Opening Arguments Podcast
LightNews LightNews
banner
openargs.bsky.social
Opening Arguments Podcast
@openargs.bsky.social
5.1K followers 730 following 500 posts
Explaining law in the news to non-lawyers every Mon/Fri and responding to the right's worst legal takes on video every Weds. Join the community at patreon.com/law!
Posts Replies Media Videos
openargs.bsky.social
@seriouspod.bsky.social's 5-second review of the pro-insurrectionist "The Eastman Dilemma":

"it's like someone did 4% of the work on this movie, and then died"
January 6, 2026 at 5:11 PM
openargs.bsky.social
quick question for you
Screenshot from USA Network's TV adaptation of Grisham's "The Rainmaker" in which protagonist Rudy Bayler is on screen wearing a suit with a subtitle reading "what are you willing to do to be a rainmaker?"
January 1, 2026 at 1:12 AM
openargs.bsky.social
TODAY ON OA (12/19)

-how eugenicists, "progressives", and the Klan teamed up to base the American visa system in old-timey racism

-how Trump is bringing back 1920s-style "national origins"-based immigration by executive order

-a British deli tries to trademark the concept of vegetables
Madison Grant's map of European races, including "Nordics," "Alpines," and "Mediterranean"
December 19, 2025 at 5:13 AM
openargs.bsky.social
EXCLUSIVE! By special arrangement we now have the ONLY copy of DC sandwich tosser Sean Dunn's federal trial transcript which will ever be produced after his acquittal

Look out for professional trial reenactments and analysis re: this extremely serious legal matter, soon only on #GavelGavel!
Cover page from the transcript of the first day of trial of the DC sandwich thrower (US v Dunn's)
December 10, 2025 at 5:08 AM
openargs.bsky.social
December 10, 2025 at 2:29 AM
openargs.bsky.social
Proud to see that two of our favorite author interviews each made the NYT Best Non-Fiction list this year!

Well-deserved congratulations to John J. Lennon (The Tragedy of True Crime, OA1210) and Professor Michelle Adams (The Containment, OA 1198)
November 26, 2025 at 6:21 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Michael Wolf: "In many of the emails that I got from Jeffrey Epstein, I thought, I do not know what he’s talking about.“

Glad it's not just us! It's Epstein emails week on OA, so check out both episodes and what we can learn about the people who wheedled, enabled, and/or fully covered for him
Michael Wolf for Slate on Epstein's writing: I mean, Jeffrey Epstein, in person, was actually an incredibly insightful and articulate and often amusing person. But when he would write things, I would think, God, this is like—OK, I don’t know really what’s going on here. I kind of think written words were at best secondary to him. In many of the emails that I got from Jeffrey Epstein, I thought, I do not know what he’s talking about.
November 19, 2025 at 7:31 AM
openargs.bsky.social
2/ N. B.: Despite dumbass Republican efforts to impeach Joe Biden for whatever it was they were trying to impeach him for, no federal official has ever been impeached for misconduct occurring before they took office (unless that was while holding a different federal office), so we'll stick with that
Congressional Research Service summary of impeachment for conduct before taking office
November 13, 2025 at 6:29 PM
openargs.bsky.social
1/ THE EPSTEIN IMPEACHMENT

The Trump admin's *known* efforts to obstruct the release of information & evidence connecting the sitting president to the most notorious sex trafficker in modern history are as impeachable as anything a president has ever done.

Some drafting suggestions:
1993 photo obtained by CNN of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump (with children Eric and Ivanka)
November 13, 2025 at 6:19 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Law'd Awful Movies is back in classic form! Coming soon: is the USA network's loose serialization of a 30-year-old John Grisham legal thriller the densest adaptation in Hollywood history? Thomas, Lydia, and Matt make the case
October 16, 2025 at 2:14 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Law'd Awful Movies is back in classic form! Coming soon: is the USA network's loose serialization of a 30-year-old John Gresham legal thriller the densest adaptation in Hollywood history? Thomas, Lydia, and Matt make the case
October 16, 2025 at 5:37 AM
openargs.bsky.social
Listen to Opening Arguments, the legal podcast that doesn't need 36 minutes to tell you that "killing Venezuelans in boats" is extremely fucking illegal
"The US Keeps Killing Venezuelans on Boats. Is That Legal?" asks NYT's The Daily
September 25, 2025 at 12:01 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Coming soon to OA:

THE CASE AGAINST "THE CASE AGAINST ADNAN SYED"

are the "Serial" liars behind this HBO series really so desperate that they are trying to pin the murder of Hae Min Lee on a Black man who was already cleared as a suspect? Did this show get *anything* about this case right?
September 23, 2025 at 3:33 PM
openargs.bsky.social
🙃
September 18, 2025 at 9:42 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Some title proposals for this week's multi-part episode on the most corrupt thing DOJ has ever done in public in the style of Robert Maxwell's Daily Mail:

MAXWELL'S SILVER YAMMER

ALL'S WELL THAT MAXWELL

MS. MAXWELL BEGS YOUR PARDON

A PROFFER TRUMP CAN'T REFUSE

INSANE IN THE GHISLAINE
August 26, 2025 at 2:29 AM
openargs.bsky.social
Tragedy strikes again in this week's #T3BE (quote skeet to play) and I don't know about you, but I'm not buying this "boating accident" story. Anthony definitely did it.
Question 78 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is as follows: Elsa was a single woman with a life insurance policy that pays her designated beneficiary $74,000 upon her death. She tragically died in a boating accident. Her ex-boyfriend, Anthony, was a resident of Arkansas and named as beneficiary. But her mother Mary, a resident of California, also filed a claim for the life insurance proceeds. The insurance company, a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in California, filed an interpleader action in federal court to protect itself from potentially inconsistent and multiple claims. May the insurance company bring the interpleader action in federal court? A. No, because there is no federal court where the insurance company will be able to establish personal jurisdiction over both claimants. B. No, because the insurance company is not diverse from one of the claimants. C. No, because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 and there is no diversity between the insurance company and one of the claimants. D. Yes, because the amount in controversy is $500 or more, and both claimants are diverse from one another.
July 25, 2025 at 2:54 AM
openargs.bsky.social
We interrupt our regular coverage of The Horrors with a #T3BE (quote skeet to play) question about The Hypothetical Horrors. I wonder if the person who came up with this debacle is a Phantom fan. Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...
This one's a behemoth (I had to type out the alt text manually). The text of T3BE Question 77 is as follows: Winnie was on her way to meet her husband, Herb, for lunch at the restaurant adjacent to the bookstore where he worked. Winnie had just entered the building, which was owned and operated by the bookstore, when she heard the sound of breaking glass and screams. A big chandelier that was hanging in the restaurant fell into the waiting area. Winnie saw several injured people in the waiting area, including her husband who was lying in the wreckage of the chandelier. When she saw her husband, Winnie fainted and hit her foot on an umbrella stand, breaking the bones in her foot. The chandelier fell because the fastener that the bookstore used to secure it to the ceiling was loose. If Winnie sues the bookstore for her injury, is she likely to prevail? The answer choices, included by popular demand are as follows: A. Yes, because her husband was one of the people she saw lying in the wreckage. B. Yes, because the bookstore used the fastener for the chandelier. C. No, because she was not personally in the zone of danger of physical injury D. No, because she did not actually see the chandelier collapse onto the diners.
July 17, 2025 at 11:40 PM
openargs.bsky.social
#T3BE (quote skeet to play) is back in business with your weekly shot to be admitted to the Bluesky Bar, have at it! Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...
Question 76 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam: A driver and a passenger were involved in a car accident. Shortly thereafter, the passenger wrote a summary of the events surrounding the accident in a journal entry. At trial three years later, the passenger is on the stand and unable to accurately recall the details of the accident, even after reviewing his written summary about the accident from his journal. Assuming a proper foundation is laid, may the summary of the accident be read into evidence?
July 10, 2025 at 9:38 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Olivia's contribution to this list is "Emil A. Bove The Law" and this picture of him as a Death Eater. JK Rowling is dead to us but the cloak and the Dark Mark just capture his vibe so well. Also noseless Trump. Step back from the SCOTUS news with some fun: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/n...
A picture of top DOJ enforcer Emil Bove's face edited into the black cloak of a Death Eater from Harry Potter with the Dark Mark, a black tattoo skull with a snake, visible on his forearm. In the background is the audience of his Senate confirmation hearing for a judgeship on the Third Circuit Appeals Court. The text next to his head reads "emil bove: i am not anyone's henchman" and then "also emil bove:" to emphasize that he is, in fact, a henchman for Trump the way Death Eaters are henchmen for Voldemort. There is also text from a 2018 email complaint about him reading "He's always looking for leverage and power" and "Everything he does seems to be vindictive". With the same background of the confirmation hearing, this side of the collage includes text of DOJ whistleblower Erez Reuveni's letter reading "Bove stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts "fuck you" and ignore any such court order" and Trump with Voldemort's snake nose touching Bove's Dark Mark with his wand.
June 27, 2025 at 7:07 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Alternate titles for this week's Rapid Response Friday:

BOVE ALL DAY
NO WAY BOVE
PRAY THE BOVE AWAY
BOVE COMPUTER
AS BOVE, SO BELOW
DO CRIMES, BE BOVE
TAKING THE EASY BOVE OUT
BOH-VEYYYYY BOH-VEY BOH-VEY
Photo of Principal Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove
June 27, 2025 at 5:53 AM
openargs.bsky.social
Good news: #T3BE (quote skeet to play) is up and full of lettuce jokes. Bad news: It's a real property question. Try your hand at Stardew Valley law. Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...
Question 75 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is as follows: Joe was a farmer who grew lettuce on his farm. He conveyed 50 acres of his property "To my sister, her heirs, and assigns, so long as the premises are used for agricultural purposes." What is Joe's interest in the 50 acres as a result of the conveyance?
June 26, 2025 at 6:08 PM
openargs.bsky.social
I'm so glad this #T3BE (quote skeet to play) inspired me to look up "bee heists". May have to put this up for footnote consideration. Happy Juneteenth folks.
This week's Thomas Takes The Bar Exam question is as follows: A group of people that hijacked a truck full of bees was arrested and indicted by a grand jury. During the grand jury's investigation, the district attorney's office subpoenaed the truck driver, Tom, as a witness. He was relieved that he was not asked questions about a series of thefts of shipments of bee boxes that he was involved in, but he worries the subject might be brought up at trial by the defense attorneys. Tom is afraid that he will be fired from his job if he invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on the witness stand, so he wants to avoid testifying at all at the trial, even if he is subpoenaed by the defense. As Tom's lawyer, what advice would you give him about complying with a subpoena?
June 20, 2025 at 1:45 AM
openargs.bsky.social
It's time for another practice bar exam question! Listen in to get the answer to last week's (how did you do?), and to hear the answer options for this one!
This week's #T3BE 73:
June 12, 2025 at 8:30 AM
openargs.bsky.social
Fake hint for #T3BE (quote skeet to play), the key word here is "beautiful" because you have no claim over the land if your flower garden sucks. Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a...
Question 72 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is as follows: Lily owned a large piece of land next to her neighbor, Nancy. There was never a clearly marked boundary line between the two properties. Thirty years ago, Lily decided to plant a beautiful flower garden on part of the land she believed belonged to her. In actuality, the land belonged to Nancy. Since the time Lily initially planted the garden, she continued to take care of it by tending to the garden on a weekly basis. Five years ago, Nancy was convicted and imprisoned for insider trading. She recently died and her executor filed suit to eject Lily and quiet title. The statute of limitations for adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 21 years. Which of the following is the best answer regarding Lily’s claim to the land where she planted her flower garden? Listen for the answer choices in the episode!
June 5, 2025 at 4:31 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Big thanks to badass activist @micahh.bsky.social for joining us on Tuesday's OA to talk about what we can learn from the Stop Cop City movement and why he's taking his talent to the law. Nothing we love to see more than young people doing the damn thing. Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...
Organizer and law student Micah Herskind holding his book "No Cop City, No Cop World" with police, Georgia AG Chris Carr, and someone holding a sign saying "Defend The Forest" and a smoke flare in the background. The whole scene is set in the Welaunee Forest. This side of the collage includes protest signs. They read "Stop Cop City", "Drop Bogus RICO Charges", "Protect Youth Not Guns", "City of Atlanta, How Many More? Tortuguita Vive, Black + Indigenous Lives Matter" which were all raised as a part of Micah's movement, Stop Cop City.
May 29, 2025 at 4:12 PM