The Lawfare Podcast

On Aug. 6 former President Donald Trump announced on social media that he would “immediately” seek a “venue change ... out [of] D.C.” of his recent four-count federal indictment in Washington, D.C., for allegedly conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. He cited the city’s overwhelmingly majority liberal political demographics as a reason for transferring the trial’s venue, and called the city “a filthy and crime ridden embarrassment to our nation.”Is Trump likely to succeed in court if he files a motion to transfer venue? Is there any precedent for this? Have other Jan. 6 defendants made similar claims? And how is the Supreme Court likely to interpret this issue?To answer all of these questions and more, Lawfare Associate Editor Katherine Pompilio sat down with Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff, who has been closely tracking Jan. 6 prosecutions, and recently published a piece on Lawfare unpacking this issue. They discussed what Jan. 6 defendants have argued in their motions to transfer venue, how the Justice Department has responded, and why if Trump files a motion to transfer venue in his Jan. 6 case, it is likely, as Roger puts it, “dead on arrival.” Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Alan, Quinta, and Scott beat back the heat to dig into the week's big national security news stories, including:“ECOWAShed?” We are now several weeks into a coup in Niger, a country once seen as one of the more reliable Western partners in the Sahel region and home to French and U.S. troops who have been helping the Nigerien military combat a local Islamist insurgency. Even as the Nigeria-led Economic Community of West African States, or ECOWAS, has threatened sanctions and intervention to unwind the coup, neighboring states like Burkina Faso and Mali with close ties to Russia and its Wagner Group have threatened a military response in kind. What might this coup mean for the future of the Sahel? And how should the United States be responding?“A Tale of Two Sittings.” Former President Donald Trump is now the subject of two different criminal indictments, each of which is being overseen by a very different judge in very different ways. What should we make of their divergent approaches thus far? And what does it mean for the effectiveness and legitimacy of the justice system in these highly polarizing cases?“KOSA, No Sir.” A bipartisan coalition in Congress has rolled out a new version of the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, that seeks to respond to concerns raised by digital rights and civil liberty groups while still taking steps towards protecting children online. But many on the right and left aren’t having it. What should we make of this new proposal and the reactions it’s provoked?For object lessons, Alan invoked his father-of-a-son credentials to recommend Christine Emba's recent piece, "Men Are Lost. Here's a Map Out of the Wilderness." Quinta recommended the Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett mash-up, "Good Omens" (the book, not the TV show). And Scott shared plans for his homemade improvised pizza oven, which he set up on his gas grill with just some fireproof bricks, two baking steels, and a heavy dose of grit.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From June 16, 2020: The 2020 presidential election is less than five months away. As the election inches closer and closer, concerns have grown about the possibility that President Trump, should he lose the election, would refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the result. How can we think about that risk? Do we have adequate statutory and constitutional guardrails that protect us from electoral catastrophe? Jacob Schulz sat down with Lawrence Douglas, James J. Grosfeld Professor of Law, Jurisprudence and Social Thought at Amherst College, and author of the new book “Will He Go? Trump and the Looming Election Meltdown in 2020.” They talked about the vulnerabilities in our electoral system, historical examples of mishaps in presidential elections and how to think about the president’s continued hostility toward elections and, in particular, mail-in voting.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Former President Trump has been arguing for some time now that the criminal charges he’s facing in New York, Florida, and D.C. are politically motivated. At a campaign event in New Hampshire a few days ago, he also complained that the cases are forcing him “to spend time and money away from the campaign trail.” The cases haven’t even gotten to trial yet, but two of them are scheduled to take place during campaign season.Which raises the question: does Trump have to actually attend all of these trials while he’s also running for president? Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Dan Richman, the Paul J. Kellner Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, to discuss. As it turns out, it’s a complicated question.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Katie Benner is a features writer for the New York Times, who covered the Justice Department for a number of years beginning in 2017. In a wide-ranging conversation, she sat down with Lawfare editor-in-chief to talk about the challenges of walking into the Justice Department beat during the Trump administration and covering the post-election uprising within the department. She also gave a textured assessment of the department’s criminal investigation of Trump and other Jan. 6 defendants. And she talks about what makes a Justice Department source, and how the department has changed in the era of Merrick Garland.Among the works mentioned in this episode:The article, "Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General," by Katie Benner.The article," Louisiana School Made Headlines for Sending Black Kids to Elite Colleges. Here’s the Reality," by Erica L. Green and Katie BennerChatter 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.

The Task Force for a Trustworthy Future Web was put together by the Atlantic Council for a sprint study of the future of trust and safety in the ever-evolving internet. It issued its report, “Scaling Trust on the Web,” at the end of June. Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with two members of the task force to talk all about it. Rose Jackson is the Director of the Democracy in Tech Initiative at the Atlantic Council, and Camille François is the Global Director of Trust and Safety at Niantic. They talked about how the task force came to be; about what has been learned about trust and safety from a lot of areas to date, including and especially gaming; and about the challenges in the future as trust and safety scales to new ecosystems.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The increasingly pervasive use and abuse of spyware by governments around the world has led to calls for regulation and even outright bans. How should these technologies be controlled? Asaf Lubin, an Associate Professor of Law at Indiana University's Maurer School of Law, thinks that the best path forward is an international agreement that would regulate, but not outlaw, these important national security and crime-fighting tools. He's just published a paper for Laware's ongoing Digital Social Contract research paper series making his case for what he calls the Commercial Spyware Accreditation System. Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare spoke with Asaf about why current efforts to control spyware are insufficient and why only a global regime can do the job.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Just weeks ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the life sentence of a Yemini national serving out his time at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. He had appealed this life sentence, in part on the grounds that his conviction was based on evidence obtained by torture. Meanwhile, at the Guantanamo military commissions, another detainee tried to appeal charges against him on the basis that torture-obtained evidence was used in his referral for trial by the military commissions—but in June, the body that reviews referrals for trials at Guantanamo denied this appeal. He and his co-defendants are currently set to have pre-trial hearings in October. All of this is happening despite the fact that in 2022, in a case about a different Guantanamo detainee, the Biden administration’s Justice Department committed to a reinterpretation of a key statute that blocks the use of torture-obtained evidence in Guantanamo litigation and reaffirmed that it would not try to admit statements that the detainee gave while in CIA custody. So how and why is it that torture-obtained evidence still seems to be being used in certain GTMO cases? To understand the issues, Lawfare Associate Editor Hyemin Han spoke to Scott Roehm, Director of Global Policy and Advocacy at the Center for Victims of Torture, and an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown Law School. They talked about the history of torture evidence at GTMO, dove into a few cases in context of the Justice Department’s 2022 re-interpretation, and discussed what this all might mean for other GTMO detainees moving forward.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the last year, the ADL and GLAAD tracked at least 356 incidents of anti-LGBTQ+ hate and extremism in the U.S. This marks an alarming rise over the past two years of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment and violence. 49% of all incidents were perpetrated by individuals associated with extremist groups. This seems to point toward a much larger recent focus on the LGBTQ+ community by far-right extremists.Lawfare Intern Gia Kokotakis sat down with Meghan Conroy, a Research Fellow at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab who leads its domestic extremism research portfolio, and Jon Lewis, a Research Fellow at George Washington University's Program on Extremism. Both Jon and Meghan have done significant research on far-right extremist groups and ideologies, as well as their intersections with anti-LGBTQ+ violence. They discussed the role far-right extremist groups previously played in anti-LGBTQ+ violence, what may have caused a spike in violence against the queer community, and how the extremist groups committing these acts of violence differ from our traditional conception of the far right.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security, Alan, Quinta, and Scott were joined by co-host emeritus Benjamin Wittes to talk through the week's YUGE national security news, including:“So THAT’s What the Insurrection Act is For.” Former President Trump has been indicted for conspiring to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, including through the insurrection on Jan. 6. And while they haven’t been charged, the indictment names six co-conspirators who were allegedly willing to go to the mat—including former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, who, in one of the darkest moments in the indictment, suggested that the Insurrection Act would be used to deploy the military against anyone who protests the Trump administration’s actions. What does this indictment mean, historically and politically? And where will the trial go from here?“The Spy Who Nagged Me.” The intelligence community is knocking on Congress’s door, hat in hand, asking once again for the renewal for the controversial-but-essential section 702 surveillance authority. But odds seem slimmer than ever this year, not least because the political dynamics around federal law enforcement and intelligence changed so dramatically over the course of the Trump administration. What are the odds of renewal? And what conditions are likely to come if it happens?“Hunter and the Fox.” President Biden’s son Hunter, who has wrestled with substance abuse and mental health issues, is back in the news for at least attempting to plead guilty to an array of criminal offenses—and for congressional testimony alleging that he parlayed access to his father into lucrative business deals. The stories have become a mainstay in conservative media circles and right-wing attacks on President Biden. But how much is smoke and how much is fire?For object lessons, Alan recommended the period thriller “Operation Mincemeat” and its focus on Colin Firth's double-breasted period suits. Quinta sang the praises of the Star Wars section at Disneyland, Galaxy's Edge. Scott endorsed “The Thief Collector,” a charming documentary about a real-world heist and a retired couple's dark double-life. And Ben celebrated his decision to bring "The Orb" out of retirement for the big Trump indictment.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With the indictment and arraignment of former President Donald Trump this past week, Jan. 6 and its aftermath are very much on people's minds. So for today's Lawfare Podcast archive episode, we're bringing you the first episode of our narrative podcast series on precisely that topic. It's called The Aftermath.In this first episode, we looked at the events of Jan. 6 itself and all of the questions about accountability that followed. We recorded this first episode in 2021, long before we knew that Trump would eventually be indicted for his role in all of this. It's a reminder of how things looked at the time.You can listen to the whole first season of The Aftermath on our website, or wherever you get your podcasts.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On July 27, the Justice Department announced a sprawling civil rights investigation, also known as a pattern or practice investigation, into the City of Memphis and the Memphis Police Department. The announcement came just weeks after the department’s Civil Rights Division released a report of a similar investigation into abuses at the Minneapolis Police Department. Both investigations were motivated, at least in part, by the murder of black men at the hands of police—Tyre Nichols in Memphis and George Floyd in Minneapolis. In a recent article for Lawfare about the Minneapolis report and another report looking at the Louisville Metro Police Department, Christy Lopez wrote: “As with past police investigations, the abuse these reports document is chilling, partly in its frequency and perhaps even more so in conveying how casually abuse can occur in policing.” And yet she remained hopeful, writing that the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department “heralded what could be a new era in police reform.”   Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Christy, a Professor from Practice at Georgetown Law and former Deputy Chief in the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, to talk about her extensive experience conducting pattern or practice investigations into police departments and negotiating consent decrees. They talked about the history of these investigations stretching back to the Rodney King beating, the common trends of police abuse that pattern or practice investigations find, and whether or not we’re in the midst of a broader reckoning with ideas of policing and public safety. Please note that this episode contains content that some people may find disturbing, including graphic depictions of police violence. Listener discretion is advised.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In June 2017, FBI agents arrived at the home of Reality Winner, a translator working for the NSA, to question her about an unauthorized leak of classified information concerning Russian interference in U.S. elections. Six years later, Tina Satter’s new film, “Reality,” tells the story of that fateful day, which led to Winner’s imprisonment. Satter’s screenplay relies almost entirely on a verbatim transcript of Winner’s conversations with the FBI agents. The dialogue is by turns quotidian and suspenseful. "Reality" is partly a psychological thriller as well as an exploration of the mind and motivations of Winner herself. She received the longest prison sentence ever given by a federal court for the unauthorized release of government information to the media. Shane Harris talked with Satter about her film, which is based on her stage play, “Is This a Room.” Satter says she became fascinated with Winner after reading about her arrest in the press. She thought the transcript had dramatic potential. To Satter, it read like the script for a play, with a list of characters and dialogue. “Is This a Room” received critical praise and won important theatre awards. The movie, “Reality,” is streaming on Max. Satter began her theatrical career in Portland, Oregon, and has worked with some of the biggest names in experimental theatre. She now lives and works in New York. Among the works mentioned in this episode:“Reality” on Max: https://www.hbo.com/movies/reality “Is This a Room” review: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/11/theater/is-this-a-room-review.html The New York magazine article that first got Satter interested in Winner's story: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/12/who-is-reality-winner.html Satter’s production company, Half Straddle: http://www.halfstraddle.com/ Reality Winner’s interview with Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/reality-winner-interview-prison-nsa-1261844/ Chatter 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.

Over the past eighteen months, Ukraine has served as the stage for a proxy battle between superpowers, with the invading Russians on one side and a U.S.-led coalition of Western allies backing Ukraine on the other. As such, it’s the closest thing we’ve yet seen to what many military strategists believe will be the defining challenge of the next strategic era: a near-peer conflict between two or more technologically sophisticated major powers. In this way, the conflict has served as a canary in the coal mine for new military trends, tactics, and technologies that may soon be brought to bear against the West (or by it). Last month, Shashank Joshi, the Defence Editor for The Economist, published a special report in The Economist outlining what lessons military leaders in the West are taking away from the Ukraine conflict as they prepare their own militaries for their next fight. He sat down with Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson to talk over his findings and what Ukraine can tell us about the future of war. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Tuesday, a D.C. grand jury voted to indict Donald Trump for a range of crimes that all involve the attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election. For this emergency edition of the podcast, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down on Lawfare Live with Senior Editors Scott R. Anderson, Roger Parloff, and Quinta Jurecic; Executive Editor Natalie Orpett; and Legal Fellow Anna Bower to unpack it all.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In last month’s landmark settlement, the City of New York agreed to pay over $13 million to a group of 1,380 protestors who “were arrested and/or subjected to force by N.Y.P.D. officers” in Manhattan and Brooklyn in the summer of 2020. The proposed settlement marks “the largest total payout to protesters in a class-action suit in the United States,” according to Akela Lacy at The Intercept. The plaintiffs won the case, at least in part, thanks to the work of SITU Research, a group that conducts visual investigations and “merges data and design to create new pathways for justice.” SITU Research’s work supports activists, advocates, and lawyers, bridging the gap between digital evidence and the communities that can best deploy them towards justice and accountability. Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Brad Samuels, a founding partner at SITU who has overseen the team’s visual investigations for legal and advocacy organizations including The International Criminal Court, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, The Associated Press, Frontline, The United Nations, and many others. They discussed why forensic reconstructions and other visual investigations are so useful in the pursuit of justice for war crimes and other abuses, how Samuels and his colleagues build them, and some of the pushback they get. They also talked about the thorny new questions these new technologies raise, including the dangers of retraumatizing victims. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This past week, the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs held a spirited hearing on an unusual topic: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, or UAPs, the more correct term for what are commonly called UFOs, or Unidentified Flying Objects. The witnesses included two military veterans who claimed to have borne eyewitness to UAPs, and an intelligence community whistleblower who claims to have heard secondhand from contacts about a range of government activity relating to extraterrestrials, including the recovery of alien remains and crashed aircraft. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the witnesses’ testimony has triggered an array of strong reactions, from outright scorn and disbelief to an array of boosters eager to tie it into their own worldviews and conspiracy theories. To talk through the revelations at this hearing and the debate over UAPs more broadly, Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with veteran Washington Post national security reporter Shane Harris, who has closely followed the debate over UAPs for many years. They talked about how the witnesses’ testimony fits into the broader universe of reports relating to UAPs, what parts reflect serious policy problems and which don't, and how to separate the wheat from the chaff in the broader UAP debate.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security, Alan, Quinta, and Scott were joined by the long absent Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including:“Next Fear in Jerusalem.” This week, Israel’s Knesset voted to abolish the “reasonableness doctrine” that had allowed its courts to review administrative decisions by the executive branch—a revolutionary move that triggered unprecedented protest around the country and a wave of resignations throughout the armed forces and other corners of the country. What is the significance of this change? And what does it mean for the future of Israeli democracy?“Rio Grandstanding.” The Biden administration sued the state of Texas this week for installing barriers across the Rio Grande river, purportedly to stymie the flow of unlawful immigration. Texas, meanwhile, maintains that it has the right to take these measures as part of its sovereign authority as a state. Who has the better of these arguments, and what does it tell us about the state of the law and politics surrounding immigration in the United States?“Gone Fishing.” Despite months of revelations regarding ethical shortcomings by its members, the Supreme Court has thus far resisted efforts to install stronger accountability mechanisms. But earlier this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee adopted a measure (along party lines) that would force the Court to do so by directing it to adopt a Code of Ethics. Is this the right approach?For object lessons, Alan recommended that other weekend blockbuster, the new Mission Impossible movie. Quinta gave her (slightly qualified) endorsement to the Barbie movie. Scott wholeheartedly recommended the true winner in this year’s weird movie sweepstakes, the Dungeons & Dragons movie. And Natalie broke the movie streak to join the chorus of praise for the Libby app (hooray public libraries!) and to endorse Mirasa baby clothes, both of which she found a new appreciation of on family leave.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From December 7, 2020: Jack Goldsmith spoke with Adam Cox and Christina Rodríguez, the authors of "The President and Immigration Law," a new book about the historical rise and operation of a president-dominated immigration system. They discussed the various ways that Congress has delegated extraordinary power over immigration to the president, how what the authors call "de facto delegation" confers massive presidential enforcement discretion that is the basis for programs like the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and the benefits, costs and legal limits of this system. They also discussed what President Donald Trump accomplished with his immigration program during his term in office and President-elect Biden's possible immigration agenda.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Joshua Geltzer is the Deputy Homeland Security Advisor at the White House, part of the National Security Council staff. He is the president's point person on the reauthorization battle surrounding Section 702, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act section that authorizes broad collection against overseas targets using domestic infrastructure. He joined Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes to talk about 702, the problems it has had, the reasons the government thinks it needs it still and wants it reauthorized, and the tough legislative landscape the government is facing between traditional left anxieties about the statute and those of the Trumpist right.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Creators of science fiction movies and television shows often build worlds with at least some attention to governance systems and international (or interplanetary) political interactions. Sometimes, they develop central plot points out of national security matters, even if they play out in entirely different galaxies or dimensions. So it's not surprising that political scientist and author Stephen Dyson has spent years looking closely at how the genre influences--and, in turn, is influenced by--international relations theory and practice.David Priess hosted Stephen for a conversation about the definitions of science fiction, fantasy, and speculative fiction; teaching international politics in China; how science fiction helps us to understand international relations and how IR inform our viewing of science fiction; politics in the Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars universes; and much more.Among the works mentioned in this episode:The book Otherworldly Politics by Stephen Benedict DysonThe books Imagining Politics, The Blair Identity and Leaders in Conflict by Stephen Benedict DysonThe book Metamorphoses of Science Fiction by Darko SuvinThe YouTube channel UConnPopCastThe TV shows Star Trek (The Original Series), Star Trek: The Next Generation, Battlestar Galactica (2004-2009), Battlestar Galactica (1978-1979), and Game of ThronesThe movies Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope and Rogue OneThe article "Images of International Politics in Chinese Science Fiction: Liu Cixin's Three-Body Problem," in New Political Science (2019), by Stephen Benedict DysonThe book Children of Time by Adrian TchaikovskyThe book Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthyChatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Isabelle Kerby-McGowan 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.

Last month, Brazil’s highest electoral court found that former President Jair Bolsonaro had abused his political power in the 2022 elections because of his conduct in a meeting with foreign ambassadors in Brasília in July 2022. For this violation of the country’s election laws, the electoral court banned Bolsonaro from seeking public office until 2030.  Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Emilio Peluso Neder Meyer, Professor of Constitutional Law at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil, and Thomas Bustamante, Professor of Legal Theory at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil, to discuss Brazil’s search for accountability and justice in the aftermath of the coup attempt on Jan. 8, why the electoral court’s ruling was not so much a legal innovation as a mere application of existing laws, and the significance of President Lula’s decision not to rely on the military in his government’s response. They also discussed what’s next for Bolsonarismo.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The first phase of Israel's judicial overhaul is now law. Huge numbers of people are in the streets, reservists are resigning, the stock market is tanking, and Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes assembled an all-star panel to talk about it.Natan Sachs is the Director of the Center for Middle East Policy and a Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution. Amichai Cohen teaches international law and national security law at the Ono Academic College in Israel. And Yuval Shany is the Hersch Lauterpacht Chair in International Law and former Dean of the Law Faculty of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Cohen and Shany are the authors of a string of in-depth articles about the Israeli judicial revolution and the protests they have engendered (see their Lawfare articles here, here, here, here, here, and here). The four of them talked about what the substance of this new law is, what's coming next, whether this is the end of the reform sequence or just the first slice of salami, and about the incredible reaction we have seen from Israeli civil society and from opposition parties.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Former President Trump is facing criminal charges in Florida and New York, and indictments are reportedly likely in Fulton County, Georgia, and Washington, D.C. Two of these are in federal court; two of them are in state courts. Some have facts in common; some are seemingly unrelated. Trump is also involved in multiple civil litigations. And it looks like at least parts of these proceedings will be happening all at once. How does that work? Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Brandon Fox, a partner at the law firm Jenner & Block and former Chief of the Criminal Division in the Central District of California, to talk through how it may all play out. They talked about the challenges Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office and state prosecutors will face, how Trump’s lawyers will leverage those challenges, and what judges are likely to do in response.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On July 12, the Justice Department appealed the sentences of seven Oath Keepers convicted for Jan. 6-related crimes. Five have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, and two others were convicted of conspiring to obstruct Congress. Lawfare Intern Gia Kokotakis sat down with Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff, a former lawyer and expert on the Jan. 6 Oath Keepers prosecutions who directly observed the proceedings. They discussed who the defendants are, how their sentences were calculated, and the Justice Department's strategic motivations for filing the appeals.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security, Alan, Quinta, and Scott got together to NOT talk about that ONE big story that's not quite ripe yet. (You know the one. It involves sandwiches.) But they did chat through some of the week's other big national security news, including:“Against the Grain.” Russia backed out of the Turkey-facilitated Black Sea Grain Initiative this past week, which had allowed much needed Ukrainian grain to arrive in markets, largely in the developing world. Now not only is that avenue cut off, but Russian forces are attacking grain facilities in Odessa, threatening the global food supply. How does this brutal act fit into Russia’s global strategy? And how should the United States and its allies respond?“It’s a War on War.” The culture war is now taking on actual war, as House Republicans have passed a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) laden with provisions that target Defense Department policies relating to abortion, DEI, and LGBTQ+ issues—measures that are certain not to make it through the Democrat-controlled Senate and may end up putting the annual bill at risk of not being passed at all. How big is the risk of such an impasse? What could it mean for U.S. national security?“Coups are Like Pancakes.” Earlier this week, the New York Times published a report about how former officials in the Trump administration are declaring the first Trump administration a mulligan and outlining plans to dramatically expand presidential power and purge the executive branch if and when Trump returns to the White House for a second time. How seriously should we take these proposals? And what would they mean for democracy if implemented?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From November 18, 2020: In the waning days of his administration, the president has attempted to install a political loyalist as General Counsel of the National Security Agency, a position that is traditionally a merits position, not a political position. He has also issued an executive order that gives the executive branch greater control over the civil service, making it easier to hire and fire people in agencies. It all raises the question: Is Donald Trump attempting to create the very deep state that he has spent the last four years denouncing? To talk over this question in its various permutations, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Susan Hennessey, who recently wrote an article about the NSA General Counsel appointment; Scott Anderson, Lawfare senior editor; and Rudy Mehrbani, senior advisor at Democracy Fund Voice, senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, former assistant to the president and director of presidential personnel and former associate White House counsel in the Obama administration.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On June 16, the U.S. State Department discovered unauthorized access to its Exchange Online email services and reported it to Microsoft. Almost a month later, on July 11, Microsoft disclosed the attack, and attributed it to a China-based threat actor, which they call Storm-0558. The intrusion granted the hackers access to email accounts at the Commerce and State Departments, including Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, among other targets. Although no classified information was compromised, the cyber espionage campaign comes at a time of tension between the U.S. and China.To discuss the significance of the latest cyber espionage campaign, Lawfare’s Fellow in Technology Policy and Law, Eugenia Lostri, sat down with Asaf Lubin, Associate Professor of Law at Indiana University Maurer School of Law and a Visiting Professor at Columbia Law School. They talked about what different types of espionage campaigns tell us about tightening U.S.-China competition, how international law can address cyber espionage, and the options available for governments to respond to these type of incidents.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Gaming might seem far removed from national security, but Volko Ruhnke's experience proves otherwise. During his career as an intelligence analyst and manager, he designed and published many commercially successful historical board games that, in turn, informed his work. Additionally, he applied his skills in gaming to training intelligence officers.David Priess hosted Volko for a deep dive about board games that included discussion of various game types, the value of in-person vs. virtual gaming, Volko's intelligence career, his many published games, the use of cards in gameplay, the importance of honoring historicity while avoiding forced recreation of exact historical timelines, similarities between game design and intelligence questions, the collaborative nature of historical boardgaming, why military wargaming matters, complexity in intelligence analysis, games ranging from political coalition management to Polynesian exploration and from the suffrage movement in the early 1900s to the manipulation of public perceptions about the functionality of Machu Picchu, and much more.Among the works mentioned in this episode:Volko Ruhnke's page at GMT GamesThe Kevin McPartland-designed game Conquest of ParadiseThe Alison Collins-designed game Wiñay KawsayChatter 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.

Last month, the majority staff of the Senate Rules and Governmental Affairs Committee released a report entitled “Planned in Plain Sight: A Review of the Intelligence Failures in Advance of January 6th, 2021,” which explores one of the biggest remaining questions about that day: Why didn’t the government see this coming?Molly Reynolds, Senior Fellow at Brookings and Senior Editor of Lawfare, sat down with Quinta Jurecic, Senior Editor of Lawfare and Fellow at Brookings, and Ryan Reilly, Justice Reporter at NBC News, to discuss the report’s findings, how it fits in with other investigations about the insurrection, and where we go from here. You can also find Molly and Quinta’s article on the report on Lawfare.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It was a big day in the legal travails of Donald Trump. We awoke this morning to news from the former president himself that he had received another target letter from special counsel Jack Smith, this time from the Jan. 6 grand jury. An indictment seems to be imminent. Incoming Lawfare Legal Fellow Anna Bower spent the day in federal court in Fort Pierce, where Judge Aileen Cannon was hearing the first major status conference of the Mar-a-Lago case. And just as Anna was coming out of court, the Attorney General of Michigan announced that she had brought cases against several fake electors from the 2020 election in that state.Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Anna and with Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff for a live taping of The Lawfare Podcast to go over it all. What do we know about the apparently forthcoming new case against Donald Trump? What do we know about the fake electors case in Michigan? And what happened in the courtroom when Judge Cannon faced her first hearing as the presiding judge in the Mar-a-Lago case?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It was a busy weekend in the waters off of Ukraine and Russia. The Ukrainians hit—for the second time—the Kerch Bridge, which connects the Russian mainland with occupied Crimea. The Russians, meanwhile, announced that they are not renewing the Black Sea Grain Initiative, the complex agreement by which Ukraine has managed to export grain through the port of Odessa.What do we know about what happened on the Kerch Bridge? How big a deal is it? Is it connected to the Russian withdrawal from the grain initiative? And what does the scotching of the Black Sea Grain Initiative mean for the Ukrainian economy? To chew it all over, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Dmitri Alperovitch of Silverado Policy Accelerator and the Geopolitics Decanted podcast, and Mykhailo Soldatenko, a visiting researcher at the Harvard Law School and an international lawyer who has written for Lawfare about the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The only thing more impressive than the performance of generative AI systems like GPT-4 and Stable Diffusion is the sheer volume of training data that went into these systems. GPT was reportedly trained on, essentially, the entire Internet, while Stable Diffusion and other image-generation models rely on hundred of millions if not billions of existing pieces of artwork. Of course, much of this content is copyrighted, and the authors and artists whose work is being used to train these models and, potentially, threaten their own livelihoods are paying attention. A number of high-profile lawsuits are making their way through the courts, and the outcome of these cases could hugely shape, and potentially even stop, progress in machine learning.To explore these issues, Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, spoke with Pam Samuelson, the Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley and one of the pioneers in the study of digital copyright law. She's just published a new piece in the journal Science titled "Generative AI meets copyright,” in which she analyzes the current litigation around generative AI and where it might lead.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Alan, Quinta, and Scott were joined by Ravi Agrawal, Editor in Chief of Foreign Policy Magazine, to talk through the week’s big natsec news, including: “Pledge Week.” In a sign of strength, NATO held its annual summit in the capital of Vilnius this week, just kilometers from Lithuania’s border with Belarus. But those hoping to join the club have gotten mixed receptions, with NATO members securing a clear path for Sweden to join the alliance without presenting a clear way forward for embattled Ukraine. What did we learn about the state of the alliance from this week’s historic meeting?“Cluster Ruck(us).” Late last week, the Biden administration made the controversial decision to provide U.S. cluster munitions—a type of weapon that many U.S. allies have banned by treaty, due to concerns about civilian casualties—to its ally Ukraine. Is it the right move? And what might it mean on the battlefield—and after the war is over?“Needling and Threads.” Mark Zuckerberg appears to have finally gotten under the skin of tech billionaire Elon Musk, as his recently launched competitor to Musk’s beleaguered Twitter, Threads, launched last week and soon secured over 100 million users. Has Twitter finally met its match? And what will Threads and other competitors mean for the future of the information (and disinformation) economy? Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From December 8, 2020: On Monday, Lawfare released the first paper in its "The Digital Social Contract" paper series. For each paper, Alan Rozenshtein will be doing a podcast interview with the author, and the first guest is law professor Kyle Langvardt of the University of Nebraska College of Law. His paper, "Platform Speech Governance and the First Amendment: A User-Centered Approach," examines how the First Amendment should and should not apply to the content moderation decisions of major internet platforms. Plus, Alan and Benjamin Wittes have a brief discussion to introduce the paper series as a whole.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, just wrapped up, and the big news is that Sweden is in, and Ukraine is not. Eric Adamson of the Atlantic Council and the Swedish Defense Association is a Swedish defense policy analyst who observed the NATO summit. He joined Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes to discuss the two big things that happened: the Swedish resolution of the dispute with Turkey that impeded Swedish NATO accession until now, and the frustrating failure of NATO to set a path for Ukrainian NATO membership. They talked about the dispute between Sweden and Turkey and the nuanced manner in which it was resolved, about whether the Ukrainians are being too demanding and should be more grateful for Western support, and the specific areas in which Sweden will contribute to NATO's capabilities.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Kori Schake is the Director of Foreign and Defense Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. She has also worked in policy positions at the State Department, the Defense Department and the White House, taught at West Point, and more recently, served on the commission tasked with renaming military bases named for confederate figures. She sat down with Lawfare's editor in chief Ben Wittes, to talk about her unusually diverse career in national security, her work at AEI in a period when principled conservatism isn’t popular, and about the recent NATO summit.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Earlier this year, Donald J. Trump became the first former president to be criminally indicted. A few months later, he became the first former president to be indicted a second time, this time in federal court. And it’s not clear that he is done, as Trump and his close associates remain at the center of at least two and possibly more ongoing criminal investigations that have not yet resulted in charges. Nor are Trump’s legal troubles limited to the criminal side of the ledger, as he and the Trump Organization he runs are also involved in a number of ongoing civil lawsuits. As a result, the leading candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination is expected to spend much of that year in court. To get a sense of the complex litigation landscape facing the president and to catch up on the latest developments, Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Lawfare’s two leading trial watchers: Senior Editor Roger Parloff and incoming Legal Fellow Anna Bower. They talked about the criminal cases Trump is facing, what charges may yet be coming down the pike, and how his overlapping trials—and the forthcoming election—fit into his apparent legal defense. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On July 4, a federal judge in Louisiana issued one of the most dramatic First Amendment rulings in recent memory. The case involves a variety of individuals, organizations, and conservative state governments who accuse the Biden administration of unconstitutional "jawboning”—that is, informally pressuring social media companies to censor speech, especially about controversial topics like COVID vaccines and election integrity.Describing the allegations as the "most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history," Judge Terry Doughty enjoined by name dozens of high-level Biden administration officials, and potentially thousands more unnamed government employees, from communicating with social media companies about taking down First Amendment-protected user content.If the opinion stands, it will have a dramatic effect on the ability of the government to communicate with social media platforms, a practice that administrations of both parties have engaged in for years. Earlier this week, Judge Doughty rejected a motion from the government to stay the injunction pending appeal; the government has since asked the Fifth Circuit to do so instead and, in a sign of how seriously it is taking the ruling, has signaled that it may ask the Supreme Court to step in if the Fifth Circuit does not.On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem, Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, spoke to two of the leading experts on the government's relationship with social media platforms to work through the implications of this decision. Derek Bambauer is the Irving Cypen Professor of Law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law and is the author of an influential law review article on jawboning in the context of internet speech. Jeff Kosseff is an associate professor of cybersecurity law in the United States Naval Academy and a Lawfare contributing editor and the author of numerous books and articles about online speech issues.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What are the latest trends in the ransomware-as-a-service ecosystem? Since at least May 27, the CL0P ransomware gang has been exploiting a previously unknown vulnerability to exfiltrate data from financial services organizations, energy corporations, government agencies, and even universities. The group appears to be changing tactics—while it was previously known for its use of the “double extortion” tactic of stealing and encrypting victim data, it seems to now be relying mostly on data exfiltration instead.To discuss the latest changes in the ransomware ecosystem, Eugenia Lostri, Lawfare’s Fellow in Technology Policy and Law, sat down with Charl van der Walt, Head of Security Research at Orange Cyberdefense. Charl is one of the authors of a report analyzing recent cyber extortion activity. They talked about the ransomware-as-a-service ecosystem, the impact the Russian invasion of Ukraine had on ransomware activity in the past year, and what law enforcement is doing to disrupt cybercriminal networks.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Eric Goldstein is the Executive Assistant Director for Cybersecurity of the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, having served previously as Global Head of Cybersecurity Policy Strategy and Regulation at Goldman Sachs, where he led development of the firm's cybersecurity risk management program, and in cybersecurity positions in DHS, as well as practicing cybersecurity law in the private sector. David Kris, Lawfare Contributor and former Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, and Bryan Cunningham, Lawfare Contributor and Executive Director of the University of California, Irvine’s Cybersecurity Policy & Research Institute, sat down with Eric to talk about all things cybersecurity, including the U.S. National Cybersecurity Strategy and U.S. government cyber lanes in the road. Eric also discusses ransomware and what it's like for a lawyer to serve in an operational position. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security, Alan, Quinta, and Scott sat down to talk over the week's post-Independence Day national security news, including:“Oy Revolt.” Israel launched a major military operation aimed at uprooting terrorist bases in the refugee camp outside the city of Jenin in the West Bank this week. But as is so often the case, the operation not only proved deadly for Palestinian civilians but has become a point of controversy in the international community. What does this operation say about Israel’s security strategy? “Nationwide Disjunction.” On July 4, a federal judge in Louisiana issued a nationwide injunction ordering the Biden administration not to engage with social media platforms over First Amendment protected speech, arising out of complaints about its handling of COVID-19 information (or misinformation). What is the basis for this order, how realistic is it, how sustainable is it, and what does it tell us about the weird legal dynamics surrounding this set of issues at the moment?“A la Modi.” Indian President Narendra Modi is having a moment. This week he is sitting down with Chinese and Russian leaders, hosting a virtual face-to-face of the Shanghai Cooperative. This just a week after he was feted by President Biden and Congress here in Washington, D.C. What are we to make of India’s new global prominence?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From January 17, 2015: This week, Ben and Matt Waxman sat down with Daniel Reisner, former head of the International Law Branch of the Israeli Defense Forces and current partner with Herzog, Fox and Neeman. Reisner has also served as a senior member of Israel’s peace delegations over the years, participating in negotiation sessions and summits including those at Camp David. He continues to advise senior members of the Israeli government on a variety of issues relating to international law and operational security issues. Colonel Reisner was in New York on a visit sponsored by Academic Exchange for a series of events and discussions on contemporary national security challenges. His experiences set up a wide-ranging conversation touching on everything from the law of targeted killing to the role of morality in operational law advice.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“But what about Hillary Clinton's emails,” a thousand voices have shouted since the Trump Mar-a-Lago indictment came down. It's not just politicians; it's commentators in serious magazines who seem to think that Trump's conduct is no different from that of the former secretary of state.Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff writing in Lawfare on June 26 found 703 different ways in which Trump's Mar-a-Lago conduct bears no resemblance to Clinton’s emails, and he joined Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes to talk about them. With him was Pete Strzok, a former FBI special agent who ran the Hillary Clinton email investigation. He was there to talk about the investigation, how it differed from the Trump Mar-a-Lago investigation, and whether Roger is correct that the two could not be more different.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Political scientist Ethan Scheiner appeared on Chatter in early 2022, right before the Olympics in Beijing, to talk about the fascinating intersection of politics, security, and Olympic events. This week, he returns to talk about the compelling connections between hockey and international relations--with a special focus on Czechoslovakia before, during, and after the Cold War. His new book, Freedom To Win, uses the stories of a range of larger-than-life characters across several decades to describe the importance of international hockey play to the Czech and Slovak national experience and to increase awareness of a too-little-known quest for freedom from oppression.David Priess and Scheiner discussed the broad intersection of hockey and politics, the intensity of the Swedish-Finnish rivalry on the ice, the origins of the game in Europe, how Czechoslovakian hockey players used their sport to fight back against Soviet domination, the 1969 Ice Hockey World Championships in Stockholm, prominent sports figures' defections from the Warsaw Pact countries during the Cold War, the internationalization of the US National Hockey League, hockey in the former Czechoslovakia after the end of Communist rule in Eastern Europe, and more.Among the works mentioned in this episode:The Chatter episode The Olympics, Politics, and SecurityThe book Freedom to Win: A Cold War Story of the Courageous Hockey Team that Fought the Soviets for the Soul of its People--and Olympic Gold, by Ethan ScheinerChatter 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.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, is one of the most important national security offices that you have probably never heard of. Responsible for reviewing foreign investment in the United States for possible national security threats, its jurisdiction and scope of work has expanded dramatically in recent years—and may be on the verge of expanding once again, as the Biden administration considers installing similar measures for outbound U.S. investment.To discuss, Lawfare Contributing Editor Brandon Van Grack and Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Assistant Treasury Secretary for Investment Security Paul Rosen, whose office oversees the CFIUS process, for the first of what we are calling “The Regulators”: a special series Lawfare is co-sponsoring with our friends at the law firm Morrison Foerster, where Brandon is a partner, featuring one-on-one discussions with the senior officials that are implementing our new era of economic statecraft. They discussed how the CFIUS process works in practice, how it’s changed, and what challenges sit on the horizon, both for U.S. policymakers and the businesses they interact with.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In April, former Vice President Mike Pence testified before a federal grand jury under subpoena as part of the special counsel’s investigation into January 6. The testimony came after the district court rejected Pence’s challenge to the validity of the subpoena under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. And now, months later, Chief Judge James Boasberg has unsealed his ruling on the matter, along with other documents related to Pence’s challenge.When news of the subpoena first broke, Lawfare Senior Editors Molly Reynolds and Quinta Jurecic sat down with Mike Stern and Eric Columbus on the Lawfare Podcast to talk through the issues raised. Now that we have more details about just what took place, Molly and Quinta invited Mike and Eric back to discuss what they made of Pence’s argument and the court’s decision, and what this episode adds to our understanding of the Jan. 6 investigation more broadly.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From June 11, 2019: More than two years after the 2016 presidential election, new information continues to seep into the public about the extent of Russia's sweeping and systematic efforts to interfere in the U.S. democratic process. With the 2020 presidential election on the horizon, last week, Stanford's Cyber Policy Center published a report on securing American elections, including recommendations on how the U.S. can protect elections and election infrastructure from foreign actors.On Monday, Susan Hennessey spoke with two of the report's authors: Alex Stamos, director of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center's Internet Observatory and former Chief Security Officer of Facebook, and Nate Persily, Stanford law professor and expert on election administration. They talked about what happened in 2016, and the enormously complex landscape of defending not just election infrastructure but also preserving the integrity of the information ecosystems in which Americans make their decisions about how to vote, including the possible consequences of regulating foreign media.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Until this year, Tim Wu was Special Assistant to President Biden for competition and tech policy. One of the leading thinkers in progressive approach to antitrust, Tim has since returned to Columbia Law School, where he is the Julius Silver Professor of Law, Science and Technology. Since leaving government, Tim has been offering his thoughts on how the government should regulate artificial intelligence.Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, spoke with Tim about his experience in government, whether he's concerned about AI's existential risks, and what his priorities would be for making sure that AI serves society's, and not just the private sector's, interests. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security, Alan, Quinta, and Scott were joined by their colleague and think-tank neighbor, Russia/Ukraine expert Eric Ciaramella, to talk over the week's big news, including:“Going All (Prigozh)in.” Yevgeny Prighozin, leader of the mercenary Wagner Group, went all in this past week, marching his troops into Russia and halfway to Moscow for the stated purpose of removing Russia’s military leadership, only to abruptly halt and accept exile in Belarus instead. What does this mean for the conflict in Ukraine—and future of the Putin regime?“Lost at Sea.” In a busy week of news, one story has gotten surprisingly little attention: the tragic sinking of an overcrowded smugglers’ boat off the coast of Greece that claimed the lives of hundreds of migrants. What does this incident tell us about the dynamics of the migrant crisis in the Mediterranean—and how the world views it?“Moore, Moore, Moore! (How do YOU like it?)” The Supreme Court issued decisions in three major cases this past week, including addressing the much-discussed Independent State Legislature Doctrine in Moore v. Harper. What did the Court decide, and what will these decisions mean?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.