Tag: Trump tax returns

Posted on

OA383: Trump’s Taxes & The CARES Act (Or: Why Your Vote Matters)

Today’s episode checks back in with the status of the consolidated cases pending before the Supreme Court regarding Trump’s tax returns. As it turns out, this overlaps pretty strongly with the show’s “B” segment about the potential for abuse in the CARES Act.

We begin with a colossal “Andrew Was Wrong” — in which Andrew optimistically predicted we’d see Trump’s tax returns in 2019. That… turned out not to be the case. So what are the odds that we’ll see Trump’s taxes before the November elections? Listen and find out!

After that, it’s time for another semi-deep-dive, and this time we’re checking back in with the just-passed CARES Act as Andrew talks about a provision we missed the first time around that has the potential to… well, you’ll just have to listen and find out!

Then, it’s time for the answer to #T3BE 176 involving burning a copy of the IRS Code. Is it illegal? If so, why?

Patreon Bonuses

If you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest on Episode 121 of the Skepticrat, talking about the abuse of the Paycheck Protection Program and other crazy legal stories in the news. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Click here to read the letter sent by Liz Warren & other Democratic Senators to Deutsche Bank.
  2. Our comprehensive overview of the CARES Act was in Episode 372, and you can read the final CARES Act here.
  3. The Sunshine Act is 5 U.S.C. § 552b.

-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

-Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials!

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!



Download Link
Posted on

Transcript of OA364: Will the Supreme Court Shield Trump’s Taxes? (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 364, and I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew.  How’re you doing, Andrew?

Andrew:         [Laughs] I am fantastic, Thomas!  How are you?

Thomas:         I am just-  we got so much good stuff to talk about.  There are lawsuits and lawsuits and more lawsuits and they pretty much just involve Trump, but lots of questions, lots of stuff I’m seeing posted on social media, people are unclear about what a lot of this means and that’s my favorite because Andrew’s here to break it down for us and tell us how this all actually works.  So I’m excited, you excited?

Continue reading “Transcript of OA364: Will the Supreme Court Shield Trump’s Taxes? (No.)”
Posted on

OA364: Will The Supreme Court Shield Trump’s Taxes? (No.)

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into the just-filed briefs in the Trump v. Mazars litigation pending before the Supreme Court regarding the legitimacy of the House’s subpoenas for Trump’s tax returns. Is the law on the House’s side? (Yes, yes it is.) Are we confident that the Supreme Court will rule the right way in a case this bad? (Maybe?) In any event, you’ll want to listen!

Announcements

  1. Don’t forget our YouTube Live Q&A this Sunday, March 1, at 1:30 pm Eastern / 10:30 am Pacific!
  2. You still have two days to register for Voter Protection Law School Boot Camp!

We begin with an Andrew Was Wrong(-ish) from our good friend Randall Eliason on the actual frequency of below-guidelines sentences in light of Roger Stone’s downward variance.

Then it’s time for a deep dive into Mazars v. Trump, where we look at the briefs filed by the parties and evaluate the arguments made by the Trump administration that the subpoenas issued by the House are invalid. How bad are these arguments? They’re bad.

Then, it’s time to tackle the recent defamation lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign against the New York Times regarding a March 2019 op-ed by Max Frankel, in which Mr. Frankel argued that the campaign didn’t need to coordinate with Russia to benefit from foreign assistance. Does this pave the way for really good discovery? (No.)

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new #T3BE involving a law prohibiting providing assistance to undocumented aliens. Can Thomas start a new winning streak? Listen and find out. And, of course, you can always play along on social media by using the hashtag #T3BE!

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. Remember to check out our YouTube Channel !
  2. If you’re thinking about Democratic Voter Protection Law School Bootcamp, check out the flyer and then apply online.
  3. n the opening segment, Andrew references the U.S. Sentencing Commission (2018) report on sentences.
  4. in Mazars v. Trump, check out the President’s Jay Sekulow-penned brief as well as the just-filed response by the House of Representatives. You can also read the Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (2019) decision.
  5. Finally, check out the Trump Campaign v. New York Times defamation lawsuit.

-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 Opening Arguments Episode 316 – Unsealing Mueller’s Grand Jury Testimony & Other Yodel Mountain Madness

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

Continue reading “Transcript of Opening Arguments Episode 316 – Unsealing Mueller’s Grand Jury Testimony & Other Yodel Mountain Madness”
Posted on

OA316: Unsealing Mueller’s Grand Jury Testimony & Other Yodel Mountain Madness

Today’s Rapid Response Friday spends a lot of time high atop Yodel Mountain, pondering the latest developments in the Trump Administration’s efforts to keep the underlying grand jury materials (and redacted portions of the Mueller Report) from being disseminated to Congress. Oh, and we also check in on Trump’s taxes, emoluments, that crazy whistleblower case and so much more from this corrupt administration.

We begin, however, with few little self-congratulatory remarks and some further information about #Brexit that we covered in Episode 315.

Then, it’s time to tackle In re Application of the House Committee on the Judiciary regarding the unsealing of grand jury testimony. Learn how this argument interacts with McKeever v. Barr, which we last discussed in Episode 272.

After that, we pause briefly to discuss the latest ruling on emoluments from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as the latest apportionment lawsuit that may have been inspired by a previous episode. And we discuss Corey Lewandowski’s sideshow, and the four pending lawsuits involving Trump’s taxes, and so much more….

That gives us a brief amount of time to talk about the latest whistleblower case and what we do (and don’t) know.

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. Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!!
  2. We covered Brexit in Episode 315.
  3. Check out the latest Trump argument in In re Application of House Committee on the Judiciary. The operative statutory exception is Fed. Rule Crim. Pro. 6(e), and the case we discussed was McKeever v. Barr.
  4. We, of course, first discussed McKeever v. Barr way back in Episode 206 when we debunked the conspiracy theory angle, and we were proven right in Episode 272.
  5. The latest emoluments ruling from the 2nd Circuit is here; you can also check out the new apportionment lawsuit as well. Oh, and don’t forget to read this great piece on Lewandowski by Elie Mystal.
  6. Finally, the two threads you must read on the whistleblower complaint are by Asha Rangappa and our friends at Mueller, She Wrote.

-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

OA281: Follow the Money! (Analyzing Judge Mehta’s Order)

Today’s episode breaks down Judge Mehta’s recent order in the Trump v. Mazars litigation, which is parallel to the Deutsche Bank lawsuit we discussed on last week’s show. Why is this ruling significant, how does it accelerate the House’s efforts to uncover crucial financial documents, and what does this mean for the future of the Trump Presidency? Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with a look at some late-breaking news from Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have requested information from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin related to his tenure at Sears (that we discussed in Episode 273) and whether that conduct continued during his time working for the Trump administration.

Then, it’s time for the main segment, in which we discuss Judge Mehta’s order, what it means for the future of the Trump investigations (and for future presidential administrations!), as well as deal with skeptical questions about the potential timeframe. Learn how the Congressional Democrats maneuvered to get this case fast-tracked so as to avoid endless delays — and listen to Andrew’s possibly-surprising prediction about what he thinks the Supreme Court won’t do to protect Trump!

After all that, it’s time for a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #127… and yes, it’s another dreaded real property question. Worse, it’s a hard one — in which the question gives you the answer but asks for the best reason why. Find out what happens when someone conveys property and dies while the gift recipient is overseas serving in the military. And if you’d like to play along with #TTTBE, just share out this episode on social media for a chance to be next week’s winner!

Appearances

Andrew was a guest on the most recent episode of Pod Therapy, discussing the “Goldwater Rule,” and Thomas was a guest on Episode 196 of God Awful Movies, “Alien Intrusion: Unmasking a Deception.” 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.  This is the link to the Warren/AOC letter to Mnuchin

2.  We most recently discussed the Congressional subpoenas into Trump’s finances in Episode 279.

3.  Text of Judge Mehta’s order in the Mazars case.

4.  This is the New York Times story about the Deutsche Bank whistleblower; and for an in-depth discussion of SARs reports, check out Carla McCadden in Episode 174.

5.  This is the report that some lenders have already provided documents to the House, and we discussed the Wells Fargo penalties in Episode 146 and 169.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

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 email us at openarguments@gmail.com




Download Link

Posted on

OA279: Deutsche Wanna Loan?

Today’s episode breaks down everything you need to know about the pending Trump v. Deutsche Bank lawsuit over the pending Congressional subpoenas for Donald Trump’s (and Don Jr.’s, and Eric’s, and Ivanka’s, and the Trump Organization’s) financial records. Why is Trump suing Deutsche Bank, and what’s going to happen? Find out why Andrew is still optimistic!

We begin, however, with the breaking news that Trump has pardoned Conrad Black. Who is he? Should this be a scandal? (Yes.) Will it be? (No.) And is Conrad Black a gigantic racist? (Guess.)

Then, it’s time for the main segment about Trump v. Deutsche Bank. We talk about the unique legal standard in the Second Circuit that gives the Trump legal team a legitimate thread by which to argue for their injunction preventing Deutsche Bank from disclosing Trump’s financial records to the House Committee.

Then, it’s time to answer a listener question from Rob Bate about conspiracy, obstruction, and the Mueller Report.

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #126 involving whether shooting a would-be assailant who has broken off her attack is homicide, and if so, what kind.

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. Here’s a link to Conrad Black’s disgusting “Who Was Really At Fault In Charlottesville?” essay.
  2. Check out the Wikipedia entry on Michael McFaul.
  3. And his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.
  4. Here are the Trump v. Deutsche Bank documents
    -The Complaint
    -Trump’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
    -Deutsche Bank’s statement
    -The House Committee’s Opposition
    -Trump’s reply memorandum
  5. We cited Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30 (2010) for the proposition that the 2nd Circuit recognizes an alternative test.
  6. And, of course, credit for the fabulous “Deutsche Wanna Loan?” goes to our friends at Mueller, She Wrote

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

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 email us at openarguments@gmail.com




Download Link
Posted on

OA270: Happy Tax Day!

Today’s episode brings you a trio of timely stories that all revolve around taxes: the Michael Avenatti indictment (for 29 courts of tax fraud), proposed legislation that some are arguing hamstrings the IRS, and (of course) the status of Congress’s efforts to get Trump’s tax returns. We also learned about very cool free online tax filing (Free File)… albeit too late to help most of you. Sorry about that.

We begin with the lawyer who will never come on our show — Michael Avenatti, who rose to fame on the back of the genius of Stormy Daniels, and whom we first debunked as a grifter just a few months later (way back in Episode 181!) Turns out he’s been arrested for tax fraud. Who could have seen that coming? (Oh yeah, everyone.)

After that, it’s time for a deep dive into HR 1957, the Taxpayer First Act of 2019. Is it really a Democratic-sponsored sellout to Turbotax, as some folks are saying? Listen and find out!

Then, it’s time to revisit the question of Trump’s taxes. Can Trump really stonewall indefinitely on his taxes? (No.) Does the law pave the way for Democrats to get his tax returns? (Yes.)

After all that, it’s time for the answer to TTTBE #122 regarding the nonexistence of official documents.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances
None! Andrew will be at the American Atheist convention in Cincinnati, Ohio this weekend, April 19-21. And 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 2020: Click here to access Free File.
  2. You can read Avenatti’s indictment, and/or catch up on all his scumbaggery by re-listening to Episode 181.
  3. This is the text of H.R. 1957, this is the text of the Eighth Memoradum of Understanding between the IRS and Free File, and this is the text of 67 Fed. Red. 67247 which references the MOU.
  4. Here’s an example of an alarmist op-ed in the Washington Post, and this is the initial article from ProPublica.
  5. We first outlined how to get Trump’s tax returns back in Episode 226; that’s still the right plan. We covered Rep. Neal’s request in Episode 267. The applicable statute is 26 U.S.C. § 6013.
  6. You can read Consovoy’s totally crazy crazypants letter here.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

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 email us at openarguments@gmail.com




Download Link
Posted on

OA267: Originalism and the Eighth Amendment (Bucklew v. Precythe)

Today’s breaking news episode takes an in-depth look at Bucklew v. Precythe, a recent Supreme Court decision that lays bare the “originalist” view of the Eighth Amendment.  Is it as bad as you think it is?  (Yes.)

We begin, however, with a look at Texas v. U.S. and the recent news that the Trump administration “changed its mind” and “will no longer defend” the Affordable Care Act.  What does that mean?  Listen and find out!

Then, it’s time for our deep dive into Bucklew v. Precythe, the Supreme Court’s analysis of how the 8th Amendment applies in capital punishment cases.

After that, we go back to Yodel Mountain for some updates on the congressional investigations, including the Congressional request for Trump’s tax returns and an EPIC FOIA request.

And if all that isn’t enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #121 involving the constitutionality of Presidential executive orders.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances

Thomas was just a guest on the Cognitive Dissonance podcast; go check it out!  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. Wikipedia entry on sodium thiopental can be found here.
2. Glossip v. Gross (2015)
3. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bucklew v. Precythe (Apr. 1, 2019)
4. 8th Circuit’s opinion below in Bucklew
5. Congressional letter requesting Trump’s taxes
6. Bonus! Zuckerman amicus brief in the ACA litigation.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

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 email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Download Link