OA116: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump & The Russians - Election Law (w/guest Beth Kingsley)

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

Opinion, News, Liberal, Politics, Law, Harvard, Atheist, Legal, Supremecourt

4.3 • 3.7K Ratings

🗓️ 27 October 2017

⏱️ 70 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Today's rapid-response episode tackles the recent news that Hillary Clinton's campaign and/or the DNC paid for the "Russian dossier" on Donald Trump. What does that mean in terms of U.S. election law? Listen and find out! We begin with a quick news update on various lawsuits against poker pro Phil Ivey, a story we covered way back in Episode 32 with guest Chris Kristofco. Next, we take a quick look at New York's use of the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) and what this might mean for Thomas's Second-Chance Law Firm! In our main segment, we talk to election law expert Beth Kingsley on the "Trump Dossier" and the role played by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. Is it time to "Lock Her Up?" After that, we examine the recent Senate vote against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule regarding class action lawsuits. What does it mean, and did Andrew contradict himself with his earlier support for arbitration? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about landlord immunity. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing 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! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

You can listen to the fascinating tale of Phil Ivey's edge-sorting scheme by checking out Episode 32, and if you would like to hear more from Chris Kristofco, check out his podcast, "Titletown Sound Off."
This is the Yahoo News article about Ivey.
Here are the New York bar exam results, courtesy of Above the Law.
We first discussed Donald Trump, Jr.'s meeting with the Russians back in Episode 86, and then again in Episode 93 when we answered Sage's question.
The relevant election law statute is 52 U.S.C. § 30121.
Here is the CFPB rule that was just voted down by the Senate.

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

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Is that why you hit your wife with drawn?
0:04.8	Is that why you drink and pop pills with drawn?
0:07.7	Are you a virgin with drawn?
0:20.0	That's here you robbed a hospital.
0:22.8	How'd you do that?
0:24.0	Yeah, I'm not guilty.
0:25.2	That's not what the other lawyer said.
0:30.9	Actually, I was going to stay in my office tonight and work on my law blog.
0:34.3	Of course, the Bob-Law-Law-Law-Law blog.
0:37.4	Wow, you, sir, are a mouthful.
0:45.7	The jury is instructed to disregard its own testimony.
0:48.8	Your honor, the prosecution rest.
0:54.9	Welcome to Opening Arguments, the podcast that pairs an inquisitive interviewer with a real-life lawyer.
1:00.0	This podcast is sponsored by the Law Offices of P. Andrew Torres, LLC for Entertainment purposes,
1:05.3	is not intended as legal advice and does not form an attorney-client relationship.
1:09.5	Don't take legal advice from a podcast.
1:18.1	Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments.
1:19.7	This is episode 116.
1:21.6	I'm your host Thomas Smith.
1:22.8	That over there is Andrew Torres.
1:24.4	How are you doing, Andrew?
1:25.7	I am super excited about today's episode.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Opening Arguments Media LLC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Opening Arguments Media LLC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.