In his much-anticipated testimony on Capitol Hill this week, former FBI Director James Comey described several uncomfortable interactions with President Trump that preceded his firing. The big question for all watching was: could any of those interactions be considered “obstruction of justice?” On this week’s episode, we put the question to Stanford Law School Professor Robert Weisberg.
We also discuss the ongoing litigation around President Trump’s executive order on immigration with Kate Shaw, an associate professor at the Cardozo School of Law and a Supreme Court analyst for ABC News. Shaw is the author of a new article in the Texas Law Review that considers what sorts of presidential speech is and isn’t admissible in a court of law. [Read Shaw’s recent New York Times op-ed on the subject here.]
Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at
slate.com/app.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is
amicus@slate.com.
Podcast production by Tony Field.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
megaphone.fm/adchoicesIn his much-anticipated testimony on Capitol Hill this week, former FBI Director James Comey described several uncomfortable interactions with President Trump that preceded his firing. The big question for all watching was: could any of those interactions be considered “obstruction of justice?” On this week’s episode, we put the question to Stanford Law School Professor Robert Weisberg.
We also discuss the ongoing litigation around President Trump’s executive order on immigration with Kate Shaw, an associate professor at the Cardozo School of Law and a Supreme Court analyst for ABC News. Shaw is the author of a new article in the Texas Law Review that considers what sorts of presidential speech is and isn’t admissible in a court of law. [Read Shaw’s recent New York Times op-ed on the subject here.]
Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at
slate.com/app.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is
amicus@slate.com.
Podcast production by Tony Field.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
megaphone.fm/adchoicesIn his much-anticipated testimony on Capitol Hill this week, former FBI Director James Comey described several uncomfortable interactions with President Trump that preceded his firing. The big question for all watching was: could any of those interactions be considered “obstruction of justice?” On this week’s episode, we put the question to Stanford Law School Professor Robert Weisberg.
We also discuss the ongoing litigation around President Trump’s executive order on immigration with Kate Shaw, an associate professor at the Cardozo School of Law and a Supreme Court analyst for ABC News. Shaw is the author of a new article in the Texas Law Review that considers what sorts of presidential speech is and isn’t admissible in a court of law. [Read Shaw’s recent New York Times op-ed on the subject travel-ban-appeals-court.html?_r=0">here.]
Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
Podcast production by Tony Field.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
