Today’s episode takes a deep dive into executive privilege, evaluating the legal arguments being raised by the Trump administration asserting executive privilege over former communications director Hope Hicks and former counsel Don McGahn. Find out how good those arguments are — spoiler: some aren’t terrible! — and what’s next for the Congressional Democrats.

First, though, we begin with coverage of the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n decision from last week; that’s the Bladensburg Cross case that we’ve discussed at some length on this show. How bad is this decision? (Bad.)

Then, it’s time for the intersection of Rapid Response Friday and Deep Dive Tuesday in which we time travel all the way back to 1971 to evaluate the Trump Administration’s claims regarding executive privilege “over the last five decades.” As you’ve come to expect from OA, we tell you what the administration got right… and, of course, what they got wrong. If you want to know if and when Congress will ever get meaningful testimony out of Hope Hicks or Don McGahn, you need to listen to this show.

Then, it’s time for the answer to TTTBE #131 about the propriety of a specific question during cross-examination of a witness who testified as to the defendant’s “reputation for honesty.” If you love the Federal Rules of Evidence — and really, who doesn’t? — you’ll love this segment.

Appearances

None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs

-Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!