//  5/17/17  //  Commentary

On today's two-part episode of Versus TrumpTake Care's podcast, we answer three burning questions related to whether the sitting President can face criminal charges, and how that prosecution could be started. We also have an interview with James Williams, the County Counsel for Santa Clara County, in which he discusses his County's lawsuit against Trump Administration that has so far successfully prevented the Trump Administration from enforcing an executive order that would have withdrawn federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities. As usual, you can listen online below or at takecareblog.com/podcast, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

Our discussion this week [in Episode 5.2] contains an increasingly relevant discussion of three Frequently Asked Legal Questions that the ongoing Comey scandal has raised. First, was the President legally allowed to fire FBI Director Comey? Second, now that Comey is gone, how can a special prosecutor or independent counsel be appointed to continue to the Russia investigation? [Note: this just happened. Our episode talks about the legal mechanism by which former FBI Director Mueller has just been appointed special prosecutor.] And third—and most speculatively—can a sitting President legally be indicted and stand trial in a criminal case? The answers may be surprising. If you want to skip right to the main event, the discussion of the possible prosecution of the President starts at 18:09.

Our discussion segment closes with a Trump Lump about whether the President can be sued over appointing unqualified officials to high government office. [38:21-end.]

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.

Listen online below or at takecareblog.com/podcast, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

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.

Show notes

Presidental Prosecution

  • The most recent opinion of the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel regarding the criminal prosecution of the President—titled "A Sitting President's Amenability To Indictment And Criminal Prosecution"—is here. (A 1973 memo from the same office that also addressed the topic is here.)
  • The Supreme Court case Morrison v. Olson, in which the Court held that the appointment of an independent counsel did not violate the Constitution's separation of powers principles, is here.
  • The regulations currently in effect that relate to the appointment of a special prosecutor are here.
  • Charie mentioned former independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Here's an article explaning some recent developments in Starr's career.

Sanctuary Cities Interview

  • The April 25, 2017 ruling that halted President Trump's Executive Order on Sanctuary Cities is here.
  • The reaction of the President to the ruling is discussed here.
  • The challenged Executive Order itself is here.
  • All of Take Care's coverage of sanctuary cities legal issues is here.

Trump Lump

  • The Washington Post discusses the possible appointment of Sam Clovis to the USDA here

An Updated Guide to Our Analyses of the Travel Ban

4/23/18  //  Latest Developments

Take Care hereby presents in a single, updated post all commentary we have published about the revised travel ban.

Take Care

The Perils of National Security Exceptionalism

4/23/18  //  Commentary

Whatever side the Court takes in the travel ban litigation, it should renounce national security exceptionalism

Ingrid Brunk Wuerth

Vanderbilt Law School

Ganesh Sitaraman

Vanderbilt Law School

Versus Trump: The View From 10,000 Feet (Joshua Matz Speech)

4/19/18  //  Commentary

On a new episode of Versus Trump, we bring you a podcast version of the speech that Take Care publisher Joshua Matz gave at Harvard Law School on April 3, 2018. The talk, titled "The Legal Resistance to Trump," describes themes, achievements, and limitations of various lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration and its policies. Listen now!

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens

Joshua Matz

Publisher