OA158: Cambridge Analytica
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss the scandal regarding Cambridge Analytica.\xa0 Is there a legal angle?\xa0 Have crimes been committed?\xa0 Listen and find out! In the pre-show segment, Andrew helps out our reporters by giving theme the question they need to be asking regarding Stormy Daniels, which is:\xa0 "Now that you\u2019ve acknowledged that you\u2019re DD, and you\u2019ve sued Stormy Daniels for $20 million, can you tell us what claims you had against Ms. Daniels that you believe you settled in that agreement?\xa0 What could you have sued her for?"\xa0 You're welcome. That segues into the "A" segment, where the guys discuss the differences (and one strange overlap) between the recent\xa0lawsuit filed by Karen McDougal and the top-of-Yodel-Mountain Stormy Daniels lawsuit. After the main segment, we tackle a listener question regarding the difference between textualism and originalism, inspired by our most recent episode, Episode 157. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #68 that requires some math to figure out the appropriate measure of damages for breach of contract.\xa0 Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. \xa0We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!\xa0 Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links
- This is the\xa0National Review article that actually gets Stormy's story right.
- Here's Mike Murphy's article expressing skepticism of CA's claims.
- This is the\xa0Price v. Facebook class action civil lawsuit, arising out of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code \xa7 17200 et seq.\xa0 And here's the statement from NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
- If you wanted to set up a SuperPAC, Andrew's old pals at Covington & Burling have drafted a simple how-to guide for you.
- Finally, here's a hilarious Tweet from Peter Drice Wright that highlights a key problem with textualism.