Victor Davis Hanson describes how the impeachment proceedings by House Democrats — and the DOJ inspector general’s report — have exposed the weakness of the case against Donald Trump.

It’s the holiday season in the faculty lounge and the subpoenas are hung by the chimney with care. On this episode, Professors Epstein and Yoo do a deep dive into the strengths and weaknesses of the impeachment case, the shortcomings of the Inspector General’s report on the Russia investigation, and the greatest legal question of our time: can you impeach an ex-president? All that plus Richard breaks down the economics of Christmas, John calls for civil disobedience in the Berkeley food scene, and Franklin Pierce finally gets called to account.

Richard Epstein considers all the ways California policymakers are compounding the damage from the state’s wildfires — from a misplaced emphasis on global warming to new regulations that will damage the market for home insurance.

Richard Epstein considers how the U.S. should deal with China in light of the country’s internal human rights abuses and its increasingly aggressive assertions in Hong Kong.

Richard Epstein reacts to Marco Rubio’s proposal for a ‘Common Good Capitalism’ that would upend the relationship between workers and employers.

Richard Epstein looks at a wave of progressive reforms being embraced by Democratic presidential candidates and big city district attorneys, including decriminalizing quality-of-life crimes, eliminating cash bail, and sending fewer people to prison. He also considers whether America has a “mass incarceration” problem and whether there is evidence of racial bias in the criminal justice system.

Impeachment is on the syllabus as the faculty lounge reopens its doors. In this episode: Does the Democrats’ pivot from ‘quid pro quo’ to ‘bribery’ add up? Has the first week of witnesses changed either professor’s mind? And when exactly would a White House have the authority to hold up foreign aid? All that plus analysis of what’s most likely to compel the release of the Trump tax returns (hint: it’s not the case that looks headed for the Supreme Court) and the strange case of the Equal Rights Amendment, which is either one vote away from being added to the Constitution or already dead on arrival. We’ll let the professors explain.

Richard Epstein analyzes the question currently before the Supreme Court: is the Trump Administration within its rights to undo President Obama’s protections for children brought into the country illegally? What are the limits of unilateral executive action? And what obligation does the executive branch have to adequately explain policy changes that it makes on its own?

Victor Davis Hanson explains the parameters of what he calls the Trump Doctrine — deterrence without intervention — explains how it deviates from the post-Cold War consensus, and argues for why it’s a reasonable approach to a changing international landscape.

In the wake of the US drawdown in northern Syria, Victor Davis Hanson considers whether the U.S. alliance with Turkey — and the country’s membership in NATO — is worth the cost.

Richard Epstein examines the argument that the Sixth Amendment’s “confrontation clause” will compel the Ukraine whistleblower to reveal his or her identity — and be cross-examined by President Trump’s team.

Green energy policies at the state level are starting to have an impact — in all the wrong ways. From pipeline bans in New York to mandatory blackouts in California, the consequences are dire. Now Progressives are looking to take similar policies national.

It’s a lively session in the faculty lounge as professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo parse the case for impeachment, and analyze some of the biggest cases coming before the Supreme Court: will a new lineup of justices change the Court’s approach to abortion regulation? Will a ruling about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau deal a blow to the administrative state? Are gay and transgendered employees protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act?All that plus a detour into antiquities law, a (partial) endorsement of imperialism, a POTUS busted for speeding, and an answer to America’s most burning legal question: could the president literally shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not pay a price?

Richard Epstein previews his new book, “The Dubious Morality of the Modern Administrative State,” chronicling how the post-New Deal expansion of power within the executive branch has threatened the rule of law and the separation of powers.

In a scathing review, Richard Epstein parses the policy proposals at the center of Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign.

Richard Epstein responds to the latest developments in the House’s impeachment inquiry, including a detailed breakdown of the White House’s argument that it can refuse cooperation.

Richard Epstein reacts to the latest news in the impeachment saga surrounding President Trump.

Richard Epstein provides a forceful response to the question of whether President Trump’s alleged pressuring of the Ukrainian government provide grounds for impeachment.

The men of Law Talk reconvene between their respective journeys to Greece and there’s a very full docket. On this episode: could President Trump’s conversations with Ukraine lay the predicate for impeachment? What’s the proper role for the U.S. in the Iran-Saudi Arabia conflict? Is the FDA within its rights to crack down on vaping? Should California be able to go its own way on regulating automobile emissions? Can the president solve West Coast homelessness? And why has New Mexico made it a little more dangerous to get married?

Richard Epstein fans know that, when it comes to legal analysis, all roads lead to Rome. For years we’ve been ribbing Richard about his propensity to analyze current legal disputes through the prism of Roman law. Now we’ve finally buckled to the pressure and given him an entire episode on the topic. In this show, Richard explains why Roman Law remains relevant today; why it made especially valuable contributions on the topic of water law; how a failure to understand Roman law has weakened Supreme Court decisions; and what the connection is between the Romans and the Anglo-American legal tradition.