Well, this is it for Versus Trump, folks. Trump ain't President anymore! He doesn't even have a twitter account. What a way to end.Charlie and Jason bring back Easha to discuss the short and long term impact of January insurrection. They then reflect on the big picture. After all, we've been podcasting about legal cases involving Trump for almost four years. What in the world happened?To all who listened each week or every once in a while: our most sincere thank you. This was a blast. We can't believe we put this into the ether and people listened! We may drop into this feed occassionally to give updates, or even try a new thing. But TTFN—ta ta for now.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. Notes See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Well, this is it for Versus Trump, folks. Trump ain't President anymore! He doesn't even have a twitter account. What a way to end.Charlie and Jason bring back Easha to discuss the short and long term impact of January insurrection. They then reflect on the big picture. After all, we've been podcasting about legal cases involving Trump for almost four years. What in the world happened?To all who listened each week or every once in a while: our most sincere thank you. This was a blast. We can't believe we put this into the ether and people listened! We may drop into this feed occassionally to give updates, or even try a new thing. But TTFN—ta ta for now.You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. Notes See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

The End...Or The Beginning?

Joshua Matz

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the madness of last week and what might happen next for impeachment, cirminal charges against Trump, and more. They are then joined by Take Care publisher Joshua Matz to discuss his views on impeachment and Trump's legal legacy.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. Notes See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the madness of last week and what might happen next for impeachment, cirminal charges against Trump, and more. They are then joined by Take Care publisher Joshua Matz to discuss his views on impeachment and Trump's legal legacy.You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. Notes See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

The Aftermath + Interview with Joshua Matz

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the vote of the Electoral College and the Supreme Court's unanimous rejection of Texas's longshot bid to overturn the result of the election. Happy holidays!You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the vote of the Electoral College and the Supreme Court's unanimous rejection of Texas's longshot bid to overturn the result of the election. Happy holidays!You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.  See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

The Electoral College Votes

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the recent Supreme Court decisions requiring states to allow in-person religious services even while other gatherings can be banned. The pair gently disagree about how hard or easy these cases are.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the recent Supreme Court decisions requiring states to allow in-person religious services even while other gatherings can be banned. The pair gently disagree about how hard or easy these cases are.You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.  See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Going To Church In Times Of COVID

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the status of Trump's legal challenges to the election (going nowhere) and the Trump Administration's dangerous and illegal refusal to designate Biden as the President-elect and therefore give his team resources for a smooth transition.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the status of Trump's legal challenges to the election (going nowhere) and the Trump Administration's dangerous and illegal refusal to designate Biden as the President-elect and therefore give his team resources for a smooth transition.You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.  See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Legal Update + The GSA Travesty

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the (frivolous) legal challenges to come. They are then joined by Public Citizen's Matthew Seligman to learn what happened with all those last-minute ballots, and what might happen in ongoing litigation in the Supreme Court. (Note that this episode was recorded before the networks officially called the race for Biden, so there's no celebration. That's coming soon!)You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the (frivolous) legal challenges to come. They are then joined by Public Citizen's Matthew Seligman to learn what happened with all those last-minute ballots, and what might happen in ongoing litigation in the Supreme Court. (Note that this episode was recorded before the networks officially called the race for Biden, so there's no celebration. That's coming soon!)You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.  See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Legal Challenges + Post Office Case

Will this be the last Versus Trump before Trump loses reelection? Who knows, but, on this week’s episode, Jason and Charlie discuss key theories that will shape which votes count. (Note that this episode was recorded before all relevant Supreme Court decisions were final.)You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Will this be the last Versus Trump before Trump loses reelection? Who knows, but, on this week’s episode, Jason and Charlie discuss key theories that will shape which votes count. (Note that this episode was recorded before all relevant Supreme Court decisions were final.)You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.  See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

The Law Headed Into The Election

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie are joined by Matthew Seligman of Public Citizen to discuss several lawsuits—including one in which he is counsel, NAACP v. USPS—where plaintiffs have challenged the cuts by the postal service that may slow down election mail. We get deeply into the administrative law that governs the post office (fun!) and talk about whether we really know what's going on there.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. Notes See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie are joined by Matthew Seligman of Public Citizen to discuss several lawsuits—including one in which he is counsel, <a href="https://www.citizen.org/litigation/naacp-v-united-states-postal-service/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">NAACP v. USPS</a>—where plaintiffs have challenged the cuts by the postal service that may slow down election mail. We get deeply into the administrative law that governs the post office (fun!) and talk about whether we really know what's going on there.You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. Notes See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Versus The Post Office

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss whether Trump can really "steal" the election, as some have started to worry about. They discuss Jason's piece here on the topic. Plus, they say goodbye to Justice Ginsburg.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss whether Trump can really "steal" the election, as some have started to worry about. They discuss Jason's piece <a href="https://takecareblog.com/blog/can-we-and-the-press-maybe-take-a-breath-on-the-whole-stolen-election-thing" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">here</a> on the topic. Plus, they say goodbye to Justice Ginsburg.You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.  See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Can Trump Steal The Election?

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss two new legal filings by the Trump DOJ that blur the line between the President as government official and the President as private citizen. In the first case, the government argues that the President's twitter feed is not an official public forum, so he can block people with whom he disagrees. In the second, the government argues that the President's denials that he sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll were made in his official capacity as President. Are these inconsistent? What do they tell us about Trump's broader conduct?You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss two new legal filings by the Trump DOJ that blur the line between the President as government official and the President as private citizen. In the first case, the government argues that the President's twitter feed is not an official public forum, so he can block people with whom he disagrees. In the second, the government argues that the President's denials that he sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll were made in his official capacity as President. Are these inconsistent? What do they tell us about Trump's broader conduct?You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.  See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Blurring Public and Private Conduct

On Versus Trump, we discuss how the Trump Administration is breaking the law, and what people are doing about it. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

I enjoy the detailed discussion about the current issues of the day. Intelligent and illuminating.

Interesting

Legal smarts and humor

On Versus Trump, we discuss how the Trump Administration is breaking the law, and what people are doing about it. See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Versus Trump

James Williams

In our interview this week [available separately as Episode 5.1], Jason discuss sanctuary cities with James Williams. James is the County Counsel of Santa Clara County in California, which has sued the Administration on the grounds that an executive order that purports to withhold funding from "sanctuary cities" is unconstitutional. James and Jason discuss the recent ruling in which a federal court agreed with his arguments and has temporarily barred the Trump Administration from enforcing the executive order. We also discuss the definition of a sanctuary city, how much money the executive order would withhold, and why the Department of Justice's litigation strategy does not match up with the President's own statements about the case.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In our interview this week [available separately as Episode 5.1], Jason discuss sanctuary cities with James Williams. James is the County Counsel of Santa Clara County in California, which has sued the Administration on the grounds that an executive order that purports to withhold funding from "sanctuary cities" is unconstitutional. James and Jason discuss the recent ruling in which a federal court agreed with his arguments and has temporarily barred the Trump Administration from enforcing the executive order. We also discuss the definition of a sanctuary city, how much money the executive order would withhold, and why the Department of Justice's litigation strategy does not match up with the President's own statements about the case.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Episode 5.1: Interview with James Williams

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie really talk impeachment. They answer two questions that have been debated in the media. First, does the full House need to vote to formally start impeachment proceedings? Second, does the President have a right, at this point in the investigation, to have his lawyers in the room to cross-examine witnesses or present opposing views? Listen for the answers!You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesThe New York Times helpfully checks five of the President's claims about impeachment here. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie really talk impeachment. They answer two questions that have been debated in the media. First, does the full House need to vote to formally start impeachment proceedings? Second, does the President have a right, at this point in the investigation, to have his lawyers in the room to cross-examine witnesses or present opposing views? Listen for the answers!You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. Notes<ul><li>The New York Times helpfully checks five of the President's claims about impeachment <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/politics/fact-check-impeachment.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li></ul> See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

A Real Impeachment Episode

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie ask the question that so many of us ask frequently: how bad is the Trump Administration? Is it better or worse than we should have expected back on election night in 2016? Jason starts the episode by laying out the questions for discussion: from the perspective of one who tends to lean Democratic, how bad is the Trump Administration? Is Trump better or worse than a generic Republican president would have been? And what role have the Versus Trump cases played here?Jason and Charlie seem to agree that lawsuits against the Trump Administration have managed to block a remarkable amount of policy, in part because members of this Administration make unusually provactive public statements and are relatively inattentive to policy and administrative law. Jason thinks progressives should take comfort in the relative stability of American domestic policy and the strength of American institutions, and realize that Trump's outrageous statements and personality are mostly bluster without a meaningful effect on people's lives. Charlie finds the harm done by Trump's racist attitudes, personal conflicts, and rampant lying to be potentially very grave, though admittedly hard to weigh against the more objective measures Jason prefers to focus on.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie ask the question that so many of us ask frequently: how bad is the Trump Administration? Is it better or worse than we should have expected back on election night in 2016? Jason starts the episode by laying out the questions for discussion: from the perspective of one who tends to lean Democratic, how bad is the Trump Administration? Is Trump better or worse than a generic Republican president would have been? And what role have the Versus Trump cases played here?Jason and Charlie seem to agree that lawsuits against the Trump Administration have managed to block a remarkable amount of policy, in part because members of this Administration make unusually provactive public statements and are relatively inattentive to policy and administrative law. Jason thinks progressives should take comfort in the relative stability of American domestic policy and the strength of American institutions, and realize that Trump's outrageous statements and personality are mostly bluster without a meaningful effect on people's lives. Charlie finds the harm done by Trump's racist attitudes, personal conflicts, and rampant lying to be potentially very grave, though admittedly hard to weigh against the more objective measures Jason prefers to focus on.You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.  See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

How Bad Is It?

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss the New York Attorney General's petition to dissolve the Trump Foundation and ban President Trump and his children from serving as directors of charities in the future. They then do some a hit on the new Mueller indictment. Jason starts the discussion by explaning Trump's non-profit Foundation, the role of states in regulating non-profits, and the rock-solid evidence produced by the New York Attorney General that, for many years up to and including the presidential campaign in 2016, President Trump misused charitable funds and violated a litany of other laws that are supposed to ensure that non-profits actually benefit the public interest in some way. Jason and Charlie discuss their favorite allegations, including that the President let campaign staffers direct charitable funds to benefit the campaign and that he fraudulently used Trump Foundation money to pay off a debt owed by one of his golf courses. They then discuss the bigger issues presented by this case, like whether the lawsuit can go forward against a sitting president and whether this kind of pre-Presidential conduct should matter politically. Charlie then discusses the latest Mueller indictment.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesThe petition in this case is here.A Bloomberg report describing the first court hearing in this case is here.At Just Security, Katherine Cheasty Kornman discusses the federalism considerations in the case.A Slate article on the case is here. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss the New York Attorney General's petition to dissolve the Trump Foundation and ban President Trump and his children from serving as directors of charities in the future. They then do some a hit on the new Mueller indictment. Jason starts the discussion by explaning Trump's non-profit Foundation, the role of states in regulating non-profits, and the rock-solid evidence produced by the New York Attorney General that, for many years up to and including the presidential campaign in 2016, President Trump misused charitable funds and violated a litany of other laws that are supposed to ensure that non-profits actually benefit the public interest in some way. Jason and Charlie discuss their favorite allegations, including that the President let campaign staffers direct charitable funds to benefit the campaign and that he fraudulently used Trump Foundation money to pay off a debt owed by one of his golf courses. They then discuss the bigger issues presented by this case, like whether the lawsuit can go forward against a sitting president and whether this kind of pre-Presidential conduct should matter politically. Charlie then discusses the latest Mueller indictment.You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. Notes<ul><li>The petition in this case is <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court_stamped_petition.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li><li>A Bloomberg report describing the first court hearing in this case is <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-26/trump-foundation-urged-by-judge-to-settle-suit-on-dissolution" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li><li>At Just Security, Katherine Cheasty Kornman <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/59012/lawsuit-trumps-foundation/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">discusses</a> the federalism considerations in the case.</li><li>A Slate article on the case is <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/ny-ag-trump-foundation-lawsuit-explained.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li></ul> See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Versus The Trump Foundation

Richard Primus

This week on Versus Trump, the Take Care podcast, we start off with discussion of a lawsuit against Donald Trump  for allegedly inciting violence at a campaign rally in Kentucky [1:30-28:00]. We debate whether the First Amendment protects what Trump said, and we talk about what might happen with the case going forward.Next, Easha talks about the concept of unconstitutional animus with Professor Richard Primus of the University of Michigan Law School [28:12-56:25]. Easha and Richard discuss what animus is, the source of the constitutional prohibition against it, and what that prohibition means for the litigation against President Trump’s Muslim travel ban.We close with a quick segment that we’re tentatively calling “Trump Nuggets” [56:30-end]. Suggestions for a better name are welcome.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week on Versus Trump, the Take Care podcast, we start off with discussion of a lawsuit against Donald Trump for allegedly inciting violence at a campaign rally in Kentucky [1:30-28:00]. We debate whether the First Amendment protects what Trump said, and we talk about what might happen with the case going forward.Next, Easha talks about the concept of unconstitutional animus with Professor Richard Primus of the University of Michigan Law School [28:12-56:25]. Easha and Richard discuss what animus is, the source of the constitutional prohibition against it, and what that prohibition means for the litigation against President Trump’s Muslim travel ban.We close with a quick segment that we’re tentatively calling “Trump Nuggets” [56:30-end]. Suggestions for a better name are welcome.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

"Get Em Out!" + Richard Primus

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie dive deep into two impeachment-related questions. First, what is the formal role of the Senate in an impeachment trial, and what power does the Chief Justice have? (Hint: Senators have all the power; the Chief Justice has basically none.) Second, what did the House say in its impeachment report about why it chose not to go to court or otherwise force recalcitrant Administration officials to testify—and does it make sense? You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesA terrific analysis of the Chief Justice's role in an impeachment trial is here, by Jane Chong at The Atlantic.The House's impeachment report is here.We also relied on Chapter 4 of To End a Presidency, by Matz and Tribe. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie dive deep into two impeachment-related questions. First, what is the formal role of the Senate in an impeachment trial, and what power does the Chief Justice have? (Hint: Senators have all the power; the Chief Justice has basically none.) Second, what did the House say in its impeachment report about why it chose not to go to court or otherwise force recalcitrant Administration officials to testify—and does it make sense? You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. Notes<ul><li>A terrific analysis of the Chief Justice's role in an impeachment trial is <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/john-roberts-senate-trial/603724/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>, by Jane Chong at The Atlantic.</li><li>The House's impeachment report is <a href="https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li><li>We also relied on Chapter 4 of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/End-Presidency-Power-Impeachment-ebook/dp/B075CSX4WP" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">To End a Presidency</a>, by Matz and Tribe.</li></ul> See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

The Senate As Impeachment Court

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie begin their run of shows with Easha on leave and discuss a fascinating new lawsuit contending that the Trump Administration is unconstitutionally "sabotaging" the Affordable Care Act as a whole. Jason starts the discussion by explaining the case of City of Columbus v. Trump, which was brought by several cities and individuals who contend that the Aministration's actions over the last several years amount to an unconstitutional sabotage of a law the President is required to execute faithfully. As Jason explains, the suit has two claims: one a traditional claim that the Administration is acting arbitrarily, and the second a unique claim that the President is violating the "Take Care" Clause of the Constitution (blog synergy alert!). They then get into a lengthy discussion about the meaning of the Clause, whether such a suit could be viable, and whether the allegations here make out a potential violation. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesA non-profit organization called Democracy Forward is behind this case. Their case page is here. The Complaint is here.Jason mentioned an article called The Protean Take Care Clause, by Harvard Law Professors John Manning and Jack Goldsmith. That article is here.Law Professors Abbe Gluck and Nick Bagley had an op-ed in the New York Times contending that Trump's "sabotage" of the Act is illegal. It's here.Charlie insisted that we link to the video for the Beastie Boys song "Sabotage." It's here. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie begin their run of shows with Easha on leave and discuss a fascinating new lawsuit contending that the Trump Administration is unconstitutionally "sabotaging" the Affordable Care Act as a whole. Jason starts the discussion by explaining the case of City of Columbus v. Trump, which was brought by several cities and individuals who contend that the Aministration's actions over the last several years amount to an unconstitutional sabotage of a law the President is required to execute faithfully. As Jason explains, the suit has two claims: one a traditional claim that the Administration is acting arbitrarily, and the second a unique claim that the President is violating the "Take Care" Clause of the Constitution (blog synergy alert!). They then get into a lengthy discussion about the meaning of the Clause, whether such a suit could be viable, and whether the allegations here make out a potential violation. You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. Notes<ul><li>A non-profit organization called Democracy Forward is behind this case. Their case page is <a href="https://democracyforward.org/work/trump-sabotage-aca/#.W3THT5NKhQI" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. The Complaint is <a href="https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ACA-Sabotage-Complaint.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li><li>Jason mentioned an article called The Protean Take Care Clause, by Harvard Law Professors John Manning and Jack Goldsmith. That article is <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2852106" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li><li>Law Professors Abbe Gluck and Nick Bagley had an op-ed in the New York Times contending that Trump's "sabotage" of the Act is illegal. It's <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/opinion/trump-obamacare-illegal.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li><li>Charlie insisted that we link to the video for the Beastie Boys song "Sabotage." It's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5rRZdiu1UE" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li></ul> See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

SABOTAGE!!

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie dive into the merits of a lawsuit brought by Twitter users who have been blocked by @realDonaldTrump. They claim the President's blocking violates the First Amendment. The episode begins with an explanation of the case, including what the plaintiffs said on Twitter to get themselves blocked, what the effects of the President's Twitter block are, and the general rules of the road under the First Amendment. We then [at 16:00] dive into a deep debate about whether the President's tweets and actions using the @realDonaldTrump account is definitely government action, or whether he might be doing this tweeting and blocking in his personal capacity. It gets feisty! After that, we move on [at 35:00] to the constitutional effects of the block itself.The episode concludes [at 46:00] with a couple of Trump nuggets.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie dive into the merits of a lawsuit brought by Twitter users who have been blocked by @realDonaldTrump. They claim the President's blocking violates the First Amendment. The episode begins with an explanation of the case, including what the plaintiffs said on Twitter to get themselves blocked, what the effects of the President's Twitter block are, and the general rules of the road under the First Amendment. We then [at 16:00] dive into a deep debate about whether the President's tweets and actions using the @realDonaldTrump account is definitely government action, or whether he might be doing this tweeting and blocking in his personal capacity. It gets feisty! After that, we move on [at 35:00] to the constitutional effects of the block itself.The episode concludes [at 46:00] with a couple of Trump nuggets.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

[This Episode Blocked]

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason talks about the past, present, and future of impeachment with Joshua Matz. Joshua is the publisher of Take Care and the co-author, with Laurence Tribe, of the acclaimed new book To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment. Jason and Joshua start the discussion with the history of impeachment, and Joshua explains why the Framers permitted impeaching the President in the first place. They then discuss what impeachable offenses are, and Joshua explains why he thinks that impeachable offenses have three characteristics: they subvert the tenets of government; they were intentional, evil deeds; and they are plainly wrong by any reasonable standard. He then applies the standards to the present moment, and Joshua explains what Congress might consider as more evidence comes out about Trump's potential violation of the Emoluments Clauses, his potential involvement in a scheme of foreign influence in our election, and his potential obstruction of justice. Finally, Joshua closes with some big picture thoughts about the proper role of Congress and the people in any impeachment discussion.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesTake Care's impeachment database is here.You can buy the book here. It's quite good, and appropriate for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.Take Care's symposium on the book is here. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason talks about the past, present, and future of impeachment with Joshua Matz. Joshua is the publisher of Take Care and the co-author, with Laurence Tribe, of the acclaimed new book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/End-Presidency-Power-Impeachment-ebook/dp/B075CSX4WP" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment</a>. Jason and Joshua start the discussion with the history of impeachment, and Joshua explains why the Framers permitted impeaching the President in the first place. They then discuss what impeachable offenses are, and Joshua explains why he thinks that impeachable offenses have three characteristics: they subvert the tenets of government; they were intentional, evil deeds; and they are plainly wrong by any reasonable standard. He then applies the standards to the present moment, and Joshua explains what Congress might consider as more evidence comes out about Trump's potential violation of the Emoluments Clauses, his potential involvement in a scheme of foreign influence in our election, and his potential obstruction of justice. Finally, Joshua closes with some big picture thoughts about the proper role of Congress and the people in any impeachment discussion.You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. Notes<ul><li>Take Care's impeachment database is <a href="https://takecareblog.com/blog/impeaching-trump-a-database-of-arguments-and-analyses" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li><li>You can buy the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/End-Presidency-Power-Impeachment-ebook/dp/B075CSX4WP" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. It's quite good, and appropriate for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.</li><li>Take Care's symposium on the book is <a href="https://takecareblog.com/blog/to-end-a-presidency" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li></ul> See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

To End a Presidency? (Interview with Joshua Matz)

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie has an interview with antitrust expert Lina Khan, Director of Legal Policy of the Open Markets Institute, about the lawsuit filed by the Trump Administration to block the proposed AT&amp;T/Time Warner merger. Charlie and Lina first discuss the background of antitrust law and the mechanics of how the Department of Justice reviews mergers for antitrust concerns. Lina then explains the difference between vertical and horizontal mergers and explains why vertical mergers like the one here are typically not a major antitrust concern. They then get into the nitty gritty of this deal and discuss why the communications sector is unique, why this deal may be problematic, and whether this lawsuit may have been motivated by the President's expressed animus toward CNN, which is owned by Time Warner. They end with a discussion of whether it's valid to oppose the Administration's actions on the grounds that DOJ is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie has an interview with antitrust expert Lina Khan, Director of Legal Policy of the Open Markets Institute, about the lawsuit filed by the Trump Administration to block the proposed AT&amp;T/Time Warner merger. Charlie and Lina first discuss the background of antitrust law and the mechanics of how the Department of Justice reviews mergers for antitrust concerns. Lina then explains the difference between vertical and horizontal mergers and explains why vertical mergers like the one here are typically not a major antitrust concern. They then get into the nitty gritty of this deal and discuss why the communications sector is unique, why this deal may be problematic, and whether this lawsuit may have been motivated by the President's expressed animus toward CNN, which is owned by Time Warner. They end with a discussion of whether it's valid to oppose the Administration's actions on the grounds that DOJ is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Trump The Trustbuster (Interview with Lina Khan)

After two special interview episodes of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie get back to the usual format and talk about the leaked Dowd memo arguing that President should not be required to sit for an interview with the Special Counsel.Jason and Charlie start the discussion with a summary of the Dowd memo, which was written in January by the President's lawyer and explains why the President need not sit for an interview with the Special Counsel. Jason and Charlie discuss a legal error in the definition of obstruction of justice and the merits of the various theories for why the President cannot obstruct justice anyway. Then they discuss the intended audience for this letter, and why that matters. They end with a few Trump nuggets updating various cases.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesThe annotated Dowd memo is here, at the New York Times. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

After two special interview episodes of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie get back to the usual format and talk about the leaked Dowd memo arguing that President should not be required to sit for an interview with the Special Counsel.Jason and Charlie start the discussion with a summary of the Dowd memo, which was written in January by the President's lawyer and explains why the President need not sit for an interview with the Special Counsel. Jason and Charlie discuss a legal error in the definition of obstruction of justice and the merits of the various theories for why the President cannot obstruct justice anyway. Then they discuss the intended audience for this letter, and why that matters. They end with a few Trump nuggets updating various cases.You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. Notes<ul><li>The annotated Dowd memo is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/02/us/politics/trump-legal-documents.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>, at the New York Times.</li></ul> See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Versus Mueller

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss the President's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the (so far unsuccessful) legal challenge to that pardon.The discussion begins with a quick discussion of why Arpaio was charged with criminal contempt in the first place, and how several outside organizations are trying to contest the validity of the pardon by asking the district court not to dismiss the case against Arpaio. Easha then [at 6:00] gives us an overview of the law regarding the scope of the President's power to pardon those individuals charged or convicted with federal crimes, and Charlie explains [at 10:00] what contempt is and why it may be a special kind of federal crime outside the president's pardon power. Jason, however, doesn't buy it, and a debate ensues. The discussion then turns [at 25:00] to other theories for why the pardon may not have been lawful, and there proves to be more agreement there. Finally, the group turns [at 36:00] to what's next in the case, including a potential appeal of the trial court's decision to give effect to the pardon and dismiss the criminal case, and whether the president can prospectively pardon his associates. The episode ends with a couple of Trump nuggets about Governor Brown's veto of a bill we discussed a few weeks ago and a brief mention of the decision on Muslim Ban 3.0.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss the President's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the (so far unsuccessful) legal challenge to that pardon.The discussion begins with a quick discussion of why Arpaio was charged with criminal contempt in the first place, and how several outside organizations are trying to contest the validity of the pardon by asking the district court not to dismiss the case against Arpaio. Easha then [at 6:00] gives us an overview of the law regarding the scope of the President's power to pardon those individuals charged or convicted with federal crimes, and Charlie explains [at 10:00] what contempt is and why it may be a special kind of federal crime outside the president's pardon power. Jason, however, doesn't buy it, and a debate ensues. The discussion then turns [at 25:00] to other theories for why the pardon may not have been lawful, and there proves to be more agreement there. Finally, the group turns [at 36:00] to what's next in the case, including a potential appeal of the trial court's decision to give effect to the pardon and dismiss the criminal case, and whether the president can prospectively pardon his associates. The episode ends with a couple of Trump nuggets about Governor Brown's veto of a bill we discussed a few weeks ago and a brief mention of the decision on Muslim Ban 3.0.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Pardon Our Tone

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha talk about a defamation lawsuit brought by Summer Zervos, a woman who alleges that she was sexually assaulted by President Trump in a hotel room in 2007. Charlie, Easha, and Jason begin by discussing the facts in the lawsuit and then [at 5:00] quickly move to the first reason that President Trump has asked the court in New York to dismiss the case: the sitting President cannot be sued in state court. That leads to some deep cuts about the relationship between federal and state power [at 13:00] and then a wonky discussion [at 26:30] of how California's so-called Anti-SLAPP statute works and why Zervos may have been trying to avoid it. They then turn [at 32:30] to the President's second argument, which is that the statements calling Zervos a liar were protected by the First Amendment because they were made in the context of a political campaign.No Trump Nuggets this week, but stay tuned for the big end-of-year recap, coming soon!Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha talk about a defamation lawsuit brought by Summer Zervos, a woman who alleges that she was sexually assaulted by President Trump in a hotel room in 2007. Charlie, Easha, and Jason begin by discussing the facts in the lawsuit and then [at 5:00] quickly move to the first reason that President Trump has asked the court in New York to dismiss the case: the sitting President cannot be sued in state court. That leads to some deep cuts about the relationship between federal and state power [at 13:00] and then a wonky discussion [at 26:30] of how California's so-called Anti-SLAPP statute works and why Zervos may have been trying to avoid it. They then turn [at 32:30] to the President's second argument, which is that the statements calling Zervos a liar were protected by the First Amendment because they were made in the context of a political <a href="http://campaign.No" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">campaign.No</a> Trump Nuggets this week, but stay tuned for the big end-of-year recap, coming soon!Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

#MeToo Versus Trump

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie sits down for a fun, casual conversation with Anne Tindall and Cameron Kistler of Protect Democracy about, well, protecting our democracy.Charlie, Anne, and Cameron cover a wide range of topics, from the role of the 17th Amendment in scheduling special elections in the U.S. Senate—we know, dear listeners, that you come for the dorky legal topics and stay for the witty banter, not the other way around—to the proper scope of disagreement in a democratic society. They also discuss some differences between this Administration and the ones that came before it. Also, Cameron is the first non-leftist we've ever had on the show. So, you know, that's fun. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesProtect Democracy's website is here. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie sits down for a fun, casual conversation with Anne Tindall and Cameron Kistler of Protect Democracy about, well, protecting our democracy.Charlie, Anne, and Cameron cover a wide range of topics, from the role of the 17th Amendment in scheduling special elections in the U.S. Senate—we know, dear listeners, that you come for the dorky legal topics and stay for the witty banter, not the other way around—to the proper scope of disagreement in a democratic society. They also discuss some differences between this Administration and the ones that came before it. Also, Cameron is the first non-leftist we've ever had on the show. So, you know, that's fun. You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. Notes<ul><li>Protect Democracy's website is <a href="https://protectdemocracy.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li></ul> See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

How Do We Protect Our Democracy?

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Charlie discuss all things FOIA—that is, the Freedom of Information Act.The episode begins with some background on the way FOIA works, including some necessary information about who can file requests for information and what government records must be turned over to inquiring citizens. Charlie and Easha then [at 7:00] give some background on two recent FOIA cases asking for information from the Trump Administration: the first requesting visitor logs at Mar-a-Lago and Trump Tower, and the second seeking correspondence between the Administration and the Ways and Means Committee of the House. They then [at 14:00] dig deeper into the merits of the visitor log case and later [at 24:50] get into a broader discussion of the Ways and Means case and FOIA's role generally.Finally, Jason pops in [at 36:00] to conclude the episode with two quick Trump nuggets.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Charlie discuss all things FOIA—that is, the Freedom of Information Act.The episode begins with some background on the way FOIA works, including some necessary information about who can file requests for information and what government records must be turned over to inquiring citizens. Charlie and Easha then [at 7:00] give some background on two recent FOIA cases asking for information from the Trump Administration: the first requesting visitor logs at Mar-a-Lago and Trump Tower, and the second seeking correspondence between the Administration and the Ways and Means Committee of the House. They then [at 14:00] dig deeper into the merits of the visitor log case and later [at 24:50] get into a broader discussion of the Ways and Means case and FOIA's role generally.Finally, Jason pops in [at 36:00] to conclude the episode with two quick Trump nuggets.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

The FOIA Spectacular!

You want updates, so we've got updates! We begin [at 1:50] with the very unusual goings-on in a case everyone thought was over: the Jane Doe litigation over access to abortion while in immigration detention, a case now called Hargan v. Garza. We then turn [at 13:00] to litigation involving the ban on military service by transgender individuals. Next up [at 21:00]: the Muslim Ban, which is now on version 3.0. After that, [at 25:00] we turn to deeper cuts, and update you on the progress of a lawsuit by the National Venture Capital Association about a rule called the "International Entrepreneur Rule," and then we update another lawsuit Trump's inciting violence at a campaign rally [at 29:00]. Finally, we have our third—and final?—edition of Sam Clovis watch [at 32:00] and end with a response to a listener question about referring to Senators in the Federal Register [at 38:00]. Phew.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

You want updates, so we've got updates! We begin [at 1:50] with the very unusual goings-on in a case everyone thought was over: the Jane Doe litigation over access to abortion while in immigration detention, a case now called Hargan v. Garza. We then turn [at 13:00] to litigation involving the ban on military service by transgender individuals. Next up [at 21:00]: the Muslim Ban, which is now on version 3.0. After that, [at 25:00] we turn to deeper cuts, and update you on the progress of a lawsuit by the National Venture Capital Association about a rule called the "International Entrepreneur Rule," and then we update another lawsuit Trump's inciting violence at a campaign rally [at 29:00]. Finally, we have our third—and final?—edition of Sam Clovis watch [at 32:00] and end with a response to a listener question about referring to Senators in the Federal Register [at 38:00]. Phew.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Updates, Y'all!

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason discuss the Trump Administration's fondness for Court-hopping: that is, taking matters directly to the Supreme Court without waiting for the usual appellate process to conclude. Jason and Easha first discuss the inside baseball of the way appeals normally work, which leads them to a discussion of cert. before judgment—that is, when the Supreme Court takes a case before it's had the normal appellate review, which usually means two levels. They then look at a few instances of the Supreme Court asking for this unusual form of review: two DACA cases and the transgender ban case. They wonder whether this new practice will have long-term impacts on the government's relationship with the Court. And then they talk about the census case, in which the Administration repeatedly asked for emergency relief from the Supreme Court—and, after not finding too much early success, got the Supreme Court to review an important issue on an expedited basis.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesThe duo mentioned a 2011 SCOTUSblog post by Kevin Russell talking about cert. before judgment. That's here.Cases mentioned in this episde include two DACA cases (here and here) and the transgender ban case (here). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason discuss the Trump Administration's fondness for Court-hopping: that is, taking matters directly to the Supreme Court without waiting for the usual appellate process to conclude. Jason and Easha first discuss the inside baseball of the way appeals normally work, which leads them to a discussion of cert. before judgment—that is, when the Supreme Court takes a case before it's had the normal appellate review, which usually means two levels. They then look at a few instances of the Supreme Court asking for this unusual form of review: two DACA cases and the transgender ban case. They wonder whether this new practice will have long-term impacts on the government's relationship with the Court. And then they talk about the census case, in which the Administration repeatedly asked for emergency relief from the Supreme Court—and, after not finding too much early success, got the Supreme Court to review an important issue on an expedited basis.You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. Notes<ul><li>The duo mentioned a 2011 SCOTUSblog post by Kevin Russell talking about cert. before judgment. That's <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/02/overview-of-supreme-court%E2%80%99s-cert-before-judgment-practice/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li><li>Cases mentioned in this episde include two DACA cases (<a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/department-homeland-security-v-regents-university-california/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/department-of-homeland-security-v-regents-of-the-university-of-california/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>) and the transgender ban case (<a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-karnoski/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>).</li></ul> See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Why All The Court-Jumping?

This week, Jason and Easha discuss a new executive order and accompanying guidance by the Trump Administration that dramatically change the rules for hiring Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) across the entire federal government. Easha starts the discussion by explaning the background of the federal bureaucracy, what role ALJs play, and why that role has changed after the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lucia v. SEC. They then discuss the Trump Administration's response to Lucia, which, taken as a whole, substantially changes the way ALJs are hired and could potentially alter the reasons they can be fired. Easha and Jason consider whether the changes—which will permit the President to have more control over administrative judges—are good or bad, and they also wonder whether these issues will ever be aired in court. They end with a few Trump nuggets updating other important cases, including the Manafort case and the census case.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesThe President's executive order is here.The DOJ guidance memo is here. Reuters first posted the memo in a story that can be found here.Jason discussed updates to the census and national monuments cases. Those updates were based on this article (census) and this one (monuments). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week, Jason and Easha discuss a new executive order and accompanying guidance by the Trump Administration that dramatically change the rules for hiring Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) across the entire federal government. Easha starts the discussion by explaning the background of the federal bureaucracy, what role ALJs play, and why that role has changed after the Supreme Court's recent decision in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Lucia v. SEC</a>. They then discuss the Trump Administration's response to Lucia, which, taken as a whole, substantially changes the way ALJs are hired and could potentially alter the reasons they can be fired. Easha and Jason consider whether the changes—which will permit the President to have more control over administrative judges—are good or bad, and they also wonder whether these issues will ever be aired in court. They end with a few Trump nuggets updating other important cases, including the Manafort case and the census case.You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. Notes<ul><li>The President's executive order is <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-excepting-administrative-law-judges-competitive-service/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li><li>The DOJ guidance memo is <a href="https://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/20180723/ALJ--SGMEMO.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. Reuters first posted the memo in a story that can be found <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-dojmemo/in-confidential-memo-to-agency-gcs-doj-signals-aggressive-stand-on-firing-aljs-idUSKBN1KD2BB" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li><li>Jason discussed updates to the census and national monuments cases. Those updates were based on <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/trump-administrations-census-cover" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this article</a> (census) and <a href="http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/399275-unredacted-interior-documents-show-zinkes-monuments-review-was-a" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this one</a> (monuments).</li></ul> See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Trump Versus ALJs?

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss the definition of "bribery" for impeachment purposes, since Nancy Pelosi claimed that's what the evidence is showing at the impeachment hearings. They talk about how Congress and citizens should think about this notoriously slippery idea.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesThe excellent Lawfare post to which we were referring is here. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss the definition of "bribery" for impeachment purposes, since Nancy Pelosi claimed that's what the evidence is showing at the impeachment hearings. They talk about how Congress and citizens should think about this notoriously slippery idea.You can find us at <a href="https://twitter.com/versustrumppod" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">@VersusTrumpPod</a> on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo <a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.com/versustrump/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. Notes<ul><li>The excellent Lawfare post to which we were referring is <a href="https://takecareblog.com/farcry/core/webtop/conjuror/(https:/www.lawfareblog.com/constitution-says-bribery-impeachable-what-does-mean" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li></ul> See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

What Is Bribery?

This week on Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss a new lawsuit by the President seeking to prevent two banks from responding to Congressional subpoenas that seek information about his business dealings. The trio discuss the unusual procedure of the lawsuit and the two arguments Trump has made for blocking the subpoenas. They end the episode with a shout out the listeners who have listened to all 100 episodes. Fun times!NotesTrump's Complaint is here. The Preliminary Injunction Motion is here.Helpful legal commentary on the case is here, at Wonkette. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week on Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss a new lawsuit by the President seeking to prevent two banks from responding to Congressional subpoenas that seek information about his business dealings. The trio discuss the unusual procedure of the lawsuit and the two arguments Trump has made for blocking the subpoenas. They end the episode with a shout out the listeners who have listened to all 100 episodes. Fun times!Notes<ul><li>Trump's Complaint is <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.514634/gov.uscourts.nysd.514634.1.0_1.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>. The Preliminary Injunction Motion is <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.514634/gov.uscourts.nysd.514634.27.0.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</li><li>Helpful legal commentary on the case is <a href="https://www.wonkette.com/these-trump-lawsuits-are-getting-batsh-ttier-by-the-day" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>, at Wonkette.</li></ul> See <a href="https://acast.com/privacy" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">acast.com/privacy</a> for privacy and opt-out information.

Trump Versus Trump's Banks

The best episodes for anyone looking to learn more about topics such as happiness, fulfillment, depression and psychology/mental health in general. With interviews with industry experts, personal stories of individuals, this topic has lessons applicable to everyone. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!

Best Episodes on Mental Health, Emotions & Thoughts

The best podcast episodes about true crime. For any thrill seeking podcast listeners who just can't get enough of the captivating stories of murderers and criminals. This topic has all the best episodes from many different true crime podcasts.  Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!