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 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. Remember that this is all about Trump's bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). 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! 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!

Today's episode features a deep dive into what used to be a core Republican program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Did you know that every year, over a thousand people -- most of them with homes -- freeze to death in the U.S.? Did you know that both political parties used to want to do something about that? We begin, however, with some listener feedback from our popular recent Episode 330 in which we broke down a recent decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court regarding "pre-embryos" and in vitro fertilization (IVF). Hear from a published scientist and an IVF mom! Then, it's time for our deep dive into LIHEAP, 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq. You'll learn all about the problem of home heating in this country and what we do about it... at least for now. You'll also learn exactly how much the Trump administration would like to fund this program, which you won't be surprised to learn is $0. But that's not all! Our "C" segment features a lengthy explanation from election law expert Beth Kingsley who answers the question "Could Donald Trump just hire Vladimir Putin to work on his 2020 re-election campaign if he discloses it?" The answer is more complicated than you'd expect and just might surprise you. After all that, it's time for the answer to Friday's #T3BE 153 about the admissibility of a doctor's note in court. Will Thomas get this one right?? Listen and find out! 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 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. We discussed both the IVF decision and the election hypothetical back in Episode 330. You can read the LIHEAP law for yourself; it's 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq. The data we discussed on the episode comes from Olivia Wein's study, and the funding numbers come from this government document. This is the link to the FEC's guidance we discussed in the "C" segment. Finally, check out an actual IVF contract, thanks to Valerie Smith! -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!

There was so much to discuss, we had to record an extra episode!

Today's episode ran so long that we're going to give you a BONUS episode tomorrow. What did we get through? Well, we break down almost everything about the first day of televised public hearings in the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry. You absolutely, positively do not want to miss this! We begin, however, with a plug for 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. After that, it's time to tackle a wide variety of legal topics related to the Taylor and Kent testimony, including: (a) how their testimony fits into the elements of the crime of bribery; (b) the Republicans' evolving defenses of Donald Trump; (c) the two lawyers picked to handle the bulk of the questioning; and much, much more. Along the way, we also discuss the significance of the D.C. Circuit's en banc refusal to rehear the subpoena decision in Trump v. Mazars and what comes next, as well as the status of Mick Mulvaney's continuing efforts to defy the Congressional subpoenas. After all that, it's time for a milestone #T3BE involving hearsay and expert witness testimony. 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 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. Remember: this is about bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201. This is the transcript of Sen. Kennedy on Face the Nation. In terms of dirty tricks, here's the link to Taylor's closed-door deposition, where Castor outed the whistleblower, and here's a link to his laughing during Fiona Hill's deposition. BONUS! Here's the Politico article we rip apart in Episode 333 ("There’s a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Office") and... god help me.. the National Review article that actually gets it right. -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!

Today's episode is the final -- and dare we say it, the best -- part of our live show in Los Angeles where we were joined by the co-host of the popular podcast "Oh No Ross And Carrie" Carrie Poppy, and the show's lawyer, Matthew Strugar. Join us for a fascinating discussion as to who's threatened to sue the show and why.... And stick around for a special LIVE #T3BE! After that, we also answer last week's #T3BE about breach of contract. Can Thomas continue his improbable one-question win streak? Listen and find out! Show Notes & Links You should definitely be listening to Oh No Ross and Carrie! We last had Carrie and Matthew on our show in Episode 77.

Today's episode is everything you need to walk your open-minded Uncle Clarence -- you know, the one who watches Fox News, but not religiously, and isn't quite sure what all this impeachment nonsense is about -- through the key buzzwords of the week. And, as a bonus, we discuss an important decision regarding in vitro fertilization in Connecticut. We begin, however, with the Explainer. How is this process different from (and more fair than) the Clinton impeachment? What is an impeachment "inquiry?" And why -- oh god, why?!? -- is everyone so focused on quid pro quo? You'll find out the answers to all these questions and much, much more. After that, it's time to examine Bilbao v. Goodwin, which delves into the tricky question of what happens to a couple's frozen pre-embryos after they break up? This case has been making the rounds in both pro-life and pro-choice circles -- we'll tell you exactly what it stands for and what comes next. Then, of course, it's time for an all-new #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a breach-of-contract question. Can he keep his winning streak going? 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 For the full breakdown of the House Impeachment Inquiry resolution, H.R. 660, check out our discussion in Episode 328. And you can click here to read Bilbao v. Godwin. -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!

Today's show is something we absolutely love to do, which is listener questions! Our listeners pose some truly intelligent, well thought-out, and deep-dive worthy questions. Today's episode features two such deep dives inspired by our listeners. The first is regarding DC v Heller, and whether it applies to gun ownership or gun sales, or both. The second question is a chance for Andrew to talk about jury duty, and what makes a good juror. Classic OA Tuesday deep dives!

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 Click here to read H.R. 660, and here for the companion change to the rules. Here's the Democratic summary of those changes. 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!

It's an all American episode, complete with 3 dives! First we have a 9th Circuit ruling on Domino's Pizza to discuss, related to accessibility concerns with their app. Then, you know those horrible, unfunny, obnoxious Bud commercials with the knights and the king and all that? Turns out in addition to being terrible, they may also be potentially tortious! They made some very specific claims about MillerCoors beers using corn syrup in their beer they have gotten them into legal trouble. And finally, we round out this all-American ep with guns - a breakdown of the Dickey Amendment.

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 Share out the Episode 324 super-transcript with your favorite Uncle Frank today! 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. 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!