Opening Arguments

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 354. I’m Thomas Smith. I’m a new man!

Andrew: [Laughs]

Thomas: I went in that water tank that Luke is in in the beginning of Empire Strikes Back, you know?

Andrew: [Laughs]

Thomas: I mean, I still sound like crap but not as bad. How’re you doin’?

Andrew: I wanted to say I’ve been frozen in carbonite or something but, [Laughs] I’m doing great, Thomas. Glad to hear you’re on the mend.

Thomas: Aside from the fact that you had to watch Jay Sekulow talk, right?

Andrew: [Sighs] Oh my god, yeah. That is-

Thomas: That takes a toll.

January 27, 2020January 28, 2020

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

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

January 25, 2020January 25, 2020

Transcript of OA353: Duplicity and Impeachment

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, oh this is gonna be fun. It’s episode 353, and no that is not the Megatron voice, I just sound like this. How’s it going, Andrew?

Andrew: Ah, it’s going fantastic for me. I would ask how you are doing, but I know how you’re doing.

Thomas: Well, I took enough ibuprofen to get down to a nice manageable 101-

Andrew: Ooof!

Thomas: Which is better than 102.8 or whatever. There’s a big difference in that one degree.

January 23, 2020January 24, 2020

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!):

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

Rules: click here to read Riddick’s Senate Procedure, and here for the just-adopted S. Res. 438.
Strap in: this is the cargo cult Trump trial brief, and here are the House Articles of Impeachment.
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).
Here’s the interview reported by Politico in which Mulvaney conceded there was a quid pro quo (and “get over it”)!
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

January 23, 2020January 23, 2020

Transcript of OA352: Phil Ferguson Explains the SECURE Act

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 352. I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew. How’re you doin’, Andrew?

Andrew: I am fantastic Thomas, how are you?

Thomas: I’m good! I always love when we have Phil Ferguson on the show ‘cuz I’ve got a little bit of an accounting background but it’s been long enough that I basically don’t remember anything so, you know, [Laughing] it’s always fun to get a little refresher on a finance topic and we’re gonna talk about the SECURE Act and find out just how secure it is, I guess.

January 20, 2020January 21, 2020

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

January 17, 2020January 17, 2020

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

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 351. I was so excited by the new intro music that we definitely all just heard even though I have to make it after we’re done recording.

Andrew: [Laughs]

Thomas: How’s it going, Andrew?

Andrew: It is going fantastically well. How are you, Thomas?

Thomas: Good. You know it’s just time machine stuff that we do here on podcasts. I can’t wait to make that new thing. We’ve got so much to talk about. The news is just unbelievable, Andrew. I do wanna toss out a quick plug for Law’d Awful Movies that we just did.

Andrew: Oh, yeah!

Thomas: Oh, so much fun. Pelican Brief.

January 16, 2020January 17, 2020

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

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).
We referred to the 1991 Cheney GAO opinion on “programmatic delays.”
Click here to read the Parnas SDNY indictment.
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

January 15, 2020January 15, 2020

Transcript of OA350: Interview with House Candidate Chris Armitage

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 350. Ah! What a nice landmark number, 350.

Andrew: [Laughs] If only there was a year zero we would have a fancy new introduction.

Thomas: [Laughs] Confusing, but no, new introduction next episode so patrons hop on, get your quotes suggested. I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew, how ya doing, Andrew?

Andrew: I am fantastic, excited about today’s episode.

Thomas: I’m always excited. I’m in a constant state of excitement about our episodes.

Andrew: [Laughs]

Thomas: We have an interview with Chris Armitage who is a candidate for Washington’s 5^th Congressional District, challenging a very Trumpy person who we will talk about later.

January 13, 2020January 14, 2020