We're approaching the historic oral argument of the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson. That's the case over whether Donald Trump is disqualified from holding the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars certain insurrectionists from holding certain federal and state posts. Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff sat down with James A. Heilpern, a Senior Fellow at Brigham Young University Law School. Heilpern co-authored with Michael T. Worley a new article on Section 3 that was just posted online January 1 and yet has already been cited in several Supreme Court briefs, including the merits brief of the voter challengers in Trump v. Anderson. It addresses the disputed issue of whether Section 3 even applies to presidents, and it concludes that it does. The article uses corpus linguistics and other forms of legal research to look at how crucial phrases were used in 1788, when the original Constitution was ratified, and also in 1868, when Section 3 was ratified.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

During a late night press conference in August, an Atlanta-area prosecutor announced a sprawling criminal case against Donald Trump and his allies for their alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia. In a new book, investigative reporters Dan Klaidman and Michael Isikoff tell the story of the events that led to that moment—and the local prosecutor behind at all.Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes and Lawfare Legal Fellow Anna Bower spoke with Klaidman and Isikoff about the new details and insights revealed in their book, “Find Me the Votes: A Hard-Charging Georgia Prosecutor, a Rogue President, and the Plot to Steal an American Election.” In a wide-ranging conversation, they discussed the Jan. 6 committee's role in the Fulton County investigation, Sidney Powell's request for preemptive pardons in the aftermath of the 2020 election, Rudy Giuliani's plan to access to voting systems in Georgia, and recent allegations that District Attorney Fani Willis engaged in an improper relationship with one of her special prosecutors.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

U.S. military operations against Houthi rebels in Yemen have escalated rapidly in recent weeks, culminating in a number of major strikes aimed at degrading their ability to threaten Red Sea shipping traffic. But the war powers reports the Biden administration has provided to Congress are raising questions about how it is legally justifying this latest military campaign. To discuss the burgeoning conflict in Yemen and what it might mean for war powers, Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Brian Finucane, Senior Adviser at the Crisis Group; Lawfare Co-founder and Harvard Law School Professor Jack Goldsmith; and Lawfare Research Fellow Matt Gluck. They talked about their recent pieces on the topic, what we know and don’t know about the administration’s legal theory, and what the law might mean for how the conflict evolves moving forward.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Everyone recognizes sanctions as one of the United States’ most powerful tools of economic statecraft. But few realize that much of the information behind sanctions designations comes from another office within the Treasury Department: specifically, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (or FinCEN). And over the past few years, as sanctions and other economic tools have become more and more important, FinCEN has been evolving its operations and activities as well.To discuss the current state of FinCEN and what its future holds, Lawfare Contributing Editor Brandon Van Grack and Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson had a conversation with its current Director, Andrea Gacki, for the latest installment of their “The Regulators” series, focusing on the policymakers at the frontlines of national security and economic statecraft. They discussed FinCEN’s involvement in the historic Binance settlement, what new policies FinCEN is rolling out to tackle everything from beneficial ownership to residential real estate, and how it is working with similar organizations around the globe.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security, just Scott was joined for a Bizarro-world episode with guests Lawfare Senior Editor and Brookings Senior Fellow Molly Reynolds (back for a second episode in a row!) and Lawfare Legal Fellow Anna Bower! They talked over some of the week’s big stories, including:“Two Houses, Divided Against Themselves...” The fate of key national security legislation—including the Ukraine supplemental and border legislation—is increasingly coming down to the increasingly dysfunctional dynamics within and between the two chambers of Congress. What does this tell us about how our most democratic institution is operating?“Fani, Be Tender With My Love.” In recent weeks, Fulton Co. Prosecutor Fani Willis’s case against former President Trump and his associates has been endangered by rumors that she is engaged in a longstanding affair with subordinate prosecutor Nathan Wade—and that she extended the investigation to secure more salary for him. But is the story more smoke than fire?“Carpe Seize ‘Em.” The Biden administration has officially come out in qualified support of seizing Russia’s frozen assets to compensate Ukraine, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to consider authorizing legislation this week. Is this finally a route to accountability? Or do the associated risks outweigh the benefits?For object lessons, Molly endorsed David Grann’s latest book, “The Wager.” Scott shouted out listener Paul whose birthday party he inadvertently crashed this past weekend, and urged other listeners to come say hi if they see him in the wild! And Anna urged anyone seeking a divorce in the state of Georgia to seek out the fine people at the Cobb County courthouse (who also make a lovely salad).Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's another episode of “Trump's Trials and Tribulations,” recorded on January 25 in front of a live audience on YouTube and Zoom. Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff, and Lawfare Legal Fellow Anna Bower discussed all of the Section 3 litigation occuring across the country and Roger Parloff's recent article about whether the president is an officer of the United States. They talked about why we are still waiting on the D.C. Circuit to rule on Trump's presidential immunity claim and when the D.C. trial may actually start. They also talked about what is going on in Fulton County and Michael Roman's motion to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis. And of course, they took audience questions from Lawfare Material Supporters on Zoom. To be able to submit questions to the panelists, you should become a Material Supporter at lawfaremedia.org/support.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From March 12, 2021: President Joe Biden has conducted military strikes in Syria, has articulated legal theories under which the series of strikes were proper and has temporarily reined in the use of drone strikes. To talk about Biden and war powers, Benjamin Wittes sat down with John Bellinger, who served as the legal adviser at the State Department and the legal adviser for the National Security Council in the Bush administration; Lawfare senior editor Scott Anderson, who worked in the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser, as well as in the Iraqi embassy; and Rebecca Ingber, who also worked in the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser and is currently a professor at Cardozo Law School. They talked about how the Biden administration justified the strikes in Syria, the reports it has not yet given on its legal and policy framework for counterterrorism, whether this is the year that AUMF reform might finally happen and which authorizations to use military force might finally see reform.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In front of a live audience at the Knight Foundation's INFORMED conference in Miami, Florida, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes spoke with Hon. Kenneth L. Wainstein, Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security; Jameel Jaffer, Executive Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University; and Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic about government surveillance of open source social media.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Outer space is back in style. For the first time in decades, NASA is sending astronauts back to the moon. Millionaires are exiting the atmosphere on a regular basis. And Elon Musk says humans may land on Mars to set up settlements by 2030. But would mastering space be worth it?In their new book, “A City on Mars,” co-authors (and spouses) Dr. Kelly and Zach Weinersmith argue that it’s probably not. From biology to engineering to international law, they charmingly survey the many charms and dangers that space inevitably entails, with pictures to boot. For this week’s Chatter episode, Scott R. Anderson spoke with Kelly and Zach about their book, what role they think space exploration and settlement should play in humanity’s future, and why space may not be all it’s cracked up to be anytime soon.Among the works mentioned in this episode:The book “Soonish,” also by Kelly and Zach.The book “Dark Skies: Space Expansionism, Planetary Geopolitics, and the Ends of Humanity” by Daniel Deudney.The book “The Creation of States in International Law” by James Crawford.The television series “The Expanse.”The 1970s film “Libra.”The television series “For All Mankind.”Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Heather Cox Richardson is the author of the book “Democracy Awakening: Notes on the State of America,” which looks at the evolution of American democracy and traces the roots of Donald Trump’s “authoritarian experiment” to the earliest days of the republic. Lawfare’s Associate Editor for Communications Anna Hickey sat down with Richardson to discuss the state of American democracy today, the historical context we should use to understand the current threats to democracy, and what we can learn from previous periods of American history.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Software liability has been dubbed the “third rail of cybersecurity policy.” But the Biden administration’s National Cybersecurity Strategy directly takes it on, seeking to shift liability onto those who should be taking reasonable precautions to secure their software. What should a software liability regime look like? Jim Dempsey, a Senior Policy Adviser at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, recently published a paper as part of Lawfare’s Security by Design project entitled “Standards for Software Liability: Focus on the Product for Liability, Focus on the Process for Safe Harbor,” where he offers a proposal for a software liability regime. Lawfare Senior Editor Stephanie Pell sat down with Jim to discuss his proposal. They talked about the problem his paper is seeking to solve, what existing legal theories of liability can offer a software liability regime and where they fall short, and his three-part definition for software liability that involves a rules-based floor and a process-based safe harbor.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The fallout from the SolarWinds intrusion took a new turn with the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) decision to file a cybersecurity-related enforcement action against the SolarWinds corporation and its Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), Timothy G. Brown, on October 30 of last year. To talk about the details and significance of this enforcement action, Lawfare Senior Editor Stephanie Pell sat down with Shoba Pillay, a partner at Jenner & Block and a former federal prosecutor, and Jennifer Lee, also a partner at Jenner & Block and a former Assistant Director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. They discussed the cybersecurity and national security implications of the SolarWinds hack, what the SolarWinds enforcement action suggests about the SEC’s expectations for disclosure obligations of companies, and whether the SEC or another agency is best suited to determine whether and how SolarWinds should be held accountable. They also discussed larger takeaways and messages sent by the SEC’s decision to charge a CISO in this case. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There is much debate among academics and policy experts over the power the Constitution affords to the president and Congress to initiate military conflicts. But as Michael Ramsey and Matthew Waxman, law professors at the University of San Diego and Columbia, respectively, point out in a recent law review article, this focus misses the mark. In fact, the most salient constitutional war powers question—in our current era dominated by authorizations for the use of military force—is not whether the president has the unilateral authority to start large-scale conflicts. Rather, it is the scope of Congress’s authority to delegate its war-initiation power to the president. This question is particularly timely as the Supreme Court appears growingly skeptical of significant delegations of congressional power to the executive branch.Matt Gluck, Research Fellow at Lawfare, spoke with Waxman and Ramsey about their article. They discussed the authors' findings about the history of war power delegations from the Founding era to the present, what these findings might mean if Congress takes a more assertive role in the war powers context, and why these constitutional questions matter if courts are likely to be hesitant to rule on war powers delegation questions.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security, Quinta and Scott were joined by Lawfare Senior Editor and Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Molly Reynolds to talk through some big stories at the intersection of politics and national security, including:“Over the Hill.” Congress is back in town and up to its old tricks, kicking the can of government funding down the road and still debating a funding package for Ukraine and other Biden administration priorities. As President Biden prepares to meet with congressional leaders at the White House, what are the odds of any sort of functioning legislature in this heated election year?“Rewarmed Deterrence?” After weeks of threats, the United States and its allies finally took military action against the Houthi movement that has been threatening maritime traffic through the Red Sea in purported response to the Israeli military operation in Gaza. But will this solve the problem or only invite another cycle of escalation?“The Frozen Corn Primary.” The first step of the 2024 election is officially over and the race is down to three candidates, with former President Trump having won the Iowa caucuses handily over rivals Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley. What does this first race tell us about the trajectory of the 2024 race—and how it intersects with Trump’s legal travails?For object lessons, Quinta recommended Paul Murray's book “The Beesting” as a pleasantly sad-funny read. Scott gave his annual PSA about why it's worth watching the divisional round of the NFL playoffs and endorsed the amazing "Art But Make it Sports" account on Twitter and Substack. And Molly told the story of Bob, the man who found the Alaska Airlines door plug in his backyard. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's another episode of “Trump's Trials and Tribulations,” recorded on January 18 in front of a live audience on YouTube and Zoom. Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes and Lawfare Senior Editors Quinta Jurecic and Roger Parloff discussed where the Section 3 disqualification litigation stands across the country and at the Supreme Court, about some amicus briefs, about the lack of action from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Trump's presidential immunity defense, and about a puzzling statement from a few D.C. Circuit judges on a different D.C. Circuit matter involving Twitter and executive privilege. They also talked about what Judge Cannon is up to in Florida, and of course, they took audience questions from Lawfare Material Supporters on Zoom. To be able to submit questions to the panelists, you should become a Material Supporter at lawfaremedia.org/support.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From January 28, 2017: President Trump kicked off the first foreign policy crisis of his new administration by signing an executive order mandating the construction of the much-promised border wall with Mexico, resulting in as-yet-unresolved confusion as to how the wall will be paid for and an ongoing diplomatic scuffle with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. Benjamin Wittes spoke with Stephanie Leutert, the Mexico Security Initiative Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin and writer of Lawfare's "Beyond the Border" series, to chat about what the wall might look like, how effective it will or won't be, and what this means for U.S.-Mexico relations.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with location data broker X-Mode Social. X-Mode collects over 10 billion location data points from all over the world every day, and sells it to clients in a range of industries, like advertisers, consulting firms, and private government contractors. The FTC argued that the data broker was conducting unfair business practices, including selling people’s sensitive location data.To discuss the FTC settlement and its implications, Lawfare's Fellow in Technology Policy and Law Eugenia Lostri sat down with Justin Sherman, Founder and CEO of Global Cyber Strategies and a Senior Fellow at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy. They talked about the FTC’s groundbreaking decision to list sensitive locations about which X-Mode cannot sell data, the likelihood that we will see further FTC action against data brokers, and the persistent need for comprehensive privacy legislation to better address harms.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lloyd Austin's hospitalization and delayed communication about it have spurred much commentary and questions about the role of the secretary of defense in the US nuclear-strike chain of command.David Priess spoke with Hans Kristensen, Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, about his path to expertise on nuclear issues, the chain of command for nuclear strike authorization (and recent comments from elected representatives that misunderstand it), alternatives to the current system, fictional scenarios of nuclear launches, what is known about different nuclear states' authorization processes, the "letters of last resort" for UK nuclear submarines, deterrence and human psychology, and more.Among the works mentioned in this episode:The TV movie The Day AfterThe movie WarGamesThe movie The Bedford IncidentThe music video for "Land of Confusion" by GenesisThe movie Dr. StrangeloveThe movie Fail SafeThe movie The Man Who Saved the WorldThe movie A Few Good Men"Finger on the Button," paper by Jeffrey G. Lewis and Bruno Tertais, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at MontereyThe book The Dead Hand by David HoffmanThe movie Crimson TideChatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last month, the Department of Defense released its first-ever policy on civilian harm reduction. But as Marc Garlasco recently wrote in Lawfare, “[T]he policy comes at an awkward time … The U.S. military has issued guidance on how to protect civilians during operations just as its close ally Israel has reportedly killed thousands of Palestinians with American bombs.” And yet, many aspects of the new policy are nothing short of groundbreaking.  Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Marc, a former targeting professional and war crimes investigator and current military advisor at PAX, as well as Emily Tripp, the Director of Airwars, a transparency watchdog NGO which tracks, assesses, archives, and investigates civilian harm claims in conflict-affected nations. They discussed the state of civilian harm worldwide; the good, the bad, and the ugly of the Pentagon’s new policy; and recent efforts to get U.S. allies and partners to buy in. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Chimène Keitner is the Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at the University of California at Davis. She is a leading international law authority and served for a number of years at the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser. She is the author of a lengthy piece in Lawfare about South Africa's petition under the Genocide Convention against Israel in the International Court of Justice.Chimène joined Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes to talk about the litigation. What is South Africa's claim under the Genocide Convention? What is Israel's defense? Where are both sides vulnerable? And how will the court likely consider the matter at this preliminary stage?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Over the last two months, Houthi militants have waged more than 27 attacks against merchant shipping and U.S. and partner forces in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, purportedly in response to the war in Gaza. These attacks have significantly disrupted global shipping and surged the Middle East into an even more precarious security situation. Following a large-scale Houthi attack on U.S. and British ships, the U.S. and U.K. on Jan. 11 launched over 150 munitions targeting almost 30 Houthi sites in Yemen. The U.S. on Jan. 12 carried out another strike on a Houthi radar facility. The Houthis have since retaliated with multiple strikes targeting U.S. forces. Yesterday, the Houthis for the first time successfully struck a cargo ship owned and operated by the United States.Lawfare Research Fellow Matt Gluck sat down with Gregory Johnsen, the Associate Director of the Institute for Future Conflict at the U.S. Air Force Academy and Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson to discuss the spate of Houthi attacks, the U.S. response and the associated domestic and international law questions, and where the fighting is likely to go from here. What can history tell us about the possible paths forward? Why did the U.S. act when it did? What’s in it for the Houthis? They chewed over these questions and more. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From March 4, 2017: Yesterday, Just Security and the Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law hosted Benjamin Wittes for a conversation on a question about the path of the Trump presidency so far: what happens when we can’t take the president’s oath of office seriously?Ben’s talk focused on an essay he and Quinta Jurecic posted to Lawfare simultaneously with the speech, in which they argued that the presidential oath—little discussed though it may be in constitutional jurisprudence and academic literature—is actually the glue that holds together many of our assumptions about how government functions. And when large enough numbers of people come to doubt the sincerity of the president’s oath, those assumptions begin to crumble.Big thanks to Ryan Goodman of Just Security and Zachary Goldman of the Center on Law and Security for putting together this event. Make sure to also read Ryan’s Just Security followup post on his discussion with Ben and the questions raised by our essay.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security, Quinta and Scott were joined by Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett to discuss the week’s big national security and courtroom news, including:“Ergo Omnes.” South Africa has brought Israel to the International Court of Justice for actions relating to its military campaign in Gaza, based on a novel legal theory that alleges Israeli violations of the Genocide Convention and asserts standing by virtue of the universal obligation to prevent genocide. What practical impact is this litigation likely to have? And what does it mean as a precedent for the international community?“Cert(ain Doom) Petition.” The Supreme Court has officially taken up former President Trump’s appeal of a Colorado Supreme Court decision disqualifying him from the 2024 ballot there on the grounds that he is ineligible to hold office. While some have welcomed the chance to nationalize Colorado’s holding, others have warned that doing so would be a grave blow to popular democracy. How might the matter play out? And what will it mean for the 2024 election and after?“Void Austin.” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin spent several days in the hospital earlier this month—without notifying the White House, leaving what some believe was a gaping hole at the highest level of the U.S. military chain of command. How big a problem was this? What steps should be taken in response?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's another episode of “Trump's Trials and Tribulations,” recorded on January 11 in front of a live audience on YouTube and Zoom. Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes spoke with Lawfare Senior Editors Quinta Jurecic and Roger Parloff, and Lawfare Legal Fellow Anna Bower, about the closing arguments in the New York civil case, about the Supreme Court's decision to grant Trump's petition for it to review the Colorado Supreme Court's decision barring him from the ballot under the 14th Amendment, and about the flurry of motions filed in Fulton County by the January 8 deadline. They also checked in on the Southern District of Florida to see what was, or wasn't, going on, and took audience questions from Lawfare’s Material Supporters on Zoom. To be able to submit questions to the panelists, become a Material Supporter at lawfaremedia.org/support.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From September 26, 2015: On this week’s Lawfare Podcast, Gregory Johnsen outlines the current state-of-play in Yemen. Johnsen, who is a writer-at-large for Buzzfeed News, a doctoral candidate at Princeton University, and an all-things-Yemen-expert, walks Ben through the byzantine power politics in Sanaa that led to the conflict now engulfing Yemen and he explains why the war shouldn’t be viewed as just another Sunni-Shia fight. Yet while he clarifies that the issues that sparked the war are much more local, he warns that the longer the conflict goes on, the more likely it is to expand. Johnsen also outlines the events that led to the Saudi intervention and whether or not Yemen—which he says is really twelve separate factions now—can ever be put back together again.Johnsen is the author of The Last Refuge: Yemen, al Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia. Follow him on Twitter for the latest updates on Yemen.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On January 11, 2024, Donald J. Trump arrived in a New York courtroom for closing arguments in the civil fraud case against the former president, his company, and his adult sons. The suit, brought by the state’s attorney general Letitia James, alleges that Trump and his company misled lenders about the former president’s net worth in order to secure better business deals. The case is not Trump’s only legal trouble, but it’s one that could have a consequential impact for his family business and the image he has crafted for himself as a richer-than-rich, deal-making business man.What are the legal issues at stake? What might Trump argue on appeal? And how could the outcome affect Trump’s finances?To talk it all through, Lawfare Legal Fellow and Courts Correspondent Anna Bower spoke with Tristan Snell, former New York Assistant Attorney General and lead prosecutor in the Trump University fraud case. Tristan is also the author of a forthcoming book called, “Taking Down Trump.”Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Brandon Stoddard was one of the most accomplished executives in broadcast television history. In his career at ABC, he helped bring to the small screen such legendary mini-series as “Roots” and “The Winds of War,” as well as the acclaimed television series “Moonlighting” and “Roseanne.” But arguably his most consequential and controversial decision was to air the made-for-TV movie “The Day After,” which graphically depicted the effects of a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. Stoddard faced opposition from his colleagues, pundits, and even the Reagan White House, which pressured ABC to pull the film. But having conceived of the project as an impetus for people around the world to grapple with the potential of a devastating war, Stoddard forged ahead and broadcast the film in November 1983. It was an epochal event in U.S. history. One hundred million people tuned in to watch, and the movie became the most-watched in television history. It was a national moment of the kind Americans rarely share today. Journalist A. B. Stoddard, Brandon’s daughter, spoke with Shane Harris about her dad’s determination to air the film and what he hoped to achieve. Stoddard is well known for her political commentary and work at The Bulwark. But today, she shares personal memories of her father, his illustrious career, and the legacy of his work. In November of last year, to commemorate the 40th anniversary of “The Day After,” she wrote a column, “The Day My Father Scared America.” Among the works mentioned in this episode:A.B. Stoddard’s column on her dadhttps://plus.thebulwark.com/p/brandon-stoddard-the-day-after Shane’s previous conversation with Nicholas Meyer, who directed “The Day After” https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-day-after-with-nicholas-meyer/id1593674288?i=1000558946928 A.B. Stoddard’s columns for The Bulwarkhttps://substack.com/@abstoddard The catalog of Brandon Stoddard’s work https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0830992/ Brandon Stoddard’s induction in the Television Academy Hall of Fame https://www.emmys.com/bios/brandon-stoddard “The Day After” (on YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utGRP9Zy1lg Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Jay Venables of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Israeli Supreme Court—in the middle of the war in Gaza—handed down a decision that amounts to a kind of death blow to Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu's judicial reform project. Before October 7, judicial overhaul was all that anybody was talking about in Israeli politics—you know, a five-part legislative plan to assert parliamentary control over the judiciary and reduce Israel's checks and balances into a more majoritarian system. Only one part of it passed, and the Supreme Court has now struck it down in a decision that sharply divided the court on some questions and reflected significant unity on others.To discuss the 700-page ruling, we brought back our Israeli judicial overhaul team: Yuval Shany of Hebrew University and Amichai Cohen of Ono Academic College. Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes spoke with them about what the court did and what the court didn't do, about their doing it in the middle of a war and whether that was truly necessary, and about where the judicial politics of Israel go from here. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Yesterday, a panel of judges at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in former President Trump's appeal of Judge Chutkan's denial of his claims of presidential immunity in the Jan. 6 case.On a livestream yesterday afternoon to talk over what happened in every phase of the oral arguments, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes spoke with Lawfare Legal Fellow Anna Bower who was in the room for the arguments, and Lawfare Senior Editors Scott R. Anderson, Quinta Jurecic, and Roger Parloff. Anna Bower discussed what is was like in the courtroom where both former President Trump and special counsel Jack Smith were seated. They talked about the merits and jurisdictional questions the judges considered, their impressions about what the judges may be thinking about the case, and how the lawyers performed. They even talked about whether Lawfare was once again first in line, and they looked forward to what happens next.You can watch a video version of their conversation here.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Michael J. Gottlieb is a litigation partner at the Willkie law firm. He is a long-time national security lawyer, served in Barack Obama's White House Counsel's office, and used to be the civilian lead on a task force that built rule of law institutions in Afghanistan.Late last year, he won a $148 million dollar judgment against Rudy Giuliani on behalf of election workers Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman. He joined Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes to talk about the case, how he and the advocacy group Protect Democracy teamed up to use defamation law to fight disinformation and the big lie, what the use of defamation in this way can and cannot be expected to do, and how he went from building rule of law institutions in Afghanistan to representing people who have had their lives turned upside down by a toxic media ecosystem. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Tuesday, Jan. 9, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear oral argument in United States v. Trump. Trump, indicted in D.C. for alleged crimes related to election interference, is appealing the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity and constitutional grounds.Ahead of the hearing, we gathered an all-star team to discuss the merits of Trump’s appeal and how the D.C. Circuit might rule. Lawfare Legal Fellow and Courts Correspondent Anna Bower sat down with Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic; Stanton Jones, counsel for American Oversight, which has filed a fascinating amicus brief that questions whether the appeals court has jurisdiction to decide the case in the first place; and Matthew Seligman, counsel for a group of former Republican officials who have filed an amicus brief in opposition to Trump’s claim of immunity. Matthew is also the co-author of a forthcoming book on presidential elections called, “How to Steal a Presidential Election.”Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security, Quinta and Scott were joined by Lawfare Legal Fellow Anna Bower to talk through the week’s big national security news, including:“Hamas, No Más.” A senior Hamas official was recently killed in an attack in Beirut, in what many believe was an operation by Israel—a country whose leaders have pledged to target Hamas’s leaders wherever they might be, though it has not formally acknowledged involvement in this particular attack. But pursuing such action across a border that is already on the edge of becoming a second front in the Gaza conflict has observers nervous. How significant is this operation? Does it risk regional escalation?“Bad for the Immune System.” Just before the holiday, the Supreme Court rejected special counsel Jack Smith’s petition for it to expedite consideration of former President Trump’s claim of immunity to criminal charges. And in the week that’s passed, briefing is already underway—including an argument by an amicus asserting that appeal shouldn’t be allowed at all. What hangs on this case? And how do the courts seem poised to address it?“The Unprincipled Agent Problem.” The Justice Department has leveled additional charges against Sen. Robert Menendez and his wife alleging additional illegal actions in support of Qatar, including some in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Meanwhile, several associates of former President Trump have faced similar charges for alleged work for the same government. What should we make of these powerful public officials and their associates doing work for foreign governments? And is FARA the right tool to address it?For object lessons, Quinta continued to suck up to the estate of Roberto Bolano by endorsing his book “The Savage Detectives.” Scott spilled the beans on one of Denver’s lovely speakeasies, B&GC. And Anna urged folks to try out a Tarot Card reading for the New Year—advice Fox News appears to have taken on former President Trump’s behalf.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's another episode of “Trump's Trials and Tribulations,” recorded on January 4 in front of a live audience on YouTube and Zoom. Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Legal Fellow Anna Bower and Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff to discuss all of the Section 3 litigation happening across the country from Colorado to Maine. They talked about where the D.C. case stands and whether the Jan. 6 trial will start on March 4. And they took questions from a live audience.This is a live conversation that happens online every Thursday at 4:00pm Eastern Time. If you would like to come join and ask a question, be sure to visit Lawfare’s Patreon account and become a Material Supporter.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From December 11, 2018: Last week, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Gregory Johnsen, a former member of the U.N. Security Council Panel of Experts on Yemen and the author of the book "The Last Refuge: Yemen, Al-Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia," to do a deep dive on the conflict in Yemen: its origins; its current state; and the role Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States have played and are likely to play moving forward. Joining Ben and Greg was Daniel Byman, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center for Middle East Policy and Lawfare’s own Foreign Policy Editor.After Ben and Dan’s conversation with Greg, Brookings Fellow Molly Reynolds and Lawfare's Scott R. Anderson sat down for a conversation about Yemen-related legislation that is currently churning on Capitol Hill, and what it may mean for the future of U.S. involvement in the conflict there.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last month, at COP28 in Dubai, the Republic of the Marshall Islands unveiled its sweeping national climate adaptation plan, the multi-year product of government officials interviewing thousands of Marshallese residents across the country’s dozens of coral atolls. The plan is ambitious and groundbreaking because it has to be. As John Silk, foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, said in September, “We call it our national adaptation plan, but it is really our survival plan.”Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Jake Bittle, a staff writer at Grist who covers climate impacts and adaptation and the author of a recent book about climate migration called “The Great Displacement,” about this very plan, which Jake obtained ahead of the annual climate conference. They discussed what makes this particular climate adaptation plan revolutionary, the thorny geopolitics of climate financing, and the unimaginable, unquantifiable loss that might occur should the worst case scenarios come to fruition for the Marshallese. But they also talked about why, despite its dire warnings and existential subject matter, the plan’s creators ultimately see it as an optimistic document. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From the protests in Brazil initially focused on bus fares to the protests in Hong Kong seeking to stop an extradition bill to the protests across the Middle East now collectively referred to as the "Arab Spring," the political and economic mass demonstrations from 2010 to 2020 made it a decade of public protest like no other. Yet the vast majority of these efforts failed to bring about their desired changes--and many of them actually led to the opposite of what they wanted. Vincent Bevins, author of the new book If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and the Missing Revolution, has chronicled this decade with stories from his on-the-ground reporting and extensive interviews with activists in ten countries around the globe.David Priess spoke with Vincent about why mass protests during this decade so often fell short of their objectives, the principle of horizontalism, the role of social media in mobilization and action, and other themes as they relate to the mass protests in Brazil, Turkey, Hong Kong, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, South Korea, and other countries.Among the works mentioned in this episode:The book If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and the Missing Revolution by Vincent BevinsThe movie The CandidateThe book From Mobilization to Revolution by Charles TillyThe book Minor Detail by Adania ShibliThe book Bourdieu's Secret Admirer in the Caucasus by Georgi DerluguianChatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Noam Osband and Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The conflict between Israel and Hamas is provoking heated debates about which side is in the right. Each accuses the other of things like war crimes. Oftentimes, they’re expressing a political or moral judgment—but the fact is, these are also legal terms.So for this discussion, we’re going to step back from the debates and try to take a dispassionate look at the law that applies here—international humanitarian law, or IHL.To do that, Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Gabor Rona, who previously served as the legal adviser for the International Committee for the Red Cross. They talked about what IHL has to say about the most heated debates of this conflict, including the high number of civilian casualties in Gaza and Hamas’s use of human shields. They talked about the gaps in the law. And they talked about whether the law even matters here. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In May 2023, Montana passed a new law that would ban the use of TikTok within the state starting on January 1, 2024. But as of today, TikTok is still legal in the state of Montana—thanks to a preliminary injunction issued by a federal district judge, who found that the Montana law likely violated the First Amendment. In Texas, meanwhile, another federal judge recently upheld a more limited ban against the use of TikTok on state-owned devices. What should we make of these rulings, and how should we understand the legal status of efforts to ban TikTok?We’ve discussed the question of TikTok bans and the First Amendment before on the Lawfare Podcast, when Lawfare Senior Editor Alan Rozenshtein and Matt Perault, Director of the Center on Technology Policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, sat down with Ramya Krishnan, a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and Mary-Rose Papandrea, the Samuel Ashe Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law. In light of the Montana and Texas rulings, Matt and Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic decided to bring the gang back together and talk about where the TikTok bans stand with Ramya and Mary-Rose, on this episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to our annual “Ask Us Anything” episode, a hallowed Lawfare tradition. Every news alert in 2023 seemed to bring new questions. But fear not, because Lawfare has answers. Lawfare senior editors answered listener-submitted questions on the Israel-Gaza War, military aid to Ukraine, the Trump trials, gag orders against the former president, the presidential pardon ability, violence against elected officials, efforts to combat corruption, and more. What a year! Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From September 27, 2014: A few weeks ago, Benjamin Wittes began listening to a podcast called Hardcore History, which is the brainchild of a fellow named Dan Carlin. Carlin was doing a series of episodes on World War I, and Hardcore History is—let's just say—a different sort of podcast. The episodes are very long, very involved, and to Ben at least, completely riveting. Ben can't recommend it highly enough. Carlin, a former radio talk show host, also runs a podcast called Common Sense, which focuses on contemporary political issues and features Carlin's eclectic political views—many of which Ben disagrees with intensely. Literally millions of people are downloading Carlin's lectures on World War I and other major events in mostly military history. Ben caught up with Carlin this week to discuss the World War I series, Hardcore History more generally, and his views on matters surveillance, ISIS, and overseas intervention.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security, Quinta and Scott rang in the New Year with co-host emeritus Benjamin Wittes by discussing some listener-submitted topics, including:What does the AUKUS deal mean for the Five Eyes intelligence relationship?How can courts enforce a gag order against former President Trump?What would a President Nikki Haley mean for the Republican Party’s foreign policy?Which is better, wizards or fighters?Could anything stop former President Trump from appointing a cabinet of loyalists if elected back into the White House?How is misinformation impacting public understandings of the Gaza conflict?What advice would you give to folks beginning law school—and those married to them?Could we just do away with hard printouts of classified information altogether?How will China’s economic and demographic challenges impact its decision-making on Taiwan?What does Prighozin’s death mean for Wagner in Africa?What was your most (or least) favorite media of the year?As for object lessons, they shared several sent in by listeners, including:The video game Pentiment, a murder mystery set in Renaissance Bavaria;The book “Palestine 1936: The Great Revolt and the Roots of Middle East Conflict” by Oren Kessler;The “anti-reactionary conservative news site” The Dispatch, including its podcasts Advisory Opinions, The Remnant, and The Dispatch Podcast;The book “Three Dangerous Men” by Seth Jones, examining military leaders in China, Iran, and Russia;The book “Killers of the Flower Moon” by David Grann (but not the movie);The podcast “The Prince” about the rise of Xi Jinping (along with The Economist’s other phenomenal podcast work);The book “Listen Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People” by Thomas Frank;The new book “For the People, For the Country” by John Ragosta, a political biography of Patrick Henry;And LinkedIn as the hot new social networking site!Thank you to everyone for listening to Rational Security and supporting Lawfare throughout the year. We hope you enjoy a Happy New Year, and we will be back in your feeds in 2024!Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From February 9, 2019: From the increasing development of autonomous weapons systems to the expansion of the traditional battlefield to cyber and outer space, the evolution of warfare invites ethical and legal questions about what the future holds. In November 2018, Arnold & Porter's Veterans and Affiliates Leadership Organization hosted a panel discussion to explain what warfare will be like for the military veterans of the future.Former Air Force and Army general counsel and current Arnold & Porter partner Chuck Blanchard moderated a conversation with American University law professor Ken Anderson, Emory law professor Laurie Blank, and Jamie Morin, vice president of Defense System Operations at The Aerospace Corporation and a director of the Center for Space Policy and Strategy.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Former President Trump’s prosecution for mishandling classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate has brought an old law back to the front pages—the Espionage Act.Enacted more than a century ago, parts of that law allowing for the prosecution of those who mishandle or unduly disclose sensitive national security information, have helped provide the legal infrastructure for the modern classification system used to protect our country's most important secrets. And by some accounts, to limit debate over some of its most controversial policies.In his new book, “State of Silence,” George Mason University History Professor Sam Lebovic provides a fast-paced and eminently readable account of the Espionage Act, from its early-20th-century origins, through the various twists and turns that have led it to be applied to government leakers and former presidents alike. Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Lebovic to discuss the unlikely evolution of the Espionage Act, the role that it has come to play in our national security system, and how it might be changed to better reflect our democratic values.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, we're taking time off for the holidays, so we reached into the Chatter archives for one of our favorites.In this episode from January 13, 2022, Shane Harris and David Priess teamed up to talk with John Sipher, a former senior intelligence officer who has gone Hollywood. With his partners at Spycraft Entertainment, John is bringing compelling and, yes, accurate stories about espionage to the screen. Before working in the entertainment industry, he spent 28 years in the CIA, where he served multiple overseas tours as a chief of station. Shane, David, and John talked about their favorite spy movies, the fine line between the espionage and action-adventure genres, and the kinds of stories they’d like to see more of.  Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo, with engineering assistance from Ian Enright. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Between 1865 and 1872, the first iteration of the Ku Klux Klan conducted a reign of terror across the former Confederate States, harassing, intimidating, and murdering freedpeople and their white allies. As violence spread with impunity across the South, Congress, at President Ulysses S. Grant’s urging, passed three Enforcement Acts, which radically expanded the federal government's ability to protect individuals from violence when their state governments could or would not. Lawfare Associate Editor for Communications Anna Hickey sat down with Fergus Bordewich, author of “Klan War: Ulysses S. Grant and the Battle to Save Reconstruction,” to discuss how the Grant administration fought the first domestic terrorist organization the federal government had ever faced. They also talked about the political terrorism conducted by the Klan in that era and what we can learn from that violent period of American history.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court last month heard oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi, in which the Court will decide the constitutionality of a federal law that criminalizes the possession of firearms by individuals on whom state courts have imposed domestic violence protective orders. This case came to the Court following its June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that case, the Court determined that whether a law violates the Second Amendment depends on whether there is a “representative historical analogue” for the contemporary law. Amanda Tyler, the Shannon Cecil Turner Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, argued in a recent article in Lawfare that the many laws disarming loyalists that existed at the time of the Founding serve as a set of “historical analogues” required by Bruen to demonstrate the constitutionality of the statute at issue in Rahimi—a claim which has been disputed by Rahimi’s lawyers. Lawfare Research Fellow Matt Gluck sat down with Tyler to discuss the Rahimi case, the nature of the Founding-era laws that stripped loyalists of their firearms, whether loyalists were members of the American political community, why that question matters for the Court’s ruling in Rahimi, and more.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court during World War II issued some of the most notorious opinions in its history, including the Japanese exclusion case, Korematsu v. United States, and the Nazi saboteur military commission case, Ex parte Quirin. For a fresh take on these and related cases and a broader perspective on the Supreme Court during World War II, Jack Goldsmith sat down with Cliff Sloan, a professor at Georgetown Law Center and a former Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure, to discuss his new book, which is called “The Court at War: FDR, His Justices, and the World They Made.”  They discussed how the Court's decisions during World War II were informed by the very close personal bonds of affection that most of the justices had with President Roosevelt and by the justices’ intimate attachment to and involvement with the war effort. They also discussed the fascinating internal deliberations in Korematsu, Quirin, and other momentous cases, and the puzzle of why the same court that issued these decisions also, during the same period, issued famous rights-expanding decisions in the areas of reproductive freedom, voting rights, and freedom of speech.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security, Quinta and Scott were joined by Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett and Cyber Fellow Eugenia Lostri to talk through the big national security news waking us up from our long winter’s nap this week, including:“Rocky Mountain, Bye.” Colorado’s Supreme Court has bid goodbye to former President Donald Trump’s 2024 candidacy (for now, at least), holding in a 4-3 ruling that he is disqualified as a candidate by virtue of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Will this ruling hold? And where will it go from here?“Houthis to Sea, so Rudely, a Wop Bop a Loo Bop a Wop Bam Boom.” Attacks by Yemen-based (and Iran-backed) Houthi rebels have led major shippers to avoid the Red Sea, dealing a serious blow to global commerce. But the United States and a coalition of allies has announced a new maritime effort—the (perhaps too) aptly named Operation Prosperity Guardian—to keep trade flowing. What will this military operation look like? And what will it mean for the global economy?“Not So Bueno(s) Aires?” Argentina has a new president in the form of eccentric populist economist and literal dogfather Javier Milei. What does his election mean for the future of the country? We have a live dispatch from Buenos Aires to talk it over.For object lessons, Quinta recommended Jennifer Egan’s 2022 classic “A Visit From the Goon Squad” and her latest “The Candy House.” Scott shared his preferred recipe for mulled wine and the secret ingredient: star anise. Natalie shared a wealth of new materials celebrating civil rights leader Bayard Rustin, including a new film Rustin, as well as a recent profile in The New Yorker. And Eugenia gave the people what they want with her endorsement of the Dragon Age series of games.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.