the 90% of the writing work right now. 1:28:04 – Question #9. Is there a trade off between happiness and achievement? Does a gain in power detract from happiness? The Internet gives us the ability to compare us to the whole world, in detriment of the in-group. Opportunity costs of least profitable ventures. The problem with Digital Nomadism. Considering second and third order effects in the happiness-power equation. The intersection between personal achievement and service to the community. What's happiness anyway? Doing sacrifices for achieving joy, as athletes do. 1:43:00 – Sponsors! Get new questions through the email list. Sign up. Find upcoming books, events, and know about new sponsors! A new cool sponsor coming. Hop on Four Sigmatic for their mushroom coffee and other mush wonderful goodness. Suggestion: enjoy an iced mushroom coffee Mocha flavor. Check Kettle & Fire for their delicious grass fed bone broth, one of the only companies that do this. Suggested: the beef for cooking, the chicken for drinking. Perfect Keto for all your ketogenic related needs. A ketogenic diet is high in fat, and your body burns ketones instead of glucose for energy. Some benefits include improved mental functioning, much lower hunger swings, and ancestral body functioning. The supplementary ketones are very useful to pop in and out the diet and speed the process. Definitely try the coffee or the sea salt chocolate. Leave reviews on iTunes. Everything you buy on Amazon through our link supports the show. Bookmark it with an emoji :). If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe at https://madeyouthinkpodcast.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Randall Eliason discusses the recent Menendez trial, the impact of the Supreme Court's McDonnell decision and the current state of domestic anti-bribery enforcement in the US.

For $30 off your first week of HelloFresh, visit hellofresh.com and enter lawpod30! Today's special episode tackles the breaking news that Gen. Michael Flynn has pled guilty in connection with the Mueller investigation.  To break down the significance of this deal, we welcome back Prof. Randall Eliason. After that, Andrew answers a bunch of listener questions regarding the tax bill that just passed the Senate. Recent Appearances Andrew just did two episodes of the David Pakman show:  first, he was on talking about #NetNeutrality; and then, he came back for a segment on the Mueller investigation.  You can see both -- including Andrew's spiffy new webcam -- by clicking the YouTube links above! Show Notes & Links This is a copy of the Flynn plea deal; he's pled guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Prof. Eliason's "Sidebars" blog is here, and you can read his latest Washington Post article about Flynn by clicking here. We referenced statements by Seth Abramson (scroll forward to linked reply #6); Alan Dershowitz, and a pretty awful article by Andrew McCarthy in the National Review. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's rapid-response episode begins with a discussion of the tragedy in Las Vegas and whether we can do anything about it.  Before you dig in, you might want to take a refresher on our two-part masterclass on the Second Amendment in Episode 21 (Part 1) and Episode 26 (Part 2). Then, we take our first of two separate trips to Yodel Mountain with the recent revelation that the Trump DOJ disregarded decades of advice before issuing an opinion memo that authorized the (blatantly illegal) hiring of Jared Kushner.  Is this really a Hillary Clinton story?  Listen and find out! After that, we trek back up Yodel Mountain with the breaking news that the New York Attorney General's office was about to indict Donald Trump, Jr. and Ivanka Trump in 2012... until the AG received a visit (and a bag of money!) from Donald Trump's lawyer, Marc Kasowitz. Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #44 about hearsay... and Thomas is joined by next week's guest, Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Our two-part masterclass on the Second Amendment begins with Episode 21 (Part 1) and continues in Episode 26 (Part 2). After that, we discussed Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017), which we also covered in depth in Episode 47. You can read the Trump Administration's talking points on Las Vegas here. This is the breaking story by Politico about the DOJ ignoring precedent. The case Andrew discusses at length is AAPS v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1993).  It is being grossly misreported in the media; see, for example, this NPR story. This is 5 U.S.C. App. § 1, the Federal Advisory Committee Act. You can read the ProPublica story here that suggests that Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump were about to be indicted in 2012. The federal bribery law is 18 U.S.C. § 201; the relevant case is McDonnell v. U.S., 579 U.S. ____, 136 S.Ct. 2355 (2016); and you can check out our friend Randall Eliason's great analysis of the bribery statute here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

This episode begins the switch to a new, more responsive format in which we are better able to cover breaking news within a day of its release.  And, of course, what better way to kick off that format by addressing the most pressing topic of the moment:  is Donald Trump guilty of obstruction of justice in his firing of James Comey in light of the recent evidence?  We break it down for you with the help of a guest expert, Prof. Randall Eliason of the Sidebars blog. First, though, we continue our ascent up Yodel Mountain with the question as to whether it's legal for Donald Trump to surreptitiously record White House conversations (as Press Secretary Sean Spicer recently failed to deny). In the main segment, the guys turn to a former prosecutor and expert on public corruption and the obstruction of justice, Prof. Randall Eliason, and ask about the strengths and weaknesses of mounting a case against the President for obstruction of justice. After that, Andrew answers a question from Jake (the Fake Jake) who wants to know whether the President has immunity from civil lawsuits, as he's claimed. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #24 about hearsay-within-hearsay.  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: None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Check out Prof. Eliason's blog, Sidebars, and in particular the most recent post on this subject. Here is the link to the L.A. Times story about how Press Secretary Sean Spicer won't deny that President Trump is secretly taping White House conversations, and this is the link to the operative statute, § 23-542 of the D.C. Code. This is the text of Acting AG Rod Rosenstein's order appointing Robert Mueller as special counsel. The operative regulations governing the special counsel can be found at 28 CFR § 600.4 et seq. This is a link to the CNN story regarding Gen. Flynn's refusal to comply with the Senate's subpoena duces tecum. Finally, here is a link to Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), the Supreme Court case that established that Presidents do not have immunity from civil suit while in office. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com