Tag: Yodel Mountain

Posted on

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)”
Posted on

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
Posted on

Transcript of OA326: When the SCIF Hit the Fan

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

Announcements

[Show Intro]

New Show Intro

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 326.  I’m your host Thomas Smith, that over there is Andrew Torrez, your legal expert and Andrew how are you doing?  And I just remembered we all just heard a brand new intro that was so funny, I don’t even.  I was laughing the whole time and I don’t even remember what the new quotes were!

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         In this timeline I haven’t done it yet, but they were great, weren’t they? [Laughs]  

Continue reading “Transcript of OA326: When the SCIF Hit the Fan”
Posted on

OA326: When the SCIF Hit the Fan

Today’s episode tackles all your latest developments from high atop Yodel Mountain, including the national security-threatening stunt led by America’s Dumbest Congressman, Matt Gaetz, as well as the significance of Bill Taylor’s testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.

We begin with a brief overview of the “due process” argument throughout history with an eye towards how it applies to the Trump impeachment.

From there, we move to a specific application: the (false) claim by Matt Gaetz and others that the House impeachment inquiry violates Trump’s rights of due process. Along the way, we’ll learn what a SCIF is and why it was such a big deal — a criminal big deal — that Gaetz and others violated it.

Then, it’s time to dive deeply into Bill Taylor’s testimony and how that fits into the overall impeachment picture and whether Trump is guilty of bribery with respect to Ukraine. (Hint: yes.)

After all that, it’s time for another fabulous #T3BE about an inexperienced innkeeper and a cleaning company that doesn’t work on Sundays. Play along on social media, and remember to #T3BE in your answer!

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. Share out the Episode 324 super-transcript with your favorite Uncle Frank today!
  2. This is the WIRED article we referenced on the technical data regarding SCIFs, and these are the 174-page technical guidelines set forth by the DNI.
  3. Laws! Obstruction of justice is 18 U.S.C. § 1505, bribery is 18 U.S.C. § 201, and the relevant portion of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act is 2 U.S.C. § 683.

-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 OA324: Trump’s 9 Crimes and Misdemeanors

Listen to the show and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 324.  I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew.  How’re you doing, sir?

Andrew:         I am doing fantastic, Thomas!  Still on that high after our fabulous live show in Los Angeles.  How are you, man?

Thomas:         Ah, same!

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         The same.  That was so much fun!  Can’t wait for the next one wherever we do it. [Laughs]  

Continue reading “Transcript of OA324: Trump’s 9 Crimes and Misdemeanors”
Posted on

The Ten Crimes of Trump

As Outlined in the Mueller Report (A Mini Transcript of OA 324)

I am more convinced than ever that Bob Mueller thought the immediate result of his report being released would be a vote within a couple of weeks in the House to impeach the President. I believe that.

– P. Andrew Torrez

Follow Along with the Full Report Here

Continue reading “The Ten Crimes of Trump”
Posted on

OA324: Trump’s 9 Crimes and Misdemeanors

With impeachment in full swing, today’s episode reminds you that we already have more than enough evidence to impeach & remove Donald Trump from office for the nine distinct crimes documented by Robert Mueller in Vol. II of the Mueller Report.

We begin, however, with a pre-show update: the 4th Circuit has just voted to rehear the Maryland emoluments lawsuit en banc on Dec. 12, 2019.

After that, it’s time to check in on the latest Republican argument: that Democrats need to authorize an impeachment inquiry via a full floor vote in the House of Representatives. Learn why Nancy Pelosi said “Nope!” and why that might be shots fired… at the Supreme Court.

Then, it’s time for the deep dive into the nine unambiguous, inarguable crimes that we already have proof Donald Trump has already committed, thanks to Vol. II of the Mueller Report. You will get a choose-your-own-adventure guide for how to steer your disbelieving Uncle Frank through the Mueller Report and prove that Trump acted with criminally corrupt intent to obstruct justice. “The cover-up is [still] worse than the crime”… isn’t it?

After all that, it’s time for an all-new #T3BE involving a hate crime. Is the Intellectual Dark Web correct that such things are protected by “free speech?” If not, why are they wrong? Play along on social media — remember to #T3BE with your answer!

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. Here’s the latest ruling from the 4th Circuit on the emoluments litigation.
  2. Don’t forgot to follow along with this week’s episode by reading the actual Mueller Report.

-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 OA322: Blackouts, Taxes & House Rules

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Show Topics:

[Show Introduction]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 322.  I’m your host Thomas Smith, that over there is Andrew Torrez.  How you doin’, Andrew?

Andrew:         I am fantastic, Thomas!  You know, one of the things that I love the most about my recording studio, which is located in my basement, is that it is served by electricity. So apropos of nothing, how are you doing?

Continue reading “Transcript of OA322: Blackouts, Taxes & House Rules”
Posted on

OA322: Blackouts, Taxes & House Rules

Today’s episode breaks down the recent news relating to (1) legal efforts to subpoena Donald Trump’s taxes, (2) the latest kerfuffle over the standing House rules and whether the impeachment inquiry is “unconstitutional” and “illegal” (it isn’t), with a bonus (3) rant about PG&E’s blackouts — excuse me, “public safety power shutoff events” in Northern California. Phew!

We begin with a discussion surrounding PG&E’s decision to shut off power for up to five days, affecting potentially two million people. These blackouts will have a tremendous economic and social cost — and may cost lives, as well. Why are they happening? What’s the law? Can we do anything about it? Listen and find out!

Then, it’s time for a deep dive into breaking legal news this week. You may have heard that a court ordered the release of Trump’s tax returns, and then that order was immediately appealed and blocked. What does it all mean and why? We dive deeply into this issue, and on the way you’ll learn about Younger abstention, § 1983 cases, and much, much more!

After that, it’s time for a look at the latest goalpost-moving excuse by the Republicans, this time the honestly-not-very-good argument that the impeachment inquiry is “illegal” unless authorized by the entire House of Representatives. Find out why this just isn’t so.

Then, it’s time for a follow-up #T3BE to last week’s child-on-thin-ice. This time, we want to know: can her parents sue the day care? Listen and find out!

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. The “de-energization events” are authorized, at least implicitly, by Section 451 of the California Public Utilities Code, as further interpreted by recent rules. PG&E, of course, is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
  3. The anti-injunction act is 22 U.S.C. § 2283 , and you can brush up on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) while you’re at it.
  4. We discussed the OLC memos in Episode 290, and then again in Episode 300.
  5. You should definitely read Judge Marrero’s order, even though it’s been appealed to the Second Circuit.
  6. Here are the standing House Rules (check out pp. 322-323), and the 2015 CRS report referenced during the 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 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”