Tag: impeachment

Posted on

Transcript of OA358: Can Trump Block New Yorkers From Global Entry? (No.)

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 358.  I’m Thomas Smith, that over there is P. Andrew Torrez, esquire.  How’re you doing Andrew?

Andrew:         [Laughing] I am doing fantastic!  Did you see, one of our listeners sent P. Andrew Torus with the donut shape on social media?

Thomas:         Yeah!

Andrew:         You know, as long as we’re continuing to add plays on my last name.

Thomas:         It’s hard to compete with your cow name, though, P. Andrew Taurus.

Andrew:         Oh, no, obviously that’s the best.  Shout out to Del.

Thomas:         Because you moo the noodle! [Laughs] You moo the noodle, so we can’t.

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Continue reading “Transcript of OA358: Can Trump Block New Yorkers From Global Entry? (No.)”
Posted on

OA358: Can Trump Block New Yorkers From Global Entry? (No.)

Today’s episode takes place in the aftermath of the Trump impeachment sham. We take a minute to heap praise on Sen. Mitt Romney, who had the courage of his convictions, before delving into the obvious fact that this president is now empowered to seek revenge on his enemies, starting with the State of New York. Can he really prevent New Yorkers from using Global Entry?

Before that, we have to cover the latest in faux outrage, in which America’s Dumbest Congressman (TM), Matt Gaetz, teams up with Charlie Kirk (and others) to … insist that Speaker Nancy Pelosi had no right to rip up her copy of Trump’s State of the Union address. Can that possibly be the law? (No.)

Then, it’s time to settle in for a nice, long deep dive into New York’s Green Light Law, and how that led a Trump lackey to try and retaliate by asserting that New Yorkers will no longer be eligible for the Global Entry program at airports. Is it really possible that Trump’s Department of Homeland Security will carry out this threat? Do we have a legal recourse? Listen and find out!

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new #T3BE on the preservation of objections for appeal. Can Thomas continue his winning streak? Would you do any better? If so, just share out this episode on social media using the hashtag #T3BE and we’ll pick a winner!

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. The operative law that Speaker Pelosi definitely didn’t violate — but President Trump has — is 18 U.S.C. § 2071.
  2. You can read all about New York SB1747B (the “Green Light Law”) as well as check out the fact sheet issued by the DMV.
  3. We break down the nonsense threat letter written by “Acting Director” of DHS, Chad Wolf.
  4. Legal references! Check out 8 U.S.C. § 1365b; 74 FR 59932; 77 FR 5690; and the final rule, 8 C.F.R. 235.12.
  5. Finally, in the political aftermath, we mentioned the pending bipartisan bill, House Res. HR 3675.
  6. Check out the latest blog post from Marcy Wheeler, which sets out her take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and sets out the embedded legal documents.

-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 OA355: Honest Answers to Impeachment Questions

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 355, I’m Thomas Smith, that’s Andrew Torrez!  How’re you doing, Andrew?

Andrew:         I’m fantastic Thomas, how are you?

Thomas:         Ooooh, doing well doing well.

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         It feels like – in fact, you know what?  I take that back.  I’m doing very well because I’m pretty sure we singlehandedly made a difference for the witnesses.  I say we and by that I mean the royal we of the whole audience and the whole show, because it really feels like the noodle got moved a little bit.

Andrew:         It does.  I would say, look, Mitch McConnell is still trying to move the noodle back.

Thomas:         [Laughs]  

Andrew:         Do not let up.  If you have not yet called your Senators, call your Democratic Senators and praise them, call Mitt Romney and praise him, call Republican Senators who have not spoken out and the script, we’ll continue to use the script and have it in the show notes.  This is super easy, hundreds of you have Tweeted in, emailed us, maybe even a thousand.  A lot of you have done this, this is really, really great.  It’s really important.  Keep doing that.  The other side is doing the same thing so it is important to keep that up.  The vote, if it happens, will happen sometime late on Friday so as you’re hearing this you still have time to call your Senators? and make sure they line up for witnesses.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA355: Honest Answers to Impeachment Questions”
Posted on

OA355: Honest Answers to Impeachment Questions

Today’s episode tackles six questions raised during the first day of cross-examination at the impeachment of President Trump and gives you the real answers, from a legal point of view, minus the spin (on both sides)! We tackle the standard for impeachment, past judges who have been impeached, the will of the Framers, and much, much more!

—–

Remember that Alan Dershowitz has challenged Andrew to a debate, and we’ve accepted! Only time will tell if Dersh chickens out.

Also: please do CALL YOUR SENATORS. The Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121. They’ll connect you! For the Republicans, make this simple request (and be polite!):

“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.” 

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. Thank you!

—–

We begin the show with a brief analysis of John Bolton’s forthcoming book and whether the White House can get a judicial injunction to block publication. (Hint: no.) In analyzing the question, we do a mini-deep-dive into prior restraint, what it means, and why it protects Bolton’s right to publish here.

Then it’s time for the question extravaganza, which covers not only the legal standard for impeachment but the arguments raised by both sides, the question of foreign interference in our elections, how one asserts executive privilege, and so much more! You won’t want to miss this!

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new #T3BE about a crazed, icepick-wielding roommate with bad luck. Will Thomas be able to keep his win streak going? There’s only one way to find out! And remember that you too can play along 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. Don’t let Republicans misrepresent the articles of impeachment. Article I, Abuse of Power contains allegations that satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) (the crime of bribery) and Art. II, Obstruction of Congress contains allegations that satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (the crime of obstruction of justice).
  2. We referenced Zephyr Teachout’s seminal 2009 law review article, “The Anti-Corruption Principle” as well as this analysis by Eisen, Painter, and Tribe on emoluments.
  3. Finally, check out Prof. Cunningham’s article on the original meaning of “misdemeanors” 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
Posted on

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.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA353: Duplicity and Impeachment”
Posted on

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!):

“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.” 

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

  1. Rules: click here to read Riddick’s Senate Procedure, and here for the just-adopted S. Res. 438.
  2. Strap in: this is the cargo cult Trump trial brief, and here are the House Articles of Impeachment.
  3. 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).
  4. Here’s the interview reported by Politico in which Mulvaney conceded there was a quid pro quo (and “get over it”)!
  5. 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
Posted on

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.

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

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

  1. 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).
  2. We referred to the 1991 Cheney GAO opinion on “programmatic delays.”
  3. Click here to read the Parnas SDNY indictment.
  4. 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
Posted on

Transcript of OA345: How John Roberts Saved Christmas (Or: Everything You Need to Know About Nixon v. US)

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments.  Merry Christmas Andrew Torrez!  I’m Thomas Smith, how’s it going Andrew?

Andrew:         Merry Christmas Thomas Smith, happy holidays, I am doing fantastic.  How are you?

Thomas:         Oh, good!  I was visited by three ghosts in the night.

Andrew:         Okay?

Thomas:         And I’ve gotta turn myself around.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA345: How John Roberts Saved Christmas (Or: Everything You Need to Know About Nixon v. US)”
Posted on

OA345: How John Roberts Saved Christmas (Or: Everything You Need to Know About Nixon v. US)

Happy Holidays, everyone! Today, we tackle a number of issues that managed to distract us over the holidays regarding impeachment and do a deep dive into Nixon v. US — all while weaving in a John-Roberts-as-the-Grinch-Who-Saved-the-Country-From-Mitch-McConnell story. Can it happen? Absolutely. Will it? We don’t know. Do you need to listen? ABSOLUTELY.

We begin, however, with the recent filing by the lawyer for the House Judiciary Committee suggesting it might “impeach Donald Trump again.” What on earth does that mean, and why is he taking this position? We explain it all.

Then it’s time for a brief foray into the debate between Noah Feldman, Laurence Tribe (and Jonathan Turley for good measure) as to whether Trump has really been impeached given that the House has not yet transmitted the articles to the Senate.

As we all know, that question is really academic — the real issue is: what power does Mitch McConnell have to transform impeachment into a sham proceeding? The answer lies in a 1993 Supreme Court case, Nixon v. US , 506 U.S. 224 — and it may just reside in Chief Justice John Roberts. You won’t want to miss this deep dive storytelling.

After all that, it’s time for a brand new #T3BE involving burglary, larceny, and the world’s angriest ex-employee. Remember to play along 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. Click here to read the House’s filing before the D.C. Circuit in the McGahn subpoena litigation.
  2. In the battle of expert turncoats, we have Noah Feldman arguing that Trump hasn’t been impeached, and Jonathan Turley arguing that he has.
  3. Finally, make sure you read Nixon v. U.S., 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

-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