Tag: impeachment

Posted on

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)”
Posted on

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
Posted on

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)”
Posted on

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
Posted on

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?”
Posted on

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
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”