Search

Home > Opening Arguments > OA74: Sippin' #Covfefe With Trump's Severed Head
Podcast: Opening Arguments
Episode:

OA74: Sippin' #Covfefe With Trump's Severed Head
Category: News & Politics
Duration: 01:09:39
Publish Date: 2017-06-02 04:00:24
Description: If it's Friday, it's a current events episode, and if it's current events, we're probably talking about Donald Trump. We begin, however, with a hopefully infrequent segment about stuff Andrew gets wrong.  In this case, patron Sean Keehan corrects Andrew's numbers regarding Congressional votes. After that, we answer the actual legal question behind #covfefe -- namely, whether Donald Trump can delete his Tweets.  The answer... might surprise you! In our main segment, we look at the ongoing Senate investigation regarding Trump's ties with Russia and break down the Congress's power to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas, and the reasons people can give for failing to comply with them. After that, fan favorite Breakin' Down the Law returns with the question on everyone's lips:  is it legal for Kathy Griffin to have posed with Donald Trump's severed head? Finally, we end with a brand new (and tricky) Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #25 about the admissibility of a composite sketch after the primary witness has unexpectedly died.  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
  1. Andrew first made the erroneous claim regarding voting results in Episode #54 on Gerrymandering, and repeated it in Episode #72.  Oops.
  2. The Presidential Records Act can be found at 44 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.
  3. The case establishing the inherent power of the Congress to issue investigations dating back to the McCarthy era is Wilkinson v. U.S., 365 U.S. 399 (1961).
  4. Finally, the landmark case establishing the applicable standard of "imminent incitement to lawless action" is Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
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
Total Play: 0