//  3/15/18  //  Commentary

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie do a near-live episode about Stormy Daniels' lawsuit against David Dennison—we mean, Donald Trump. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

They start the episode by summarizing Daniels' unusual lawsuit, which asks a court to invalidate a non-disclosure agreement that she signed in October of 2016 that is supposed to prevent her from talking about an alleged affair between her and Trump. Daniels claims that the agreement is invalid, both because it was never signed by President Trump and because it was unconscionable; Charlie, Easha, and Jason discuss both arguments. They also discuss the provision that requires disputes about the contract to be heard by an arbitrator, not a judge; the agreement's implications for campaign finance law; whether President Trump could prevent CBS from airing an interview it has supposedly taped with Daniels; and whether Trump's lawyer could be subject to discipline for his conduct.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. And you can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.

Links

  • The Complaint is here.
  • The arbitrator's TRO is here.
  • An article in Slate laying out several legal issues in the case is here
  • At Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen asks several questions raised by the case here.
  • An article in the Washington Post nicely explains why it will be difficult to prevent CBS from airing an interview with Daniels.
  • Here is an NBC article explaining why the payment to Daniels could violate campaign finance laws.

Versus Trump: A Ninth Circuit Compromise

6/20/19  //  Commentary

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss the Ninth's Circuit's recent somewhat cryptic, compromise decision regarding the ban on service by transgender individuals in the military. Listen now!

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Legitimacy and the Supreme Court

6/19/19  //  Commentary

It is illegitimate to consider legitimacy. So say many conservatives who seem terrified that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. might care about public perception of the U.S. Supreme Court. But they are wrong.

Stephen Vladeck

University of Texas

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Joshua Matz

Publisher

Why the Spotlight On Chief Justice Roberts May Soon Be Brighter—and Why That Matters

6/13/19  //  Commentary

Chief Justice Roberts would preside over any impeachment trial of President Trump. Here's why that matters.

Brianne J. Gorod

Constitutional Accountability Center