OA443: The (Terrible) Case Against Indicting Trump episode artwork

EPISODE · Dec 1, 2020 · 1H 7M

OA443: The (Terrible) Case Against Indicting Trump

from Opening Arguments

Friend of the show Randall Eliason wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post called "The case against indicting Trump." Both of us on the show strongly disagree with the arguments presented and humbly submit our enthusiastic rebuke of it. Before that, Andrew answers the clickbaity question of whether or not Trump made a major mistake in pardoning Flynn. As with all clickbait, the answer is no. Finally, we briefly touch on the terrible new decision out of the Amy Coney Barrett era that is our new hell. Links: Last election nail, Biden hopes to avoid divisive Trump investigations, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses Seventh Edition May 2007, REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE, 20A87 Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (11/25/2020)

NOW PLAYING

OA443: The (Terrible) Case Against Indicting Trump

0:00 1:07:57

No transcript for this episode yet

We transcribe on demand. Request one and we'll notify you when it's ready — usually under 10 minutes.

No similar episodes found.

No similar podcasts found.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long is this episode of Opening Arguments?

This episode is 1 hour and 7 minutes long.

When was this Opening Arguments episode published?

This episode was published on December 1, 2020.

What is this episode about?

Friend of the show Randall Eliason wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post called "The case against indicting Trump." Both of us on the show strongly disagree with the arguments presented and humbly submit our enthusiastic rebuke of it. Before...

Can I download this Opening Arguments episode?

Yes, you can download this episode by clicking the download button on the episode player, or subscribe to the podcast in your preferred podcast app for automatic downloads.
URL copied to clipboard!