Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments,
this is episode 337. Gobble, gobble,
gobble! I’m Thomas-
Thomas: -that’s Andrew. How’re ya doing?
Andrew: Gobble gobble to you, Thomas! Happy Thanksgiving, we’re gonna get this
episode out a little bit early for listeners so that if you have a long commute
on Thursday out to visit your family you’ll have something to keep you company
and maybe we’ll have some guidelines for how to have a productive conversation
with your Republican family over Thanksgiving.
I think that’s kind of our goal for this episode, right?
Thomas: Yeah, I think we’re gonna touch on the
controversial stuff, like for example, mashed potatoes: skins in or out? I think there’s no more contentious – I mean,
there’s impeachment all that crap, but-
Andrew: Yeah, but obviously that’s a skins out.
Thomas: Oh thank god!
Andrew: You’ve gotta use a-
Thomas: Oh thank god, okay, finally! We don’t have to have a big public fight,
Andrew and I agree on the correct opinion.
Look, I’m not throwing mashed potatoes with skins out of bed, [Laughs]
Andrew: No, that’s right!
Thomas: I mean I’ll eat them, but…
Continue reading “Transcript of OA337: How to Talk to Your (Republican) Family About Impeachment”
Share this episode with your (open-minded) Republican friends, family, and co-workers! We’re happy to bring you this Thanksgiving Special a day early in which we break down the latest “trial balloon” defense of Trump’s conduct: that Trump was actually encouraging a legitimate investigation into a top-secret conspiracy in Ukraine to hack the DNC servers in 2016 and throw the election to Hillary Clinton. If you don’t know what “CrowdStrike” and “Chalupa” mean, you won’t want to miss this one!
We begin on that key issue, breaking down the sole legal issue at stake in impeachment — bribery — and exactly what Congress needs to show in order to impeach and remove the President from office. From there, we turn to the next likely defense from Trumpland and explain exactly why it is bananas-in-pajamas-level bonkers.
After that lengthy breakdown, it’s time to check in on the status of various lawsuits seeking to compel witnesses to appear before various House committees. What’s going on, and is there any cause for optimism? Listen and find out!
Then, as always, it’s time for #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a curious fact-pattern involving a landlord, a new tenant, an old tenant who won’t move out, and a surprising legal result. Can he figure out why? Can you?
Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at email@example.com.
Show Notes & Links
- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice.
- We broke down Amb. Sondland’s testimony in Episode 335. But don’t just take our word for it! You can read the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2), for yourself and figure out what it takes to prove bribery.
- We also cited to (a) ADNI Joseph Maguire’s testimony before Congress; (b) the whistleblower’s complaint (which we previously broke down in Episode 318 and a special bonus episode); (c) internal evidence as reported in the New York Times that Trump’s lawyers briefed him on the whistleblower complaint in late August, before aid to Ukraine was restored; (d) the TELCON (edited transcript) of the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House; (e) the CrowdStrike report from their own website; (f) Trump’s April 2017 press interview in which he began peddling the CrowdStrike conspiracy; (g) Fiona Hill’s opening statement in her testimony to Congress; (i) the reporting surrounding Sen. Kennedy’s appearance on Fox News Sunday; (j) the 2017 Politico story upon which Sen. Kennedy purported to rely; and (k) Vol. 2 of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the 2016 Election, authored by Republican Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC). Phew!
- In the closing segment, we referred to Rubin v. U.S., 524 U.S. 1301 (1998).
-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 email@example.com!