Bonus! Whistleblower Breakdown

Folks, this whistleblower is big news. Andrew Torrez has put in some OT to research the law behind the big news. In this bonus breakdown, we find out: what we know so far, the statute that “protects” the whistleblower and ensures congress should get to hear the complaint, who is currently breaking the law in order to cover for others who are breaking the law, what is currently being done about it, and what can and should be done about it. Listen and share!

Show Notes & Links

  1. Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!!
  2. Sept. 10 letter from Schiff to Maquire
  3. Sept. 13 response from COUNSEL FOR DNI acting Director
  4. Sept. 17 letter back from COUNSEL

-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

OA316: Unsealing Mueller’s Grand Jury Testimony & Other Yodel Mountain Madness

Today’s Rapid Response Friday spends a lot of time high atop Yodel Mountain, pondering the latest developments in the Trump Administration’s efforts to keep the underlying grand jury materials (and redacted portions of the Mueller Report) from being disseminated to Congress. Oh, and we also check in on Trump’s taxes, emoluments, that crazy whistleblower case and so much more from this corrupt administration.

We begin, however, with few little self-congratulatory remarks and some further information about #Brexit that we covered in Episode 315.

Then, it’s time to tackle In re Application of the House Committee on the Judiciary regarding the unsealing of grand jury testimony. Learn how this argument interacts with McKeever v. Barr, which we last discussed in Episode 272.

After that, we pause briefly to discuss the latest ruling on emoluments from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as the latest apportionment lawsuit that may have been inspired by a previous episode. And we discuss Corey Lewandowski’s sideshow, and the four pending lawsuits involving Trump’s taxes, and so much more….

That gives us a brief amount of time to talk about the latest whistleblower case and what we do (and don’t) know.

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. Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!!
  2. We covered Brexit in Episode 315.
  3. Check out the latest Trump argument in In re Application of House Committee on the Judiciary. The operative statutory exception is Fed. Rule Crim. Pro. 6(e), and the case we discussed was McKeever v. Barr.
  4. We, of course, first discussed McKeever v. Barr way back in Episode 206 when we debunked the conspiracy theory angle, and we were proven right in Episode 272.
  5. The latest emoluments ruling from the 2nd Circuit is here; you can also check out the new apportionment lawsuit as well. Oh, and don’t forget to read this great piece on Lewandowski by Elie Mystal.
  6. Finally, the two threads you must read on the whistleblower complaint are by Asha Rangappa and our friends at Mueller, She Wrote.

-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

OA315: North Carolina & Brexit

Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!!

In this week’s Deep Dive Tuesday, we take a look at two crazy stories — one from last week, and one from… 2016. Yes, it’s time for OA finally to tackle the mess that is Brexit now that we have various court rulings around the concept of “prorogation.” What the hell is that? Listen and find out! And, as a bonus, we’ll also talk about the craziest story out of North Carolina — and believe us, that title has a lot of contenders!

We begin, however, with a brief update on the settlement reached with Purdue Pharma in the Ohio MDL that we discussed in Episode 311. Hint: Andrew was definitely right about this one!

Then, it’s time for an absolutely bonkers story involving state legislators in North Carolina tricking Democrats into celebrating a 9/11 memorial… so that they could have a stealth session to override a gubernatorial veto. Did that really happen??!? (Yes.) How?!? And what happens next? Listen and find out!

After that, it’s time for the OA explainer on Brexit just in time for today’s UK Supreme Court oral argument. Find out what court said what and how that all interacts!

Then, it’s time for #T3BE. Can Thomas stop a show-worst six-question losing streak? With a real property question??!? 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. We discussed a potential Purdue Pharma settlement in Episode 311; you can read media coverage of that reported settlement here.
  2. This is Section 22 of the North Carolina Constitution that allowed this crazy gamesmanship regarding the veto.
  3. Finally, click here to read the Scottish Court of Session decision regarding Brexit and proroguing.

-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

Transcript of Opening Arguments Episode 314 – The Supreme Court and Trump’s Asylum Rules

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

Continue reading “Transcript of Opening Arguments Episode 314 – The Supreme Court and Trump’s Asylum Rules”

OA314: The Supreme Court and Trump’s Asylum Rules

Today’s episode breaks down a 7-2 decision by the Supreme Court to stay the decision of the District Court enjoining the Trump Administration’s new asylum rules from going into effect. What happened and why? Listen and find out! It’s bad news — but to balance that out, we spend a lot of time high atop Yodel Mountain, where we discuss the ongoing march towards impeachment and the latest in the Michael Flynn saga.

We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Wrong(TM) segment about two casual (but wrong) comments Andrew made in previous shows. As it turns out, Devin Nunes isn’t the beneficiary of gerrymandering — we knew that, honest! — he’s… wait, why do people vote for Devin Nunes again? We’re not sure.

Then it’s time for the main segment, which breaks down the tragic significance of the court’s recent order on asylum. It’s only a single paragraph long, but… it speaks volumes. Find out what’s going to happen next with expedited removal proceedings and undocumented immigrants. It’s a tough segment, but you need to know.

Next, it’s time for our weekly visit to Yodel Mountain! Find out why the most conservative Democrat in Congress thinks impeachment is “inevitable!” And while we’re there… what’s the deal with Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and his crackpot lawyer? We’ll tell you!

After all that, it’s time for #T3BE. Can Thomas snap a career-worst six-question losing streak? If so, he’ll have to do it on a dreaded real property question involving the sale of land. Keep your fingers crossed!

Also, COME TO OUR LA LIVE SHOW!!!! Here is the link!!

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. We last discussed the asylum rule changes in Episode 301.
  2. You can check out the district court’s well-reasoned injunction here, and the Supreme Court’s one-paragraph decision to stay that order here.
  3. And, if you’re not depressed enough, read this NBC News article involving Trump’s decision to deny temporary protected status to Bahamians displaced by hurricane Dorian.
  4. Here’s the Washington Post article about impeachment and Rep. Brindisi, and here’s the evidence that (a) Brindisi’s district is the second-reddest among 2018 Democratic winners and (b) that Brindisi is arguably the most conservative Democrat in Congress.
  5. On Flynn: here’s Schiff’s letter, and here’s Flynn’s plea deal. And if Flynn keeps this up, he’s in danger of losing the government’s initial sentencing recommendation.

-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

Transcript of Opening Arguments Episode 313 – Devin Nunes Is A Crazy Cow Farmer

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

Continue reading “Transcript of Opening Arguments Episode 313 – Devin Nunes Is A Crazy Cow Farmer”

OA313: Devin Nunes Is A Crazy Cow Farmer

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into the latest bizarre lawsuit filed by perhaps America’s most-despised Trump sycophant, California Rep. Devin Nunes. Learn all about Nunes’s thrice-disciplined lawyer and the theory so crazy it must be heard (and read) to be believed.

We begin, however, with an incredibly insightful listener question regarding the bill of attainder doctrine and whether it would apply to the hypothetical Poke Ted Cruz Act of 2021 discussed during our latest live show.

Then, it’s time to break down Devin Nunes’s lawsuit piece by piece, in which you’ll learn all about civil RICO lawsuits … and why they don’t remotely apply to the paranoid conspiracy theory connecting Robert Mueller to Fusion GPS to the Daily Caller to… the Center for Accountability? It’s a wild ride, so strap in!

After that, it’s time for another listener question regarding the guys’ views on policy debates vs. “scorched earth” during the Democratic primary.

And then, it’s time to see if Thomas can turn around his recent losing streak with a #T3BE question involving an offer to sell a pickup truck, acceptance via mail, and revocation by phone. Who wins? 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. In the opening segment, we discussed the bill of attainder doctrine explained in U.S. v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946).
  2. Oh man, you have to read the Devin Nunes lawsuit for yourself.
  3. Check out the new Larry Klayman’s AVVO page detailing his prior suspensions.
  4. Civil RICO can be found at 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.
  5. In the last segment, we mention this atrocious hit piece in the Jacobin.

-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

Transcript of Opening Arguments Episode 312 – Gerrymandering in North Carolina

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Introduction]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments!  This is episode 312, I’m Thomas Smith, that over there is Andrew Torrez.  How ya doin’ Andrew?

Andrew:         I am doing fantastic.  We just finished up our OA Fantasy Football draft, I figured I’d mention that now so that we would lose several thousand listeners who are like “I don’t want to hear about your fantasy football team” But-

Thomas:         Well the other ones are just sad that they couldn’t get in.

Andrew:         That’s right. [Laughs]

Continue reading “Transcript of Opening Arguments Episode 312 – Gerrymandering in North Carolina”

OA312: Gerrymandering in North Carolina

This week’s episode breaks down the 357-page state court gerrymandering decision in North Carolina striking down that state’s legislative districts. We explain in depth exactly what happened — and exactly why cases like there are the future for political gerrymandering claims in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause.

We begin, however, with a couple of Andrew Was Wrong segments, including a sad update on Gavin Grimm as well as feedback from the entire state of Idaho!

Then, it’s time for a deep dive into the recent ruling in North Carolina, which includes an analysis of both the facts — featuring “Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” Dr. Evil stand-in Thomas Hofeller — and the law. If political gerrymandering is now perfectly okay by the U.S. Supreme Court, what can we do? Listen and find out!

After that, it’s time for a brief Yodel Mountain update regarding Don McGahn, as well as a Jeffrey Epstein update.

And then it’s time for #T3BE on the formation of contract: when, exactly, does a contract to buy a truck get made? You won’t want to miss this one.

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. We last discussed Gavin Grimm’s case in Episode 306.
  2. Click here to check out the populations of the various states, including Idaho.
  3. This is the North Carolina gerrymandering opinion.

-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