About this episode
Today's show is an hour-plus-long question & answer session answers some (but not all!) of the 110 questions our Patrons submitted on this thread. As always, Andrew has no advance knowledge of these questions and answers everything off the cuff! After the Q&A, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #38 regarding the admissibility of prior consistent statements. And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]
Get every episode summarized
Each time Opening Arguments publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
No transcript yet
This episode has not been transcribed. Request it and it moves to the front of the queue.
More episodes
More from Opening Arguments
Most Lindsay Clancy Coverage Has the Law All Wrong
Opening Arguments
Sep 4, 20261:00:57failed
ICE Went Undercover To Expose a Vast Antifa "Conspiracy"
Opening Arguments
Sep 2, 202644:11pending
Supreme Court Says Why Prevent Trump Violating the Constitution Before It Even H...
Opening Arguments
Aug 31, 20261:00:34pending
Meta Must Pay, Bannon's Judge Pushes Back, and a Dolly Parton Shoutout from the...
Opening Arguments
Aug 28, 202650:38pending