Tag: conspiracy

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

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”
Posted on

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
Posted on

OA199: Asbestos??!? (Or: Why Is This Man Smiling?)

Note: the SaneBox url in this episode is incorrect. Please go to https://www.sanebox.com/opening to take advantage of a great deal on their product!

Today’s Rapid Response Friday breaks down everything you need to know regarding the Trump EPA’s recent rules change regarding asbestos.  Is it as ominous as it sounds?  (Yes.)

We begin, however, with the oddest OA segment of all time:  Devin Nunes was right!  What was he right about, and what’s a Michael Kinsley gaffe?  You’ll just have to listen and find out!

After that, in a bonus segment, the guys break down the recent indictment of Chris Collins (R-NY-27) for insider trading.

The main segment breaks down the EPA’s Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) regarding asbestos and help you evaluate the competing claims being lobbed back and forth.  Did the Trump Administration open up the use of asbestos in household products?  Or did they make it harder to use asbestos as the EPA claims?  We give you a definitive answer.

After that, Andrew partially answers a listener question in light of Rick Gates’s testimony in the Manafort trial while teasing that the rest will get answered sometime soon.

And if that wasn’t enough, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #88 involving a contract, waiver and modification, and subsequent assignment to another party.  Phew!  If you’d like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was recently a guest on The Thinking Atheist podcast with Seth Andrews.  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. Here’s a link to the NBC story on the Devin Nunes tape; and here’s a link to one in the Washington Post; they’re both delightful.
  2. This is the Collins indictment, and this is the text of 17 CFR 240.10b-5.
  3. The TSCA is 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.
  4. Here’s the letter that the ACC wrote to the EPA back in August of 2016 arguing that they should be able to use asbestos.
  5. For an in-depth critique of the Trump EPA’s evaluative process, you can check out the annotated source documents and the summary article in the New York Times.
  6. Here’s the text of the new EPA SNUR, and here’s the (laughable) EPA dissembling as to what it means.
  7. Finally, here’s the report on Rick Gates’s cross-examination over his affairs.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com


Direct Download