1. How can non-lawyers follow a court case that doesn't get any media attention?
  2. Who translates Congress's laws into legalese?
  3. Can you explain the difference between a plea agreement and a cooperation agreement? There is speculation that Cohen has a sealed Cooperation agreement and that Lanny Davis called back some of his comments because he was running afoul of that agreement..
  4. At what point does a lawyer's shenanigans in the public sphere (e.g. constantly going on public radio and television shows and outright lying & misrepresenting the law) cross the line from "zealous defense" and into potentially criminal territory ("jury tampering" maybe)?
  5. If Trump manages to fire Mueller and replace Rosenstein, what happens to the accumulated evidence in the case? Is it protected from being destroyed? Can Trump’s people cover up any crimes already uncovered but not yet announced to the public? I believe that they have the goods on him, but is it possible that they can bury the case?
  6. What do you think of Monsanto's legal team that they can lose to an argument that has no scientific evidence to support it?
  7. Andrew: you are a staunch defender of the American adversarial style of jurisprudence. And yet it was clear from the Roundup episode with SciBabe (OA202) that that model has produced a perverse, anti-science outcome. But you are not anti-science, so how do you reconcile your support for a system that is adversarial in all things, including expert testimony, with your support for a scientific method based on consensus? Can the system be fixed, and if so how?
  8. If a witness is immunised to compel testimony, can they just confess to all kinds of unrelated crimes while testifying and have no fear of prosecution?
  9. According to the WaPo(https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-is-denying-passports-to-americans-along-the-border-throwing-their-citizenship-into-question/2018/08/29/1d630e84-a0da-11e8-a3dd-2a1991f075d5_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.687b2588b5f6) the US is starting to deny passports to US citizens and/or investigate those(from another story) who are born via midwives in border states. This has apparently left people stranded in other countries or jailed or deported or at the very least very worried about the stability of their lives and future. Is it legal for the government to do this to people who may be (under anyones definition) US citizens citizens with what seems to be little evidence or some sort of court order?
  10. The Inspector General and GSA determined yesterday that Trump intentionally shut down plans to move the FBI headquarters because the current location provides business to a Trump owned hotel nearby. This sounds pretty serious allegations. What is your take on this, and could this be yet another thing that could help take down this monster? https://beyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1019
  11. In one of your previous QNAs, you mentioned seeking and receiving permission from your firm to get fired by your client. Are you able to elaborate more on what triggers that decision and how you go about it? Like, did you have to 'accidentally' spill your drink on your client a bunch of times while being sarcastic about their dress sense until they got fed up? Any tips for random people to avoid being fired as a customer by their lawyer?
  12. Is there anything to be done in the future to deal with the 60 highly conservative federal judges that have been approved with almost no oversight. I know they can't be removed without proof of wrong doing, but can we force more oversight?
  13. What do you think Trump and Cohen's strategies will be to avoid deposition in the civil suit in California?
  14. For Andrew specifically, does going door to door to register people to vote constitute solicitation in MD? I live in an apartment complex full of people who, I would guess, aren't registered, but also don't want to run afoul of my own leasing agency.
  15. A bunch of legal and ethical arguments seem to tie into the idea of the marketplace of ideas - the belief that people will reason out which ideas are good and which aren't. But as a psychology prof., I know that people are easily misled in predictable ways. Human brains aren't particularly logical and are downright bad at a lot of important tasks, like comprehending large numbers. Thinking is incredibly biased (not necessarily in a partisan way, just systematically inaccurate). Does the law take this into account? Do lawyers?

Previous Q&A
Next Q&A
Full List