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)”

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

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)”

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

Transcript of OA343: The End of the ACA? (Also: Some Stuff About Impeachment)

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to impeachmeeeeeent!!! [Celebratory clownhorns]  Put those sound effects in-

Andrew:         [Laughs]  I like how you did a little Michael Buffer, there!

Thomas:         [Laughs]  Yeah!  [Announcer voice] Let’s get ready to impeach in the Senaaate!  Hello everybody, it’s Opening Arguments episode 343, I’m Thomas, that over there is Andrew and that over there is impeach President Trump. 

[Trump – “So true!”]

Andrew:         Yeah, yeah!

Thomas:         It’s done.  Happened.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA343: The End of the ACA? (Also: Some Stuff About Impeachment)”

OA343: The End of the ACA? (Also: Some Stuff About Impeachment)

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into the recent 5th Circuit ruling you may have heard about that… is supposed to have declared the ACA unconstitutional? How can that possibly be the case? We break it all down for you. Oh, and yeah, we also talk about the fact that the third president in American history has been impeached.

We begin, however, with an Andrew Was Wrong segment about the procedural history underlying the Syed appeal.

Then, it’s time to break down the 5th Circuit’s ACA opinion. How is it possible? How is the case ripe? Wasn’t all of this decided in 2012 in the NFIB v. Sebelius case? We explain everything you need to know — and what you need to know about the future — in this main segment.

Then, it’s time to tackle some impeachment questions like, “what the hell is going on?” and “is it true that the President can’t be pardoned for crimes over which he’s been impeached?” (No.) You definitely won’t want to miss this one.

After all that, it’s time for a brand new #T3BE involving jury instructions during a criminal trial. Can Thomas build on his amazing 1-question winning streak? There’s only one way to know for sure!

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. We tackled the Syed case for the very last time in Episode 340.
  2. You can read the 5th Circuit’s ACA opinion here.
  3. Finally, on impeachment, don’t forget to check out (a) Episode 90 where we explain that Trump can probably pardon himself, and also (b) Laurence Tribe’s article that changed how the House handles impeachment.
  4. Oh, man, and if you missed last episode’s humor, check out “Larry ‘Bud’ Melman” advertising “Mr. Larry’s Toast on a Stick” from the old Late Night With David Letterman show.

-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 OA341: Articles of Impeachment (& Espinoza)

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 341, I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew.  How’re you doing, Andrew?

Andrew:         I am spectacular, Thomas!  How are you?

Thomas:         Ah, doing great.  I can’t wait for today’s episode, I wanna learn more about impeachment, and I also love that you’ve slotted our Wild Card segment that [Laughing] we haven’t been able to get to for, I dunno, a month.

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         You’ve slotted that into the A Segment to make sure we get to this good listeners question.  But before all that, a quick 35-minutes on my Fantasy Football birth.

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Continue reading “Transcript of OA341: Articles of Impeachment (& Espinoza)”

OA341: Articles of Impeachment (& Espionza)

Today’s episode breaks down the Articles of Impeachment currently being debated in the House Judiciary Committee. Find out Andrew’s disappointment, the hidden clause that lets the Senate consider Mueller evidence (if they want), and what these articles can’t let the Senate evaluate in determining whether to impeach Trump. You won’t want to miss it! Oh, and also, you’ll get a mini-deep-dive on the Espinoza decision and so much more!

We begin with an important listener question about whether Donald Trump could plead the 5th Amendment during the impeachment process. The answer might surprise you — and you’ll enjoy the deep dive into the Constitutional protections against self-incrimination.

Then, during the main segment, we tackle the two articles of impeachment in depth, evaluating what crime(s) the articles consider, how they respond to the Republican arguments, and much, much more.

After that, we’re excited to bring you a segment in which law students can win up to $10,000 in an essay-writing contest that also gives you a chance to make a real difference in a case pending before the Supreme Court, Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue.

Then, of course, it’s time for another #T3BE, this time about a homeowner who paints over some water damage. Is there a viable reason for the buyer to rescind the contract, or is it “buyer beware”? Listen and 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. Our opening segment discusses the 1957 Supreme Court case of Watkins v. U.S. and also references this 1956 law review article.
  2. Our omnibus impeachment explainer is Episode 319 (you can also read the transcript for that episode).
  3. This is the text of Rep. Nadler’s proposed two articles of impeachment.
  4. Finally, if you’re a law student, please do check out the FFRF essay contest! Resources: (a) Art. X, Sec. 6 of the Montana Constitution; (b) Montana Code Ann. § 15-30-3101 et seq.; and (c) the FFRF amicus brief in Espinoza.
  5. Also, don’t forget that we broke down Trinity Lutheran before the Supreme Court ruled way back in Episodes 14, 17, and 18, and then dissected the travesty of an opinion in Episodes 82 and 85. Phew!

-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 OA339: Who is Jonathan Turley, Anyway?

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 339.  I am Thomas Smith, that’s Andrew Torrez.  How’re you doing Andrew?

Andrew:         I am fantastic Thomas, how are you?

Thomas:         I’m great!  You know, we have so much to talk about today, so many good segments that I’m not even going to mention the fact that I have my 27th consecutive cold in a row.

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         Not even gonna bring it up!

Continue reading “Transcript of OA339: Who is Jonathan Turley, Anyway?”

OA339: Who is Jonathan Turley, Anyway?

Today’s episode is a timely impeachment-themed deep dive into the testimony of George Washington University law professor — and legitimate legal scholar — Jonathan Turley before the House Judiciary Committee. How should you evaluate his arguments? We walk you through them, of course!

We begin, however, with a new segment: the Wingnut Lightning Round(TM), in which we evaluate — or rather, make fun of — two preposterous new lawsuits filed this week by two complete idiots.

After that, it’s time for an #AndrewWasWrong about Ronald Burris, the interim Senator nominated by Rod Blagojevich to fill Barack Obama’s unexpired Senate seat. Find out the twists and turns to this rather fascinating story as a side bonus to Andrew’s well-deserved comeuppance.

Then, it’s time for the main segment: the news that the House is going to draft articles of impeachment against President Trump despite the testimony of Jonathan Turley. How do the lone Republican-called witness’s arguments stack up? (Hint: they’re not good.) Surely the Republicans wouldn’t have called someone who’s on the record saying the exact opposite of what he’s presently saying 20 years ago, right? (Guess.)

After all that, it’s time for a fiendishly hard #T3BE about a trial, a videotape, and a jogging plaintiff. You won’t want to miss it — and you’ll want to play along!

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. Oh man, you just have to read batshit-crazy Rep. Devin Nunes’s eleventy million trillion dollar lawsuit against CNN.
  2. For more of the Roland Burris story, check out Wikipedia.
  3. Click here to read Turley’s testimony for yourself.

-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