OA285: Tulsi Gabbard & Michael Flynn

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

[0:00:03] So I hold myself in contempt if you try to pull me up here to court with that attorney. [0:00:19] I'll ask the questions here, carjacker Willie. Objection! I'm going to allow it. It characterizes the defendant as a carjacker. [0:00:30] You didn't kill Thompson, but you did, Mr. Wells. Yes! Yes, I killed Ned Thompson! I killed him! I killed him! I killed him! I killed him! [0:00:45] You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order! [0:00:54] Welcome to Opening Arguments, the podcast that pairs an inquisitive interviewer with a real-life lawyer. This podcast is sponsored by the Law Offices of P. Andrew Torrez, LLC, for entertainment purposes, is not intended as legal advice, and does not form an attorney-client relationship. Don't take legal advice from a podcast.

0:01:19 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 285. Coming at you, not live. Well, we're live. We're live. Yeah. We're alive. I'm alive. But it'll be edited, hopefully. And we may need that editing, because you never know what's going to happen. We are on location, San Francisco.

[0:01:37] That's where all the legal news is happening, I'm sure. How's it going, Andrew? It is going fantastically well. Very,

0:01:43 Andrew: Very excited to do another live in-person. You and I are in the same lovely

[0:01:49] studio together.

0:01:52 Thomas: Oh, yeah, that's true, because the Q&A, in case you missed it, go check that out. That's available for patrons on Patreon or with some high quality audio or you can hop onto YouTube and find it as well. But that was fun. We were together at last. Feels so good. And we are together again, but business is normal. I mean, OA waits for

[0:02:13] no man. Yeah. So we have to continue the show.

0:02:17 Thomas: And I think we got a pretty good setup here. I think we nailed it. We'll see. We'll see what Brian tells me when I send him these files. But uh, we have so much to talk about. Um, we've got the tariff

[0:02:29] news that's definitely going well and is well thought out and I'm sure we'll just smooth Sailing. I'm pretty sure Andrew's gonna tell us smooth sailing. You know, stay on, stay on target. Trump's got it. Okay. And then uh, some Yodel Mountain. Oh, yeah, this is always good news. Andrew, quick uh, preview question for Yodel Mountain. Is it a good sign, multiple choice, good sign or bad sign, when you fire your million, billion, jillion, zillion dollar attorneys at a critical time?

[0:03:00] right when you need them? After you've been convicted and while you are pending sentencing? Well, I pled

0:03:06 Andrew: Guilty. While you are pending sentencing in a criminal case, is it a good sign

[0:03:12] To fire one of the best law firms in the country? The question. Yeah, that's what I'm reading from the Right. The bar booklet. Yeah, right here. Yeah. Um, we're gonna have to, I guess, let's let's hold that one open. Let's find out. And then uh, we're talking about the DNC. There could be some critical uh, little rules that come into

0:03:30 Thomas: Play, because there are 973 candidates and I think the first debate is 972. Yeah, so, you know, they're gonna have to to argue about what exactly will uh, disqualify

[0:03:43] That, that last person. I think we're in there somewhere. There's so many. I hope that there is an OA representation

0:03:49 Andrew: On that stage. I will point out, if, you know, we have 20 candidates on stage and we're limited to

[0:03:55] 90 minutes per question, that they better hope that I don't get the first question. 90 seconds per question? You said 90 minutes. Oh, I said 90 minutes. 90 minutes for the whole debate. For the whole thing. Yeah, yeah. That's true. That's an OA lightning round. Yeah, that would, they would need a zookeeper with a dart gun just

0:04:13 Thomas: Ready to go when Andrew starts going to that. All right, let's do. Oh, you have some teasing, though, for for Tuesday's

0:04:20 Andrew: Episode. Yes. Lots of people have asked about the revelations in the Department of Commerce versus Ross case, the citizenship question. And there have been explosive new allegations that have come out. I say explosive. There are things that are totally unsurprising in any kind of way. And so the question is, how is this going to impact that pending decision? There

[0:04:45] was an order handed down today. But let's put all that together.

0:04:51 Andrew: Nothing is going to change in that. There are going to be no developments between now and Tuesday. So we're going to cover that on a super deep dive on Tuesday. Answer all of your questions about the citizenship question case. But but we just don't don't have time to do that. And everything that's breaking. Freaking, yeah, today

0:05:09 Thomas: You've heard of a deep dive, but have you heard of a super duper deep dive? Yes. That'll be fun. All right, well, look forward to that on

[0:05:16] Tuesday. Uh, but now I believe it's time to talk about the tariff wars. Hello, you boys. Like Mexico is out there. Yeah, the threat is out there, but we haven't really started yet. Great clone tariff wars. Yeah.

0:05:28 Thomas: So this seems like it's going, going well. Uh, Trump, I think, issued some demands, but, not but it's not, Mexico's not even sure what to do, and then was like, do the vague

[0:05:41] Stuff that I want you to do, or we'll start tariffing ourselves, because that's how it works. You know, we go through that. Right? Because I think this would be super instructive. Secure your southern border or I will stab myself with this pen right now. So you and

0:05:59 Andrew: I know how this works, but why don't you explain, like, how tariffs work from somebody with, with your, yeah, well, I'll

0:06:05 Thomas: Start with what Trump seems to think, which is, so you've got some uh, you've got some trading going on, right, you've, or so I guess it's just importing, expert, like, crossing the border, right? It's all, it's, I think it's just if it crosses the border, like, it's not even if you're selling it or anything, because I've read a lot about how some of these These auto parts are

[0:06:24] Just shipping across, you know, multiple times, and it has to be, it has to formally be imported, Imported. OK, but it's, so I wasn't sure, it's like slightly different than like selling it. Correct. OK, but anyway, if it's imported, or vice versa, I guess, depending on who's tariffing whom. Yeah, I think he, think Trump thinks, when we buy things, sort of like when you buy stuff from the grocery store, for the example I've used before, I buy stuff from Safeway. Way, I buy groceries from Safeway, now I've spent in my life, what, hundreds of thousands of dollars on groceries, I don't know how, no idea, over the course of my entire life, and they've never, but they've never paid me for anything, so I need revenge on that, because I, all I've done is pay hundreds of thousand dollars They haven't paid me any money.

I guess I was able to eat and live for that time, but that doesn't, they haven't paid me any dollars, so therefore I'm gonna tariff them, and then magic is, I think, is the next, I think he thinks that if we do tariff, then Mexico gives us money, and then step five, profit, I think. But really what it is, is we do the tariff, like, people who are importing the goods, that person, so somebody with a business in wherever, whoever, Pennsylvania, something, who's like, oh, I can get these probably if I have the workers in Mexico, may make these parts, do some stuff to it, and I move

0:07:50 Thomas: It across the border to finish up or whatever, that, that's the guy who pays the, the money now, it still affects the pricing and all that, because obviously, if he can no longer, oh, what a sexist thing, if he, or she, if they, whoever is running the factory, I, since I had Trump in mind, I'm just thinking about, you know, evil uh, white businessman, that's my typical, like, in my head, but whoever it is, whoever's doing the importing, if it costs them way too much, which it probably will after all this is said and done, then obviously that will kill the demand, that will eventually, does have some effect, but that's what I think is going on. Where did I get

[0:08:26] That right or wrong? No, I think, I think you got that exactly right, and the critical aspect here

0:08:32 Andrew: Is that the tariff is paid on the U.S. consumer. Yeah. Who imports goods from Mexico. So in other words, your auto part costs one hundred dollars when you buy it from a Mexican supplier, that now costs one hundred and five dollars. And as a result, your fixed costs for building your car or building whatever it is that you're doing with that part have now gone up by five percent. Right. Right. And many, many industry. Right. So if, if you were, if, if the price on your raw materials goes up, right, because not everything is going to be imported. But let's say you Manufacture stuff in this country. You use parts sourced from all over the world. Some of that comes from Mexico. You're now paying three percent more for your raw materials. Well, that's three percent less in profits. And if your profit margin is four or five percent on average, you know, now all of a sudden, you know, you've halved or worse your potential profit. So this could really be imposing tariffs on the importation of foreign goods has the potential to drastically affect

[0:09:47] At the margins businesses that require on the importation of materials that are that are produced elsewhere. Swear. Yeah, and, like, there's obviously, there's what happens every time when Trump does something

0:10:00 Thomas: Stupid, is there's a higher level conversation of, like, well, there are problems with this problem, and obviously he has no information on that, and, or just doesn't care, doesn't read, so he doesn't, he's not doing anything that would address that, but there, it's not like, so there, there's some obnoxious sides to the argument, some people who could ultimately agree, like, well, something needs to be done for good reasons, and therefore mr capital t tariff man doing all this stuff, stuff, uh, it might have some effect, what's the history of, if brief, I mean, people, this hasn't

[0:10:31] Been done really, like, since for a long time, right? Yeah, yeah, so, so two things, but before we

0:10:38 Andrew: Kind of talk about all of the ways in which this deviates from even standard protectionist tariffs, right? So, for example, we talked about Trump's tariffs on China back in episode 162, and I'm going to talk about the ways in which this is very, very different from that invocation of authority. But so, so the argument, the steel manning of the argument here, we're going to steel man Donald Trump, how about that? Right? All right, yeah.

[0:11:03] If we must, if we must, the steel manning the argument is there's going to be a five percent tariff on that steel, but, yeah, we will steal, it's going to cost us more, but we're doing it for you. If, if you have a supplier that you believe is artificially reducing what it costs to produce that, right? Slave labor, for example. Yeah, right. Now you import that, and that widget that you are importing

[0:11:29] is being produced at a sub market rate, right? This does make sense, like if you're trying

0:11:35 Thomas: To, uh, protect certain businesses in the U.S. and, uh, country X is like, oh, we can make that because they have children do it or something and don't pay them. Oh, we can make that way cheaper. It might make sense to say, well, we, that's a, that's awful, like we don't want to profit off, and that's hasn't happened, but that might happen. We might be like, we don't want to profit off of the backs of child labor in some country, uh, and B that

[0:12:00] we don't want that to kill the the business that there would be in the U.S. so we'll kind of offset that. Correct. That is exactly right. So, so that is the steel man argument for that. That doesn't apply here. Right. Yeah. Because as you, as you're going to see from the language here,

0:12:17 Andrew: It is utterly unconnected to the production of U.S. based widgets. Right. Like there's... there's not even any predicate finding in in the Trump statement, which, by the way, he wrote himself. Right. Like it's not like there was an independent. Right. Right. So there's not even any claimed connection between protecting

[0:12:36] the idea is his stupid idea. That is definitely not true, that if he does enough of this, then they'll bring all the factories back. No, no. And I'm going to get to it. It's even dumber than that. Right. But point two, we've described how a unilateral tariff on Mexican goods that are exported from Mexico, imported into the United States, would be bad for U.S. business. That assumes Mexico just shuts up and takes it, right? Because what always happens in these situations is the other country says, oh, you're imposing tariffs on our goods, we're going to do the same in reverse, right? That's what we mean by trade war, right? That

[0:13:19] is the escalation right of Of raising the cost to your end consumers on goods from other countries. It's almost like you'd want some sort of, like a North American,

0:13:32 Thomas: I don't know, free, like an arrangement, no, a free trade, like an arrangement,

[0:13:39] agreement, maybe. Yeah, I think you'd want people to actually agree on a thing. Yeah, and in North America would be key. Yeah, no, that makes sense. I mean, obviously, and again, acknowledging there are good arguments against certain ways you could go here or there on this. This isn't the way to having a bunch of thumb wars. One, two, three, four. I declare a tariff war and then spiraling out of control. And by the way, tariffs being on illogical things like just a cut, like with the original round of tariffs, it was like, well, this is going to have a tariff. This thing isn't. And like, you know,

[0:14:13] there's no logic to it. So here's the statement. And I'm going to link it in the show notes. But here's

0:14:19 Andrew: Here's the crucial aspect of the statement, and you'll see instantly the way in which this is different from

[0:14:27] everything.

0:14:28 Andrew: Literally, I've never seen anything like this. OK, so Trump says to address the emergency at the southern border, I'm invoking the authorities granted to me by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Put a pin in that. Accordingly, starting on June 10th, 2019, that is Monday, the U

[0:14:47] .S. will impose a 5 percent tariff on all goods on all goods imported from Mexico. If the illegal migration crisis is alleviated for effective actions taken by Mexico to be determined in our sole discretion and judgment, the tariffs will be removed. OK, pause there. I think it is entirely possible Donald Trump wrote this sentence. Right.

[0:15:13] I cannot. He's it's true. Dictated it. Yeah. No. Yeah. I mean, I think he said, no, I want you to say that. Like it true. One of his personal lawyers is Jay Sekulow, who is is maybe a lawyer dumb enough to have written this sentence. But but outside of that, it is it is mind boggling to me that a lawyer would be like, no, Mr. Trump, you cannot use in perpetuity

[0:15:38] Throughout the universe here. It's like, it's like sending a ransom note and being like, Andrew, I have your dog, I have your dog, until such time, and I send you this note, I'm like, until such time as you have done things that I will figure out, then I, I still have your dog. Like, why send, wait, to send that, wait, to kidnap the dog, please have your, please don't kidnap my puppy, I miss my puppy. I know, but like, I send you a demand letter that has no tangible demands, like, why bother, why, save on postage. Just, this is, this is, I think, a window into the demented mind of Donald Trump, who thinks like what you do is right. You maximize your leverage. You're like, I'm going to come out strong and I'm going to demand this and this. And then Mexico is going to come to the table and capitulate. And like and and as you point out, right, this is a five day deadline to do a thing that we don't tell you what it is in our sole discretion and judgment. Yeah.

[0:16:33] Otherwise, we will pay more taxes. Right. Yeah, otherwise we're going to continue to hurt ourselves. Yeah, um, then continues, if the crisis persists, comma, however, comma, which, anyway.

0:16:46 Andrew: If the crisis persists, however, the tariffs will be raised to 10 on July 1, uh, and then it keeps, it, it escalates up to 25, right, every month. It's like, oh well, that's another five percent, that's another five percent, until October 1, 2019, tariff of 25, terrorists will permanently remain at the 25 level unless and until Mexico substantially stops

[0:17:12] the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory. So again, more evidence, I think, that Trump wrote this and not even a terribly stupid lawyer, right, like a lawyer, even Jay Sekulow would like define what the thing is, right, would be like, we need to solve this crisis here and after, blah

[0:17:30] blah blah blah, and then you wouldn't say like, until the crisis is alleviated, for paragraph one for sentence one, and then in sentence three go, and we're going to keep those until it substantially stops

[0:17:43] the illegal influence, right, like which one is it, right? There's... There's no way, if you were, I'm thinking about this as like, if Mexico were my client, right, and there's no way to, don't know how. Yeah, yeah, Okay, um, now, what makes this strange, if you went back and listened to 162, and by the way, that's a, that's a good idea, it's a good episode, I'm gonna do it right now while you're, no I won't. So when Donald Trump announced the steel tariffs, he did so pursuant to, uh, 1974 law, right, and that, those steel tariffs are an aspect of where Congress delegated certain authority to the president to promulgate

[0:18:27] regulations and take actions. Isn't that a national security one that he used? No, no, no, that's the distinction here, right? Right. So those previous, every time the president has, that I know of, imposed tariffs on another country pursuant, that, number one, it must be pursuant to congressional delegation of authority. Right. Like that power rests with Congress. But Congress is like, look, like we understand there's the need for flexibility. Right. Like you can't just say, OK, we're going to make all the findings. Congress moves slowly. So we're going to delegate certain authority to the president to make findings and connections with developments that change. And that's part of the law.

[0:19:11] The authority cited here is the IEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That is 50 U.S.C. Section 1702. This is the section that Trump cited in his emergency declaration over the building the wall, right, and we talked about how that was going to be the subject of lawsuits, and, uh, Trump, who, you know, always wins and wins until you're tired of winning, uh, lost on that, right, like completely gave up, right, like said, I'm gonna use this and I'm gonna divert funds to build the border wall, and you know what, like that didn't happen at all because

[0:19:49] the legality of that was was beyond non-questionable here there is nothing in the IEEPA that grants the president the power to impose a tariff? Really? Yeah, here's what it says. It says, at the times and to the extent specified in a previous section, the president may, under such, such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses or otherwise,

[0:20:15] investigate, regulate or prohibit. A as this is now a one, a one, any transactions in foreign exchange, a two transfers of credit or payment between by, through or to any banking institution. Right. And so we've talked about like freezing. Yes, it's freezing. Foreign assets. Yeah. OK. OK, to the extent and again, that's not unlimited to the extent that such transfers or payments involved any interest of any foreign country or national thereof. Not a huge limitation. And three, the importing or exporting of currency or securities by any person with respect to any property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

[0:20:58] Now, I didn't hear tariff. Yeah, there's no, look, so to make the argument, you have to say this is part of my power to otherwise, otherwise, right, and it has to be with respect to someone subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I'm going to

[0:21:16] use this on the bar, by the way. Ah, how to answer E, that I have the power to otherwise, the power to otherwise clause. Yeah, um, so, this, it, it, time to make a quick prediction and move on from the segment, this is going to develop, I believe the tariff will go into place, and, uh, it will be announced, will go into place on, uh, Monday the 10th, and will then immediately be the subject of lawsuits, and we're going to be embroiled in lawsuits, and I think a court has a really, really good chance, again, I've been through all of the law, the steel manning on, on the other side is that, um, courts interpreting the Iepa have, um, given it an expansive definition, right, so, but I have never seen the Iepa used to impose tariffs, I, I believe that it has not, and I think the argument of no, you know, you don't have the power to do this under this law, it's a really

[0:22:12] really strong, so it could get enjoined. Yes, yes, that's exactly what I think will happen. If I had only invested in injunction futures before this administration, I would be, be a billionaire, so many injunctions. Yes, you would. Well, yeah, well, this is only the A segment, I know we could go on at length about this, but, uh, I think we, we need to leave it there. Pretty much, but so, that's what you think it will initially? I think, I think it's going to be announced on Monday, and I think probably before it can be implemented, a court will issue an emergency injunction blocking it from going into effect because the authority isn't there, and, and look, look, the reasons we're going to go, it's way too much in the weeds, we're going to see what happens

[0:22:56] with the filing. But the reason is that the 1974 law that that Trump used with respect to China requires you to make certain predicate administrative findings. Right now, again, it's not hard. It's your administrative agency, but it just takes time. And I think Trump was like,

[0:23:15] No, I want to do it now. Discipline that they don't have. Yeah. So we'll go into it, over-under on how many times you think somebody, in the administration has tried to say, President, Mr. President, tariffs, we, they don't, it's not how, and then no, you know, like a thousand, like, how many times? I, I think any estimate you have for anyone trying to correct Trump, like if you haven't read volume two of the Muller report, like that, it, every other page is like, and then Trump instructed his subordinates to

[0:23:46] do that, and then they were like, no, we're not gonna, we're not gonna do that, it's not how it works, that's not how any of this works. Yeah. Over-under on that's not, all right, well, time to move on to some

0:23:59 Thomas: Yodeling. Hey, listeners, Opening Arguments is brought to you by Lightstream. If you're looking for a way to save some extra money this summer, start by paying less interest on your credit card balances. You can refinance those balances with a credit card consolidation loan from Lightstream. It's an easy way to save hundreds and maybe thousands of dollars and lower your interest rate. Lightstream offers credit card consolidation loans from 5.9% APR with auto pay. That's lower than the average credit card interest rate of over 19% APR. There are absolutely no fees, and you can even get your money as soon as the day you apply. Lightstream believes that people with good credit deserve a better loan experience, and that's exactly what they deliver. For our listeners, apply now to get a special interest rate discount. The only way to get this discount is to go

[0:24:48] to lightstream.com slash OA. That's L-I-G-H-T-S-T-R -E-A-M dot com slash OA. That's subject to credit approval. The rate includes 0.5% auto pay discount. Terms and and conditions apply and offers are subject to change without notice. Visit lightstream.com slash OA for more information.

[0:25:12] Because people have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. So you're not aware of any context during the course of the election? How many times do I have to answer this question? Can you just say Russia is a ruse? I know you have to get up and ask a question so important. Russia is a ruse. Well, I'm not a crook.

0:25:30 Thomas: Okay, well, the answer to, to the question, the, the absolute cliffhanger of a question posed in the pre-show, does firing your high-powered attorneys as you're still

[0:25:43] awaiting sentencing does that bode well yeah or poorly poorly so again uh

0:25:49 Andrew: Full disclaimer, Michael Flynn's lawyers at Covington and Burling, not just, I used to work for Covington and Burling, but, um, Rob Kellner was in my class, uh, it's, we are, I, I know, know him well. Steve Anthony is a longstanding, that's the number two there, he's a longstanding of counsel, someone for whom I have done work, right, so, so

[0:26:11] I know these folks really, really well. You didn't get comment or anything, did you reach out, text him for comment? I did not doing that. Yeah, I can start doing that, but I have a pretty good idea what the answer is going to be. We should just put in every show notes. Oh, I reached out for comment. But yeah, our calls were not for everybody. Just that is assume that unless I say otherwise, because I have reached out anyway. All right.

[0:26:36] So this relates to this is volume two of the Mueller report beginning at page 121. And what happened? And so that's the obstruction section.

0:26:50 Andrew: Covington and Burling, Michael Flynn's lawyers, began cooperating with the Mueller investigation in November of 2017. And as a result, Michael Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement that he had with the president. Oh, yeah. Right. Joint Defense Agreement says, hey, the lawyers for both sides can share documents and it's all covered by a common privilege. And so Flynn said, you know what? I'm not sure I want to be a part of that thing anymore because I am talking to prosecutors and prosecutors are telling me, as is happening, I've committed crimes and now there is we no longer have a joint interest.

0:27:30 Andrew: We have interests that are adverse to one another. So told the president, hey, we're withdrawing from this joint defense agreement. And then the president's personal lawyer, John Dowd, called Rob Kellner

[0:27:47] at Covington and Burling and left a voicemail and said, let's play it. Yeah, oh no, yeah, I, I wish we could, um, and said, uh, and now I'm not gonna try and do John Dowd's voice because I don't, you, you could do anything, and I would be like, oh, yeah, that's a dead ringer. Yeah. So, hey, Rob, this is John again. Maybe.

0:28:13 Andrew: I'm sympathetic, I understand your situation. But let me see if I can't state it in starker terms. By the way, these ums are in the transcript. I'm trying to do it. "If you have," and it wouldn't surprise me if "you've gone to make a deal with and work with with the government, uh, I understand you can't join

[0:28:31] in the joint defense. That's one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there's information that implicates the president, then we've got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don't

[0:28:44] know, some issue we've, we got to, we, we've got to deal with, not only for the president, but for the country, so, uh, you know, then, then, then, you know, we need some, we

[0:28:56] need some kind of heads up, um, just for the sake of protecting all of our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any crimes, I want to commit crime? No, no. Stupid, uh, forget that, uh, static, uh, crimes, no, uh, well," and this is the sentence that, um, Alan Dershowitz and and people who are not arguing in good faith have seized on, so I, I do do want to pause. Absent the joke here, he says, "so, so you

[0:29:22] know, then, you know, we need some kind of heads up, um, just for the sake of protecting all of our interests if we can, if we can, yeah, you know, without you having to give up any confidential information. So, um, and if it's the former, then, then, you know, remember, remember what we've always said about the president and his feelings toward Flynn, and and

[0:29:40] and, you know, that still remains. But, uh, in any event, um, let me know, and uh, and I I appreciate you listening and taking the time. Thanks, pal." So you're reading that word for word. That is word for word, um, for um, and thanks, pal. Thanks, pal. I am not a lawyer. This strikes me as,

0:29:59 Thomas: The minute you started reading this, this strikes me as him, someone, like, you give an improv actor, like, okay, you need to convince someone to commit crimes with you without saying, hey, let's

[0:30:12] do some crime. Let's do some crimes. Bye. You know, like. Yeah. Yeah, that is it is what it's why I want to read the entire

0:30:19 Andrew: Email in its, with no right redactions, no changes, no nothing, because that email was summarized in the Mueller report. The reason for it being summarized was, again, out of an abundance of caution for not revealing potentially privileged

[0:30:38] information, right? And and it was quoted, right, right. So there are ellipses, and it is quoted, unlike the bar letter, for example, with like 13 different ellipses in there, right? And the reason you do that is because you're treading super carefully when you have the president's personal lawyer talking to Michael Flynn's personal lawyer, right? Like, you. So the argument being made in the far right circles is that Mueller's excerpting of that email was misleading, and that voicemail, of that voicemail, right, and that, and that, now that

[0:31:09] this voicemail is out, it's obviously, you know, total exoneration of the president, right? I'm serious, you can find that right now. Did you get the full one? That's the full one. That was the, that was the full one, the one I'm not going to read, the, the, the excerpted one, because it's exactly the same. You can go, it's on one page 121 of volume two, go check it out. But

[0:31:28] I remember there was argument about, like, well, he said, no, without revealing, he said, "I call you and

0:31:34 Thomas: I'm like, hey, uh, I'm thinking, is there a way, because, you know, banks have lots of money, right, and I'm just thinking, like, if you and I,

[0:31:40] uh, uh, if we could convince the bank to give the money without committing any crimes," yeah, "without committing crimes, but we make it clear they have to give it to us of their own will," but they're going to give it to us without, no crimes, though? "Hey, no, no, no crimes, no

[0:31:58] crimes." Yeah, it, it clearly sounds that way, and remember, this is a lawyer leaving a voicemail, right, he, he knows that to to somebody who is cooperating with prosecutors, right.

0:32:10 Andrew: So John Dowd would have to be, and he's not, he's a smart guy. I've talked about, you know, the, the work he did in in the Pete Rose investigation, right? Like, he's a super smart guy who's been lawyering for three times as long as I've been alive. And so he, he's not going to do the, like, "we're in," you know, I'm craze on that. No, he's not going to do that. And the Mueller report, let's go, go back to it, the surrounding testimony after that voicemail was left is what's really, really damning here. And it didn't change. So this is now what Flynn, through his counsel, told Mueller, right. They got the voicemail. And again, the voicemail is elided in one, two, three, four, five, six places.

[0:32:54] Right. Then it says, the next day, Flynn's attorneys, my buddy Rob Kellner, returned the call from the president's personal counsel to acknowledge receipt of the voicemail. Flynn's attorneys reiterated that they were no longer in a position to share information under any sort

[0:33:12] of privilege.

0:33:14 Andrew: According to Flynn's attorneys, the president's personal counsel was indignant and vocal in his disagreement.

[0:33:20] The president's personal counsel said that he interpreted what they said to him as a reflection of Flynn's hostility towards the president, and that he planned to inform his client, that is, the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, of that interpretation. Flynn's attorneys understood that statement to be an attempt to make them reconsider their position because the president's personal counsel believed that Flynn would be disturbed to know that such a message would be conveyed to the president. That was

0:33:49 Thomas: Very convoluted, could you give us the Andrew? Yeah, so the Andrew is

0:33:54 Andrew: Covington and Burling gets this voicemail, they talk to Michael Flynn, they say, "Holy clown horn, the president's lawyer just called me and said, uh, can we commit some crimes here?"

[0:34:06] Right, "I've got a, look, I'm sorry, I've got to call back and say, no, look, we're withdrawing from the, the joint defense agreement, we're talking to a prosecutor, no, I can't talk to you about any of this," even if you've done the, like, "oh, it's patriotic," for, you know, there could be a national security issue or a other issue,

[0:34:25] yeah, I gotta do this. Right, and then Rob Kellner says, I talked to John Dowd, and John Dowd was angry, he said, "I was indignant and vocal," right, that, that Dowd was indignant and vocal in his disagreement with our interpretation, and he then further said, "I'm going to tell the president, I'm going to tell Donald Trump that you're

[0:34:50] being hostile to the president," that it's a reflection of Flynn's hostility to the president, and then Kellner says, "and I, Rob Kellner, interpreted that as an attempt to make me reconsider my position on withdrawing from the joint defense." So

[0:35:08] obstruction. Yes, of course it is obstruction, right? So let's go to then the terminal finding.

0:35:15 Andrew: It's 10 pages later. By the way, there's nine other pages, right. I say it's 10 pages later before we get to the terminal finding. That's because there's nine more pages of how Trump just in this section tried to obstruct justice in connection with Michael Flynn. Flynn. Here's what ultimately Robert Mueller's team concludes. "With regard to Flynn, the president said private and public messages to Flynn, encouraging him to stay strong and conveying that the president still cared about him before he began to cooperate with the government. When Flynn's attorneys withdrew from a joint defense agreement, signaling that Flynn was potentially cooperating with the government, the president's personal counsel initially reminded

[0:35:52] minded Flynn's counsel of the president's warm feelings towards Flynn and said that still remains. But when Flynn's counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information under a joint defense agreement, the president's personal counsel stated that the decision would be interpreted as reflecting inflecting Flynn's hostility to the president, the sequence of events could have had the potential to affect Flynn's decision to cooperate, right? That's all you

[0:36:17] need to obstruct justice. You're intimidating a witness. You are 100%. It doesn't have to be intimidation, inducing a witness in any way to give false testimony, right? To refuse to cooperate, right? As

[0:36:29] well as the extent of that cooperation. Oh, okay. You can talk to, but you know, if there's a thing that could involve the resident prey and national security, right?

0:36:38 Andrew: And then Mueller continues, because of privilege issues, however, we could not determine whether the president was personally involved or knew about the specific message that the counsel delivered

[0:36:50] to Flynn's counsel.

0:36:52 Andrew: And this morning, Michael Flynn fired those lawyers. We

[0:36:58] do not yet know who he has hired. Why would he have done that? The reason to do that. Again, now stepping into this criminal underpinning now where now where we are is outside of the Mueller report. And now I am speculating. OK, I think. Flynn has seen I think he's done a Thomas Negatron, right? He's looked at the last 18 months and said, oh, great. My lawyers were telling me I needed to cooperate. I need to treat this like an ordinary criminal case, that

[0:37:29] there are consequences, that I would be going to jail, all of that. But why should why should I be the one playing by the Marquise of Queensberry rules here when the president and everybody around him doesn't seem to care? And so if I fire C&B right now, at the time that this meant that this voicemail becomes public, that is my way of signaling back to the president. Hey, look, I stayed strong. That's what that is. The only way that I can interpret is this is Flynn going, "Yeah. Oh, yeah. You're right." This came

[0:37:59] out and I didn't know. And now, right, you know, screw those guys. Here's my question. This is not entirely maybe on the topic of what you're talking about, but you you mentioned that this lawyer who left this voicemail, this is not a crank, this is not, this is an experienced, yeah, an old, old guy. But but what I want to know is, what kind of desperation does that signal to you? Right. I mean, what, to leave a a voicemail like that, and then what was

0:38:30 Thomas: He protecting? I mean, this is, I guess, one of the many reasons that people thought there'd be so much in the Muller report, and there was. But like, what is, that is that something we know about? Like, what, how, what would make them so nervous as to try to commit a crime or two to stay abreast of, you know, what you

[0:38:49] know. Right. So the answer to that is, remember that what Michael Flynn is being sentenced for

0:38:55 Andrew: Is lying to the the Muller investigation about his contacts with Russian ambassador

[0:39:01] Sergey Kislyak. Right, right. So the only way to interpret this is, uh, oh, gosh, somebody with extensive contacts between us and Russia is now

[0:39:14] talking to Robert Muller, and the the the tone and substance of this of it, you know, this could be, all right, I mean, to to a general, right, to somebody who, you know, is whether you agree with them or not, and obviously we disagree with them on virtually everything, right, it, I don't think you can be a high ranking member of the army and not be patriotic about the country, right, and not be and

[0:39:41] not feel like, okay, while you're working with the rest, right, I, did I I get it. Look, but but you see the the tug on, you know, the efforts to appeal not just to his. Yeah. Right. Oh,

[0:39:53] you're in this, too. But also the like, hey, look, this could this could be a national security or other thing. Right. Like it's it's hard to steal man. But what I'm saying is if, yeah, if I'm, if I'm a, you know, Trump

0:40:05 Thomas: Guy over here, if I'm trying to give that side, what possible reason? I mean, if this is all a

[0:40:12] big hoax, if Russia is a ruse, what possible reason could there be for this voicemail? You know, like what? What, I cannot begin to think. I mean, again, I will link

0:40:24 Andrew: In the show notes the Alan Dershowitz Daily Caller piece. God. Yeah. Why? At this point, why? You're right. Actually, I won't do that. Why give them clicks? It's it's it is 100 percent. If you, if you had any thought left of like, well, maybe there are alternative explanations, and not, like, Dershowitz, 100 percent in the tank for Trump, reading Alan Dershowitz attempting, tempting to explain how, like, this is just terrible news for Robert Muller, now that the full voicemail is out, when you look at how misleading the summary in the report was, it's it is it is, laugh, you have to

[0:41:01] live in an in an in a in the world of alternative facts, and in a world in which, you know, Kellyanne Conway is the only person telling the truth, uh, to to parse, uh, what Dersha said. So, so this is terrible.

0:41:17 Thomas: Yeah. Dersh is a nightmare. I count down to us finding out more about why, why he's so. Yeah. We'll see this. So to conclude the firing, you think it's all about sending a message. Yeah. I think, I think

[0:41:30] that is sending a message of Flynn going, "Hey, I look like I didn't give him that much." And I, yeah, and I'm standing strong. You're hoping, you know, or they're, Flynn is hoping that Trump sees that. And, yep, wow. Yeah. And so what that tells you is, it's entirely possible that Flynn had worse stuff that he has not yet given. Wow. Yeah, good point. So I know that the question with pardons and all that is always, you know, state crimes.

[0:41:59] Remind me on Flynn. Do we have him on any state anything or is it all pardonable? We do not have him on

0:42:05 Andrew: Any state anything because Flynn was the person. And if you look at volume one of the Mueller report, right, the there is extensive documentation about Flynn's contacts with Kislyak, contacts with Russia. Ultimately, the conduct for which he was indicted and then to which he pled guilty was lying to the Mueller investigation. So, you know, that's not that

[0:42:31] does not implicate a state. State. Well, shoot, this this took a depressing turn. Yep, I wasn't prepared

0:42:37 Thomas: For that. Oh, well, geez, the bad guys always win. Yeah, um, wow, should we leave

[0:42:43] it on that? Let's leave it on that awful note, and we'll see what what transpires before next, Policy Genius is the easy way to shop for insurance online. In just two minutes, you can compare quotes from top insurers to find your best price. Once you apply, the Policy Genius team will handle all the paperwork and the red tape. No sales pressure, no hidden fees, just financial protection and peace of mind. And that peace of mind is the important thing. I, I know I've said it before, but I did recently get life insurance, uh, well, I guess it's not so recently, but somewhat recently, with the birth of my kids, because you don't want to leave someone on the hook, you know, uh, if you are the main breadwinner, or if you are a breadwinner in your family. And that's really common now, that everybody needs seven jobs to make, make a living

[0:43:27] these days.

0:43:28 Thomas: Separate topic. Anyway, you don't want to leave your partner on the hook. You know, you don't want to leave them. Something might happen. You just never know. And having that comfort of knowing that they will be protected and your kids will be protected, that is really crucial. And it makes me feel better all the time, to be honest. And Policy Genius doesn't just make life insurance easy. They also help you find the right home insurance and auto insurance and disability insurance. So if you need life insurance, but you've been busy doing literally anything else, check out PolicyGenius. It's the easy way to compare all the top insurers and find the best value for you. Policygenius.com. Nobody wants to shop for life insurance.

0:44:08 Thomas: That's why they make it easy. All right. And finally, let's talk about the DNC. You know, like I said, we got 20 candidates. There's like 21 that are close to the debate. They're arguing about kind of how to narrow that down. What are your thoughts? Yeah. So

0:44:23 Andrew: The DNC published rules earlier this year on how candidates would qualify for the debates. The first one is June 26th. This is an NBC MSNBC Telemundo debate. And everyone should watch and pay attention to that. And you are not being facetious. The DNC has said we're going to limit this to

[0:44:48] 20 candidates on stage. This is one debate? Yeah. Is still a nightmare. That's a nightmare. I thought they were doing like a JV, like, you know, that. So the debate is scheduled over two days. Right. Okay. Yeah. But the way in which you qualify for that are the criteria that the DNC promulgate. Right. And those have two different

[0:45:13] criteria. Right. Right. One is polling. You have to be at one percent or higher in three qualifying polls. Right. Or and Or, I should say, you have to qualify on the basis of fundraising. Right. And the

[0:45:32] fundraising is meant to demonstrate grassroots support. Well, why don't you say and or it's either and or or. Yeah. Well, we need to do both or it. It here's why I said that. No, no, no. It's Good to see us on my language. But the reason I said it that way is because the way in which this shakes out is the initial selection criterion was either or. But if more than 20 qualify, then those who meet both get priority. So, yeah, the second criterion is an attempt to measure grassroots support. And the idea is if you receive donations from 65,000 individuals with 200 of those, that must be from at least 20 different states. Right.

[0:46:20] So 13 candidates have hit both criteria. Right. They are definitely on the stage. There's some weird ones in that list. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah. So Andrew Yang is Is one of the unexpected ones. And I want to talk more about him in an upcoming episode because Andrew Yang is a right as of right now, he is a one issue candidate. That issue is UBI. Yeah. Yeah. Universal basic income. And that's a super interesting topic. We can't begin to talk about that in this segment. The other one I did not even know had declared is someone named Marianne Williamson. Oh, uh,

0:46:59 Thomas: I believe I heard an interview with her, she actually sounds really impressive, I didn't know really who she was but

[0:47:05] Uh, yeah, I, I don't know anything about her other than both, yeah, she hit both, um, so which is really, if I'm thinking for the right, uh, the right person, I believe she endorsed Bernie in '16, because some of the questions were like, well, now you're running, you know, like, and Bernie's still in there. Yeah, but she had a great answer, like, she, if, uh, if I have the right person. And so, yeah, she actually did an interview on Pod Save America, probably because she hit both these things and they're trying to interview all the serious candidates, you know, and I was, I didn't know she was, seems like she's an author.

[0:47:36] Yeah, she's a motivational speaker. There's a lot of skill set for running for president, I guess. Yeah. I mean, look, you know, there's... there's some, there's a lot of woo in that area. Yeah, but but I do want to say that I, listening to that interview, she did sound extremely intelligent. It wasn't like a B.S. like, all right, we all need to just grab our energy. It's

[0:47:57] The power of you. Be the inner Bart Simpson that you can be, everybody hold hands right now. Okay, so she's guaranteed a spot on the stage. Yeah, the other folks

0:48:10 Andrew: So there was, like I said, and and Andrew Yang, and I'm glad to see, I want him part of the discussion, um, and then the other 11 who were guaranteed locks on the stage are the people that you think of, right?

[0:48:22] Yeah, um, I don't know if I could think of 11. Biden, Biden is one. Harris is two. Um, Gillibrand, or Kirsten Gillibrand, is not. Oh, no, she's the one, uh, Klobuchar is. Who I, I meant, I, I don't know why I'm, yeah, Klobuchar, three, yeah, because Gillibrand is not, even like we get, we get, we get, but yeah, Klobuchar, uh, uh, Warren, Warren, four, right? Buddha judge buddha judge five. Buddha judge five is, uh, is Beto on that list? Beto, six. Uh, oh, I don't think I said Bernie. You did not. Bernie, seven. To seven, um, there's like, so, uh, Yang, this is, you already, yeah, we're just going to 11, you got four more names to get, four more

[0:49:02] names, and you had one. One strike already with Gillibrand. I meant... Oh, okay. All right.

0:49:08 Thomas: Come on, I'll allow a friendly amendment. Yeah, thank you. There's going to be somebody major who I'm missing. Isn't there... I guess I'm... I don't know, I'm forgetting. Yeah, I got to seven. That's very

[0:49:21] respectable. So the four you're missing, the big one you missed is... Hickenlooper? Is that one? I just realized that name. No, but we're going to get to that in a minute. Okay. The four who also have met both criteria are

0:49:34 Andrew: Cory Booker. Booker. You should have come up with that one. Oh, yeah.

[0:49:37] Washington Governor Jay Inslee. I like that guy, but I didn't think he had both. So he had both. Tulsi Gabbard. She met both criteria? She met both criteria. Wow. Again, it's 1% in 65,000 donors. These are not huge. I mean, they're huge by OA patron standards.

0:49:56 Andrew: And then and the final one kind of more more fringy is Julian Castro. Oh, yeah.

[0:50:02] So that leaves folks who have qualified under one of the other mechanisms, right, as potentially not being on the stage. And the polling includes, polling but not fundraising includes Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, one of your strikes, yeah, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, one of your strikes, no, um, folks that I didn't know were running, um, California Rep Eric Swalwell, don't know him at all, uh, ex-Maryland Representative John Delaney, who, zero, I don't know why he's running, um, yeah, Ohio Congressman

[0:50:41] Tim Ryan. Oh, yeah, Tim Ryan's pretty cool. Yeah, Bill de Blasio, um, so the The big one that this leaves off, and I use that, you know, yeah, is Montana Governor Steve Bullock, right? And the reason is because Bullock was initially reported unofficially as having met the polling threshold, and the DNC then said, oh, this was not, we're not going to authorize a particular Washington Post poll.

[0:51:13] Because the poll was this person, 21, like, yes, yeah, oh, right. And and the reason for that is because the DNC said we're not going to include, include two Washington Post, ABC News polls, even though their initial statement said that's a reputable polling organization, because they didn't like the methodology. In particular, they didn't like the methodology that gave you an open ended rather than list of candidates, said, "Oh, who do you support?" And then I would point out getting one percent in an open ended poll is much harder and is more impressive, progressive. So the question is, can, uh, Bullock, can anybody who's excluded, can they sue the DNC and say, you change the rules on me? Right. Right. That the Bullock camp is already saying you changed the rules on me. And the answer to that sort of harkens back. We talked about the

[0:52:11] Bernie Sanders right wing. I remember there were lawsuits. So, yep, lawsuit against the DNC. So the answer to that is, is is certainly a very, very strong maybe. Right.

[0:52:23] And and well, I mean, the answer is you can sue. Right. Right. That's not a hard bar to clear. Go, go, um, but the and I'll link this in the show notes, the uh, the Bernie Sanders lawsuit, again, I want go back and listen to that episode of the show, that was 100% bankrolled by right-wing sources relying on Gucci for 2.0 and known Russian intelligence assets. So if you still think the, like, Bernie Sanders got a raw deal and he brought a lawsuit because of it, you should know that those, those people were hijacked. In any event, the, the way in which you bring a lawsuit against the DNC as a private organization, right, not a governmental entity, is as either a Democratic voter or a primary voter or as a donor to any of the candidates to say, hey, look, I gave money to the DNC because the DNC promised to be neutral about the candidates.

[0:53:20] Right, so you need a, for someone who's given money to the DNC, to the DNC candidate, or someone you need a money, to, you need a Democratic activist who supports one of these candidates that's going to be excluded from the stage, and then you bring allegations of fraud, you say, look, they promised us that they

[0:53:39] were going to be, they got our money, and straightforward, right, under false pretense, that's exactly, that's, that's the, the framework, I'm sure that person's out there. Yeah, there's no way that that there is, can, can, uh, can one of these candidates, or somebody, you know, their wife donates to the DNC tomorrow and then they're, yeah, absolutely, they would have standing, 100%, so if you know, if you're listening, Montana Governor Bullock, like, you know, have a, have

[0:54:03] a friend donate money to the DNC and that will give you your standing for your lawsuit, um, you'd then have to, you know, you'd have to identify that they engaged in fraudulent conduct, that they, that, that they deliberately changed the rules on the Washington Post poll, you know, to cause you injury. And, you

[0:54:24] know, look, I don't, if I ran the DNC, I would not have 20 candidates on stage. Yeah, that's insane. But but it is, I mean, you know, it's going to be a nightmare. It is, I'm kind of looking forward to the debates because I think they could be really cool and positive in a way. But also, yes, 20 people. And look, like it, I'm sympathetic to if you say, hey, I'm a small person here. Right. It's going to be hard

[0:54:48] for me to gain attention. But the counter arguments are Pete Buttigieg and to a lesser extent, Andrew Yang. Right. Andrew Yang met both criteria. They found a way to get there they found a way to cut through there's only a few people who should be on the state you know it's it's not it's not we don't get

0:55:07 Thomas: To do it unfortunately. Yeah, maybe, maybe in four years, we'll see, we'll see how the podcast goes. So there you go, there you have it, very interesting stuff, and uh, what, what great timing, I think it's perfect timing to thank our top patrons, our Hall of Famers, our all-time greats at patreon.com/law, who we had such a fun time with in our Q&A the other day. Oh, and FYI, I just want to give a little plug, also if you didn't catch Andrew on SIO, on Serious Inquiries Only, my podcast, search that out because we did talk about Buttigieg and other DNC stuff. We try to keep it more factual here, a little more political and pundity over there a little bit, but that was a lot of fun. So thanks for coming on. Catch that if you haven't already, listeners. But now, to thank our top patrons who are due a Law'd Awful Movies in around a week we'll we'll make that happen don't worry starting with

[0:55:57] Chugga Chugga Chugga Chugga Boutros Boutros Ghali.

0:56:02 Thomas: It's legal advice. It's not legal advice. Nice. Ask your podcast if legal advice is

[0:56:09] right for you. That's good. My bad sense of humor is now your problem.

0:56:14 Thomas: SovCitProTip. The earth is hurtling through space, so speeding is bs. Nice. Bosnick, Pugapegacorn 2024. Okay. We'll see. Well, I mean, we'll see who gets the polling, who gave, gets

[0:56:27] the 65,000. So sign up. Patreon.com/law. That will count. Yeah.

0:56:34 Thomas: Nate Drex, Valerie Galloway, dragonfly.eco, books about nature and the environment. Reviews and Interviews, Stuff and Polls, Betsy DeVos is the Antichrist, Darth Mandy Pants, Well-Deserved Patron, number 239, Level 3 Bidoof, I think that's a Pokemon reference, Transform Holdco, More Than Meets the Eye, Michael Forbes, Ominum Brewing, John Richards, 13th Century Saxony Gravel Truck Lawyer, Bookum Dano, Jennifer Kratch, Adam Costa, Costa, Beautiful Babs, The Cure for Ultravirus, J. Alden Walt, GCU Moss Gatherer. Conspiracy theories are all a giant circle derp.

[0:57:15] Circle derp, that's awesome. Circle derp is good. That's going in the hopper. Steven Balticatai Sandoval, A string of unpronounceable characters or a prescription drug name. Yes. Adopt a homeless anagram and read Factfulness by Hans Rosling. Incorporating my uterus as a church to avoid anti-choice laws plus taxes. Detective Pikachu,

[0:57:38] investigating obstruction for you galaxyquest.org galaxyquest.org galaxyquest.org that's awesome, that is legitimately an amazing movie, it's so good, I watched it recently, it holds up, it's great. John Bilderback. Hi, I'm Deckard Kane, you may remember me from such games as Diablo. Blow Civil Politics Radio.com Fridays at 7 p.m. Eastern on Valley Free Radio. The Registry Matters Podcast, incorrectly

[0:58:02] pronouncing Italian to avoid it. I thought that was going to be a joke about that, but no, it's still incorrectly pronouncing Latin to avoid the accidental summoning of demons. My computer screen is a little further away from me than than normal. Clownhornvoting.com still needs you to take the poll. Yes, honey buns, take it. EV Podcast, sustainable transportation for all. DataHack.com, business automation, making the menial automatic. Eric Alsman, Thomas Smith is my favorite attorney, Andrew is a close second, pain strep it, Michael C. Sampson, Trambolis, Kiowa Valley exports for Australian red meat and craft beer, Michael Cohen is a no-talent ass clown, let me be totally clear, I like being totally clear, the Getting Off Podcast,

[0:58:46] Chris Rowden, Milo Meadsong, the Halfling Bard, and Frantic Bar Prepper. There you go. And Sam, buck your turn. Andrew Torrez, all right, thank you to Cosmo. I'm not redacted, you're the one who's redacted.

0:58:58 Andrew: Blues, join your labor union, together we bargain, alone we beg, cast the liar liar curse on Congress, and

[0:59:04] watch the chaos, adopt a homeless 61 Corvair, and may the centrifugal force be with you. If I had a buck for every time I didn't change my name, I'd have 85.5. Andrew's epitaph, will move my noodle, James, just another corrupted batch of freedom molecules, freedom molecules.

[0:59:23] Is that a beer? What, you didn't hear about this, was the, they're calling like, oh yeah, God, you're right, I did, I blocked it out, sorry, no, smart, Devin Nunes is the arch nemesis, the team, team is canon now, right? Yes, anonymous, Butterscotch the Cat, sergeant-at-pause for the US House of Representatives, Hoda, send the team, 19, 2020, David in Brooklyn. Incoming transmission from junior missions operator Nermit Bundeloy. Didn't like the Mobius script documentary. Wait, one-sided. The math jokes are amazing here, that's a good one. How many licks to the center of the Tootsie Pop, one, a two, redacted, singing Bach all weekend at Blackdown's Early Music Projects, word origins dot org your source for legal terms from 13th century Saxony, effing robots at the Portland Main Fringe Festival, neat, we need

[1:00:16] to talk about Bill Barr's Sharpie huffing addiction, Rodney, Pete Moss, heart to heartbeat around the bush, Quail Hunting Lodge, Derrick, Alexa, play Impeach the President by the Honey Drippers, oh man, I love Robert Plant stuff, I hated reading Joseph Campbell's Heart of Genesis in

[1:00:35] high school, insert LGBTQ pride related legal pun here, yeah, absolutely.

1:00:41 Andrew: Big easy blasphemy, a string of unpronounceable Terwilligers, using my birth certificate to cover my Patreon cost. Well, like I said up that,

[1:00:51] Thomas is my favorite Opening Arguments host, Andrew is a distant last, that was, sorry, that was me, that was, oh, thanks mom, no, just kidding, we said, Ronda's hovercraft is full of eels, Malika Chandler, Abacus Flinch, volunteer with Camp Quest this summer, campquest.org, soggy pants, Transform Holdco, More Than Meets the Eye, is that two patrons separately that did a Transform, More Than Me, they're nice, Sam Denow, Greg Sullivan, Thomas

[1:01:16] explains the Patreon names is my new favorite segment, Gordon, Aaron T, Heart of Poor Heart, Operation Ensis, uh, Matthew Vernon, I think, I think you thought that would read better than sound, but yeah, good try, adopt a homeless pet in a post declawing an ear docking, Aaron Graddy, Heather L., Jeremiah's Fancy Microwave Emporium, Sakashite Fukasumi hereby engages in an illegal transaction that I'm not going to read on the air, um, in an alley, oh all right, anyway, he offers one dollar to milkshake Trump, any flavor, that is not a serious offer, we are not conveying that, that Sakashita Fukasumi is broke, the Secret Service should not interpret that as a legitimate incitement to milkshake. Ian and Allie, Zabby, Neil Gorsuch is a clown-horning monster, Duke Goobler, Eli Bosnick, Mitchell. So what do we get that $25 patrons don't? I don't know. $25 patrons

[1:02:13] should get more than that. President Trump-o is my new favorite typo. Thanks, Nudo. Yeah, trying to unseat Conrad Michaels since 2014, T in the B days, and Conrad Michaels, oh, that's those

1:02:28 Thomas: Are some strong competitors. Yet he sits atop the legal throne. He was the winner of got

[1:02:34] a game of thrones. Yeah, he was the one, the iron, the Conrad Michaels iron throne.

1:02:40 Thomas: Patreon throne. All right, well, those uh lovely patrons brought you this show and bring you

[1:02:46] TTTBE. Here we go. Oh, no associate this firm has ever failed the bar exam. No kidding, Thomas. A four-year-old child sustained serious

1:02:59 Andrew: Injuries when a playmate pushed him from behind two parked cars into the street, oh, where he was then struck by a car. Wow. The child, by his representative, sued the driver of the car, the

[1:03:11] playmate's parents, and his own parents. At trial, the child's total damages were determined to be $100,000. The playmate's parents were determined to be 20% at fault because they had failed to adequately supervise her. The driver was found to be 50% at fault, and the child's own parents were determined to be 30% at fault for failure to adequately supervise him. The court, the court has adopted the pure comparative negligence doctrine with joint and several liability in place of the common law rules relating to plaintiff's fault. In addition, the common law doctrines relating to intrafamily liability have been abrogated.

[1:03:55] What is the maximum amount, if anything, that the child's representative can recover from the driver of the car? A. 30,000. B. 50,000. C. C, 100,000, or D, nothing? I love this question. This is a really difficult question. It is, it is, but I'm not going to give hints.

1:04:23 Thomas: Sanctity of the game. Okay, my first two thoughts, by the way, are why is a kid suing his own parents

[1:04:29] for this?

1:04:31 Thomas: And secondly, why is the driver 50% at fault? I mean, as a driver, I'm now worried. Like, if somebody pushes somebody behind a parked car and I hit them, I'm half to blame for

[1:04:43] that?

1:04:44 Thomas: It's not right. Am I crazy?

[1:04:47] No response from Andrew. Sanctity of the game. Okay, fair. Okay, so I think that it seems like the key is going to be the last few sentences. The court has adopted the pure comparative negligence doctrine with joint

[1:05:02] and several liability in place of the common law rules.

1:05:08 Thomas: In addition, common law doctrines relating to intra-family liability have been abrogated.

[1:05:13] Doctrines relating to intra-family liability have been abrogated. I don't, ah, that last one's killing me. I think what's happening here is that because of this comparative negligence, pure comparative negligence doctrine, that we can't, we don't do the, oh, you're 20%, I'm 30%, he's whatever. Whatever. I think we do. Whoever is more at fault could

[1:05:38] be liable for the whole thing. That's what I think is happening. And I think the key is the parents will count as you, you know, like that'll, I think that'll count together. So the question,

[1:05:50] So here's what I think. I believe it's either going to be all or nothing, but then, ah, but the driver's 50% at fault. Ah, that blows that analysis. How's this gonna work? Okay, so the basic thing would be the drive, if, if the driver was found to be 50% at fault, then 50,000. That's the basic answer. The other answer I could see would be how would you get 30,000? I don't know, I mean, 30% of their own parents are 30% at

[1:06:27] fault.

1:06:28 Thomas: I don't know how you'd get that. It seems like it's gotta be 50, 100, or nothing.

1:06:34 Thomas: 50%, I don't get it. I thought I almost could have had it, but the 50% is killing me. Had they said 60%, I might have been compelled to answer $100,000, but if it's 50, it's exactly 50

[1:06:46] %.

1:06:47 Thomas: I don't know how that would, I don't know, this is impossible. So I think I can eliminate A, $30,000. I don't, I don't see how you would get to the driver getting to that. Um, is this going to be, or is it a weird math thing where in a contest between, so

[1:07:06] you're just talking about the driver versus the child, uh, and maybe, the maybe the child and the child's parents count together because of, of that intra-family liability thing.

1:07:20 Thomas: But then I'm not seeing any number that would add 30 plus. This is, ah, this is hard. I'm going to, I mean, do I go with B, the obvious answer, $50,000, which is 50% corresponding to the driver, or do I go with nothing from some weird thing, or $100,000 from some other weird thing? Like

[1:07:44] that's really, do I try to take the easy route, this is the trickiest question that I've ever felt like I could analyze if I thought about it enough. Like normally if it's super tricky I'm just like this is too hard, but it feels like it's within reach even though it's probably not. All right, here's what I think I'm going to do. I'm going to eliminate nothing because I don't think that's going to be it. I'm going to eliminate A and D. So not $30,000, not nothing. So we have the obvious answer of 50,000, but I think the comparative negligence thingy will somehow factor into this, so that since the driver was more at fault than the child and the child's parents, that therefore he could be liable, whatever, the driver could be liable for the full 100. And since it says what's the maximum amount, if anything, I'm going to

[1:08:36] Go see 100,000. That's my final answer. That was a really difficult one. I don't know. All right, and if you want to play along with Thomas on TTTB, you know how to do that. Just share out this episode on social media, include your answer, include the hashtag TTTB, include your reasons therefore, we will pick a winner and shower that person with never-ending fame and fortune. Fame and fortune not guaranteed. All right, thanks so much for listening, uh, it was nice to be here with you.

1:09:01 Thomas: Andrew, recording live in person, it was fun, until the bar question was really hard, but that's okay, I'm excited to learn the answer to that one. All right, everybody, we will see you on Tuesday.

[1:09:11] Thanks so much for listening. Can't wait for Tuesday's episode. Going to be a fun one. It's going to be fun. We'll see you then.

[1:09:37] or whatever podcast delivery vehicle you use. And be sure to tell all your friends about us. For questions, suggestions, and complaints, email us at openarguments@gmail.com. The show notes and links are on our website at www.openargs.com. Be sure to like our page on Facebook and follow us on Twitter at OpenArgs. Until next time.

[1:10:12] This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC. All rights reserved.

1:10:21 Andrew: Opening Arguments is produced with the assistance of our editor, Brian Ziegenhagen, our production assistant, Ashley Smith, and our researcher,

[1:10:27] Deborah Smith. Special thanks to Teresa Gomez and the entire OA Wiki team. Follow them at at OA Wiki. And a big Big thank you to our Facebook group moderators, Alicia Cook, Natalie Newell, Emily Waters, Eric Brewer, and Brian. Check out the Opening Arguments Facebook community. And finally, thanks to Thomas Smith for creating the show's theme song, which is used with permission.