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”

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

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”

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

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)”

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