Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram Live Sex ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

OA447: OA vs. Randall Eliason on Indicting Trump (Patreon)

Published:
2020-12-14 02:50:01
Imported:
2022-10

Downloads

Content

Recently, friend of the show Randall Eliason published an opinion piece for the Washington Post that got a ton of pushback. We voiced our strong disagreement to it on OA443: The (Terrible) Case Against Indicting Trump. We're very pleased to have Randall on the show to have a lively debate on the topic! We went so long that there is a part 2 airing next week! Make sure to become a patron and gain access to part 2 very early!

Appearances

Andrew did QnA on my new game channel, check it out here!

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!

-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!

Files

Comments

eeyoredragon

Same with the “this is infuriating to listen to”. It started ok with “We don’t criminally prosecute people as a method of fact finding”. But man did it go downhill from there. He complains about you using Nixon as a precedent, but *he’s* the one doing that. That’s his primary argument ffs. Accompanied with “because it healed the nation” which... stop “casting doubt” on that. F that. That’s a claim. He backs that claim up, or he throws it out. And without that... what was there again of substance? “Compared to what?” Prof is putting up his imaginary outcome of the nation being more divided had Nixon been prosecuted against your imaginary outcome of the nation being more healed. Except it doesn’t sound like he gets that this line of argument is a wash at best for him. And no one cares what “conservatives might do” if Trump is held to account. Newsflash: there’s no “might”. They’re already doing it. They’re planning kidnappings. They’re traveling across state lines with guns with the intent to shoot people. We better appease them before they... what? Come up with a competent plan that works? We’re still arguing about the gdamn confederacy lol. I can’t believe this man is serious...

William Jackson

I am SCREAMING BRING UP THE FACT THAT THE IMPEACHMENT FAILED DUE TO SENATE BEING FUCKING BEHOLDEN TO TRUMP

William Jackson
>>49604340

So listening through I now understand that the impeachment talk was on the very narrow grounds of the lack of impeachment from the obstruction in the Mueller report... I have a few issues with this. 1) I believe that the well was poisoned such that any action on the mueller report would’ve been absolutely torn apart even worse than the Ukraine Bribery Impeachment. 2) The obstruction crimes as Robert Mueller said himself can be prosecuted once Trump leaves office (exact statute of limitations means it may vary a bit.) 3) the narrowness of Randall’s scope in defending his position of not prosecuting just seems to me he is not considering the full picture. Obviously Randall has forgotten more than I will ever know about the law and prosecuting criminal wrongdoing so taking this with a grain of salt I feel like his prosecutorial posture is very cautious which is good almost like an anti Ken Starr. Which if I’m being honest we need someone with gusto to spearhead the prosecution against Trump.