Author: lawpod

Posted on

OA355: Honest Answers to Impeachment Questions

Today’s episode tackles six questions raised during the first day of cross-examination at the impeachment of President Trump and gives you the real answers, from a legal point of view, minus the spin (on both sides)! We tackle the standard for impeachment, past judges who have been impeached, the will of the Framers, and much, much more!

—–

Remember that Alan Dershowitz has challenged Andrew to a debate, and we’ve accepted! Only time will tell if Dersh chickens out.

Also: please do CALL YOUR SENATORS. The Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121. They’ll connect you! For the Republicans, make this simple request (and be polite!):

“I’d like to speak with Senator ____’s office.  Hi, I’m _____, I’m a constituent, and I’m calling to ask Senator ____ to vote in favor of allowing the Senate to subpoena documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial.  I don’t know how we can decide if Trump is innocent or guilty without seeing all of the evidence.  Thank you.” 

For the Democrats, call them and thank them for their promise to vote for subpoenaing documents and witnesses. That’s all! It’s that easy and you can REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Thank you!

—–

We begin the show with a brief analysis of John Bolton’s forthcoming book and whether the White House can get a judicial injunction to block publication. (Hint: no.) In analyzing the question, we do a mini-deep-dive into prior restraint, what it means, and why it protects Bolton’s right to publish here.

Then it’s time for the question extravaganza, which covers not only the legal standard for impeachment but the arguments raised by both sides, the question of foreign interference in our elections, how one asserts executive privilege, and so much more! You won’t want to miss this!

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new #T3BE about a crazed, icepick-wielding roommate with bad luck. Will Thomas be able to keep his win streak going? There’s only one way to find out! And remember that you too can play along on social media!

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

  1. Don’t let Republicans misrepresent the articles of impeachment. Article I, Abuse of Power contains allegations that satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) (the crime of bribery) and Art. II, Obstruction of Congress contains allegations that satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (the crime of obstruction of justice).
  2. We referenced Zephyr Teachout’s seminal 2009 law review article, “The Anti-Corruption Principle” as well as this analysis by Eisen, Painter, and Tribe on emoluments.
  3. Finally, check out Prof. Cunningham’s article on the original meaning of “misdemeanors” here.

-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!



Download Link
Posted on

OA354: A Russian Asset Sues What?

Today’s episode breaks down the (spoiler: ridiculous) defamation lawsuit filed by Tulsi Gabbard against Hillary Clinton for calling her (sort of) a “Russian asset.” We do the patented Opening Arguments reading-the-complaint-backwards method (sort of) to figure out exactly what this means and what comes next.

We begin, however, with some instant response to the Saturday Republican “defense” of Trump in the impeachment proceedings. It’s… well, it’s a thing. Is Jay Sekulow still America’s dumbest lawyer? (Hint: yes.) Learn the arguments that they’re actually trying to advance, and why they’re not actually a thing.

And again: please don’t forget to CALL YOUR SENATOR! Remember, this is preposterously easy:

Call.  (202) 224-3121. 

CALL YOUR SENATORS, if you need help connecting to them, use @resistbot.   Text the word RESIST to the bot on Messenger, Twitter, Telegram, or to 50409 on SMS.  First time setup is quick, then calling both should take 3-5 minutes.

Here’s what you say:

“I’d like to speak with Senator ____’s office.  Hi, I’m _____, I’m a constituent, and I’m calling to ask Senator ____ to vote in favor of allowing the Senate to subpoena documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial.  I don’t know how we can decide if Trump is innocent or guilty without seeing all of the evidence.  Thank you.” 

Then, it’s time to break down everything about Tulsi Gabbard’s lawsuit. That means defamation law, Tulsi’s lawyers, the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, and much, much more. You’ll be surprised to learn that Tulsi Gabbard’s lawyers are… actual lawyers? But you’ll also be surprised to learn some facts about them. Don’t go all crazy conspiracy-theory on us, but… definitely listen.

After all that, it’s time for the answer to #T3BE 163 involving contemporaneous notes and whether they’re admissible as hearsay.

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

  1. Check out Tulsi’s defamation lawsuit here.

-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!



Download Link
Posted on

OA353: Duplicity and Impeachment

Today’s episode won’t be a surprise; we’re tackling all the developments in the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump, including a deep dive into the trial brief filed by his cadre of (terrible) lawyers that alleges a strange new legal defense: “duplicity.” Figure out what it all means & why there’s so much reason to hope on today’s show!

We begin with a letter a listener received from Sen. Todd Young and a call to action to each of you to CALL YOUR SENATORS. The Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121. They’ll connect you! For the Republicans, make this simple request (and be polite!):

“I’d like to speak with Senator ____’s office.  Hi, I’m _____, I’m a constituent, and I’m calling to ask Senator ____ to vote in favor of allowing the Senate to subpoena documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial.  I don’t know how we can decide if Trump is innocent or guilty without seeing all of the evidence.  Thank you.” 

For the Democrats, call them and thank them for their promise to vote for subpoenaing documents and witnesses. That’s all! It’s that easy and you can REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Then, it’s time for the main segment, where we delve into all of the supposed “impeachment rules” — do they really have to drink milk? — and why S. Res. 438 gives us some reason for optimism.

After that, it’s time to deconstruct the “cargo cult legal brief” filed by Trump’s lawyers. How is it lying nonsense and what’s the next bizarre and false argument they’re going to make in the trial? We tell you! We also explore the legal doctrine of “duplicity,” and show how… duplicitous that argument is in Trump’s brief.

Then, of course, it’s time for a brand-new #T3BE on contemporaneously recorded notes and hearsay. Will Thomas build on his three-question winning streak? Will you get it right? There’s only one way to find out….

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

  1. Rules: click here to read Riddick’s Senate Procedure, and here for the just-adopted S. Res. 438.
  2. Strap in: this is the cargo cult Trump trial brief, and here are the House Articles of Impeachment.
  3. Remember that the two crimes covered by the Articles are bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) (included in Art. I, Abuse of Power) and obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (included in Art. II, Obstruction of Congress).
  4. Here’s the interview reported by Politico in which Mulvaney conceded there was a quid pro quo (and “get over it”)!
  5. Finally, if you really want to dig into “duplicity,” check out U.S. v. Kearney, 451 F.Supp. 33 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).

-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!



Download Link
Posted on

OA352: Phil Ferguson Explains the SECURE Act

Believe it or not, Congress apparently does occasionally pass laws still. One such law is the SECURE Act. The stated goals of the legislation involve trying to improve the retirement plans and options for Americans who are struggling to save enough. But was the legislation well-written or will there be unintended consequences? We’ve got Phil Ferguson of Polaris Financial Planning and host of the Phil Ferguson show to give us the breakdown!

-Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

-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



Download Link
Posted on

OA351: Who’s the Next Justin Amash? Your Guide to Impeachment, Part XVIII (Feat. Lev Parnas)

Today’s episode is one big Andrew Was Right! As we predicted, the House transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate this week, and we unpack all of this week’s news in connection with impeachment, including the new GAO report on the Impoundment Control Act, the testimony from Lev Parnas, and much, much more. By the end of this super-sized episode, we’ll also give your our predictions as to who might be a surprise profile in courage. The answer WILL surprise you!

We begin with the GAO report that’s being quoted everywhere. Are media sources getting it right? And what’s in the report that’s not being talked about? Listen and find out! Did Trump’s OMB violate the Impoundment Control Act? (Hint: yes.)

Then, we take a look at the transmission of articles, the House managers named, the rules involved, the President’s amazing legal team, and much, much more.

After all of that, we get to the ultimate question: will this moo the noodle? And if so, who are the Republicans that can be moo’ed? We name names! We also evaluate the Lev Parnas testimony and try and steelman Trump’s arguments.

Then, of course, it’s time for an all-new #T3BE on cocaine smuggling, featuring a special guest player (and next week’s guest) Phil Ferguson.

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

  1. Click here to read the GAO report on the ICA, and the two relevant provisions of that act: 2 U.S.C. § 683 (rescission) and 2 U.S.C. § 684 (deferment).
  2. We referred to the 1991 Cheney GAO opinion on “programmatic delays.”
  3. Click here to read the Parnas SDNY indictment.
  4. Finally, here’s the evidence on our Mystery Amash Candidate.

-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!



Download Link
Posted on

OA350: Interview with House Candidate Chris Armitage

Chris Armitage is running for the House in Washington’s 5th District against Trump devotee Cathy McMorris Rodgers!

-Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

-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



Download Link
Posted on

OA349: Bolton Will Testify; Iran, Soleimani & So Much More

Today’s episode takes on (some of) the two biggest pending news stories right now: (1) the U.S. assassination of Iranian Gen. Soleimani, and (2) the pending impeachment of President Trump. Oh, and we also cover a bunch of other things along the way, including the latest CNN settlement regarding the kid from Covington Catholic, and, well, you’ll just have to listen to find out everything!

We begin with a pre-show grab bag of mini-stories, including the “drain the swamp” news that outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry has joined the board of a holding company that owns a pipeline company. Is this 100% the same scandal as Burisma hiring Hunter Biden? (Hint: yes.)

Then, we delve into some disturbing background information on the Solemani strike and answer the first of many listener questions about it: was the strike arguably justified by the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the 9/11 hijackers?

After that, it’s time for some Yodeling! We look at the current state of the House/Senate standoff on articles of impeachment and what the likely way forward will be. You’ll learn that former NSA Director John Bolton is willing to testify; the question is whether two more Republicans care about that at all.

Finally, we cover the latest news that CNN settled the defamation lawsuit brought by Nick Sandmann of Covington Catholic relating to the video shared by CNN nearly a year ago.

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new #T3BE 161 — this one is a constitutional law question regarding anti-discrimination laws. Can Thomas get it right??

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

  1. Pre-show links: (a) Rick Perry rejoins the board of a pipeline company; (b) the Hofeller Files; and (c) the 5th Circuit’s decision on Trump’s stupid wall, which we last covered in Episodes 243 and 255.
  2. Iranian strike links: (a) Washington Post story on Pompeo masterminding the strike; (b) the Heather Timmons piece in Quartz warning us that Trump was listening to Rapture loons like Pence and Pompeo 18 months ago; and (c) Mary Lee Bigham-Bartling’s 2018 doctoral dissertation on Rapture theology.
  3. This is the 2001 AUMF, and you can also verify that Solemani is named in neither the 9/11 Commission Report nor the 2019 State Department Fact Sheet. We also quoted from a VOA News report on Sunnis “celebrating” the death of Solemani.
  4. On impeachment: the important thing is to click here to read John Bolton’s public decision to comply with a Senate subpoena.
  5. Finally, although you can’t read the CNN/Covington Catholic settlement, you can still watch both the original Sandmann video, and the updated video released a few days later.

-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!



Download Link
Posted on

OA348: The State of the Secular States, with Alison Gill

Today’s show features an interview with American Atheists’ National Legal and Policy Director Alison Gill! American Atheists has just released their 2019 State of the Secular States Report, which you can find here. With how much the Trump Administration and the Christian Right have tried to enshrine conservative Christianity into our nation’s laws, American Atheists has worked hard to bring us this comprehensive report detailing which states have good laws in place to protect the separation of Church and State. Some states are doing better than others, and some states might surprise you! The report provides a great blueprint of action for how we can work to fight the theocrats on a state by state basis.

-Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

-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



Download Link
Posted on

OA347: Pennhurst and the Voter Purge in Georgia

Today’s episode tackles a bunch of important developments in the new year — and not all of them are even Trump-related! Our main segment features a deep dive into the recent voter purge decision in Georgia and what that has to do with the Eleventh Amendment and the Pennhurst doctrine. We also tackle the latest scare meme regarding 2020 and update you on all the developments in pending litigation regarding Donald Trump. Buckle up, it’s going to be a fun ride!

We begin with a quick off-the-white-board note about the “$100,000 verdict” in the Alex Jones defamation lawsuit that isn’t what it appears to be.

After that, we take a look at a recent meme that’s circulating regarding 2020. Should you be concerned about the legal implications of writing 1/1/20 on your documents?? Why or why not?

Then it’s time to check in on the status of several pending cases involving Congressional subpoenas, including a decision that’s being mischaracterized as a setback for impeachment (it isn’t), and a bunch of irons that are still in the fire.

Then it’s time for our deep dive into Pennhurst and the recent denial of injunctive relief to Stacey Abrams’s organization dedicated to restoring the voter rolls in 2020 in Georgia. Find out what happened & what’s going to happen next.

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new #T3BE in the New Year: can a bakery tell a flaky flour supplier to go clownhorn itself? Don’t forget to play along via social media!

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

  1. Click here to read the New York Times article about Alex Jones’s lawsuit.
  2. The article we referenced on FOIA documents connected to OMB from Kate Brannen at Just Security is here.
  3. Filings: click here to read the Order of Dismissal in the Kupperman lawsuit, and here to read the Court’s Order denying injunctive relief in the voter registration lawsuit.
  4. Oh, and feel free to brush up on your Supreme Court decisions by reading Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984).

-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!



Download Link