OA319: Your Guide To Impeachment!
Added 2019-09-27 18:32:23 +0000 UTCToday'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:
- Exactly why President Trump's conduct towards Ukraine in particular is so reprehensible;
- Why beginning an "impeachment inquiry" matters;
- What the Nixon articles of impeachment looked like;
- The Clinton impeachment timeline;
- 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
- Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!!
- 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.
- Politico first reported the OMB hold on aid to Ukraine on August 28, nearly a month ago.
- An ongoing proceeding makes it easier to prove obstruction of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
- Click here to read the Nixon articles of impeachment, and (show-note only bonus!) here to read the vote breakdown.
- 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).
- 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!
Comments
You're right on Gore but wrong on McConnell, and I'll tackle both on Friday :)
Opening Arguments
2019-10-02 17:49:41 +0000 UTCAnother correction (I think I’ve got the right episode here. This is for the Tuesday episode that was released early. You’re putting them out so fast it gets confusing.) Andrew said that Al Gore voted to break a tie during the Clinton impeachment. That’s not the case. One of the charges was 50-50, which would normally require a tie-breaking vote, but since a 2/3 majority is needed to convict, that’s not a tie in an impeachment case. Besides, the vice-president doesn’t preside over the senate during an impeachment of the president. Andrew also said, regarding an appeal to the chair, that Mitch McConnell is the chair. That’s not so. He’s the majority leader, not the chair or presiding officer. The chair is the president of the Senate (Pence), or whoever is presiding over that session. (The senators take it in turns to sit in the chair and preside, so it could be any senator, even a Democrat.) But in an impeachment of the president, the chief justice presides over the senate. So, any appeal to the chair during a presidential impeachment would be to override a decision by Chief Justice Roberts. Still, a great episode. A minor brain-fart like this in the midst of the marathon sessions you’ve been putting out is hardly an impeachable offense.
Wordorigins.org
2019-09-28 21:16:39 +0000 UTC[I think I posted this for the wrong episode. You're putting them out so fast.] Not quite a correction. Andrew somewhat misstated what “codeword clearance” is. It’s not a code word used to unlock content, at least not literally. There are two elements in determining whether or not someone should have access to classified information: clearance and need to know. Clearance is what most people are familiar with. That’s the three levels: confidential, secret, and top secret. To have a security clearance means that you have passed the background checks for that level and been deemed trustworthy. But that’s not enough. You also need to have a requirement for that information. Normally, the need-to-know requirement is determined by the individual possessing the classified information. If that individual determines you need to know it, they can give it to you, providing you have the appropriate clearance. (Some information is ORCON or “originator controlled,” which means only the agency that originally classified it can determine if you have a need to know. But that’s relatively rare.) But for the most sensitive of information, the access is compartmentalized and determination of need to know is centralized. You need pre-approval, to be “read into the program,” in order to access the information. Such information is labeled with a code word to designate this. For instance, access to satellite imagery was (still is?) given the code word Special Intelligence/Talent Keyhole or “SI/TK.” If you had “Top Secret SI/TK” clearance, then you could see it. If you just had a generic “Top Secret” clearance, you couldn’t. Another was “CNWDI” or Critical Nuclear Weapon Design Information. It’s very likely that a person with a need to see SI/TK info would not have any need to see CNWDI info. A computer system designed to house codeword information would have a record of who is allowed to access what information and when a person logs in would only show the information they were privy to. So codeword information is the most sensitive information, where the government wants to maintain tight control over who has access to it. And codeword information doesn’t need to be part of larger report. Each paragraph of a classified document is marked with the level of clearance and codeword (if applicable) required to view it. The entire document is marked with the highest level and all the codewords it contains. It’s common to have unclassified paragraphs, marked with a “(U)”, mixed in with top secret, “(TS)”, paragraphs. If there are codeword paragraphs in a document, someone without that particular codeword clearance can’t read the document unless the codeword paragraphs are redacted.
Wordorigins.org
2019-09-27 21:30:36 +0000 UTC
