Tag: whistleblower

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 OA320: The (Idiotic) Hearsay Defense

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 320!  Heh!  320, huh, Andrew?

Andrew:         [Laughs]  Is that a thing?

Thomas:         I was gonna see if I could try to make you fall for it-

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         Of course it’s not.  That’s a joke that you’re a precious cinnamon bun.  How’s it going Andrew Torrez?

Continue reading “Transcript of OA320: The (Idiotic) Hearsay Defense”
Posted on

How To Shut Up Liars & Conspiracy Theorists

Yes, people are still arguing that ICIG Michael Atkinson — a Republican appointed by Donald Trump, by the way — “secretly gutted the requirement” that whistleblowers must file a complaint on the basis of first-hand knowledge in August of 2019, just before this whistleblower complaint was filed.

That’s a lie. Some people repeating it are just idiots, but others are very clearly deliberately lying to you.

Here’s ICWPA Form 401, which was last changed on May 24, 2018. You will observe on page 3 that it asks whistleblowers whether their information is from “personal and/or direct knowledge,” if “Other employees have told me about events or records involved,” or from “Other source(s)” (or a combination of some or all of those). Those last two are, by definition, hearsay,

Here’s a screenshot:

Posted on

OA320: The (Idiotic) Hearsay Defense

Today’s episode is a must-listen, timely deep dive as to what exactly constitutes “hearsay” — and why the latest Republican talking points to discredit the whistleblower complaint as being “based on hearsay” are nonsense piled upon nonsense.

Remember that this your LAST CHANCE to come see Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!!

We begin today’s show with an (unfortunately lengthy) Andrew Was Wrong segment about the Javelin missile, Al Gore’s non-tie-breaking non-vote in 1999, and more. But was Andrew actually right about anything? (Maybe one or two things.)

Then, it’s time for the main segment in which Andrew breaks down exactly why “hearsay” isn’t the same as “stuff you maybe kinda overheard in the neighborhood.” Learn what hearsay actually is, and why the latest round of unhinged Republican talking points are even more laughable than they seem.

After that, it’s time for a frenzied visit back to Yodel Mountain, where we explain exactly what happens next in the House impeachment investigation.

As a bonus, we tackle a question many of you asked on social media: what exactly does happen if President Trump is removed from office via impeachment? Could he run again?? Listen and find out!

We conclude, as always, with #T3BE, including next week’s guest, solicitor Emma McClure, and a wandering 12-year-old who falls through the ice.

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. Here’s the latest news from The Guardian about the President committing bribery on national television. And yes, it’s bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) and not extortion or any other crime.
  3. Curious about that 1955 law review article summarizing that grand juries can issue indictments based on nothing but expert hearsay testimony? We’ve got you covered.
  4. And if you liked that, you probably also want to check out the Federal Rules of Evidence on hearsay, Rule 801 et seq.
  5. If you see anyone sharing the absolute lie propagated in the Federalist that the intel community “secretly gutted” the requirement that whistleblower complaints be based on first-hand knowledge, you can send them to the May 2018 form 401. If you need a quick response, just share out this graphic that clearly shows it’s a complete fabrication.
  6. Oh, and don’t forget to curl up with this subpoena served on Rudy Giuliani.

-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 OA 319 – Your Guide to Impeachment

Listen to the episode & read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Impeachments, it [Laughs] ah!  Opening Arguments episode 319, day five of being chained to my desk, recording Opening Arguments.

Andrew:         [Laughs]

Thomas:         How’re you doing, Andrew?

Andrew:         I am doing fantastic Thomas, how are you?

Thomas:         Uh, tired?  It’s a lot of recording, you know.

Andrew:         [Laughs]

Thomas:         But it’s worthwhile.  Hello patrons hearing us early, everybody else hearing us late, you missed us in the early part but now you’re hearing us so that’s fine either way.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA 319 – Your Guide to Impeachment”
Posted on

OA319: Your Guide To Impeachment!

Today’s Deep Dive can’t help but stay high atop Yodel Mountain. We imagine that by the time you’re hearing this, the House will have voted to begin an impeachment inquiry. Curious about what that means, why it matters, and what happens next? Then this is the show for you!

Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!!

We begin, however, with a brief update on #Brexit; no, we haven’t forgotten that our closest ally is also suffering under the weight of an insane leader hell-bent on a racist policy that everyone knows is an impending disaster. But unlike the U.S., it looks like the U.K. Supreme Court…. still understands the rule of law? What a novel concept.

Then, it’s time for a deep dive into impeachment, where we tackle:

  1. Exactly why President Trump’s conduct towards Ukraine in particular is so reprehensible;
  2. Why beginning an “impeachment inquiry” matters;
  3. What the Nixon articles of impeachment looked like;
  4. The Clinton impeachment timeline;
  5. ALL the ways Mitch McConnell and the Republicans can try and screw this up; and much, much more.

Then, it’s time for the answer to Friday’s #T3BE involving real property, and specifically, the condition to a contract requiring the buyer to procure a loan at 10% and whether that allows the seller to back out even if the buyer turns over the purchase price. Find out if Thomas got this one right!

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. This is the Time reporting on Ukraine from which Andrew quoted; and this is the New York Times story about Manafort turning over polling data to Akhmetov.
  3. Politico first reported the OMB hold on aid to Ukraine on August 28, nearly a month ago.
  4. An ongoing proceeding makes it easier to prove obstruction of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
  5. Click here to read the Nixon articles of impeachment, and (show-note only bonus!) here to read the vote breakdown.
  6. We explained the “nuclear option” on Senate rules way back in Episode 59; these are the current Senate rules on impeachment (that can be modified at any time with this One Weird Trick).
  7. Finally, if you’re feeling super optimistic, remember we explained that Mitch McConnell can Mitch McConnell all of this in Episode 272.

-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 OA 318 – Quid Pro Quo Burger

Listen to the episode & read the show notes

Topics of Discussion

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 318.  I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew.  How’re you doin’ Andrew?

Andrew:         [Chuckles] I am doing fantastic, Thomas!  I think I said earlier on Twitter, I’ve had some good days in my life, you know?  The birth of my child, my honeymoon, the trip we took to Australia … today is way up there with those days!  [Laughs]  How are you doing?

Thomas:         Because we are finally going to be doing the eminent domain deep dive!

Andrew:         That’s right!

Thomas:         Yes!

Andrew:         Oh, and I’ve got a long segment on baseball law!  No.  [Laughs]  

Continue reading “Transcript of OA 318 – Quid Pro Quo Burger”
Posted on

OA318: Quid Pro Quo Burger

Hooooo boy! Today’s episode breaks down the tipping point that finally got House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to back an impeachment inquiry: the now-disclosed whistleblower complaint that lays out exactly how Donald Trump abused our foreign policy to pressure a foreign leader to aid him in his 2020 re-election campaign. It’s every bit as bad as it looks, and we walk you through exactly what it means.

Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!!

Here’s the topline: Acting DNI Maguire changed his story as to why he withheld the whistleblower complaint to a completely bogus claim of executive privilege. We’ll tell you why that won’t hold up. We’ll also answer:

  • What’s a TELCON, and do we have reasons to believe that the “transcript” of the President’s July 25 conversation with Ukranian President Zelenskyy was “Bill Barr”ed?
  • Are we at PEAK YODEL MOUNTAIN?
  • Did the Republicans really email their stupid talking points to Nancy Pelosi? And if so, how do we spot a hack? (Hint: he — and they’re pretty much all ‘he’s — will have an “R” after his name.)
  • What did we learn from Maguire’s testimony today, and how incriminating was it? (Very.)
  • What does the complaint say and how bad is it?
  • And finally — what are the FIVE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT Andrew thinks will be brought against this President?

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new #T3BE, this time a dreaded real property question that Thomas feels oddly confident about his answer. Do you share his optimism? Let us 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. Remember that the operative statute requiring Maguire to have turned over the whistleblower complaint is 50 U.S.C. § 3033, and particularly subsection (k)(5).
  3. Here’s the New York Times reporting that Trump mentioned Giuliani way back in his first call to Zelenskyy on April 21, 2019.
  4. Extortion is 18 U.S.C. § 355(c)(2); treason is 18 U.S.C. § 2381, and neither are a good fit here.
  5. What laws are a good fit? Well, how about (a) illegal solicitation of a campaign contribution, 52 U.S.C. § 30121; (b) bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201 ; (c) obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, and much more??
  6. Finally, remember that we first discussed illegal campaign contributions back in Episode 116.

-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 Bonus! Whistleblower Breakdown

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Covering Whistleblower-Gate

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to – don’t adjust that dial!  Don’t adjust that dial anybody!

Andrew:         [Laughs]

Thomas:         The podcast-

Andrew:         The podcast dial, yeah!

Thomas:         Yes, don’t adjust it because it’s Thomas, it’s Andrew, it’s Opening Arguments!  It’s episode – I don’t know – 316 and a half, maybe?

Andrew:         316 and a half, baby!  We’ve got to cover “Whistleblower-gate” [Laughs]

Thomas:         Oooh.  Yeah, Yodel Mountain, Whistleblower Edition.  It’s a duet, actually, between a yodeler and a whistler … Whistleblower.

Continue reading “Transcript of Opening Arguments Bonus! Whistleblower Breakdown”