On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason has a solo episode where he talks about a motion by Maryland contending that Matthew Whitaker was not legally appointed as Acting Attorney General. 

Because of work and vacations, Jason is flying solo this week. He soldiers on by giving his thoughts about the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as Acting AG and the new motion by Maryland contending the appointment is illegal. (After the episode taped, the government released a legal opinion on Whitaker's appointment. That's here.)

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• Maryland's Motion in Maryland v. US is here. The government's legal opinion on Whitaker's appointment, which was released after the episode was taped, is here.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk about a new lawsuit alleging that Trump and his children were part of a racketeering enterprise that engaged in fraud in connection with their supposed endorsement of a multi-level marketing operation. (Disclosure: Joshua Matz, the publisher of Take Care, is among the counsel to the Plaintiffs in this suit. We chose this topic without consulting Joshua, and the hosts had no involvement in the lawsuit.) 

They start the conversation by discussing the background of the claims in the well-researched new lawsuit. The suit runs to 160 pages of detailed allegations that the Trump family claimed endorse the multi-level marketing operation run by a company called ACN, but the Trumps failed to disclose that they were paid for their appearances and endorsements, and they in fact new little to nothing about the business. Charlie then explains what RICO is and why this might fit in the definition of the law. Jason and Charlie then go over what might happen next and wonder whether this will move the needle for anyone.

The duo then also offer an update on the Wilbur Ross deposition issue they've been following closely, do a bit of listener feedback, and end with a few thoughts about the idea of Trump abolishing birthright citizenship by executive order.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• The Complaint in Jane Doe v. The Trump Corporation is here.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week, Jason and Charlie talk about a new lawsuit by a group of journalists (filed by the legal group Protect Democracy) that hopes to stop President Trump from threatening adverse government action against those who criticize him. 

They start the conversation by discussing the background of the claims in the creative new lawsuit. The suit lists several adverse actions the President has taken against those people who have offered what he views as negative coverage of him—for instance, potentially raising Amazon's postage rates in response to perceived negative coverage by the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post—and requests an injunction from prohibiting the President from taking similar retaliatory action against those critical of the Administration. Charlie and Jason then ask: does a group of journalists have standing to make this claim? If so, will they win? And even if they have a good legal claim, can get the injunction they want?

The duo then updates the Wilbur Ross deposition issue they've been following closely and end with a Versus Trump constitutional trivia question. Know the answer? Email [email protected].

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• Protect Democracy's case page for the case is here. It contains links to the Complaint and other info on the case.
• The Supreme Court's order related to the Ross deposition is here.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk about the recent decision that dismissed Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against the President.

They start the conversation by discussing the background of the defamation lawsuit, which was brought after the President tweeted "A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the fake news media for fools (but they know it)!" After clearing some nasty procedural weeds, they explain Anti-SLAPP motions and discuss the somewhat peculiar reasoning the judge gave for dismissing the suit. Although they both agree with the outcome, they are not sure about the grounds here. That leads to a discussion of what might be happening in general with cases brought against the President personally. They close with an update on the Wilbur Ross deposition matter.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• The decision by Judge Otero dismissing the lawsuit is here.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk about the fight over Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross's potential testimony in an important lawsuit over the census.

They start the conversation by discussing the background of the high-profile lawsuit by New York and other states over the addition of a question about citizenship status on the census. This brings them to why Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has been ordered to testify—basically, because his reasons for adding the question are critical and he has given inconsistent public explanations on the issue—and what the Trump Administration has said in appeals attempting to block it. That leads to an extended discussion about whether this may be Justice Kavanaugh's first controversial decision as a Justice and what we might think about that.

Note: As of the time of the recording, the Second Circuit had OK'd the deposition with a delay for the Supreme Court to act; since then, the Supreme Court delayed the depositions further but has not yet acted on the merits of the government's request.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• The latest update from the Supreme Court is here, as recounted by Josh Gerstein at Politico.
• DOJ's Second Circuit petition (and addendum) is here; New York's response is here; the DOJ's reply is here.
• The Second Circuit's Tuesday order is here.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk about the Trump Administration's lawsuit against California that would block California's new net neutrality law from going into effect. 

They start the conversation by discussing what net neutrality is and what the Obama Administration did in 2015 to put net neutrality rules into effect. They then discuss the Trump Administration's 2018 repeal of the Obama rules, which lead to California's attempt to reinstate the Obama-era rules at the state level. The Trump Administration now claims California's rules are invalid, and on a minor point, Jason and Charlie agree the Trump Administration is right: in particular, they conclude that California has jumped the gun and will likely need to wait for a massive appeal in D.C. to finish before the state can put its own rules into effect. But Jason and Charlie are skeptical of the Trump Administration's underlying rationale that the federal government can forever fail to impose net neutrality rules and simultaneously block California from passing its own rules.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• DOJ's page on the lawsuit is here. The government's preliminary injunction motion is here, and its Complaint is here.
• The D.C. Circuit brief of Communications Law Professors that they discuss is here.
• Charlie mentioned at the end an article in Current Affairs about Kavanaugh. That's here.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk about pardons, Double Jeopardy, forfeiture, and the Manafort guilty plea. They also weigh in on the Kavanaugh developments and what would happen if Rosenstein were fired.

They start the conversation by discussing the details of Paul Manafort's guilty plea. Charlie then answers a lot of Jason's questions about why Manafort might have entered into the deal, what he gave up, and what might happen if Manafort were pardoned. They then discuss the plea in the context of criminal justice reform in general. Finally, Jason and Charlie offer brief thoughts about Judge Kavanaugh and Rod Rosenstein.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• Josh Gerstein's Politico article about the guilty plea is here.
• The plea agreement is here.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie speak with Earthjustice Vice President Drew Caputo to get an update on environmental litigation against the Trump Administration.

They start the conversation by talking about Earthjustice's work and about why the organization has 105 cases—and counting—against the Trump Administration. They then dive into a few specific cases Earthjustice is working on: litigation regarding Trump's removal of land from two national momuments in Utah (now pending); regarding the Administration's decision to take Grizzly Bears off the endangered species list (pending, but Earthjustice received a TRO blocking the legal hunting of the bears); and regarding the Administration's decision not to ban the pesticide Chlorpyrifos (a decision the Ninth Circuit recently reversed). They then talk about big picture themes and wonder why the EPA's decisions have been so vulnerable to legal challenge and why, in Drew's view, the agency has been so captured by industry.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• You can read about all of Earthjustice's lawsuits here.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason gives a quick update on a case we're watching and then signs off, because, well, in the middle of recording this week's episode, Charlie's power went out. But we'll be back next week with a full show.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• The Sixth Circuit's decison in the case determining whether Trump could be held liable for incitement of violence at a 2016 rally is 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 @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.