May 31, 2018


Listen to the Episode

From The Official Website:

Join us for yet another Rapid Response Friday, in which we continue to evaluate claims on the left challenging the legality of the NFL’s policy regarding the national anthem, as well as discuss two items that are also of interest to Donald Trump.

We begin with a listener question we didn’t get to during our Q&A regarding the similarities and differences between the John Edwards affair and the Stormy Daniels affair. Is this the kind of thing that should give Trump comfort? (Hint: no.) Oh, and you might also learn something about an “Allen charge” if you follow us all the way down all our rabbit trails!

After that, we break down the “state action doctrine” while considering some liberal arguments making the rounds ostensibly challenging the legality or constitutionality of the NFL’s new rules. Andrew still isn’t buying it!

Then, we trek back to Yodel Mountain to discuss the recent developments in Michael Cohen’s case in the Southern District of New York. Was Andrew… wrong? Listen and find out!

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #78 regarding whether the jury can read a treatise on mill grinding. It’s more interesting than it sounds, we promise! If you’d like to play along , just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Show Notes & Links

  1. In the pre-show, we (don’t) discuss, among other things, the Trump administration’s breaking decisions on steel tariffs; for analysis, we refer you to our coverage of this issue back in Episode 162.
  2. This is the text of the 6-count John Edwards indictment, and we also quoted from the coverage of the acquittal by ABC News.
  3. We covered the “Paid Patriotism in the NFL” report in Episode 108; you can also read that report directly by clicking here. Oh, and this is the Mike Florio PFT article, if you want to read more about how the NFL is in Jerry Jones’s pocket.
  4. If you like semi-old-timey Supreme Court decisions, you should definitely read Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) about First Amendment rights in a company town. Once you’ve gotten through that, you can tackle Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961) on the entanglement doctrine.
  5. This is the Ben Sachs Vox article we discussed.
  6. Your guide to Yodel Mountain includes this awesome NYT flowchart as well as this solid narrative article in Politico.
  7. Finally, this is the full text of Avenatti’s withdrawal of his pro hac vice motion.

Law Talkin' Stuff

It's in the Constitution
Lawsplaining
Law Court Thingies
Magic Law Words

Organizations

People

References

Topics


Content

  • [00:00:00] Intro
    • [00:04:11] Trump's tariffs on Mexico, Canada and the EU
    • [00:05:01] Rosanne
    • [00:06:38] Pardon of Dinesh D'Souza
  • [00:09:20] Listener Questions: John Edwards' campaign funds indictment
    • [00:18:01] Jury deadlock and the Allen Charge
  • [00:24:20] Main segment NFL, Jerry Jones and Trump
    • [00:26:30] The First Amendment
    • [00:27:04] 18 US Code § 227
    • [00:30:21] Publicly financed stadiums
    • [00:34:19] The State Action doctrine
    • [00:37:06] Burton v. Wilmington & the Entanglement exception
    • [00:40:31] Ben Sack's Vox article
  • [00:46:10] Andrew Was (Maybe) Wrong: Yodel Mountain - NY Times flowchart & Politico narrative
    • [00:47:57] Micheal Cohen lawsuit in Southern District of NY - Michael Avenatti withdraws pro hac vice
    • [00:54:02] The taint review and the contents of a shredding machine
    • [00:55:30] Evgeny Freidman, the Taxi King, flips
  • [01:00:40] Patron Hall of Fame
  • [01:07:07] Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question: Flour Power & the Expert Witness
  • [01:12:07] Outro
  • [01:13:30] Out-takes