Law school of New York University in Manhattan, New York City
POPULARITY
115 episodes with just security
77 episodes with just security
13 episodes with just security
12 episodes with just security
11 episodes with just security
8 episodes with just security
17 episodes with just security
8 episodes with just security
6 episodes with just security
8 episodes with just security
6 episodes with just security
5 episodes with just security
12 episodes with just security
3 episodes with just security
3 episodes with just security
4 episodes with just security
2 episodes with just security
3 episodes with just security
There's a lot on the docket today. To pull apart the Iran “deal” framework, Mary and Andrew are joined by Tess Bridgeman, an international law expert who served as a legal advisor in the Obama administration through the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Tess lays out how President Trump's 14-point memorandum of understanding differs from what was brokered in 2015, and what to watch for as negotiations continue. Before she joins, the co-hosts begin by analyzing several examples of what Mary calls the Trump Justice Department's "consistent effort” to avoid judicial review: their refusal to put into a sworn declaration that they won't move forward with the “Anti-Weaponization” fund and a motion to dismiss a Clean Air Act violation lawsuit against Elon Musk's xAI data center in Mississippi. They also tackle a few instances where, contrastingly, the government has positioned itself “on the offense” this week, including an indictment of 15 protesters on a conspiracy charge against ICE and the DHS' intent to build a border wall through a holy landmark atop Mount Cristo Rey in New Mexico. Further reading: Here is the New York Times piece, Mary referred to about the Las Cruces case: A Diocese Tries to Protect Its 29-Foot Jesus From Trump's Border Wall Here is the Just Security tracker that Mary and Andrew mentioned: Immigration Habeas Tracker: Government Obstruction, Judicial Trust, and Accountability Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
The story of Donald Trump's court battles over the past few days has felt less like a legal calendar and more like a rolling constitutional stress test, and listeners, you and I are watching it in real time. In New York, the hush money criminal case continues to cast a long shadow. After the jury's guilty verdict on dozens of felony counts related to falsifying business records, the focus lately has shifted from what happened at trial to what comes next: sentencing and appeals. Reporters from the New York Times and CNN have described Trump's legal team rushing to frame the conviction as legally flawed and politically motivated, laying the groundwork for an appeal that could stretch well into the presidential campaign season. At the same time, court watchers like those on Court TV have emphasized how unusual it is to see a former president, and active candidate, facing potential probation or even a custodial sentence from a New York judge. Down in Florida, in the federal classified documents case, the action over the past several days has largely been on paper, but the stakes are enormous. According to coverage from the Washington Post and Politico, Judge Aileen Cannon has been wrestling with a blizzard of motions: Trump's lawyers pushing to dismiss the indictment, to limit what prosecutors can show a jury under the Classified Information Procedures Act, and to delay any trial date deeper into the election cycle. Prosecutors tied to Special Counsel Jack Smith, as reported by NBC News, have pushed back hard, arguing that no citizen, even a former president, can store national defense documents at a private club and then refuse to give them back. The judge's most recent hearings, summarized by legal analysts at Lawfare and Just Security, suggest a cautious, methodical pace, one that has critics accusing the court of slow‑walking the case and supporters saying it is simply giving the defense the process any defendant would get. In Washington, D.C., the federal election interference case is mostly frozen while the Supreme Court weighs in on Donald Trump's sweeping claim of presidential immunity. SCOTUSblog and Oyez have detailed how Trump's attorneys argued that many of the acts underlying the indictment, from pressuring officials to challenging the vote count, were “official acts” insulated from prosecution. Justice Department lawyers responded that immunity has never covered a president's attempt to overturn an election. Over the past week, commentators on MSNBC and Fox News alike have focused on one thing: the clock. Every day the Supreme Court takes to finalize its opinion is another day the D.C. trial cannot realistically start, and many analysts now say it is increasingly unlikely that listeners will see a full trial there before the next Election Day. Back in Georgia, in Fulton County, the state racketeering case over efforts to overturn the 2020 result has been dominated by fights over District Attorney Fani Willis. According to the Atlanta Journal‑Constitution, recent hearings have revisited questions about her past relationship with a special prosecutor and whether that creates a conflict of interest strong enough to derail the case. Trump's lawyers have used those allegations to call the entire prosecution tainted, while Georgia legal experts quoted by the Associated Press point out that even if Willis were removed, the charges themselves would not automatically disappear. But the practical effect is delay; jury selection that once seemed imminent now looks distant. Put together, these last few days in Trump's legal world have been about timing, positioning, and perception rather than dramatic witness testimony. Appeals are being prepared in New York. Motions are grinding forward in Florida. The Supreme Court's looming immunity decision hovers over Washington. And procedural battles in Georgia test how far a state court can go in holding a former president to account. Listeners, however you feel about Donald Trump, the court system is quietly answering a question it has never quite faced before: how to treat a man who is simultaneously a criminal defendant, a former president, and a leading candidate for the White House. That tension is why every small filing, every scheduling order, every judicial comment has been dissected so intensely over the last few days by outlets from Reuters to CBS News. Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please dot A I. Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3Qs For more check out http://www.quietplease.ai
Asha Rangappa is a lawyer, scholar, and media commentator. She's held senior administrative and teaching roles at Yale University for nearly two decades, where her work including advising deans on governance and strategy helped guide institutional growth during periods of transition, and teaches courses on national security law, Russian information warfare, and leadership and ethics. Prior to Yale, Asha served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. She's the author of The Freedom Academy, a bestselling online Substack publication that explores how to create democratic resilience in America's social fabric, and the co-host of the legal podcast, It's Complicated, with Renato Mariotti. Her next book, UNCOMPROMISED: Activating Your Moral Compass in an Age of Complicity, will be published in 2028. She's a former legal and national security analyst for CNN and ABC News, and her work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, and other outlets. She is an editor for Just Security, a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, and a Security Fellow with the Truman National Security Project. Asha and I discuss the Iran War, Trump's autocratic overreach and DOJ/FBI weaponization, the overall incompetence of the administration, and how Democrats need to fight back and win in November Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel
Have a comment? Send us a text! (We read all of them but can't reply). Email us: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.comWhat happens when the justice system becomes one of the central battlegrounds of American politics?In this episode of Faithful Politics, Will Wright and Pastor Josh Burtram speak with Adam Klasfeld, veteran legal journalist and editor in chief of All Rise News, about several major legal fights unfolding in the Trump era. Adam has spent years covering high-profile court cases from inside the courtroom, including Trump's criminal and civil cases, the E. Jean Carroll litigation, the Epstein prosecution, impeachment proceedings, and major cases involving civil rights and due process.The conversation begins with Trump's proposed $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund. Adam explains where the fund came from, why its structure is raising alarms, and how taxpayer money could potentially be distributed with little public oversight. He also walks through why Capitol Police officers Harry Dunn and Dan Hodges are challenging the fund, and what the fight says about January 6, political loyalty, and accountability.The episode then turns to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man who was sent to El Salvador despite a court order blocking his removal. Adam explains why this case has become such an important due process fight, why judges across the political spectrum have raised concerns, and why the case matters even to people who may not follow immigration law closely.Finally, Adam breaks down the Trump Justice Department's case involving the Southern Poverty Law Center. He explains the government's claims about SPLC's former informant program, the connection to Charlottesville and Unite the Right, and why the case raises larger questions about civil rights organizations, extremism, and the rewriting of recent history.Relevant links for Adam Klasfeld:All Rise Newshttps://www.allrisenews.com/https://substack.com/@klasfeldreportshttps://x.com/KlasfeldReportshttps://www.instagram.com/adamklasfeld/Guest BioAdam Klasfeld provides some of the “best legal writing inside the courtroom” (MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell) and insights that are “always so smart and on the money” (MSNBC's Katie Phang). For more than a decade, he's covered the top stories and court cases from state, federal and military courts across the United States.A senior journalism fellow at Just Security, an online forum affiliated with NYU School of Law, Adam has served as a legal contributor for MSNBC's The Last Word. Previously, Adam served as the senior legal correspondent for The Messenger, the managing editor for Law&Crime, and a reporter for Courthouse News. He has appeared as a guest on the Dan Abrams Show on NewsNation, the Lawrence O'Donnell Show on MSNBC, CBS's Inside Edition, the BBC, and NBC on a variety of topics. He hosted the podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld" and was prominently featured in the documentary "Who Is Ghislaine Maxwell?" — which premiered on the Starz Network and the UK's Channel 4. International television appearances include Sky News, CBC, and CTV, discussing Jeffrey Epstein's thwarted prosecution. Radio appearances: National Public Radio's “All Things Considered,” “Here and Now,” and “Trump, Inc.”; BBC (World, Scotland and Wales); Radio New Zealand; SXM Canada Talks; Sirius FM and more. He cut his teeth at the legal news beat for a decade at Courthouse News, and his bylines also have appeared on NBC, Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, and other outlets. Most major news outlets have cited his scoops and reporting, including the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, The Guardian, The Atlantic, Al Jazeera, Newsweek, Reuters, U.S. News and World Report and the Associated Press.Support the show
A free and independent press has long been understood as a core element of healthy and secure democracies. Particularly in the realm of national security and foreign policy, news reporting and investigations are an integral source of information that enables the American public to evaluate the decisions of their elected officials. Yet today the press is facing new or newly acute challenges arising from the executive branch, Congress, and even the media industry itself—all unfolding against the backdrop of an already-siloed and mistrustful information landscape.What is it like to lead a newsroom and report on national security issues today? Which legal issues are top of mind for media and free speech lawyers and scholars? What are the most pressing challenges and opportunities? On May 18, the Reiss Center on Law and Security and Just Security convened a discussion with frontline experts to address these questions. Show Note: The Trump Administration's Use of State Power Against Media: Keeping Track of the Big Picture by Rebecca Hamilton Just Security's Freedom of the Press Archive
Andrew Weissmann is the co-host of the popular podcast Main Justice and is a frequent legal analyst for NBC/MSNBC. He serves on the board of Just Security and writes frequently for it, as well as The New York Times, The Atlantic, & The Washington Post. From 2017-2019 Andrew served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller's Special Counsel's Office. His memoir about the Special Counsel investigation, Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation , was a New York Times bestseller. He is also a Professor of Practice at New York University and teaches courses in national security and criminal procedure. He also served as the General Counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and from 2002-2005 he served as the Deputy and then the Director of the Enron Task Force where he supervised the prosecution of more than 30 individuals in connection with the company's collapse. And he was also a federal prosecutor for 15 years in the Eastern District of New York, where he served as the Chief of the Criminal Division and prosecuted numerous members of the Colombo, Gambino, and Genovese families, including the bosses of the Colombo and Genovese families. Andrew's back to discuss his terrific new book, Liar's Kingdom: How to Stop Trump's Deceit and Save America, which is on sale May 19. We also discuss Bondi, Blanche, the DOJ SCOTUS, redistricting and more. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel
Mary and Andrew recognize it's been a doozy of a week. Starting with the continued fallout from the Supreme Court's Louisiana v. Callais decision, they focus on how much the 6-3 ruling has opened the floodgates for other states like Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida and Texas to pursue similar redistricting efforts. The Justices even allowed Alabama to move forward with re-drawing their congressional maps, despite prior determinations of intentional racial discrimination in the state. Mary and Andrew juxtapose this new landscape with last week's redistricting decision in Virginia, as Democrats submit an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on that ruling. In addition, a Fulton County decision came in allowing the Justice Department to hold onto the 2020 ballots seized in the FBI's January raid. Plus, the co-hosts unpack the latest from Trump's retribution efforts as James Comey's criminal trial date is set. But in an uplifting end to a rough week, the pair highlight Senator Mark Kelly's argument before the DC Circuit in his case against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over his participation in a video reminding military members of their duty not to obey unlawful orders. This podcast is also available on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice. Further reading: Here is the Just Security piece on Senator Mark Kelly's case: Lessons from the Pentagon's Empty Case Against Mark Kelly Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
International humanitarian law (IHL) has long been critiqued for its gendered fault lines, specifically the marginalization of violence and harm to women and girls during armed conflict, laid bare by the lacunae of protection found in the normative content of the Geneva Conventions. The inadequacy of this normative protection finds a parallel in the Pictet Commentary, whose contours reflect patriarchy, entrenched gender stereotypes, and a lack of awareness of, and disregard for, the vulnerabilities, positionalities and participation of women in war. The limitations of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV), in particular, have been substantively explored by feminist scholars over several decades. In this post, part of a joint symposium on the updated Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention with EJIL:Talk! and Just Security, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin undertakes a close examination of GC IV's Article 27 on the treatment of protected persons, offering an assessment of the extent to which a revised and updated Commentary can overcome the Convention's structural limitations. The answer, she suggests, is mixed. The Commentary is rigorous, expansive and determined, but it remains constrained by the text itself. While progressive interpretative developments help narrow the gap, they cannot fully remedy the gendered DNA of the Conventions as a whole, a challenge that will unfold over decades of sustained work.
Should the FBI be allowed to access the content of Americans' communications–emails, texts and phone calls–without obtaining a judicial warrant? That's a key question facing Congress, with a looming deadline of April 30th. The question is wrapped up in the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Section 702, which will sunset at the end of this month.I had the opportunity to interview Andrew Weissmann, who served as FBI General Counsel in addition to other positions in the Department of Justice. Below are three highlights from our conversation. Our conversation is available as a video on this page as well as YouTube and soon as a podcast.]A bit of background before the excerpts below: Section 702 allows U.S. intelligence agencies to collect the email, text, and phone conversations of foreign nationals located in foreign countries. As a byproduct, Americans' communications are caught in the surveillance net as well. Subject to limitations that Congress introduced in 2024, the FBI can dip into that vast database to look for communications of Americans – without a warrant and without probable cause of wrongdoing.Congress is presented with a three-prong fork in the road: reauthorize the tool as is, reform it with new warrant requirements, or let it sunset entirely. (For competing views on this topic at Just Security, see analysis by George Croner and by Elizabeth Goitein and Hannah James.)
Mary and Andrew begin this week by welcoming former Assistant US Attorney Sunita Doddamani. A 20-year civil servant with an impeccable record of service, Sunita is one of the prosecutors who was recently fired as part of the DOJ's report about the prior administration's so-called “bias” against abortion protesters and religious rights in FACE Act cases. She talks openly about the "Article II" termination letter she received from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, with no warning and like many others, seemingly just for doing her job by taking the cases assigned to her. From there, Andrew and Mary look at the administration's moves to vacate the convictions of four Proud Boys who were convicted of multiple felonies related to the attack on January 6th. Then, on to a significant decision from Judge Mehta in a long-running civil lawsuit brought against Trump, finding that the president's January 6th speech was political rather than official in nature, which would rule out immunity for official acts. And before they wrap up, the co-hosts take up the latest ruling on Judge Boasberg's contempt inquiry into whether government officials violated his court orders around those deportation flights in March of 2025. This podcast is also available on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice. Further reading: Here is the Just Security piece on the FACE Act report: Separating Fact from Fiction in FACE Act Enforcement Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
TW: Topics of SA and r*pe between the timestamps of 14:26-23:00. Abobolandia is a dumpster fire of sexpest-maxxing this week and Lizz and Moji are diving into it all for you. Plus…. Word on the street is the newly-released abortion DOJ “investigation” mentions AAF – god forbid a girl has hobbies. Plus Unpacking Swalwell is and the CNN R*pe Academy story. This episode is bound to piss you off, so buckle up and raise some rage and awareness with your Feminist Buzzkills. GUEST ROLL CALL: ALL RISE… CHRISSA SPARKLES IS HERE!!! The comedian and musical artist is bringing the laughs and all the tea on becoming an accidental political POP STAR, being first-gen Filipino, resisting the system, cultural appropriation-maxxing, unapologetically finding her voice, and her show “Delulu!” We are obsessed. PLUS! Dr. April Lockley, Medical Director of the Miscarriage and Abortion Hotline, talks about all of the ways the hotline supports people who may have questions when self-managing their abortions and miscarriages, free from judgment. We get into how to use the M+A Hotline alongside other great resources to avoid criminalization, the siloing of abortion care from healthcare, and envisioning the world we want to see for abortion and miscarriage care. We love M+A and you need to know about them! Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu. OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by clicking HERE for past Operation Save Abortion trainings, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS: Lizz Winstead IG: @LizzWinstead Bluesky: @LizzWinstead.bsky.social Moji Alawode-El IG: @Mojilocks Bluesky: @Mojilocks.bsky.social SPECIAL GUESTS: Dr. April Lockley IG: @MA_Hotline / @AprilMarie84 Bluesky: @mahotline.bsky.social Chrissa Sparkles IG/Youtube: @ChrissaSparkles GUEST LINKS: CALL OR TEXT M+A HOTLINE: 833-246-2632 Miscarriage and Abortion Hotline Website DONATE: M+A Hotline Plan C PIlls Reprocare Exhale Pro-Voice Repro Legal Helpline Chrissa Sparkles Website Chrissa Sparkles Linktree Fuck ICE Song NEWS DUMP: Justice Department Reveals the Biden Administration's Weaponization of Federal Law Against Pro-Life Americans Separating Fact From Fiction in FACE Act Enforcement Bill Creating $1M Penalty for Abortion Providers Passes Tennessee Senate CNN Exposes “Rape Academy” Eric Swalwell's Exit Helps Democrats in California Governor's Race Abortion Pills, the Budget, and RFK Jr. EPISODE LINKS: ADOPT-A-CLINIC: BEA at Peace Abortion Doulas 6 DEGREES: ChatGPT's ‘Adult Model' Being Shelved Reveals a Much Bigger AI Problem Operation Save Abortion SUBSTACK: Abortion Access Front Expose Fake Clinics BUY AAF MERCH! EMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist Buzzkills AAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist FOLLOW US: Listen to us ~ FBK Podcast Instagram ~ @AbortionFront Bluesky ~ @AbortionFront TikTok ~ @AbortionFront Facebook ~ @AbortionFront YouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFront TALK TO THE CHARLEY BOT FOR ABOBO OPTIONS & RESOURCES HERE! PATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE! ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE! VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE! ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE! GET ABOBO PILLS FROM PLAN C PILLS HERE! When BS is poppin', we pop off! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Hungary's April 12 parliamentary election brought a major political shift. After 16 years in power, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party lost to opposition leader Peter Magyar, whose coalition now holds a strong parliamentary majority. The result marks a new chapter in Hungary's politics after years of debate about democratic accountability, media independence, and relations within the European Union.In this episode, Szuzanna Vegh joins Viola Gienger to explore how the opposition achieved its win, what priorities Magyar may set for his government, and how Hungary's domestic and foreign policies could evolve.Show Note:Zsuzsanna Vegh's Just Security article before the election, “Hungary's Election Could End Orbán's Rule — But Will It End His Power?” April 7, 2026.Just Security's archive of articles related to Hungary.Just Security's archives on Europe, democracy, and authoritarianism.
The North African country of Sudan marks a grim anniversary this week: the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces have been fighting a civil war for three years, creating the world's worst humanitarian crisis. About 14 million people have been forced to flee the fighting, often multiple times, and 4.4 million have fled to other countries, mostly to Chad, South Sudan, and Egypt, but also some to Europe. Today, one in four Sudanese is displaced. The U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organization says 21 million Sudanese are facing acute food insecurity, including 6.3 million in the most dire state of food emergency.Quscondy Abdulshafi joins host Viola Gienger to discuss how Sudan got to this point, how the international community has responded, and where to go next. Show Notes:Quscondy Abdulshafi's April 2025 article for Just Security, "Two Years of War in Sudan: From Revolution to Ruin and the Fight to Rise Again."Rachel George's recent article for Just Security, “Amid Shaky Cea sefire, War in Iran Is Starving Sudan.”Just Security Podcast episode “Assessing the Origins, Dynamics, and Future of Conflict in Sudan” with Executive Editor Matiangai Sirleaf, and three experts, Laura Nyantung Beny, Nisrin Elamin, Hamid Khalafallah, on Oct. 11, 2024. Just Security's Sudan Archive
There's a lot to unpack this week, not least of which being the President's open suggestion of committing war crimes against Iran. Mary and Andrew begin by underscoring the Geneva Conventions stipulation limiting the use of force in wartime to military targets – not civilian ones. Then, a major shakeup at the Department of Justice: Attorney General Pam Bondi is out. Andrew compares her ouster to Trump's firing of Jeff Sessions in his first term, and how the “sycophantic” nature of her allegiance to Trump did not save her job. Next, they turn to last week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court over birthright citizenship. Mary, who is steeped in the case, came away thinking that “the solicitor general has a much greater hill to climb” to convince a majority of Justices to uphold Trump's executive order at issue. Last up, the co-hosts look at another of Trump's EO's being challenged that would restrict mail-in voting, despite defending his own use of voting by mail in Florida's Special Election in late March. This podcast is also available on YouTube at ms.now/mainjustice. Further reading: This is the Just Security piece Andrew referred to: When War Crimes Rhetoric Becomes Battlefield Reality: The Slippery Slope to Total War on Iran Here is Mary's MS NOW piece: The embarrassing lesson of Pam Bondi's confirmation hearing. Here is Trump's EO on mail in voting that was immediately challenged: ENSURING CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION AND INTEGRITY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Federal agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Justice, have faced mounting criticism for withholding significant portions of Epstein-related records—fueling allegations of a deliberate cover-up. In July 2025, both agencies issued a memo stating they found no “client list,” no proof of blackmail, and no evidence Epstein was murdered, and confirmed his death was a suicide. They also announced they would not release further documents, despite earlier promises of transparency The limited release of roughly 33,000 pages—largely consisting of materials already public—was blasted by lawmakers and victims' advocates as inadequate. Critics argued the disclosures fell far short of real accountability, with Rep. Robert Garcia and others calling the process a “stonewall.” Independent reviews, such as Just Security's detailed timeline, underscored repeated federal failures: ignoring victim reports, dropping early investigations, and negotiating Epstein's lenient 2008 non-prosecution agreement in secret. Together, these actions suggest a systemic effort to obscure the extent of Epstein's government ties rather than expose them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailywire.com/news/fbi-hiding-potentially-explosive-records-on-jeffrey-epstein-internet-sleuth-claims-after-foia-denialBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Federal agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Justice, have faced mounting criticism for withholding significant portions of Epstein-related records—fueling allegations of a deliberate cover-up. In July 2025, both agencies issued a memo stating they found no “client list,” no proof of blackmail, and no evidence Epstein was murdered, and confirmed his death was a suicide. They also announced they would not release further documents, despite earlier promises of transparency The limited release of roughly 33,000 pages—largely consisting of materials already public—was blasted by lawmakers and victims' advocates as inadequate. Critics argued the disclosures fell far short of real accountability, with Rep. Robert Garcia and others calling the process a “stonewall.” Independent reviews, such as Just Security's detailed timeline, underscored repeated federal failures: ignoring victim reports, dropping early investigations, and negotiating Epstein's lenient 2008 non-prosecution agreement in secret. Together, these actions suggest a systemic effort to obscure the extent of Epstein's government ties rather than expose them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailywire.com/news/fbi-hiding-potentially-explosive-records-on-jeffrey-epstein-internet-sleuth-claims-after-foia-denial
# Trump's Legal Calendar: March 2026We're three days away from a critical moment in Donald Trump's ongoing legal battles, and the former president finds himself navigating an extraordinarily complex web of court proceedings that continue to shape his political future.As of late March 2026, Trump is pushing forward with multiple attempts to overturn his 2024 hush money conviction from New York. According to reporting from Anadolu Agency, a federal judge named Alvin Hellerstein recently questioned Trump's legal team during a hearing that stretched over three hours at the US District Court in lower Manhattan. Hellerstein expressed serious skepticism about the arguments being made to overturn Trump's 34 guilty verdicts. The judge was particularly critical of a strategic decision Trump's lawyers made back in July 2024 following a US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. Rather than taking the case directly to federal court at that time, Trump's attorneys asked the state trial judge to intervene instead. Hellerstein made it clear he believed this was a significant mistake, telling the legal team they should have pursued federal court first. This is now Trump's third attempt to move the case to federal court in an effort to erase his conviction.The hush money case itself centered on payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during Trump's 2016 campaign. According to ABC News reporting, that New York trial began on March 25, 2024, under Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution, with Trump accused of falsifying business records to conceal these payments.Beyond the New York proceedings, Trump has faced a constellation of other legal challenges. According to documentation from Just Security, a resource tracking Trump's legal milestones, there have been multiple cases involving election interference claims, challenges to his ballot eligibility under the 14th Amendment, and various federal proceedings. The federal election interference case related to January 6th has been particularly contentious regarding trial timing. Special counsel Jack Smith's office wanted the trial to begin as early as possible, while Trump's defense team has consistently pushed for delays, at one point requesting an April 2026 trial date to allow adequate time to review millions of pages of discovery evidence.According to reporting from Courthouse News, prosecutors challenged Trump's request for that April 2026 trial date, arguing it would deprive the public of its right to a speedy trial. Molly Gaston, a member of Special Counsel Smith's team, pointed out that much of the evidence the government provided came from sources Trump would have already seen, including the National Archives and his own public statements on Truth Social.Throughout all these proceedings, Trump has remained actively involved in the political sphere while simultaneously managing these legal challenges. The overlapping demands of court appearances, legal strategy sessions, and political obligations continue to define his current reality.Thank you for tuning in to this update on Trump's legal situation. Be sure to come back next week for more on how these cases continue to develop. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more information, visit Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching court battles unfold like a high-stakes thriller, but here we are in late March 2026, and Donald Trump's legal saga is heating up again. Just this week, on Monday, prosecutors from Special Counsel Jack Smith's team fired back hard against Trump's lawyers in the federal election subversion case stemming from the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Trump's attorney John Lauro had pitched an April 2026 trial date, claiming the 11.6 million pages of discovery documents were like stacking paper eight Washington Monuments high—imagine that, a towering mess of evidence they'd need years to sift through. But Molly Gaston, on Smith's team, called that nonsense in her reply brief, pointing out that about 65% of those docs were duplicates or already public, like stuff from the National Archives or Trump's own Truth Social posts and campaign rants. She noted three million pages even came from Trump's own associates, and the team front-loaded the key evidence right after Judge Tanya Chutkan's protective order back in August. ABC News reports this pushback underscores how Trump's camp is dragging feet to delay past elections, while Smith wants it fast—maybe even before the next presidential primaries kick off.Over in Florida, the classified documents case at Mar-a-Lago hasn't budged much lately, but Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, had set a May 2024 trial that got pushed around amid appeals. It's still simmering, with Trump accused of mishandling top-secret files after leaving the White House. Then there's Georgia, where Fulton County DA Fani Willis charged Trump with 41 counts of election interference, roping in big names like Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, and David Shafer. Her push for a March 2024 start fizzled with delays, and appeals are flying—Trump's even trying to boot Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's hush money case to federal court for the second time, per Just Security's master calendar.Up in New York, the Stormy Daniels falsified records trial under Bragg was eyed for March 25, 2024, but it's tangled in motions. Don't forget the civil sides: New York AG Letitia James' $250 million fraud suit against the Trump Organization kicked off in October 2023, and E. Jean Carroll's defamation cases keep Trump in the hot seat over her 1990s assault claims. As of yesterday, March 26, the U.S. House Floor Proceedings streamed live, buzzing with political fallout—no direct Trump trial mentions, but you know it's rippling through Congress amid a DHS shutdown drama where President Trump vowed an emergency order to pay TSA agents, per KTLA's coverage with analyst Jessica Levinson.These overlapping calendars—federal probes, state indictments, civil suits—have Trump's team juggling depositions, like the one with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page back in 2023 that still echoes. Judge Chutkan's warned Lauro: keep posting inflammatory Truth Social jabs at Smith or her, and trial speeds up. Prosecutors say delaying to 2026 robs the public of a speedy trial. It's a legal marathon turning into a sprint, with Trump framing it all as election interference.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
I never thought I'd be glued to courtrooms more than cable news, but here we are in the thick of it with Donald Trump facing off in multiple high-stakes battles. Just this past week, on March 16, 2026, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., handed down a stinging ruling in Trump's long-running federal election interference case overseen by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. According to ABC News reports, the judge rejected Trump's latest push to delay the trial yet again, siding firmly with special counsel Jack Smith's team who argued for wrapping this up before it drags into another election cycle. Trump's attorneys, led by John Lauro, had pleaded for more time to sift through millions of pages of discovery—over 11.5 million from the first batch alone, they claimed, likening it to stacks taller than eight Washington Monuments. But prosecutors like Molly Gaston shot back that much of it was already public or from Trump's own White House archives, and his team had been prepping defenses since the January 6 committee hearings.The clash echoed those heated 2023 hearings where Lauro called a quick trial a "show trial" and Chutkan snapped back, "You're not getting two more years—this isn't going to 2026." Fast forward to now, and with the trial still looming after appeals and overlaps with other cases, Chutkan's recent order accelerates pretrial motions, warning Trump against his near-daily Truth Social rants that could taint the D.C. jury pool. Politico detailed how Trump's strategy hinges on delays, hoping a potential second term lets him direct Attorney General picks to drop federal charges—though that won't touch state cases.Speaking of which, down in Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis is ramping up the racketeering case against Trump and co-defendants like Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, and David Shafer over the 2020 fake electors scheme. Court filings this week show Willis pushing for witness protections amid new threats, with a pretrial hearing set for March 25 that could force Trump to testify under oath. Meanwhile, in Manhattan, Alvin Bragg's hush money trial—tied to those Stormy Daniels payments—saw a federal appeals court uphold the March 25, 2024, start date that's now spilling into appeals, as reported by Courthouse News Service. Trump's team argues it's a "miscarriage of justice," but judges aren't buying the overload excuse.And don't forget Florida: Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, just denied a motion to toss classified documents charges from Mar-a-Lago, with YouTube legal channels buzzing about it as a "huge loss" for the defense. Just Security's master calendar tracks it all—overlapping dates clogging Trump's schedule like never before. These rulings aren't just legal footnotes; they're reshaping the 2026 political landscape, with Trump vowing to fight from the campaign trail.As tensions rise in courtrooms from D.C. to Atlanta, one thing's clear: justice moves forward, no matter the headlines. Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260320.mp3 Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”). Truth Social (3/14/26) This week on CounterSpin: Those not in vigorous denial understand that we in the US are in the midst of not just “foreign” wars—today on, most prominently, Iran—but also a war against our ability to talk about it all, to dissent from it, to hear from people who have different ideas about ways forward. It doesn't seem too much to say: If we cut off our ability to have a widespread public debate, whatever “solutions” we're told “we” came up with have nothing to do with democracy. We'll hear from FAIR editor Jim Naureckas about what news media could call, if only they would, “the Trump administration vs. the First Amendment.” https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260320Naureckas.mp3 Just Security (3/17/26) Also on the show: US news media told us that the images of Iraqis tortured at the infamous “hard site” in Abu Ghraib have been “seared into the American consciousness.” That would imply that those US news media were genuinely interested in the horrors meted out at the Iraqi prison where the CIA and the Army committed what Wikipedia comfortably calls a “a series of human rights violations and war crimes against detainees.” Those media would surely want all of us “consciousness-seared” people to know what was being done to answer for it all, to bring people to account, to make sure it never, ever happened again. (That shouldn't sound like a joke.) The Center for Constitutional Rights has been in back of the last remaining lawsuit on behalf of victims of Abu Ghraib; and, though you might not have heard about it, they won. We'll get the update from Baher Azmy, legal director at the Center for Constitutional Rights. https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin260320Azmy.mp3
Sarah Longwell talks with Just Security's Tess Bridgeman about whether the Iran war is legal under the Constitution, the War Powers Resolution, and international law. They discuss how presidents have stretched their authority for decades, why Congress keeps failing to act, and what it means when one man can take the country to war on his own.Read more from Tess: https://www.justsecurity.org/author/bridgemantess/Pre-order Sarah's book, How to Eat an Elephant, coming in September: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/how-to-eat-an-elephant-sarah-longwell/1149619381?ean=9781250464170Head to https://factormeals.com/illegalnews50off and use code illegalnews50off to get 50% off and free breakfast for a year. Eat like a pro this month with Factor.
OA1241 - This Rapid Response Friday:* everything you need to know to explain to anyone who will listen exactly why what the US is doing in Iran is illegal. We also review oral arguments in an unusual case involving the federal statute under which Hunter Biden was recently convicted which has brought weed, guns, and Amy Coney Barrett's illegal Ambien habit (?) before the Supreme Court at the same time. Finally, in today's footnote: A man who drinks unpasteurized milk, swims in sewage, and once left a dead bear in Central Park has some opinions about what we should be putting in our coffee--and Matt might agree with him? Can RFK Jr really stop America from running on Dunkin? --- *N.B.: this episode was recorded before the news of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's forced departure, but we'll have plenty more to say about her and replacement nominee Markwayne Mullin next week! “Top Experts' Backgrounder: Military Action Against Iran and US Domestic Law,” Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman, Just Security (2/28/2026) “AUTHORITY TO USE MILITARY FORCE IN LIBYA,”DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memorandum, (4/1/2011) Certiorari petition in United States v. Hemani (6/2/2025) Audio from oral arguments in United States v. Hemani (3/2/2026) “Six Senators Accuse Deputy Attorney General of “Glaring” Crypto Conflict, Cite ProPublica Investigation,” Corey G. Johnson, ProPublica (1/29/2026) “RFK Jr. wants Dunkin' to prove drinking its iced coffee is safe,” Tal Kopan, The Boston Globe, (3/4/2026) “Dunkin' Nutritional Facts” (2026) [PDF]
Initial shock has given way to grave concerns as the US and Israel's joint attack on Iran continue, stepping both countries into a war without a clear goal, end date or exit strategy. To help explain where congressional powers lie and the limits of executive authority, Mary and Andrew call upon Tess Bridgeman, international law expert and Co-Editor-in-Chief of "Just Security”. Tess stakes out the scope of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, and why Congress is meant to be the body that decides if, and when the US commits to armed conflict with another nation state. Then, Mary and Andrew turn focus to a few immigration updates, as more judges chastise the government for continually violating court orders, and a Columbia student is detained by ICE under false pretenses. Last up, the co-hosts turn to the decision in the case involving whether a journalist's devices seized while executing a search warrant could be searched. Plus: the Trump administration's decision to stand down on defending Trump's sanctions against law firms— only to do a seeming about face the next day. Further reading: Here is the piece Tess Bridgeman co-wrote on "Just Security": Top Questions the Trump Administration Needs to Answer on War with Iran Here is the opinion Andrew and Mary were referring to out of the Southern District of West Virginia You can pre-order Andrew's book, out May 19th, here: Liar's Kingdom: How to Stop Trump's Deceit and Save America Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Trump's threats to forcibly take control of Greenland brought to the headlines the alarming notion of the United States seeking new territories, from a European ally. But the United States already faces pressing issues of territorial control and governance. In this podcast, we share the perspectives of two leaders who work on democracy, equity, and self-determination issues in current U.S. territories. Why does the United States hold territories? How are they governed? And what does the contrast between Denmark's relationship with Greenland and Washington's treatment of its territories tell us about how these relationships might change? In this episode of the Just Security Podcast, Just Security co-editor-in-chief Tess Bridgeman discusses these questions and more with Neil Weare and Adi Martínez-Román. Neil and Adi are both lawyers, and are Co-Directors of Right to Democracy, an organization that works to advance democracy, equity, and self-determination in U.S. territories. Show Note: Neil Weare and Adi Martinez-Roman, How Greenland's Relationship with Denmark Exposes the Shortcomings of Being a “U.S. Territory” (Feb. 3, 2026)Collection: U.S., Greenland, and NATO Watch this episode on YouTube.
OA1228 - On this week's Rapid Response Friday: we take on all of your legal questions about this whole Greenland thing--including how a 1916 diplomatic treaty with Denmark also enabled some of Jeffrey Epstein's worst crimes. Also discussed: what it took to finally force Lindsay Halligan to stop telling everyone that she was the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and how a Minnesota judge designed her unique order to protect Minneapolis protesters and observers from ICE's lawless violence. Finally, in today's footnote: is it enough that McDonald's can promise that their most elusive sandwich is “100% pork”? We dig into a recent lawsuit over the McRib to see if there is any meat on the bone. The US-Denmark Defense of Greenland Agreement (1951) “How Congress Can Preserve NATO and Greenland: Using 22 USC 1928f to Protect the Peace,” Alberto J. Mora, Just Security (1/16/2026) Judge Novak's order officially striking Lindsay Halligan's appearance from the record and requiring that she stop “masquerading” as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (1/20/2026) Tincher v. Noem docket Judge Menendez's preliminary injunction in Tincher v. Noem (1/16/2026) Complaint in Lynch et al v. McDonald's, Eastern District of Illinois (12/25/2025) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
Donald Trump's foreign policy has been described as the ‘Donroe doctrine' – but it's a stretch to say it's that cohesive. To discuss how damaging he is to the world right now, as he puts American security and everyone else's at risk, Nikki and Jarv are joined by Brian Finucane, senior adviser at International Crisis Group and editor at Just Security. Back us on Patreon – we need your help to keep going. Get ad free episodes, extra bits and merch: https://www.patreon.com/c/americanfriction We're now on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@AmericanFrictionPod Follow us on social media: BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/americanfric.bsky.social Instagram TikTok Written and presented by Chris Jones and Jacob Jarvis. Video and audio editor: Chris Jones. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis Executive producer: Martin Bojtos. Artwork by James Parrett. Music: Orange Factory Music. AMERICAN FRICTION is a Podmasters Production. www.podmasters.co.uk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
I never thought I'd be glued to my screen tracking court battles like they're the Super Bowl, but here we are in mid-January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal showdowns are dominating the dockets from Hawaii to the Supreme Court steps in Washington, D.C. Just this past week, as the Supreme Court wrapped up arguments in cases like Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana and Little v. Hecox, all eyes shifted to Trump's escalating clashes with federal agencies and old foes. On Friday, January 16, SCOTUSblog reported the justices huddled in private conference, voting on petitions that could add more Trump-related fireworks to their calendar.Take Trump v. Cook, heating up big time. President Trump tried firing Lisa Cook, a Democratic holdover on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, back in August 2025, calling her policies a mismatch for his America First agenda. U.S. District Judge Cobb in Washington blocked it, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her ruling 2-1. Now, the Trump administration, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is begging the Supreme Court to intervene. Oral arguments hit Wednesday, January 21, at 10 a.m. in the Supreme Court building, with Paul Clement—former Solicitor General under George W. Bush—defending Cook. Sauer blasted the lower courts as meddling in presidential removal power, echoing fights in Trump v. Slaughter, where the Court already chewed over firing FTC Chair Lina Khan's allies like Alvaro Bedoya last December. Dykema's Last Month at the Supreme Court newsletter calls it a direct shot at the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent, questioning if Congress can shield multi-member agency heads from the president's axe.It's not just agency drama. E. Jean Carroll, the former Elle writer who won $5 million defaming her after a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990s, just urged the Supreme Court to swat down his latest petition. ABC News covered her filing this week, where she argues U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in New York got evidence rules spot-on—no reversal needed.And that's barely scratching the surface. The Court's January calendar, straight from supremecourt.gov, lists Trump v. Cook smack in the middle, following Wolford v. Lopez on Tuesday, January 20—a Second Amendment tussle over Hawaii's law banning guns on private property open to the public without the owner's okay. Axios predicts 2026 bombshells like Trump v. Barbara on his executive order gutting birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, potentially stripping citizenship from kids of undocumented immigrants born on U.S. soil. Then there's Learning Resources v. Trump, challenging his national emergency tariffs on foreign goods—Axios says a loss could force $100 billion in refunds and crimp his trade wars.Over in lower courts, Just Security's litigation tracker logs fresh salvos: challenges to Executive Order 14164 jamming January 6 convicts into ADX Florence supermax in Colorado, and suits against orders targeting law firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale for alleged anti-Trump bias. Lawfare's tracker flags national security spins on these executive actions. Even California Republicans appealed a Los Angeles panel's smackdown of their gerrymander claims against Governor Gavin Newsom's maps to the Supreme Court this week, per SCOTUStoday.These cases aren't just legal jargon—they're power plays reshaping the presidency, from Fed independence to gun rights and citizenship. As Trump posts fire on Truth Social about "evil, American-hating forces," the justices gear up for a term that could torch decades of precedent.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
What happens when the world's most powerful country walks away from the system it helped to build?This week, we examine the United States' decision to withdraw not only from the Paris Agreement, but from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change itself - alongside dozens of other international bodies. Headlines declared the end of multilateral climate cooperation. But is that really what this moment represents?Christiana Figueres, Tom Rivett-Carnac and Paul Dickinson unpack what has actually been announced - and what it does (and doesn't) change in practice.They are joined by Sue Biniaz, former US Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change and one of the quiet architects of decades of climate diplomacy. Sue brings rare insight into whether a US president can legally withdraw from a Senate-ratified treaty, the surprising pathways by which a future administration could rejoin, and what influence the US may still wield as a non-party.Could the absence of the US voice, paradoxically, unlock progress elsewhere? And in a fractured world, where does collective climate leadership now come from?Learn more:
From February 15, 2023: The Jan. 6 committee's final report on the insurrection is over 800 pages, including the footnotes. But there's still new information coming out about the committee's findings and its work.Last week, we brought you an interview with Dean Jackson, one of the staffers who worked on the Jan. 6 committee's investigation into the role of social media in the insurrection. Today, we're featuring a conversation with Jacob Glick, who served as investigative counsel on the committee and is currently a policy counsel at Georgetown's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. His work in the Jan. 6 investigation focused on social media and far-right extremism. Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic spoke with Jacob about what the investigation showed him about the forces that led to Jan. 6, how he understands the threat still posed by extremism, and what it was like interviewing Twitter whistleblowers and members of far-right groups who stormed the Capitol.You can read Jacob's essay with Mary McCord on countering extremism here in Just Security and listen to an interview with Jacob and his Jan. 6 committee colleagues here at Tech Policy Press.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
I step into the studio with one question in mind: where do all of Donald Trump's many legal battles actually stand right now, especially in the courts over the past few days?Let's start with the arena that now overshadows almost everything else: the Supreme Court. Axios reports that the justices are gearing up for a series of blockbuster Trump cases this year, and some of the key moves have landed just in recent days and weeks. According to Axios, one of the biggest is Learning Resources v. Trump, the case that will decide whether Donald Trump can use a declared national emergency to impose sweeping tariffs without Congress. A recent Supreme Court docket entry shows that an emergency application tied to this dispute has been set for full argument in January, rather than decided quietly on the shadow docket, a sign the Court knows how massive the stakes are. A ruling against Trump could force the government to refund more than 100 billion dollars in tariffs and sharply limit his ability to drive economic policy through emergency powers alone, something economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics have been closely watching.But that tariff fight is only one front. Axios also highlights Trump v. Barbara, the case over his executive order targeting birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. Lower courts have split and issued injunctions, and now the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether a policy Trump calls essential to immigration enforcement can override more than a century of Fourteenth Amendment precedent.On the power front, Axios notes yet another Supreme Court showdown: Trump's attempt to fire independent agency officials like Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and Federal Trade Commission officials Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. The question is whether a president can unilaterally remove these figures for policy reasons, shredding a 90‑year tradition of insulation from raw politics. If Trump prevails here, the presidency's reach over watchdogs and economic regulators could expand dramatically.Zoom out from the Supreme Court, and you see the lower courts straining under wave after wave of Trump‑era litigation. Just Security and Lawfare both maintain litigation trackers showing dozens of ongoing suits targeting Trump's executive orders on everything from conditions of imprisonment to crackdowns on law firms and civil rights groups. These trackers reveal a pattern: plaintiffs argue that Trump's actions routinely stretch or shatter constitutional limits, invoking the First Amendment, due process, equal protection, and separation of powers in case after case.Politico, looking at the criminal and enforcement landscape more broadly, describes what it calls a renaissance in the use and resistance of grand juries around Trump‑related prosecutions. Veteran prosecutors told Politico they had rarely seen grand juries push back on indictments the way some have when confronted with aggressive Trump‑aligned cases, and at least one federal judge has openly criticized what she called “apparent prosecutorial machinations” tied to these efforts. Even where Trump himself is not the defendant, his policies and his Justice Department's tactics keep popping up in the courtroom record.Taken together, the last few days have not brought a single dramatic verdict with Donald Trump at the defense table, but they have tightened the vise around his presidency's legal legacy. Supreme Court calendars, emergency applications, and fresh filings in federal courts all point to 2026 as the year when judges, not voters, will finally decide how far Trump can go on tariffs, immigration, and presidential power itself.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Prior to the U.S. attacks that dislodged president Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, American forces have for weeks been blockading U.S.-sanctioned ships carrying Venezuelan oil. In mid-December, the United States began boarding, and seizing, tankers in the so‑called “shadow fleet” that move sanctioned oil across the globe, starting with stateless vessels. In a dramatic turn, this week the U.S. Coast Guard, with U.S. and allied military support, intercepted and boarded two Russian-flagged oil tankers in international waters, prompting protests from Moscow.Can the U.S. lawfully board and seize Russian‑flagged merchant ships? What does international maritime law, and the law of naval warfare, have to say about actions like these? To unpack the legal and geopolitical stakes, host Tess Bridgeman speaks with Rob McLaughlin, professor at the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security and the ANU College of Law, who previously served as both a Seaman officer and Legal officer in the Royal Australian Navy, including in senior roles such as Fleet Legal Officer, Strategic Legal Adviser, Director of Operations and International Law, and Director of the Naval Legal Service. Show Note: Elizabeth Hutton, Maritime Law Enforcement on the High Seas: Authority, Jurisdiction, and the Seizure of The Skipper An Expert Backgrounder (Dec. 22, 2025)Rob McLaughlin and Connor McLaughlin, Was the Visit and Seizure of the Skipper off the Coast of Venezuela Lawful? (Dec. 17, 2025)See also Question 31 in Tess Bridgeman, Michael Schmitt, and Ryan Goodman, Expert Q&A on the U.S. Boat Strikes (Dec. 13, 2025)Michael Schmitt and Rob McLaughlin, Blockading Venezuela: The International Law Consequences (Dec. 18, 2025)Michael Schmitt, Ryan Goodman and Tess Bridgeman, International Law and the U.S. Military and Law Enforcement Operations in Venezuela (Jan. 4, 2026)Just Security's Collection: U.S. Lethal Strikes on Suspected Drug Traffickers, Operation Southern Spear, Operation Absolute Resolve
00:08 — Ryan Goodman is co-editor-in-chief of Just Security and Professor at NYU Law School. He served as Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense(2015-2016). 00:33 — Rafael Osío Cabrices is Editor in Chief at Caracas Chronicles. The post Continued Coverage of the US Invasion of Venezuela appeared first on KPFA.
I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching courtrooms turn into battlegrounds for America's future, but here we are in early January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal wars are heating up like never before. Just days ago, on Tuesday, January 6, SCOTUSblog reminded us of that historic New York Times Company v. Sullivan case from 1964, where the Supreme Court protected the press from libel suits—timely now as tensions simmer between Trump and media outlets. But that's history; the real fireworks are exploding right now.Picture this: the Supreme Court is gearing up for its January 12 argument session in Washington, D.C., with seven massive cases, several straight from Trump's playbook. Axios reports that top of the list is Trump v. Barbara, where the justices could rule any moment on his executive order slashing birthright citizenship. Trump wants to deny U.S. citizenship to kids of undocumented immigrants born here, challenging over a century of 14th Amendment precedent. Businesses like Costco, Revlon, Bumble Bee Foods, and Ray-Ban makers are suing over another bombshell—Trump's tariffs. In Learning v. Trump, they're fighting his national emergency declaration that slapped billions in duties on imports without Congress's okay. Trump boasted on Truth Social it's the "most case ever," but a loss could mean refunding over $100 billion. Then there's Trump v. Slaughter, pitting Trump against Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and FTC's Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, whom he fired for clashing with his policies. The court will decide if he can boot independent agency heads, smashing 90-year-old protections.Just Security's litigation tracker paints an even wilder picture of chaos in lower courts. In D.C.'s federal district court, Taylor v. Trump challenges Executive Order 14164, where Attorney General Pam Bondi shuffled death row inmates to ADX Florence supermax under Trump's public safety push—plaintiffs scream due process violations. The National Association of the Deaf sued Trump, Chief of Staff Susan Wiles, and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt for axing ASL interpreters at White House briefings, claiming First and Fifth Amendment breaches. Law firms aren't safe either: Susman Godfrey out of Texas hit back at an executive order yanking their security clearances for opposing Trump; Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale face similar retaliation suits in D.D.C., alleging viewpoint discrimination. The American Bar Association sued over yanked grants from the Office on Violence Against Women, calling it payback for their stances. Even Rep. Eric Swalwell's in the mix with Swalwell v. Pute, targeting Trump's criminal arrest pushes.Politico says grand juries are Trump's new nightmare—refusing indictments left and right on his aggressive policies, from protester crackdowns to immigrant roundups. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan blasted prosecutors for "rushed" cases with weak evidence. And in a wild international twist, CBS News covered ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and wife Cilia Flores arraigned Monday in Manhattan's federal courthouse before Judge Alvin Hellerstein. Whisked by helicopter from Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center under heavy security, Maduro pled not guilty to narco-terrorism, cocaine smuggling, and weapons charges—facing life in prison—while insisting he's still Venezuela's president.The Supreme Court's emergency docket, like in 25A312, keeps deferring stays till January arguments, per their own filings. Lawfare's tracker logs non-stop national security suits against Trump's moves. It's a legal whirlwind, listeners, with the high court poised to reshape everything from guns in Wolford v. Lopez against Hawaii's private property ban, to conversion therapy fights in Miles v. Salazar.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Donald Trump has spent the past several days not on a campaign stage, but inside and around courtrooms, as a web of criminal and civil cases continues to tighten around him. Listeners, I want to walk you straight into what has been unfolding right now.In the federal election interference case in Washington, brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, prosecutors have been pressing Judge Tanya Chutkan to keep this trial on a firm schedule. According to reporting from The New York Times and CNN, Smith's team has been pushing back hard against Trump's efforts to delay, arguing that voters deserve a jury verdict on whether he criminally tried to overturn the 2020 election before the next major political milestones. Trump's lawyers, by contrast, have continued to insist that the case is a partisan hit job and that they need far more time to review discovery. That clash over timing has dominated hearings in recent days, with Judge Chutkan signaling she will not allow the defense to simply run out the clock.Down in Georgia, in Fulton County, District Attorney Fani Willis's sweeping racketeering case charging Trump and multiple allies with trying to reverse Joe Biden's victory has turned into a marathon of pretrial skirmishes. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and NBC News report that over the last week defense attorneys have peppered Judge Scott McAfee with motions to dismiss, motions to sever, and renewed attacks on the credibility of key state witnesses. Trump himself is not required to appear for most of these arguments, but his presence looms over every exchange, as prosecutors detail phone calls, pressure on state officials, and the now-famous effort to “find” votes.In Florida, the classified documents case has also seen movement. According to the Miami Herald and Politico, Special Counsel Jack Smith's team has used recent hearings to argue that Trump's continued public comments about witnesses and the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago are edging toward obstruction. Judge Aileen Cannon has been under scrutiny for months, with legal analysts at Lawfare and Just Security noting that her rulings on evidence and trial timing could determine whether this case is heard by a jury anytime soon. Trump's lawyers have leaned into claims that the documents were declassified or planted, while prosecutors have focused on surveillance footage and witness testimony that, they say, shows deliberate concealment.Meanwhile, in New York, the aftershocks of earlier trials are still being felt. The civil fraud judgment obtained by New York Attorney General Letitia James, which, as reported by the Associated Press and The Washington Post, found that Trump and the Trump Organization inflated asset values for years, has morphed into a battle over money and control. Recent filings have centered on how fast the state can collect hundreds of millions of dollars and what limits will be placed on Trump's ability to run his real estate empire in New York. Those financial pressures hang over every other case.Layered on top of all this, Supreme Court litigation involving the Trump administration's current actions has kept his legal team shuttling between lower courts and the high court. According to coverage by SCOTUSblog and Lawfare, emergency appeals over executive power, immigration, and the removal of independent agency officials have produced a rapid-fire series of shadow docket orders. One such case, Trump v. Slaughter, was argued this month, with Oyez and the Supreme Court's own docket noting that the justices are again being asked to define the reach of presidential power.Taken together, the past few days have not been about one trial, but about a landscape where Donald Trump's political future, personal fortune, and even his freedom are being tested, line by line, in legal filings and courtroom arguments.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Tess Bridgeman, co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, former Special Assistant to the President, Associate Counsel to the President and Deputy Legal Adviser to the National Security Council (NSC) during the Obama administration, and William LeoGrande , professor of government at American University and specialist in U.S.-Latin America relations, discuss the latest Trump administration escalation in Venezuela, where the United States seized several additional oil tankers, and analyze the legality of those moves and the boat strikes against alleged drug cartels.
Lawmakers are demanding that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth release video of the September strike that killed two survivors of a U.S. attack on their boat in the Caribbean. That strike, which the Pentagon says targeted drug traffickers, has prompted war crime accusations. But since then, the U.S. has launched more than 20 strikes in the region, killing more than 80 people. We talk about the impact and legality of the attacks along with other controversies at the Pentagon — and the political implications for Hegseth. Guests: Julian Barnes, intelligence and national security reporter, New York Times Tess Bridgeman, co-editor-in-chief, Just Security - former special assistant to the President and deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President Obama Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Pete Hegseth's defense of the killing of two men clinging to an incapacitated boat is falling apart on multiple fronts. Lawmakers who saw video of this horror are letting it be known that the two men were waving before their execution, suggesting they were either surrendering or beckoning for rescue. And other leaks confirm that the boat very well might not have been bound for the United States to begin with. Meanwhile, some Republicans are abandoning him or acquiescing to legislative language that denies Hegseth funding until video is made more widely available to lawmakers, suggesting his position is weakening. We talked to Tess Bridgeman, co-editor-in-chief of the Just Security website and former national security lawyer in the Obama administration. She explains why Hegseth's position is untenable, why the entire bombing campaign is illegal, why it's critical that oversight pin down President Trump's role, and what the prospects are for true accountability later. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Pete Hegseth's defense of the killing of two men clinging to an incapacitated boat is falling apart on multiple fronts. Lawmakers who saw video of this horror are letting it be known that the two men were waving before their execution, suggesting they were either surrendering or beckoning for rescue. And other leaks confirm that the boat very well might not have been bound for the United States to begin with. Meanwhile, some Republicans are abandoning him or acquiescing to legislative language that denies Hegseth funding until video is made more widely available to lawmakers, suggesting his position is weakening. We talked to Tess Bridgeman, co-editor-in-chief of the Just Security website and former national security lawyer in the Obama administration. She explains why Hegseth's position is untenable, why the entire bombing campaign is illegal, why it's critical that oversight pin down President Trump's role, and what the prospects are for true accountability later. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Pete Hegseth's defense of the killing of two men clinging to an incapacitated boat is falling apart on multiple fronts. Lawmakers who saw video of this horror are letting it be known that the two men were waving before their execution, suggesting they were either surrendering or beckoning for rescue. And other leaks confirm that the boat very well might not have been bound for the United States to begin with. Meanwhile, some Republicans are abandoning him or acquiescing to legislative language that denies Hegseth funding until video is made more widely available to lawmakers, suggesting his position is weakening. We talked to Tess Bridgeman, co-editor-in-chief of the Just Security website and former national security lawyer in the Obama administration. She explains why Hegseth's position is untenable, why the entire bombing campaign is illegal, why it's critical that oversight pin down President Trump's role, and what the prospects are for true accountability later. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
OA1214 - As the end of 2025 approaches, we are finding real cause for hope in how federal courts have been handling the Trump administration's unprecedented assault on the rule of law. In the first of what will be at least two parts, Matt and Thomas speedrun through just a few of the many wins--both big and small--that we have seen in a wide range of categories. Just Security's Litigation Tracker Farewell Messages by Recent DOJ Alumni “The Unraveling of the Justice Department,” Emily Bazelon, The New York Times (11/16/25) Docket for J.G.G. v. Trump (Alien Enemies Act and related contempt litigation) Judge William Young's decision in AAUP v. Rubio (9/30/25) Injunction blocking Trump asylum EO in RAICES v. Noem (7/2/25) Injunction blocking ICE from enforcement in certain churches in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting v. Noem (2/24/25) Injunction in Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRSblocking IRS from sharing taxpayer information with ICE (11/21/25) Injunction in Rhode Island v. Trump blocking EO which would have dismantled the Institute for Museums and Libraries and several other federal agencies (11/21/25) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
The week in Donald Trump's legal world has felt less like a series of isolated hearings and more like one long, rolling courtroom drama, shifting from New York to Washington and back again, with judges, jurors, and prosecutors all pulling on different threads of the same story.In New York, the civil fraud case that once delivered that massive judgment against Donald Trump and the Trump Organization is now in its post-trial grind, but it is far from over. New York Attorney General Letitia James is still pressing to enforce the judgment, while Trump's lawyers are working every angle on appeal, arguing that Judge Arthur Engoron overreached when he found that Trump, his adult sons, and senior executives systematically inflated the value of properties like Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago to secure better loans and insurance. Outlets like the New York Times and the Associated Press have noted that the appeal filings in the past few days sharpened their focus on what they call “political bias” by New York state officials, framing the entire case as an effort to drive Trump out of business in his home state. At the same time, the state has been quietly filing its own responses to keep pressure on Trump's assets, setting up a long appellate fight.Down in federal court in Washington, the special counsel election interference case remains technically on track but practically bogged down in pretrial maneuvering. According to recent reporting by CNN and Politico, Trump's team has been leaning heavily on arguments of presidential immunity and First Amendment protection, trying to narrow what Special Counsel Jack Smith can present to a future jury about Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the fake electors plan, and the chaos leading up to January 6 at the United States Capitol. Judges on the D.C. Circuit have been working through dense briefing on whether a former president can ever be criminally prosecuted for “official acts,” and in the last few days, legal analysts at Lawfare and Just Security have been dissecting how those arguments might ripple into other Trump cases.At the same time, the classified documents prosecution in Florida has been crawling forward under Judge Aileen Cannon. NBC News and the Washington Post report that the most recent hearings have focused on what evidence can be excluded because of alleged mishandling by the FBI during the search at Mar-a-Lago, and how to protect national security secrets while still giving Trump's team access to the material they say they need to defend him. Prosecutors have kept pressing the core claim: that Trump knowingly kept highly sensitive documents at his private club and then obstructed efforts by the National Archives and the Department of Justice to get them back. Trump's lawyers, in turn, have tried to reframe the case as a dispute over records that should have been handled under the Presidential Records Act rather than as a crime scene.Meanwhile, in Georgia, the state election interference case in Fulton County remains a looming threat even as no trial has begun. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, defense lawyers for Trump and several co-defendants have spent these last days filing motions to limit the racketeering charges brought by District Attorney Fani Willis, arguing that normal political advocacy is being criminalized. The pressure there is less about a trial date and more about whether the sweeping racketeering structure survives early challenges.Stack all of this together, and what you have over these past few days is a picture of Donald Trump not in a single courtroom showdown, but in a legal siege on multiple fronts, each case feeding into the political and personal narrative he presents to his supporters as he continues to seek power again.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
The Trump administration has continued its campaign of lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers at sea. To date, 83 people have reportedly been killed in 21 strikes. The strikes have met increasing scrutiny both inside the United States and abroad, with some close U.S. allies reportedly suspending intelligence sharing over concerns of the illegality of the campaign, and recently surfaced reporting of the deliberate killing of two strike survivors receiving rare bipartisan attention from Congress. On the fourth installment of the Murder on the High Seas series, cross-posted with NYU Law School's Reiss Center on Law and Security, co-hosts Tess Bridgeman and Rachel Goldbrenner are joined by Rebecca Ingber and Brian Finucane to discuss the latest developments. Show Note: Murder on the High Seas Part III (Oct. 21, 2025, also available on YouTube) Murder on the High Seas Part II — What We Know about U.S. Vessel Strikes One Month In (Oct. 7, 2025, also available on YouTube)Murder on the High Seas? What You Need to Know about the U.S. Strike on the Caribbean Vessel (Sep. 9, 2025, also available on YouTube)Unlawful Orders and Killing Shipwrecked Boat Strike Survivors: An Expert Backgrounder by Michael Schmitt, Ryan Goodman, and Tess Bridgeman (Dec. 1, 2025) Timeline of Vessel Strikes and Related Actions by Jeremy Chin, Margaret Lin, and Aidan Arasasingham (Nov. 21, 2025, updated regularly) Just Security's Collection: U.S. Lethal Strikes on Suspected Drug Traffickers The NYU Law Reiss Center on Law and Security's War Powers Resolution Reporting Project
The Secretary of Defense has committed war crimes, or murder, or both. And this time, maybe Congress is willing to do something about it? Meanwhile, a rent-price-fixing company has sued the state of New York arguing that it isn't fixing price, it's doing the Freeze Peach. In DC, Chief Judge James Boasberg continues to look for who was responsible for the government disobeying a court order. And finally, sparklemagic imaginary US Attorney Alina Habba gets to join her buddies on the unemployment line thanks to a decision by the Third Circuit that we break down in detail in the subscriber bonus. Happy Cyber Monday, everyone! Links: Eleventh Circuit Bounces Trump's RICO Trollsuit [lawandchaospod.com] https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/11th-circuit-bounces-trumps-rico Episode 168 w/Brian Finucane https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-168-license-to-kill-feat-brian-finucane/id1727769913?i=1000728033267 Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all [Washington Post] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/28/hegseth-kill-them-all-survivors-boat-strike/ Statement of the "Former JAGs Working Group" on Media Reports of Pentagon "No Quarter" Orders in Caribbean Boat Strikes [via Just Security] https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/former-jag-working-group-no-quarter-statement.pdf Rent Going Up? One Company's Algorithm Could Be Why. https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent US v. Giraud [Third Circuit, Habba Disqualification] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71195676/united-states-v-julien-giraud-jr/ RealPage v. James https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71964352/realpage-inc-v-james/ Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod
On Nov. 13, the Trump administration took the unprecedented step of adding four groups in Europe to the U.S. government's list of specially designated global terrorists (SDGTs). The administration also stated its intent to add each of these entities to the State Department's list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), claiming that all four are affiliated with “Antifa.”The development marks an escalation in the administration's efforts to recast anti-fascist activism as a matter of national security, carrying far-reaching legal and political consequences. Experts think the move could lay the groundwork for targeting organizations and activists here in the United States, potentially undermining the right to free speech. Tom Joscelyn, a senior fellow at Just Security, is joined by Tom Brzozowski, former counsel for Domestic Terrorism at the U.S. Department of Justice, to discuss what the new designations mean for civil liberties, and how they might reshape the boundaries of permissible speech and association. Show Notes: “How Designating Antifa as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Could Threaten Civil Liberties” by Tom Brzozowski (Just Security, October 27, 2025) Just Security's Terrorism and Violent Extremism Archive Just Security's Counterterrorism Archive
“Leave aside the cruelty of not giving these funds out,” Andrew says, reflecting on the SNAP benefits case now before the Supreme Court. “What does it say that we're not prioritizing hunger as an issue?” Then, Mary brings listeners up to speed on the dizzying chain of events since Friday and where the SNAP case stands, even as the Senate and House appear to be moving towards reopening the government. And in honoring Veterans Day, Mary and Andrew dig into several issues affecting service members, including the latest filing in Trump v Illinois, and how to think about the term "regular forces", plus Judge Immergut's final order prohibiting the National Guard deployment in Portland. And finally, Just Security's co-editor in chief, Tess Bridgeman, joins to analyze what the law says— and doesn't say-- about blowing up boats in international waters without a clear justification or congressional authorization.Further reading: Judge Wolf's piece in The Atlantic: Why I Am Resigning. A federal judge explains his reasoning for leaving the bench.Just Security's collection of information around the boat strikes: Collection: U.S. Lethal Strikes on Suspected Drug TraffickersWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
International law professors Chiara Giorgetti, Milena Sterio, and Rebecca Hamilton join Just Security's Managing Editor, Megan Corrarino, to discuss takeaways from the American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA)'s Oct. 23-25 International Law Weekend. In this special episode co-produced with ABILA's International Law Chats podcast, which Giorgetti and Sterio co-host along with Alison Macdonald KC, the guests — each of whom also participated in International Law Weekend — discuss the weekend's theme, “Crisis as Catalyst on International Law”; takeaways from panels on topics ranging from the proposed Crimes against Humanity Treaty to international environmental law and more; and how international lawyers and law students might think about their role in the present moment. Show Note: International Law Chats - an ABILA podcast Crisis as Catalyst in International Law by Michael P. Scharf (October 16, 2025) Crisis as Catalyst: Past, Present, and Future of International Law by William J. Aceves, Amity Boye and Jessica Peake (October 21, 2025) A Series on the Occasion of ABILA's International Law Weekend 2025
Since the start of September, President Donald Trump has ordered a series of lethal strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea, killing dozens of people. His administration has justified the attacks by accusing the boats of carrying drugs. But, we're more than two months in, and we still haven't seen any substantial evidence that the people killed were involved in trafficking narcotics. Meanwhile, Trump appears to be focused on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and last week, Trump acknowledged he authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela. So, to talk more about Venezuela and the legality- or lack thereof- of the Trump administration's ongoing campaign in the Caribbean Sea, we spoke with Tess Bridgeman, co-editor-in-chief of Just Security and Senior Fellow and Visiting Scholar at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law. She previously served as Special Assistant to the President, Associate Counsel to the President, and Deputy Legal Adviser to the National Security Council (NSC), and at the U.S. State Department in the Office of the Legal Adviser.And in headlines, Vice President JD Vance visits Israel as Hamas continues to return the bodies of hostages, ICE recruits are going up against fitness testing, and the government is as shutdown as ever.Show Notes:Check out Tess's work – justsecurity.org/author/bridgemantess/Call Congress – 202-224-3121Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Several weeks after President Trump ordered a military strike on a small boat in the Caribbean Sea, killing 11 people supposedly suspected of drug smuggling, this saga has gotten much worst. Last Monday, Trump bombed another vessel, killing three. Again his administration released zero evidence supporting the decision, and the specifics in this case make this campaign look increasingly lawless. And we just learned that the White House is quietly circulating a draft bill that would vastly expand Trump's authority for these bombings. Its details offer a damning glimpse into how unrestrained he aims to be going forward. We talked to Brian Finucane, who's been writing great analysis of the situation as an editor at Just Security. He explains why the specifics of that draft bill are so alarming, why the bombings appear to constitute serious abuses of power, and why all this may be hurtling us toward darker lawlessness to come. (Since we recorded, Trump bombed a third vessel in similarly lawless fashion. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Last week's fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk was deeply disturbing, and as Andrew establishes at the start, “murder is murder” and those responsible must be held to account. So Mary and Andrew begin with where the investigation stands and how the FBI has handled the case, as well as the lawsuit filed against FBI Director Kash Patel over alleged politically motivated firings at the Bureau. Then, co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, Ryan Goodman stops in to share his research around the end of “the presumption of regularity” in the Trump era, amid growing frustration from many lower courts. And lastly, Andrew and Mary dig into the latest twists and turns in the President's attempt to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook.A note to listeners: After today's recording, Tyler Robinson was charged with felony aggravated murder, among other charges.Further reading: Here is Ryan Goodman's research in Just Security: The “Presumption of Regularity” in Trump Administration LitigationAnd a reminder: There are still tickets available for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Accountability or weaponization? That's the question Andrew and Mary tackle in their 150th episode together, starting with the distraction of the Office of the Special Counsel's investigation into Jack Smith for possible Hatch Act violations. In other DOJ related matters, they give some context to the Trump administration's continued battle to keep Alina Habba, a Trump ally, as New Jersey U.S. Attorney, just as The Legal Accountability Center filed bar complaints against lawyers who have represented Trump's White House in court. In another sideshow, Andrew and Mary break down what to make of a report on the “Clinton Plan” emails, declassified amid the Epstein controversy. And last up, they detail the decision out of the 9th Circuit Court which upheld a pause on ICE raids in California. Further Reading: Here is the piece Andrew and his colleague Ryan Goodman wrote for Just Security in October 2024: Refuting the Latest Baseless Attacks Against Special Counsel Jack SmithHere is the 9th Circuit Court decision on ICE Raids: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California And some exciting news: tickets are on sale now for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
