The meaning of obstruction of justice.

Which of Trump’s Words Carry Legal Weight, and Which Ones Don’t?

Which of Trump’s Words Carry Legal Weight, and Which Ones Don’t?

Law and the Supreme Court justices who interpret it.
June 10 2017 10:01 AM

Amicus: Nice Little FBI You’ve Got Here. Pity if Something Happened to It.

What counts as “obstruction of justice”? And should judges pay attention to Trump’s Twitter feed?

718x512_Amicus_inlinePromo

Listen to Episode 70 of Slate’s Amicus:

In his much-anticipated testimony on Capitol Hill this week, former FBI Director James Comey described several uncomfortable interactions with President Donald 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.

Advertisement

We also discuss the litigation around 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 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.

Dahlia Lithwick writes about the courts and the law for Slate, and hosts the podcast Amicus.