OA 716: Jim Jordan is Not Alvin Bragg's Daddy
Added 2023-03-30 06:32:40 +0000 UTCLiz and Andrew break down several developments in the ongoing effort to hold Trump accountable, including the back-and-forth between Jim Jordan's "Committee on Oversight" and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. Oh, and is Mike Pence going to testify to Jack Smith's Grand Jury? Listen and find out!
Along the way we take a deep dive into Congress's power to conduct investigations, the Tenth Amendment, how bad originalism is, and much, much more!
This is an unpaid post on Patreon.
Notes
OA 708
https://openargs.com/oa708-stormy-daniels-strikes-back/
Politico: Manhattan Trump grand jury set to break for a month
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/29/manhattan-trump-grand-jury-set-to-break-for-a-month-00089422
AMI non-prosecution agreement
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1119501/download
Jordan 3/20 Letter to Bragg
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-03-20-jdj-bs-jc-to-bragg-re-trump-investigation.pdf
Bragg Response Letter March 23, 2023
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23720988/20230323-letter-response-from-manhattan-da.pdf
Jordan Response Letter March 25
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-03-25-jdj-bs-jc-to-bragg-re-subpoena-and-response.pdf
Watkins v. US, 354 U.S. 178 (1957)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=562722361999206621
Comments
Some people never learn that when you hire PR scumbags to manage your image, they just make you look like a scumbag too.
Leigh Sharp
2024-02-23 20:08:08 +0000 UTCWow, I'm coming across this almost a year later, and I had been unaware that Torrez (or whoever wrote the above on behalf of him/OA LLC) actually went public (outside of court filings) to imply that they only blocked abusive behavior/trolls. It is appalling they implied this listener would fit in better with TruthSocial, a truly hate filled place. (NB, Torrez does not currently control this account and so he can't effectively respond) #1 is accurate as far as I can tell. #2 does not square with the 3rd party reports that the OA twitter account responded to a supermajority of critical tweets with blocks. That includes blocking abuse/trolls (laudable!) and polite/constructive pushback (bad!). There was lots of *both*, and the OA twitter account did not distinguish between the two. There were even multiple people that reported their only interaction with the OA twitter account was liking a critical tweet, yet they were blocked too. See the thread "I got blocked on Twitter. And it made me question something about myself" on the OpenArgs subreddit. Shame on Torrez for approving of that policy and of this message in specific. Utter buffoonery.
Apprentice57
2024-02-23 15:59:07 +0000 UTCTwo past episodes about The Younger Abstention Doctrine are OA322 at [00:27:30] and OA205 at [00:19:35]. Here is the transcript for OA322: https://openargs.com/transcript-of-oa322-blackouts-taxes-house-rules/
Teresa Gomez
2023-03-31 01:09:06 +0000 UTCI don’t know what you’re talking about, but I will say two things: 1) I have not blocked, deleted, or edited a single comment here on Patreon. Not this one. Not obvious trolls. Nothing. 2) The Twitter feed is managed in accordance with normal business practices. We block trolls. I don’t know what you did or even if you’re blocked, but if you are, that’s why. If you don’t like the policy of blocking abusive behavior, I’m sure you’re welcome over at Truth.Social.
Opening Arguments
2023-03-30 21:34:30 +0000 UTCWow. You've now sunk to the low of blocking your paying patrons on Twitter. Well, I can fix that, since you seem incapable of limiting your own behaviour. No longer a paying patron. Turns out those slurs about lawyers have some truth to them, huh, Andrew?
Leigh Sharp
2023-03-30 21:28:53 +0000 UTC
