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.
php/* */ ?>
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.
On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss do a near-live episode about Stormy Daniels' lawsuit against David Dennison—we mean, Donald Trump.
They start the episode by summarizing Daniels' unusual lawsuit, which asks a court to invalidate a non-disclosure agreement that she signed in October of 2016 that is supposed to prevent her from talking about an alleged affair between her and Trump. Daniels claims that the agreement is invalid, both because it was never signed by President Trump and because it was unconscionable; Charlie, Easha, and Jason discuss both arguments. They also discuss the provision that requires disputes about the contract to be heard by an arbitrator, not a judge; the agreement's implications for campaign finance law; whether President Trump could prevent CBS from airing an interview it has supposedly taped with Daniels; and whether Trump's lawyer could be subject to discipline for his conduct.
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.
Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss a recent district court opinion that rejected California's challenge to the Trump Administration's expedited border wall projects in California.
They start the episode by discussing the boringly-named but legally-interesting opinion in In Re: Border Infrastructure Environmental Litigation. As they explain, the plaintiffs in this case are California and several environmental groups, and all have challenged the Trump Administration's waiver of state and federal environmental laws in order to allow the federal government to build new border fencing in Southern California. After recapping the case, they mention the politics in the background, including the unique fact that the judge who ruled in favor of the Trump Administration—Judge Gonzalo Curiel—was previously demeaned by Trump during the campaign. The trio then grapple with the argument that Secretary of Homeland Security acted without any legal authority at all and move on to several constitutional challenges that the plaintiffs lost on. Easha also brings up an argument not made in the case: that the Secretary's actions were motivated by anti-Mexican animus. The episode ends with a few Trump nuggets.
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie check back in with the most politically charged of all Versus Trump suits: the Russia investigation.
They start the episode with some commentary on the case of Alex Van Der Zwaan, the former Skadden Arps associate who pleaded guilty to a charge of lying to the FBI. That leads to a discussion of conspiracy liability, why the charges are being brought in the way they have been, and how strange it is to charge a law firm associate with lying to the FBI. Next, the trio turn to Rick Gates's guilty plea and speculate on what it means for Paul Manafort. They end the episode with three Trump nuggets: an update on DACA, plus two responses to listener feedback: one on the power of the House to declassify information and another related to the use of firearms in suicides.
You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. And 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 a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss what's going on in courts related to gun regulation. They start the episode by describing Giffords Law Center v. ATF and related cases, which are Freedom of Information Act suits requesting records of DOJ and ATF that might reveal how coordinated the Trump Administration has been with the NRA and other pro-gun interests. They then wonder whether the suits might really move the needle of our policy discussions. The episode then turns to other kinds of gun-related litigation, including Heller and other cases over the right to bear arms. Finally, Charlie, Jason, and Easha answer a listener question about the ability of the House to declassify information on its own.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 a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason discuss a new lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration's approval of Kentucky's new rules for its Medicaid program. The new rules will require some Medicaid recipients to work 20 hours per week to receive health benefits, and they also impose other novel requirements. Jason and Easha start with the basics: What is Medicaid, how do the states and the federal government interact, and what do states need to receive approval to deviate from the federal rules regarding Medicaid eligibility? That leads them directly to the key section of the Medicaid law, called Section 1115, which permits the federal government to approve any “experimental, pilot, or demonstration project” that is “likely to assist in promoting the objectives” of the Medicaid program. The two then break down—and disagree about—whether Kentucky's new program, which adds work requirements and other novel features to its state Medicaid program, fits into that definition. The episode with ends a pair of Trump nuggets.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. And you can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo online at takecareblog.com/podcast
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On the latest episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Easha talk all things Russia investigation (or tangentially Russia investigation)—the Nunes #meh-mo, the fallout therefrom, and whether Trump will be interviewed by the Special Counsel.Charlie and Easha start with the basics: What is FISA, and how did the Department of Justice get a warrant to listen in on Carter Page's communications? They go through the flaws in the Nunes memo, but they conclude that even if the Nunes memo had been 100% accurate, the warrant probably wasn't deficient, given prevailing legal standards. They speculate about whether the New York Times will be successful in obtaining the FISA court's Page opinion, and they close with a resounding agreement that Trump's lawyers are kidding themselves if they think they can evade a subpoena from Mueller.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 a new episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss an unexpected recent opinion that held that Ravi Ragbir, an immigration activist and alien subject to deportation, had the "freedom to say goodbye" before he could be removed from this country. Charlie and Jason begin by discussing Ragbir's background and the nature of his immigration case, and they focus on the events of January 11, 2018, when Ragbir was taken into custody and put on a plane to be removed from the country with no specific advance warning. They then discuss the recent, surprising decision in Ragbir's lawsuit against the Trump Administration that held that he could not be deported and had to be released from custody because he has the "freedom to say goodbye" and get his affairs in order before the government can deport him. They discuss several possible theories that would provide legal support for this somewhat novel right, and disagree somewhat on the merits on the opinion. In their combined Trump nugget, they recommend Slate's excellent podcast about Watergate, Slow Burn.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. And 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 a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason discuss several lawsuits filed over President Trump's recent Proclamation that substantially cuts the size of two National Monuments: Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante, both in Utah. They begin the discussion by discussing what national monuments are, how they can be designated under the Anitiquities Act of 1906, and how the President decided to shrink the boundaries of these two national monuments. They discuss the argument in several recent lawsuits that the Antiquities Act permits a President to declare new land to be a national monument but does not permit the President to unilaterally remove that land from its proected status—and their respective positions on the merits of the suit may be somewhat surprising to regular listeners. They then update the status of the lawsuits and note that the government has moved to transfer all of these cases to a federal court in Utah. The episode ends with Trump nuggets about the volume of public opinions from the OLC and some new info about the now-disbanded voter fraud commission.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. And you can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo at takecareblog.com/podcast.
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss the big decision that forced the Trump Administration to restart the DACA immigration program. They begin the discussion by summarizing the lawsuit over the revocation of DACA. They then to turn four buckets of issues in the district court's two opinions. For buckets one and two, they discuss whether DACA is a decision that is "committed to agency discretion" or whether it's a broad policy, and then they delve into the Administration's argument that it had to revoke DACA because the Obama Administration's creation of the program was illegal. They then [at 35:00] move on to buckets three and four and talk about whether this revocation was motivated by discrimination and whether DACA recipients should be able to argue that the government cannot revoke the program because they've already relied on it.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. And you can now buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo via our webstore! Check out takecareblog.com/podcast for more info.
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On a new episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Easha, and Charlie tackle an unexpected new lawsuit against the Trump Administration by, of all people, former campaign chair Paul Manafort. And they discuss the President's threats to sue the publisher of Fire and Fury for defamation. They begin the discussion by summarizing the Manafort v. DOJ lawsuit. While everyone agrees it's an unusual and likely meritless lawsuit, Jason wonders why more people aren't a little bit more sympathetic to a novel attempt to check the power of federal prosecutors. That leads into a discussion—somehow—of the nature of sanctionable legal filings, and whether or not lawyers can be sanctioned for asserting legal claims on behalf of non-human animals (it's a fun issue!). Next, they move on to a discussion of a letter sent on behalf of the President that threatened a defamation lawsuit against the publisher of the controversial book Fire and Fury—and Charlie again finds something potentially sanctionable. Finally, the group has a few Trump nuggets.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.