OA160: Schrodinger's Andrew
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the things Andrew Was Right about over the past few weeks (yay!) as well as the things Andrew Was Wrong about (boo!).\xa0 It's Schr\xf6dinger's Andrew Day! In the pre-show segment, the guys go through the scenario for all of our Opening Arguments Community March Madness potential winners.\xa0\xa0After that, it's time for Andrew Was Right! (TM).\xa0 We cover the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum and what it means for Yodel Mountain, as well as both the Amended Complaint and the Motion for Expedited Trial filed by our next Attorney General, Stormy Daniels.\xa0 You won't want to miss it! After that, it's time for Andrew Was Wrong (TM), in Andrew owns up to a few corrections about Watergate and revisits the emoluments lawsuit discussed way back in Episode 78.\xa0 Andrew was skeptical then; has he changed his mind? Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #69 that questions your knowledge of the "firefighter's rule" and whether it protects cops who get sideswiped.\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 Andrew was recently a guest on Episode 255 of the Phil Ferguson Show and Episode 96 of the Naked Mormonism Podcast.\xa0 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\xa0Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum; he pled guilty to\xa018 U.S.C. \xa7 1001.\xa0 You can click here to read the Christopher Miller story suggesting that "Person A" is Konstantin Kilimnik.
- This is the Amended Complaint\xa0filed by Stormy Daniels; you can also read the Notice of Removal filed by EC and the Motion for Expedited Trial filed by Daniels.
- Stormy's expedited trial motion is pursuant to\xa09 U.S.C. \xa7 4.
- This is the\xa0Washington Post article on Alexander Butterfield, which is definitely worth a read.
- Here's the District Court's opinion in the emoluments litigation, which we first discussed\xa0back in Episode 78.
- If you want to dive more into emoluments, you can read\xa0Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1867), or listen to our two-parter with originalist Seth Barrett Tillman:\xa0 Episode 35 (Part 1) and Episode 36 (Part 2).