Tag: impeachment inquiry

Posted on

Transcript of OA337: How to Talk to Your (Republican) Family About Impeachment

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 337.  Gobble, gobble, gobble!  I’m Thomas-

Andrew:         [Laughs]

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”
Posted on

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?

Appearances

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 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 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.
  3. 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!
  4. 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 openarguments@gmail.com!



Download Link
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 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 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
Posted on

Transcript of OA328: The Impeachment Inquiry Resolution! (H.R. 660)

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 328, still cruising!

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew, always on a ship, on a boat, how’s it going Andrew?

Andrew:         It is going fantastically well, obviously the time I picked to take a vacation I am pleased that world events decided to take a vacation with us-

Thomas:         Yeah.

Andrew:         -and absolutely nothing is happening.

Thomas:         It’s not like the President’s being impeached or anything like that.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA328: The Impeachment Inquiry Resolution! (H.R. 660)”
Posted on

OA328: The Impeachment Inquiry Resolution! (H.R. 660)

This week’s Rapid Response Friday breaks down exactly what’s in H.R. 660, the impeachment inquiry resolution, and what it means for the ongoing process. We also help you digest the legal significance of Alexander Vindman’s testimony and much, much more, so strap in!

We begin, however, with Thomas’s favorite segment — Andrew Was Wrong. Here, Andrew issues a correction regarding baseball law and the chemistry of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from our popular Pizza, Beer & Guns episode.

After that, it’s time for a trip up Yodel Mountain where we digest H.R. 660, the soon-to-be-passed resolution authorizing the House Intelligence Committee to take the lead on the impeachment inquiry. Is it “still without any due process for the President,” as the White House claims? [No.] As a bonus, we also break down the companion change to the rules adopted by the House Rules Committee pursuant to the resolution that’s managed to confuse a number of media outlets.

But that’s not all! While we’re high atop Yodel Mountain, we also break down the significance of Alexander Vindman’s testimony this week regarding the Trump administration’s holding hostage of aid to Ukraine pending an “investigation” into Burisma, and Hunter and Joe Biden.

After all that, it’s time for #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a dreaded real property question — this one about whether a grantee can revoke an easement. Those are words! Will Thomas decipher them?

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. Click here to read H.R. 660, and here for the companion change to the rules. Here’s the Democratic summary of those changes.
  2. This is the transcript of Alexander Vindman’s opening statement, plus more on his testimony from the Washington Post and the (failing) New York Times, as well as the Politico story on how some Republicans are pushing back against attacks on Vindman.

-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