//  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.

Can Congress Investigate Whether the President Has Conflicts of Interest, is Compromised by Russia, or Has Violated the Law?

7/29/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

The President's lawyers are urging courts to hold that Congress’s oversight and regulatory authorities simply don't extend to investigating the wrongdoing, foreign influence over, and possible conflicts of interest of, the President of the United States. That's wrong.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

The House Has Already Opened an Impeachment Investigation Against Trump

7/26/19  //  Commentary

The Constitution’s text and structure — supported by judicial precedent and prior practice — show that impeachment is a process, not a single vote

Joshua Matz

Publisher

Requiem for a Lone Star Bail-in

7/25/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

The three-judge district court overseeing the Texas redistricting litigation has held that Texas should not be 'bailed-in' under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act. That's a very worrisome development. Here's why.

Travis Crum

University of Chicago