//  10/18/18  //  In-Depth Analysis

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. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 

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 versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. 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.

The President Cannot Constitutionally Block His Critics on Twitter

7/12/19  //  Commentary

The decision is a victory for free speech, an important signal to government officials in the social media era, and a refreshing holding that the President is not above constitutional constraint

Amanda Shanor

The Wharton School

Versus Trump: Sarah Stillman On The Asylee Who Sued The Trump Administration

7/11/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

This week on Versus Trump, Charlie is joined by New Yorker writer Sarah Stillman to discuss the case of Suny Rodriguez, an asylum seeker who sued the Trump Administration over the conditions in detention centers. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Silver bullets, blue pencils, and the future of the ACA

7/10/19  //  Quick Reactions

Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in the case challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. It didn't go well.

Nick Bagley

University of Michigan Law School