The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the LawFair podcast,

become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash law fair.

That's patreon.com slash law fair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings,

rational security, chatter, law fair no bull, and the aftermath.

The stronger, smarter position in the position that better respects the appropriate balance of separation of powers is from the outset to say,

this is the information we have, these are the inferences we are making.

We believe we are entitled to this information as a constitutional matter.

It's part of our constitutionally assigned function of impeachment for the executive branch to refuse to produce it is obstruction.

And we are going to treat it as such.

And I think any sort of moderated position of that, the executive branch essentially wins by default, especially if they're willing to engage in the kinds of gamesmanship that we've seen.

And so I do think it's an area in which kind of playing the middle game of sort of litigating it through is a position that could get them in a really sticky counterproductive situation very, very quickly.

I'm Benjamin Wittes and this is the LawFair podcast December 6th, 2019.

It's not quite an emergency podcast because it's not quite an emergency, but it's another week of impeachment stuff.

And we thought it warranted getting everybody around the table to talk about it.

So joining me in the Jungle Studio are Margaret Taylor, David Pries, Susan Hennessy and Scott Anderson, the LawFair core editorial staff, minus the ones who aren't here.

We talked about the SHIFT report.

We talked about the Nunez Jordan Pre-Rebuttal report.

We talked about the Hearing Wednesday in the House Judiciary Committee with a lot of law professors that went on for a really long time.

And we talked about Nancy Pelosi's message to the troops Thursday afternoon that impeachment was going forward.

It's the LawFair podcast episode 481, another week of impeachment.

...