Posts

Posted on

OA335: This Week in Impeachment

Today’s episode breaks down the significance of a packed week in Republican witness testimony before the House Intelligence Committee about the potential impeachment of Donald Trump. We continue to place everything in the context of proving that Donald Trump committed impeachable bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2), including evaluating the (increasingly desperate) defenses being raised by House Republicans.

We begin, however, with a slight Andrew Was Wrong and some really interesting listener feedback about the 2019 Ukraine election.

Then, it’s time to take a look at the week in impeachment, with a particular focus on Amb. Gordon Sondland, a Trump donor who was hand-picked to help run the “shadow foreign policy” in Ukraine, and exactly why he’s such a devastating witness. We also tease apart the legality of the OMB hold and the crafting of the narrative to show the elements of bribery.

Then, it’s time for a brief update on the Trump v. Mazars litigation and the significance of the administrative hold put in place by the Supreme Court. Does that mean John Roberts is 100% in the tank for Trump? (No.)

After all that, it’s time for a NEW ERA in #T3BE as we move to a new set of questions! This one asks about a potential lawsuit for a guy who falls off his ladder. Did Thomas get it right? Listen and find out — and play along with us 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. Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to vulgarityforcharity@gmail.com along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice.
  2. Remember that this is all about Trump’s bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2).
  3. Oh, the lies! We debunked the insane “the government secretly changed the whistleblower form” conspiracy back in Episode 320 and even created a handy link for you to share with Uncle Clarence to help convince him!
  4. On Trump v. Mazars, you can check out Trump’s brief requesting a stay and the order issued by Chief Justice Roberts.

-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

OA334: IVF, LIHEAP & the Russians

Today’s episode features a deep dive into what used to be a core Republican program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Did you know that every year, over a thousand people — most of them with homes — freeze to death in the U.S.? Did you know that both political parties used to want to do something about that?

We begin, however, with some listener feedback from our popular recent Episode 330 in which we broke down a recent decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court regarding “pre-embryos” and in vitro fertilization (IVF). Hear from a published scientist and an IVF mom!

Then, it’s time for our deep dive into LIHEAP, 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq. You’ll learn all about the problem of home heating in this country and what we do about it… at least for now. You’ll also learn exactly how much the Trump administration would like to fund this program, which you won’t be surprised to learn is $0.

But that’s not all! Our “C” segment features a lengthy explanation from election law expert Beth Kingsley who answers the question “Could Donald Trump just hire Vladimir Putin to work on his 2020 re-election campaign if he discloses it?” The answer is more complicated than you’d expect and just might surprise you.

After all that, it’s time for the answer to Friday’s #T3BE 153 about the admissibility of a doctor’s note in court. Will Thomas get this one right?? Listen and 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. Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to vulgarityforcharity@gmail.com along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice.
  2. We discussed both the IVF decision and the election hypothetical back in Episode 330.
  3. You can read the LIHEAP law for yourself; it’s 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq. The data we discussed on the episode comes from Olivia Wein’s study, and the funding numbers come from this government document.
  4. This is the link to the FEC’s guidance we discussed in the “C” segment.
  5. Finally, check out an actual IVF contract, thanks to Valerie Smith!

-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

Transcript of OA333: Bonus Impeachment Coverage!

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, don’t adjust that dial!  Bonus episode comin’ at you.  A lot of talk, we spent probably five or six hours debating the merits of keeping the episode numbering going or naming this bonus episode, it’s just the things that podcasters go through, but I think we’re keeping the numbering going which makes this episode 333, wow!  What does it all mean, Andrew?

Andrew:         [Laughs]

Thomas:         Numerology.  333, impeachment, there’s gotta be some tie in, someone come up with an elaborate theory.

Andrew:         Three plus three plus three equals impeachment.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA333: Bonus Impeachment Coverage!”
Posted on

Transcript of OA332: Your Two New Best Friends, Bill Taylor and George Kent

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Show Topics:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 332.  I’m Thomas Smith, that over there is Andrew Tor-rez.  How’re you doing Andrew?

Andrew:         [Laughs]  I’m doing fantastic Thomas, any reason you decided to shift the emph-asis to the second syll-able on my last name?

Thomas:         Oh, I think this is not really you, this is the clone that you sent.  You’re still in Italy.

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         And you sent either a clone or just somebody who can do your voice, I dunno, and maybe that’s why.  Yeah, are you back?  You’re finally-

Andrew:         I’m back, baby!

Continue reading “Transcript of OA332: Your Two New Best Friends, Bill Taylor and George Kent”
Posted on

OA332: Your Two New Best Friends, Bill Taylor and George Kent

Today’s episode ran so long that we’re going to give you a BONUS episode tomorrow. What did we get through? Well, we break down almost everything about the first day of televised public hearings in the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry. You absolutely, positively do not want to miss this!

We begin, however, with a plug for our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to vulgarityforcharity@gmail.com along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice.

After that, it’s time to tackle a wide variety of legal topics related to the Taylor and Kent testimony, including: (a) how their testimony fits into the elements of the crime of bribery; (b) the Republicans’ evolving defenses of Donald Trump; (c) the two lawyers picked to handle the bulk of the questioning; and much, much more.

Along the way, we also discuss the significance of the D.C. Circuit’s en banc refusal to rehear the subpoena decision in Trump v. Mazars and what comes next, as well as the status of Mick Mulvaney’s continuing efforts to defy the Congressional subpoenas.

After all that, it’s time for a milestone #T3BE involving hearsay and expert witness testimony.

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. Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to vulgarityforcharity@gmail.com along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice.
  2. Remember: this is about bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201.
  3. This is the transcript of Sen. Kennedy on Face the Nation.
  4. In terms of dirty tricks, here’s the link to Taylor’s closed-door deposition, where Castor outed the whistleblower, and here’s a link to his laughing during Fiona Hill’s deposition.
  5. BONUS! Here’s the Politico article we rip apart in Episode 333 (“There’s a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Office”) and… god help me.. the National Review article that actually gets it right.

-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

Transcript of OA331: Who Sues “Oh No Ross and Carrie” with Carrie Poppy & Matthew Strugar

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 331, I’m Thomas Smith that over there is Andrew Torrez.  How ya doin’ Andrew?

Andrew:         I am doing fantastic.  I am really, really excited about this episode.  I feel like we saved the best for last coming out of our live show.

Thomas:         Absolutely, me too!  This is another one of those if you take the red pill versus the blue pill but not in an MRA way just in a fun healthy way.  [Laughs]  If you take the patron pill you’re gonna be getting a little bonus from Andrew Torrez because you deserve it and because you already heard all the live show.  But if you take the normie pill, which, hey, that’s fine.  We love all our listeners, but you guys are getting – I think you’re right, Andrew, probably my favorite part from the Opening Arguments live show in L.A. and that was with Carrie Poppy and Matthew Strugar. 

Continue reading “Transcript of OA331: Who Sues “Oh No Ross and Carrie” with Carrie Poppy & Matthew Strugar”
Posted on

OA331: Who Sues “Oh No Ross and Carrie” with Carrie Poppy & Matthew Strugar

Today’s episode is the final — and dare we say it, the best — part of our live show in Los Angeles where we were joined by the co-host of the popular podcast “Oh No Ross And Carrie” Carrie Poppy, and the show’s lawyer, Matthew Strugar. Join us for a fascinating discussion as to who’s threatened to sue the show and why….

And stick around for a special LIVE #T3BE!

After that, we also answer last week’s #T3BE about breach of contract. Can Thomas continue his improbable one-question win streak? Listen and find out!

Show Notes & Links

  1. You should definitely be listening to Oh No Ross and Carrie!
  2. We last had Carrie and Matthew on our show in Episode 77.

-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

Transcript of OA330: The Impeachment Inquiry Explainer (& Pre-Embryos in Connecticut

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 330.

Andrew:         Woo!

Thomas:         Cool round and even number, multiple of ten.  How’s it going Andrew?

Andrew:         It is going fantastic Thomas, how are you?

Thomas:         Doin’ well, not as well as the man who is on the vacation that seemingly never ends, but-

Andrew:         [Laughs]  It ends!  Last day, last day man.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA330: The Impeachment Inquiry Explainer (& Pre-Embryos in Connecticut”
Posted on

OA330: The Impeachment Inquiry Explainer (& Pre-Embryos in Connecticut)

Today’s episode is everything you need to walk your open-minded Uncle Clarence — you know, the one who watches Fox News, but not religiously, and isn’t quite sure what all this impeachment nonsense is about — through the key buzzwords of the week. And, as a bonus, we discuss an important decision regarding in vitro fertilization in Connecticut.

We begin, however, with the Explainer. How is this process different from (and more fair than) the Clinton impeachment? What is an impeachment “inquiry?” And why — oh god, why?!? — is everyone so focused on quid pro quo? You’ll find out the answers to all these questions and much, much more.

After that, it’s time to examine Bilbao v. Goodwin, which delves into the tricky question of what happens to a couple’s frozen pre-embryos after they break up? This case has been making the rounds in both pro-life and pro-choice circles — we’ll tell you exactly what it stands for and what comes next.

Then, of course, it’s time for an all-new #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a breach-of-contract question. Can he keep his winning streak going?

Upcoming 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. For the full breakdown of the House Impeachment Inquiry resolution, H.R. 660, check out our discussion in Episode 328.
  2. And you can click here to read Bilbao v. Godwin.

-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