//  7/27/17  //  Uncategorized

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Easha discuss a newly-filed lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs who allege that Trump's campaign and Trump advisor Roger Stone conspired with Russians to disclose private information about the plaintiffs. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

Charlie and Easha begin by explaining the basic gist of the lawsuit, which is called Cockrum v. Trump Campaign, and they quickly turn to an in-depth discussion of each of the three particular theories of liability. The first theory they analyze [at 3:30] is public disclosure of private facts, and the two wonder whether certain key components of this tort are present in this case. They then quickly discuss the intentional infliction of emotional distress tort [at 8:30] before turning to an in-depth discussion of the past and present of the federal civil rights claim in the case [at 12:55].

The episode closes [at 29:00] with several Trump Lumps, including thoughts on when screening questions at congressional town halls might violate the First Amendment and how the Administration is enforcing immigration law in local prostitution diversion courts.

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. 

Links

  • The complaint in Cockrum v. Trump Campaign is here.
  • Sipple v. Chronicle, the unsuccessful disclosure of private facts tort suit in which a newspaper published information about the sexuality of the man who tackled Ronald Reagan's would-be attacker, is here.
  • Elements of the publicity to private facts tort under DC law can be found in this case.
  • Cox v. Cohn, which found that the name of a rape victim was not a "private fact" for purposes of the publicity to private facts tort, is here.
  • Elements of the IIED tort under DC law can be found here.
  • The famous case of Jones v. Clinton, which Charlie and Easha discussed, is here.
  • Carpenters v. Scott is here, and Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic is here; both of these Supreme Court cases narrowly defined the KKK Act.
  • The recent Third Circuit case finding no 1985(3) claim made out by a public defender who claimed he was being punished for taking too many cases to trial is here.
  • Charlie's Trump Lump on telephonic town halls is discussed at The New Yorker here.
  • Easha's Trump Lump references ICE picking up undocumented immigrants in prostitution diversion courts, which is discussed here.
  • And Easha mentions this WSJ story about attempts to penetrate South Carolina's election system.

Versus Trump: Trump Loses On Family Planning, Wins In The Ninth, and More

5/16/19  //  Uncategorized

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Easha go through a few updates to cases involving Title X, which provides money for family planning; the Administration's policy to have many asylum applicants removed to Mexico; and the controversial border wall. Trump lost one, won one—for now, and hasn't yet gotten a decision in the third. Listen now!

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Versus Trump: Trump Versus Trump's Banks

5/9/19  //  Uncategorized

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 the his business dealings. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Versus Trump: 2-For-39

5/2/19  //  Commentary

This week on Versus Trump, Jason discusses some fascinating research about how the Trump Administration has fared in the courts with Bethany Davis Noll, the Litigation Director at the Institute for Policy Integrity. They discuss challenges to Trump's regulatory agenda, why the Administration is losing at a historic rate, what is slipping through the cracks, and what come next. Listen now!

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens