Podcasts about National Security Division

The Justice Department's National Security Division rushed to meet Donald Trump's promise to release JFK assassination files. Despite an initial FBI review, DOJ attorneys worked overnight, rechecking documents for declassification. Resources were shifted, and most division attorneys assisted, except those handling urgent cases, to meet the sudden, high-priority task.  

The CISA and FBI warn that Ghost ransomware has breached organizations in over 70 countries. President Trump announces his pick to lead the DOJ's National Security Division. A new ransomware strain targets European healthcare organizations. Researchers uncover four critical vulnerabilities in Ivanti Endpoint Manager. Microsoft has patched a critical improper access control vulnerability in Power Pages. The NSA updates its Ghidra reverse engineering tool. A former U.S. Army soldier admits to leaking private call records. Our guest is Stephen Hilt, senior threat researcher at Trend Micro, sharing the current state of the English cyber underground market. The pentesters' breach was simulated — their arrest was not.  Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. CyberWire Guest Our guest is Stephen Hilt, senior threat researcher at Trend Micro, sharing the current state of the English cyber underground market. Learn more in the report.  Selected Reading CISA and FBI: Ghost ransomware breached orgs in 70 countries (Bleeping Computer) Trump to nominate White House insider from first term to lead DOJ's National Security Division (The Record) New NailaoLocker ransomware used against EU healthcare orgs (Bleeping Computer) PoC Exploit Published for Critical Ivanti EPM Vulnerabilities (SecurityWeek) Microsoft Patches Exploited Power Pages Vulnerability (SecurityWeek) NSA Added New Features to Supercharge Ghidra 11.3 (Cyber Security News) Army soldier linked to Snowflake extortion to plead guilty (The Register) Katie Arrington Returns to Pentagon as DoD CISO (GovInfo Security) Penetration Testers Arrested by Police During Authorized Physical Penetration Testing (Cyber Security News) Share your feedback. We want to ensure that you are getting the most out of the podcast. Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts with us by completing our brief listener survey as we continually work to improve the show.  Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at cyberwire@n2k.com to request more info. The CyberWire is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The directive sent from acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove to drop the corruption charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams has hit a fever pitch, so hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord use the bulk of this episode to break down this evolving story and what has come to light so far. They tick through how this standoff between federal prosecutors and the DOJ's directive has led to a slew of resignations, and what to watch for as Judge Dale Ho calls for a Wednesday hearing on the matter in Manhattan.  Andrew and Mary then take a beat to preview the first Supreme Court test of Trump's executive power, over his attempt to fire Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, without cause. (Note: this office is an independent watchdog agency- not part of DOJ). And they wind up this episode by highlighting allegations from whistleblowers that Kash Patel, Trump's nominee to head the FBI, has been directing the firing of senior officials at the FBI.Further reading: Here is Andrew's piece in Just Security: The People of New York v. Mayor Adams: Will Manhattan DA Bragg Come to the Rescue Yet Again?Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

The flood of memos issued by newly minted Attorney General Pam Bondi in her first days was dizzying, so hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord zero in on several that have significant implications for national security and criminal law enforcement. Next, they give a rundown of litigation happening across the country, as courtrooms become the first defense in challenging some of President Trump's questionable orders. And last up, Andrew and Mary talk through a few legal battles brewing over sanctuary cities and detail Mary and ICAP's latest case aiming to protect places of worship as safe havens from immigration enforcement. And btw, the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams just went poof-- they dissect that too.Further reading: Here is Just Security's Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions.HERE is the DOJ memo dropping the corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams without prejudice.And here is the statement from the American Bar Association that Andrew and Mary spoke about: The ABA supports the rule of law.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

This Day in Legal History: Permanent Court of Arbitration EstablishedOn February 6, 1900, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) was officially established following the ratification of the 1899 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. This marked a major step toward institutionalizing peaceful dispute resolution between nations. The PCA, headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, became the first international tribunal designed to arbitrate conflicts between states, offering an alternative to war. While not a court in the traditional sense, the PCA provides administrative support for arbitral tribunals, helping resolve territorial, trade, and investment disputes. Recognizing the need for improvement, the 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes refined its procedures, further solidifying arbitration as a legitimate mechanism for international law. Over the years, the PCA's role expanded beyond state-to-state disputes to include cases involving international organizations, corporations, and even individuals. Today, it operates out of the Peace Palace, home to other key legal institutions like the International Court of Justice. With 109 member states, the PCA continues to handle complex cases, from border conflicts to environmental agreements. Its existence laid the groundwork for later international legal bodies, such as the International Criminal Court and various UN tribunals. By promoting arbitration over conflict, the PCA has helped shape a more structured and rule-based international legal order.Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a major shift in the Justice Department's white-collar enforcement priorities, scaling back efforts in foreign lobbying transparency and foreign bribery cases. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) unit will now focus on bribery cases tied to transnational crime, such as those facilitating human smuggling, drug trafficking, and arms dealing. Other FCPA investigations with no such connection will be deprioritized.Similarly, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) enforcement will be limited to cases resembling traditional espionage by foreign government actors. The Justice Department's Counterintelligence and Export Control Section will focus more on civil enforcement and regulatory guidance rather than aggressive criminal prosecutions. These changes mark a significant pullback from the increased enforcement seen over the past decade, particularly under Special Counsel Robert Mueller.Bondi also disbanded the National Security Division's corporate enforcement unit, an initiative championed by Biden-era Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. It's unclear if the division will continue prioritizing corporate crime linked to adversarial nations like China and Iran. These policy shifts were part of a broader series of announcements as Bondi took charge as the nation's top law enforcement official following her confirmation on Tuesday night.Bondi Diminishes Justice Department White Collar Enforcement (1)Google is ending its diversity-based hiring targets and reviewing its broader diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, aligning with a broader corporate trend of scaling back such efforts. The company previously set a goal in 2020 to increase leadership representation from underrepresented groups by 30% by 2025, but Chief People Officer Fiona Cicconi told employees that Google would no longer pursue aspirational hiring goals.This shift follows years of public DEI commitments, especially after the 2020 protests over police killings of George Floyd and other Black Americans. Google had also begun evaluating executives on diversity metrics, but recent SEC filings show it removed language reaffirming its DEI commitments.The Alphabet Workers Union (AWU) criticized the move, calling it part of a broader anti-worker trend in the tech industry. Meanwhile, Google cited legal considerations as a federal contractor, stating it is reviewing compliance with court decisions and executive orders affecting DEI policies.Google will maintain internal employee groups such as “Black Googler Network” and “Trans at Google.” The company's decision follows similar DEI cutbacks at Meta and Amazon, amid increasing conservative pushback and legal challenges after the Supreme Court's 2023 affirmative action ruling.Google scraps diversity-based hiring targets | ReutersMore than 40,000 federal employees have signed up for the Trump administration's buyout offer, which promises pay through September if they resign by the end of February. This represents about 2% of the federal civilian workforce, with officials expecting a surge in applications before the Thursday deadline.The initiative is part of President Trump's second-term effort to reduce the size of the federal government, led by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who heads the Department of Government Efficiency. The White House initially projected that 5% to 10% of federal workers might accept the offer.Federal employee unions oppose the plan, questioning its legality and enforceability. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has warned workers that job cuts are likely, with agency restructurings and layoffs expected. However, key employees in defense, immigration, law enforcement, and postal services are exempt from the deal.With nearly 298,000 federal employees eligible for retirement in the next two years, the administration's strategy could significantly reshape the workforce. Union leaders, like Everett Kelley of the American Federation of Government Employees, have urged workers to reject the offer, calling it misleading and driven by unelected billionaires.Musk ‘Buyout' Taken by 40,000 Federal Workers as Deadline Nears - BloombergOn her first day as U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi issued a directive stating that Justice Department lawyers who refuse to advance legal arguments on behalf of the Trump administration could face termination. The memo warns that attorneys who decline to sign briefs, delay cases, or impede the department's mission may be disciplined or fired.The move is part of a broader effort by Trump appointees to assert control over the Justice Department, which has already seen firings and reassignments of career lawyers. Bondi also announced a review of criminal and civil cases brought against Trump and his supporters, including prosecutions related to the January 6 Capitol attack. This "Weaponization Working Group" will scrutinize cases Republicans claim were politically motivated under the Biden administration.Additionally, Bondi scaled back enforcement of foreign influence laws, stating that criminal cases will only be pursued in instances resembling “traditional espionage”, shifting the focus to civil enforcement. These laws, which require individuals lobbying for foreign governments to register as foreign agents, were previously used to prosecute several Trump associates.Bondi's directive reflects Trump allies' long-standing complaints that career DOJ attorneys obstructed his policies, such as resisting lawsuits against Yale's admissions practices and refusing to defend the 2017 travel ban. The memo asserts that DOJ lawyers cannot substitute their personal views for the administration's legal agenda.Trump's attorney general says lawyers who refuse orders could be fired | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This week Leonard Bailey, Head of Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section's (CCIPS) Cybersecurity Unit for the Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, joins us this week. We dive into the role of the DOJ in addressing the vast and ever-changing landscape of cybersecurity. Bailey shares insights on partnering with federal agencies as well as the private sector, navigating information sharing pathways, evolution of incident and cyber threat reporting procedures, and the recent release of the Harmonization of Cyber Incident Reporting to the Federal Government. He also helps debunk information sharing myths and spotlights available tools and benefits of cyber threat information disclosure.   Leonard Bailey The Head of Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section's (CCIPS) Cybersecurity Unit and Special Counsel for National Security in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Criminal Division. He has prosecuted computer crime cases and routinely advised on cybersecurity, searching and seizing electronic evidence, and conducting electronic surveillance. He has managed DOJ cyber-policy as Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division and then as an Associate Deputy Attorney General. He has also served as Special Counsel and Special Investigative Counsel for DOJ's Inspector General. Bailey is a graduate of Yale University and Yale Law School. He has taught law courses at Georgetown Law School and Columbus School of Law in Washington, DC. For links and resources discussed in this episode, please visit our show notes at https://www.forcepoint.com/govpodcast/e317

For today's episode, Jennifer Gellie, the Chief of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section ("CES") in the National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, sits down with Lawfare Senior Editor and General Counsel Scott R. Anderson and Lawfare Contributing Editor and Morrison Foerster partner Brandon Van Grack to discuss new proposed regulations her office has issued for implementing the Foreign Agents Registration Act ("FARA"). They cover how the role of FARA has changed in recent decades, what the new regulations change and leave the same, and what the Justice Department's FARA-related priorities are likely to be in 2025. This episode is part of the “The Regulators” series, in which Brandon and Scott sit down with senior U.S. officials working at the front lines of U.S. national security and economic statecraft.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.

  0:00 - Tucson, AZ, Mayor Regina Romero...will defy Trump/ICE   15:13 - Colorado Springs Mayor Yemi Mobolade's Jussie Smollett redux   26:13 -  Axios' CEO Jim Vandehei: you are not the media   50:32 - Ivana Greco, homemaker and homeschooling mom of four from Connecticut who writes on the issues impacting stay-at-home moms and dads, shares her Research Project on Stay-At-Home Parents. For more from Ivana, visit her substack “The Home Front” – thehomefront.substack.com   01:03:24 - In-depth History with Frank from Arlington Heights    01:06:58 - Writer and photographer currently taking a walk around the world, Chris Arnade, has seen it for himself -  The World Is in Love with America. Follow Chris as he walks the globe on X @Chris_arnade and his substack Chris Arnade Walks the World   01:25:51 - President at Wirepoints, Ted Dabrowski, breaks down the “crushing” tax increases in south suburban Cook County. Get Ted's latest at Wirepoints.org   01:40:34 - UATX on 60 Minutes  02:01:48 - Joseph Moreno, former federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice in the National Security Division, a former staff member with the FBI's 9/11 Review Commission and a US Army combat veteran, on Jack Smith's dismissal of charges and  How the lawfare campaign against Trump backfired. Follow Joe on X @JosephMoreno  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this Better Satellite World podcast, based on a panel session at the live New York Space Business Roundtable on September 18, we hear a discussion on how New York State has moved forward on its journey to become a commercial space industry center, the pace of its development and what it needs to really get this going faster. Our guests include: Joe Fargnoli, Founder, New York Space Alliance (moderator) Michael Clouser, Director, The Startup Race / Researcher, International Triple Helix Institute John Neal, Executive Director, Space Policy, Cyber, Space and National Security Division, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Barry Safier, Engineering Manager, Moog Space and Defense Group N. Darius Sankey, Managing Director, Innovation Acceleration Capital

Private equity is looting America by exploiting vulnerable companies and extracting profits at the expense of workers, communities, and the broader economy. They've been buying up companies in every industry in the U.S. Economy and stripping them for parts. These massive firms have vast holdings across critical industries essential to the health and well-being of everyday people. Some recent examples include private equity's role in education, utilities, housing, and even in the healthcare sector, which led to the closure of hospitals and nursing homes, endangering public health. We thought it would be a good time to revisit this episode from 2023 with Brendan Ballou, a federal prosecutor and the author of Plunder: Private Equity's Plan to Pillage America. In this episode, he explains how we can stop private equity's plan to pillage America. This episode originally aired on July 25, 2023. Brendan Ballou is a federal prosecutor and served as Special Counsel for Private Equity in the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. Previously, he worked in private practice, and before that, in the National Security Division of the Justice Department, where he advised the White House on counterterrorism and other policies. Twitter: @brendanballou Further reading:  Plunder: Private Equity's Plan to Pillage America The Guardian - Slash and burn: is private equity out of control? Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Twitter: @PitchforkEcon, @NickHanauer, @civicaction Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Threads: pitchforkeconomics YouTube: @pitchforkeconomics Substack: The Pitch

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. United States, finding that former presidents have “absolute immunity” for certain “official acts” taken while in office. The decision is a potentially sweeping expansion of presidential power and raises many questions, such as how to separate “official” and “unofficial” conduct in practice, and how it will impact the prosecutions against former President Donald Trump.  What are the opinion's key takeaways? How might Special Counsel Jack Smith respond to the decision? Joining the show to unpack the Court's landmark ruling, and what it means for presidential power and democracy, are leading legal experts Marty Lederman, Mary McCord, and Steve Vladeck. Just Security's Co-Editor-in-Chief, Ryan Goodman, co-hosted the discussion. Marty previously served in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel and is a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Mary is Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) and is a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. She previously had a long career at the Department of Justice, as a federal prosecutor and later in leadership of the National Security Division. Steve is a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and he covers the Supreme Court both for CNN and through his Substack newsletter, “One First.” Marty, Mary, and Steve are all Editors at Just Security.  Show Notes: Marty Lederman (@marty_lederman)Mary B. McCordSteve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck)Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Just Security's Trump Trials coverageJust Security's Supreme Court coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

0:00 - Alvin Bragg (DA-Soros) on Trump conviction: "I did my job"   13:23 - Trump reacts to jury verdict in Manhattan: the real verdict on 11/5   32:29 - Time to start thinking worst case scenarios with what the left will do next   54:24 - John Solomon, award-winning investigative journalist and founder of Just the News: we don't put rival politicians in prison, we settle our disputes at the ballot box.Get John's latest justthenews.com   01:09:19 - Joseph Moreno, former federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice in the National Security Division, a former staff member with the FBI's 9/11 Review Commission and a US Army combat veteran, points out several grounds for Trump's appeal and hopes this will be corrected to restore faith in the justice system   01:26:10 - Christopher Whalen, investment banker and chairman of Whalen Global Advisors LLC and editor for The Institutional Risk Analyst, predicts a Donald Trump victory in November… over Kamala Harris. Grab your copy of Chris' book Ford Men: From Inspiration to Enterprise   01:43:51 - Rich Lowry, editor of National Review: Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies and we don't know what he was guilty of. Rich is also the author of  The Case for Nationalism: How It Made Us Powerful, United, and Free   01:54:43 - OPEN MIC FRIDAY!!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Can Congress require China-based ByteDance to divest itself of TikTok as a condition for TikTok continuing to be easily accessible in the US? Alan Rozenshtein, Jane Bambauer, and Eugene Volokh discuss whether the law is consistent with the First Amendment – and with the much more rarely talked about Bill of Attainder Clause. To view the full transcript of this episode, read below: Free Speech Unmuted Eugene Volokh: Hello, welcome to Free Speech Unmuted from the Hoover Institution. I'm your co host Eugene Volokh, now basically emeritus from UCLA Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Jane Bambauer: I'm Jane Bamberger, the Breckner Eminent Scholar and Professor of Law at University of Florida. And today we have with us Alan Rosenstein. So Alan, tell us, tell us about yourself and correct my pronunciation of your name if I just butchered it. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. it's Rosenstein, but I, don't, I don't, wait, Eugene Volokh: wait, a minute. You, spell it Alan Rozenshtein: Rosenstein. I can't, I, I cannot, I am not responsible for my parents immigration choices. Eugene Volokh: Exactly. So Alan and I. are both of Russian Jewish extraction. I was actually born in Kiev and it came here when I was, seven. Alan's parents are from, from Russia. I don't know the former Soviet union, but he was born very [00:01:00] shortly after they came. So there is always this question of how you, how you transliterate the relic names into something that Americans can pronounce. And I, I'm not sure either of our parents did a great job with that. mu much as we love them on this particular point, they may have aired. Alan Rozenshtein: it's funny because both of our names have these silent Hs and I like to joke that there's a STL somewhere that's missing an H. There you go. Found its way into my name. It's s. Eugene Volokh: But I'm sorry to have interrupted, Alan, tell us about yourself. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. I'm an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota where I've taught now for seven years. And I am also a senior editor at Lawfare where I do a lot of my writing on the sorts of topics that we're going to talk about today. and before that, I was a, attorney at the Department of Justice in the law and policy section of the National Security Division. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, so we're here today to talk about the tick tock ban or so called tick tock [00:02:00] ban it will see what, whether it actually, you know what its future actually has in store. But can you tell us a little bit about the law that was passed by Congress and signed by President Biden and then. We'll figure out what the free speech issues are. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. So the law and, this is actually one of these, cases where Congress did not use a backer name for some reason, it's the protect Americans from foreign adversary controlled applications act. So it's perfect. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Which is, Alan Rozenshtein: which is not great. which is not great. So we're just going to tell, I'm going to call it the tick talk law. so this was a law that was introduced in the house as part of the, bipartisan select committee on China, sailed through the house, a few months ago, surprising a lot of people how quickly it went through. It seemed to stall in the Senate for a while, but then for a number of reasons, including some changes made to the [00:03:00] law and then the broader, foreign aid package that went through. To assistance to Ukraine, Israel in particular, this was, signed or enacted by Congress and signed the law by the president. I think late last month, and the law, is sometimes called a, it's called by its supporters as a divestment law, it's called by its opponents as a ban law. Basically what it does is it requires bite dance. The Chinese company that owns approximately 20 percent of TikTok to, divest itself of TikTok. And if it doesn't do so within a little less than a year. TikTok is banned now. What band means is a little complicated. really what it is that, the law actually applies to, app stores and in particular, internet providers. They're not allowed to, Host tiktok services, so it doesn't actually make for consumers using tiktok illegal or anything. But given that the vast, majority of people just want to use a, [00:04:00] social media platform without too much, fuss, once the app stores stop carrying updated versions of tiktok. And once it gets, hard to use tiktok through the website, through your internet service provider, the assumption is that tiktok will be for the vast majority of people effectively banned. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. so you've written on Lawfare about the First Amendment implications and I understand you're going to have another post coming out soon. We'll link to both of those. But what do you make of this? how would you apply First Amendment jurisprudence to this particular law? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, no, it's an interesting question. And to be honest, I, it's funny. I, I, have never thought of myself as a first amendment scholar, though, in the last year or two, just given how much time I spend thinking about all things internet related, I feel like I've become one. But really, I think of you two as far more expert in this than I am. So I have my own ideas, but I'm actually very curious This is what you two with kind of a much longer history of thinking about the First Amendment think, so [00:05:00] I think of myself as in the minority of scholars, not a tiny minority, but I think a minority of scholars who think that although the First Amendment arguments that TikTok and TikTok users will be making, against this law, although the arguments are strong, that ultimately the government actually has a pretty good Case and I think more likely than not that the first amendment that the government will ultimately prevail You know at the end of the day and here I'll cheat a little bit in answering your question Jane because When one traditionally starts a first minute analysis the most important thing to do once one has decided that The first time it actually applies so that this is First Amendment protected activity. And I think here there's general agreement that the first time it definitely is implicated is one has to figure out what the appropriate quote unquote tier of scrutiny is. is this a prior restraint, which is the highest level of review? Is it [00:06:00] a viewpoint based? Law. Is it a content based law? Is it a content neutral law? In which case, it's not strict scrutiny, but intermediate scrutiny. And then all these gradations in between, and again, it's something that you two who are real first known scholars know one can spend infinite brain cycles thinking about this. And I think one thing that's interesting about this law is that I think they're actually plausible arguments for all of those positions. I think you can argue that it's a prior restraint, that it's viewpoint based, that it's content based, that it's content neutral. I think part of that is because this is a, I think a pretty novel fact pattern, at least in First Amendment jurisprudence. I think it's also the fact that the tiers of scrutiny analysis has never been, I think, particularly clear. And when I said I'm gonna cheat in your answer a little bit, what I meant is that I think at the end of the day it doesn't matter all that much. Which is to say, at the end of the day, the vast majority of First Amendment cases come down to some sort of balancing of the various interests at stake. And this is particularly true at the Supreme [00:07:00] Court, where, you really, I'll be a little bit of a legal realist here. It's really all about can you count to five justices that will agree that your side's values are more important than the other side's values. and that although the tiers of scrutiny do real work in that they, function as kind of presumptions, if the court concludes that such and such is a prior restraint, then presumptively the government's going to have a big problem, though sometimes prior restraints are fine. Similarly, if the court concludes that this is merely a neutral time, place, and manner restriction, presumptively the government's probably going to be okay, though those are also struck down all the time. At the end of the day, a lot relies again, especially in really high profile, sui generous cases like this on the specific facts. in my writing on this, I have tried not to, and again, I'm happy to get pushback, from, you too. I have tried not to spend too many cycles worrying about exactly what level of scrutiny should apply here. And instead, just [00:08:00] try to outline what are the values on each side? What are the values The First Amendment interests of TikTok, and I think more importantly, the 150 million American users of TikTok on the one hand. Versus on the other hand, what are the government's interests here in potentially banning TikTok, or at least really risking a ban of TikTok? and there are two in particular. One is a data privacy concern, because in the course of personalizing the TikTok algorithm for users, TikTok collects an enormous amount of information on what it is that you are watching and clicking and liking and disliking. and TikTok and therefore ByteDance and therefore the Chinese Communist Party could potentially use that information to America's detriment. So that's the data privacy concern. And the other concern is a foreign manipulation concern. That, because TikTok is You know, entirely run by the algorithm is totally inscrutable. if [00:09:00] a foreign entity can influence that algorithm, they can influence the information ecosystem of 150 million Americans and not just 150 million Americans, but because of TikTok, because TikTok is so popular among young people. And for those young people, TikTok is not just a source of fun cat videos, but it's actually the main source of news that they get. one can imagine, just generally, or especially in a conflict, let's say over Taiwan, that TikTok could suddenly become a, profound, Vector of foreign influence and foreign manipulation. And so I think ultimately comes down to balancing those two. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. So before we go into the values and the sort of government interest, I do want to pause and Talk through the coverage or maybe levels of scrutiny issue because I'm actually not sure and I really regret to say this because as a policy matter. I have some major issues with the tick tock [00:10:00] band, but I'm not sure that actually the First Amendment would even apply. I'm curious to hear Eugene's thoughts as well. But here's, my thinking. I guess there are two reasons to doubt that we have to do a First Amendment analysis. One is that maybe you could conceive of this as really a trade restriction, that has obvious, free, speech, results, and, maybe even speech related, content based related, even viewpoint based related maybe motivations, but that ultimately still it's a Restriction on managing, trade and so the way, much, much the way that we, don't allow certain other types of, products or services, to, pass through the borders. Another reason though that I have some skepticism is because the Supreme Court in cases that are somewhat old, but, they've suggested that [00:11:00] even when the government's goal basically is to restrict information that comes from outside the borders in. They have wide latitude and, these cases don't seem to really apply a constitutional analysis. So the two cases I have in mind, first, the earliest was Zemel versus Rusk, which is a little different because this is the case that involves, a set of plaintiffs who wanted to travel to, to, Cuba in the sixties. And they alleged, and no one disagreed, that they wanted to go there in order to gather information and an understanding of what's happening in Cuba. And, the Supreme Court went out of its way, not only to say that the government has full authority to decide who can leave the country, but, but also the Supreme Court said that the right to speak and publish does not carry with it unrestrained right to gather information. A lot has happened since that case. And I think the Supreme Court has over time [00:12:00] recognized the right to gather information. but. the board, if you combine that logic with the logic of the whole state control of the borders. you can see where I'm going here. And then the second case, was, Kleindienst versus Mandel. Yeah. yeah. So this one I think is even closer analogy. that one, I know. Yeah. Yeah. And so this one involved, this is a little later in the seventies. It's still a long, long ago though. And it involved, an invitation offered by Stanford University to a Belgian revolutionary Marxist as he himself portrayed. Yeah. Yeah. his own work, who, applied for a visa to come to campus and give a speech and the, customs office said no. And although there were a couple of dissenting, justices, the Supreme Court decided there is, basically that the government has full control over, over these decisions, irrespective of the reasons, the [00:13:00] speech related reasons that they may be made. Eugene, do you, what, do you make of. Just this application question, the coverage question. Eugene Volokh: so I'd love to hear what Alan has to say about those cases. But I'd also add a third one, which is Lamont v. Postmaster General, which specifically involved the travel not of people, but of information. And that was actually, it was 1965, the first Federal statute ever struck down by the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. Of course, the Supreme Court has the power to strike down Lamont. It's true. It has the power to strike down federal statutes and often exercises it. In fact, The whole point of the First Amendment originally was to constrain Congress, that's it starts with Congress shall make no law, but it took a long time before the court actually said this federal statute, not a state statute, not a federal executive action, but this federal statute is unconstitutional, happened in 1965. The statute, [00:14:00] basically required Americans who wanted to receive foreign communist propaganda to go to the post office. maybe not the post office, but in any case, go to the government and say, I am willing to receive it by the mail. And it made it illegal to send and deliver it to them, unless they have actually specifically, specifically requested. and the Supreme Court did not decide the question whether foreign. Foreigners, and especially foreign governments, have any First Amendment rights. It didn't focus on the rights of the senders, but it did talk about the rights of the recipients and, concluded that this law was unconstitutional because it interfered with the rights of Americans to receive this information. And so it did not view, federal governments had undoubted power to control what comes into the country, [00:15:00] as A total as being unlimited or put, more positively concluded that even Congress's broad power to, control what goes into the country is limited by the first two. So those are the three cases that strike me as most, most relevant. Although Alan, I totally agree with you that in many ways, this is sui generis and part of the problem is the Supreme Court has never really confronted a question quite like this one. even Lamont, which I do think is. Some respects close. This is a mailings of foreign propaganda to Americans. How many Americans would likely, even if they didn't have to put their name down on a list, would have been particularly interested in reading that? Very few. Tick tock very many. so, it's an interesting, I'm not saying any of these cases are strictly binding here, but I'd love to hear what you think about how these cases play out. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. so a lot there. So let me say a couple of things. So first, and [00:16:00] this is not dispositive, but it's something all the, all of the courts to have all of the courts who have heard cases like the one that is about to be heard in the DC circuit, because this is not the first attempt to ban tick tock. There was, I think Montana. some Midwestern state. I think it was Montana tried to remove Wyoming, tried to ban it. And then, of course, in the Trump administration, Trump through executive order, tried to ban it in litigation there. everyone seemed to concede. And certainly the courts assumed that there was a first amendment issue here again. That doesn't mean that there necessarily is. But I think that's one data point. The second point I would say is, just to get back to Lamont, because I think Lamont is a very important issue. Case I reread it this morning because I needed to for this law for peace that I'm writing and what you described Eugene as the holding of Lamont, which is that Americans have a right to receive foreign propaganda, which is how Lamont is generally understood. I'm actually not sure. That's what Lamont says. That's what Justice Brennan's concurrent says in Lamont. But Justice Douglas is very short and in [00:17:00] true Justice Douglas fashion, extremely under argued and under theorized opinion really actually focuses on, the, the chilling effect of having to go to the government and say, Yes, I would like to receive the peaking review. And that was coincidentally, the, propaganda at issue. So it's another Chinese propaganda case. but we should get back to Lamont. I think Lamont is an interesting case. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that, and that, yeah, that, that makes sense. And Brennan is consistent because he also dissented in that client and in the, case involving the Belgian. Yeah. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think, Kleindienst is very interesting, and again, it's, hard to know what exactly to make of that, what I, whatever Kleindienst stands for, the reason I don't think that it would really apply here is, it'd be one thing if the government From a blank slate said, or, let me give you a more specific example. It's one thing if a [00:18:00] Chinese company wanted to buy a us platform and the government, and here would be SIFI as the committee on foreign investment in the United States said, no, you can't do this. And in fact, CFIUS has done this, when a Chinese company tried to buy Grindr, which is a dating service, very popular with gay and lesbian Americans. CFIUS said, no, you can't do this because we don't want the Chinese government to have access to the HIV status of Americans. Cause that's something that Grindr allowed people to put in. that I think is different than you have an existing platform where 150 million users are every day doing things that have profound first amendment implications. And we are now going to ban this platform. I think that's quite different then. There's something outside the United States. And then the question is, can it come into the United States? Something you already have in the United States. Now, to, to your point, Jane, I think the fact that the government generally has broad national security, foreign relations, economic trade, however you want to think of it, powers, is a really important part of the First [00:19:00] Amendment analysis. But I think that, the kind of brute fact that you have 150 million Americans using TikTok every day is going to make it very difficult, I think, for any court, even if they ultimately uphold the law, which I think they will, to say there's no First Amendment issue here. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I hope you're right, but it is one of those things that where, there's probably all sorts of ways in which our national security or customs and border enforcement, keep us from knowing what we'd actually like to know and we're just And so the being, joining you on the realist side a little bit I, you're probably right but if we knew more about what we're missing from certain policies, maybe that same logic should apply to cases that the Supreme Court, The thought where you're, unrelated to the first moment. So Eugene Volokh: I do want to, I do want to also stand by a little bit my characterization of a Lamonti Postmaster General. I think even in Justice, Douglas's [00:20:00] majority opinion for the court, he talks about how the requirement that the addressee must request in writing that it be delivered Is, quote, an unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee's First Amendment rights. Close quote. Sounds like in context, what he's saying is That the addressee has a First Amendment right to receive information and, that, by saying in order to get the information, you've got to do something that will put you on a list of people who are interested in foreign communists, but again, that which is a list most people might not have wanted to be on. the, the concern there is that, it burdens your ability to receive that information. It imposes a barrier to your First Amendment rights as a listener. But in any case, whether it's Justice Douglas or Justice Brennan's quite influential concurrence that you're [00:21:00] quite right, has gotten a lot of traction since then. I do think in many ways, Structurally it is quite similar because here the concern is also that TikTok users have an interest in using this app and receiving the information on it, although many of them are also TikTok content creators, so they have an interest in being able to use it to distribute their speech. So I'm totally with you that there's a Pretty substantial burden on people's ability to speak and to listen for sure. But also again just returning to your sui generis point You might say that what was true of this relatively minor form a potential form of foreign influence in the form of mailings of the peking review or similar publications from overseas may not be really relevant to a situation where we've got something that's being used by so many, Americans and so many young Americans. Alan Rozenshtein: [00:22:00] Yeah. And I, think it's part, partially what you just said, right? It's a scale issue, but I think it's partially also a transparency issue. So I think one thing that's important about this, ban is that it does not prevent Chinese propaganda. I can go today and I link from this from lawfare. So I the peaking review is interesting. It is, China's only English language state on newspaper. and it you can click on. It's called the Beijing review today. It still operates. it says exactly what you would think it would say. and you can access it and you can access it today. You can access it after the law goes into effect. Similarly, if you want to go and, you want to hear what, The China Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants to say you can go and hop on Twitter and read their Twitter account and you'll be able to do after this bill goes into effect as well. So it's not a ban on Chinese propaganda per se, or I think even at all. It's a ban on Chinese control over an information environment. Now why is that different? [00:23:00] if you dig into the justifications, so let's, say that we interpret Lamont Through the Brennan concurrence, right? and, we just say, okay, Lamont stands for some general proposition that Americans have a right to foreign propaganda. Why? I think the, best argument is there's like a marketplace of ideas. argument that foreign propaganda is information like anything else and it should be part of the flow and One person's propaganda is another person's truth And even if it's bad it helps sharpen our understanding all the standard marketplace of ideas arguments that i'm totally happy with but one difference I think between foreign propaganda and foreign control over a platform is foreign propaganda is usually at least Pretty clearly foreign propaganda when you're reading, or at least it's foreign when you're reading the Beijing review, you're reading the Beijing review. You know what you're reading. and I think that helps contextualize what you're reading. You can agree with it, disagree with it when you're on tick tock. The whole point is that this algorithm is totally unscrutable. You have [00:24:00] no idea why you are seeing what you are seeing and the potential for subconscious manipulation, that I don't think, furthers the marketplace of ideas. in the same way that being able to read the Peking Review does. I think that's another really big difference. Now, we could spend all day talking about it, but maybe even, subconscious propaganda still has information and stuff like that. But I think at the very least from a doctrinal matter, it's pretty clear that this distinguishes Lamont and, I emphasize this because I've heard a lot of critics of this law cite Lamont as if it straightforwardly disposes of this case because Lamont stands for some super broad proposition about foreign propaganda. And, what I would say is I don't think the case does. And I also don't think that. The historical context does either. Matt Iglesias, the, well known blogger, had a nice piece a couple months ago, why he is, was for the ban. And he's not a lawyer, so his is more of a policy analysis, but he made a very nice analogy. And he said, look, imagine during the height of the Cold [00:25:00] War, the Soviet Union wanted to go and buy CBS. Would we have allowed that? And the answer is no, we would not have allowed that. And it is, I think, inconceivable that the Supreme Court would have had problems with that. it, it strikes me as very unlikely. Again, this is not a legal point. This is a historical sociological point that even the court that I think unanimously, struck down that law in Lamont in 1965 would have, three years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, been okay with the Soviet Union buying CBS. Because I think there is really a distinction and it's not just one of degree. it's one of kind. Eugene Volokh: so first of all, I'm sorry, you're quite right that, the, court, the court, was unanimous in the case. I was mistaken, talking about dissent. I'm sorry. I should have said that the government's position, in Lamont postmaster general, but the second thing I wanted to say, is that, you, raise this question of buying, broadcasters and indeed, [00:26:00] there are to this day. Limits, substantial limits on foreign ownership of, of, broadcasters, presumptive limits. they could be, as I understand it, waived by the FCC, but there are such limits. what do you think of that as a precedent, do you think? the Supreme Court, to my knowledge, has never really squarely confronted them. But the broad assumption is that they are, they're valid. Is it something that's just a broadcasting only rule? Because there are a lot of. Supreme Court cases that say, broadcasting is special, or is it something that you think stands for a broader proposition and the other thing? actually, I have a follow up question for you, but I wanted to see what you thought about that. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's both. So, I do think the broadcast precedents are really important, in terms of, this long history of, foreign ownership rules. And, here I, I will. Suggest, the folks are interested. Ganesh Sitaraman, [00:27:00] who's a law professor at Vanderbilt, wrote a wonderful article in the Stanford Law Review last year, two years ago, I think called Foreign Ownership of Platforms. We can put it in the show notes. That really goes through this history, not just communications platforms, but generally of foreign ownership, restrictions. I think that precedent is, important. I think you're also right, Eugene, to be fair, that, A response could be, yeah, but those were in the broadcast context, and the court has often distinguished restrictions that are okay under the First Amendment for broadcast, or what are something called limited spectrum situations, and that would not be in the context of an unlimited spectrum. But I have a response to that, which is that, it is true that the internet is not limited in the way that broadcast is, right? If I want to broadcast on a radio frequency, no one else can broadcast on that radio frequency, and therefore you need to have government intervention. Otherwise, none of it works. That's not true for the internet. But the internet is limited in a different way, and that is with attention. [00:28:00] it used to be that the bottleneck for communications was the internet. Broadcast or spectrum now it's the attention of the audience and because you still have a bottleneck, right? You can still get monopolistic effects where it used to be that there were a few small a few very large Broadcasters and they carved the broadcast Spectrum that was the bottleneck now. There are a few large platforms. They're not carving up spectrum. They're carving up attention and I think that actually, if you think deeply about, what justified intervention in the broadcast industry, it was general scarcity, but it doesn't just be scarcity Of, of, spectrum. It can be whatever scarcity of the bottleneck there is. And so Jane Bambauer: I think I just go ahead, finish it. Yeah, it will. Alan Rozenshtein: So and, and and I think this is, this is, a different project and maybe this is a project I should write. [00:29:00] And then you Jane can tell me why, I'm wrong. I actually think that, where you have, limited attention, that is just as good of a reason as limited broadcast for the government to, regulate, if it regulates well. Now, ISIL has to regulate well. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that's not my objection, though. I think the problem is the scarcity that the spectrum scarcity has to do with the means of production. The attention scarcity is more like saying there are only there's at any given point a set number of dollars in the world and consumers don't have unlimited dollars to spend on different types of content. It doesn't actually prevent a competitor from coming in and creating content or curating content, which I think. I think the limited set of platforms that are doing well, because they're actually in fierce competition with each other in a curation market, not in, a traditional content market. But, [00:30:00] nevertheless, there are lots of ways to get copious amounts of information. The trouble is figuring out how to pitch the right information to the right person so that it's worth their time. And there, I just don't see I don't see a monopoly style problem there. And I guess that leads me to the skepticism about, about the, policy behind the tick tock ban that, I, get that there's a lot of really bad content on tick tock and that the Chinese government may have a motivation that's different from the capitalistic one, and that is, that, that, does. seek to cause, disarray and, and, polarization among Americans. But I don't see a big difference between the effects of TikTok and the effects of every other social media company because, first of all, I think there's reason to think that even if you have completely malignant intent. There's [00:31:00] only so much that you can do to manipulate a person into thinking or pursuing some information that they don't already want to pursue. and then also that even through just the normal capitalistic, motivations, most of these platforms are incentivized to find information and curate information. that leads to polarization, that leads to anger and to resentment and to, all, of the things that the Chinese government may benefit from, but doesn't really cause in a, fundamental sense. Alan Rozenshtein: So I, I, so there are a couple, of points there, right? So, one, And let's just say generally, the field of, I don't even know what you'd call it, social media communication psychology, is still quite young. it is advancing very quickly or changing very quickly because The actual infrastructure is changing very [00:32:00] quickly. and if you're looking for a clear social science answer, like you can find, there are lots of papers that will say all sorts of things, right? So policymakers and judges are definitely going to be, legislating and deciding under real uncertainty, which raises interesting meta questions about, okay, then, should we err on this side or that side? then there's a more specific question about, what do we know about specifically China and specifically ByteDance and specifically TikTok? And we can get into the evidence that we have and how speculative or not speculative it is. and then third, we can get into this question of what is the specific threat here? Because I agree with you if the concern is it's in China's interest to addict all our kids to stupid cat videos, or it's in China's interest to feed, TikTok users inflammatory polarizing content because, that's what gets the most clicks. Then I agree with you that would not be a great argument because it's not clear that Twitter or Instagram or Meta operate any differently than, [00:33:00] than, than that, right? I think the unique danger is that, The Chinese government has shown, a couple of things. One, a willingness to, in a very heavy handed way, try to alter how it is perceived around the world with respect to any number of issues. the Hong Kong democracy protests, the issues with the Uyghurs, certainly relations with Taiwan. and in addition, And in a way that just goes beyond your general polarization or feeding people, content that gets them angry. and in addition that, the Chinese government, is also willing to use its, private companies, in a way that very much goes against those private companies own market and capitalist interests. If the Chinese government perceived that it is in their interest, right? And I, think the government's real concern is. In a [00:34:00] shooting war with Taiwan, right? what will the Chinese government, force TikTok to show to 150 million users, right? Now you may say, at the end of the day, people make up their own minds and so forth, right? And, it's a risk. But the question is, is are the courts going to require? And here we have to we have to separate the legal question from the policy questions, because courts have a very specific role. and although we all understand that they make policy, they don't really want to be in a position of second guessing the national security and foreign policy judgments of the political branches. do courts want to tell the government? No, Go get into a war with China. China over Taiwan. Let's see what's on TikTok. And if TikTok spends six months feeding the young people of America, pro China content and gets them all to protest and stuff like that, then we can talk again. That's a bit of a caricature of the view. But I think that's the thing that keeps the government [00:35:00] up at night. and speaking only for myself, right? That's good enough for me. this is a your mileage may vary situation. I totally accept that. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. I see the same logic in the communist era. but Eugene, what do you think? Eugene Volokh: so I want to ask a couple of follow up questions or maybe three questions. one first amendment question and two turns out they're more than first amendment issues in the case. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. Yeah. Eugene Volokh: So the first is we haven't focused on the fact that this law doesn't ban TikTok as such, but requires. It essentially to be divested from Chinese influenced ownership. So I'm inclined to think that doesn't eliminate the First Amendment issue. But at the same time, it sounds like maybe it Would affect it? maybe not. I'd love to hear your thinking. And then I wanted to follow up, with a couple of more questions. One about the [00:36:00] bill of attainder question, and the other about this weird procedural posture of the case. But first, tell me what you think about this, how this, divestiture option affects the first amendment analysis. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. again, I take a middle position between some of the defenders of the bill who just say this is just divestiture and some of the critics who say this is an outright ban. It's not. It's you have to divest or you get a ban. I do think, I don't think that eliminates the First Amendment issue because there's a real risk of a ban that has to be taken into account. and the government can't just say, it's China's fault if it's banned and therefore we don't have to defend this law in First Amendment grounds. That's not how this works. On the same, on the other hand, I do think that the divestiture option helps in, two ways. One is that a lot of First Amendment analysis is about overbreath, right? a lot of constitutional analysis is about, did the government's action go further than necessary? And by definition, a law that allows for divestment instead of a ban. is more narrowly tailored, again by [00:37:00] definition, than a law that just does a ban. So it's almost like a good faith showing on the part of the government that we're actually trying to solve a problem here. We're really trying to solve, have different options here. The second reason, and this is maybe a little cute, but I do think it's plays importantly, at least politically, maybe also legally. If the investment fails, it's probably be going to be because China refuses to allow ByteDance to sell the algorithm to TikTok. And in fact, in the complaint that TikTok filed with the D. C. Circuit, they have essentially said that. They said divestment is not an option because China will not allow it. But if China won't allow it, shows a little bit, exactly what the government is worried about. That China cares a lot about this, and it's going to use its weight to, It's going to use its weight around here, which is exactly the point. I want to be fair. Anupam Chander, who's a sparring partner of mine on this and is great. and is at Georgetown, has argued that actually there are plenty of good reasons for countries not to want to allow the [00:38:00] export of sensitive technologies that have nothing to do with manipulation. and that's a fair point, but I think it it's almost like performatively shows. It's very clever. It shows to the courts in part, the very problem that the government is citing, which is China's influence and ability to throw its weight around. so that's the divestment thing. Should we talk about bill of attainder? Eugene Volokh: before we get to bill of attainder, I wanted to ask you about the, procedural issues. So a lot of what we're talking about here turns on facts. just how much influence does the Chinese government have? over bike debts. just, just how much of a burden will this impose on American creators and others? just how much, just what evidence is there of real national security threat? and in a typical situation, what would happen there would be is that there would be a challenge brought in federal district court, which is a trial court, the [00:39:00] judge might have a hearing where the judge would consider both written submissions, written, declarations of experts and others and, and other witnesses, and, at the same time, would also potentially have, have an oral hearing. and then it would go up on appeal where the appellate courts and perhaps eventually the Supreme Court would consider, how the legal rules apply to that. here, Congress provided that the challenge would be brought in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is an appellate court, which does not regularly, and I'm not sure, If it ever, maybe it does have some mechanisms for this, but at least does not regularly hear evidence. The job of an appellate court is not to hear evidence. It's to review an evidentiary record built either by the, trial courts or by, administrative agencies. So tell us how any of these factual questions are going to be resolved, [00:40:00] in, a case like this. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I will say this is a among the nerderati. This is a real topic of excitement. and we'll have to see. So so a couple of points. so first is, unfortunately, the bill does not have legislative findings attached to it, which is usually actually really important part of these kinds of bills. And it's surprising that it doesn't given that there's been reporting that Congress collaborated very closely with DOJ to really bulletproof this bill. It's not clear why they didn't On the other hand, the co sponsors of the bill, Representatives Gallagher and Krishnamurti, introduced a resolution, which is basically a very long list of legislative findings, and a lot of that resolution ended up in the House Committee Report. that accompanied the bill, and that has a lot of information about classified briefings that Congress received about the threat. Why alternatives that tick tock offered were not sufficient. I think that, though that resolution, this committee reports will play a really important role, [00:41:00] and may go some way to establishing the factual and evidentiary record. But Eugene, you're totally right. It doesn't go all the way, and it's certainly much less than what happened in district court. So what's going to happen? Appellate, you're right, appellate courts, they're appellate courts. They don't usually hear trials or take evidence, but they can, and not just the D. C. Circuit, but the Supreme Court can. So the Constitution provides original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court and all sorts of things. And I, there is at least one time that I know of that the Supreme Court tried to hold a trial and it went extremely poorly. I, have to, I, Once I read a very funny Law Review article about this. I got to dig it out. It's, it was a real comedy of errors, and so from then on, they decided, that what they would do is, in case of original jurisdiction, where like states sue each other, which happens from time to time, they would get a, I think it's called special master, basically an outside lawyer who would go do the fact finding for them. I'm sure the DC circuit could do the same thing. I haven't read the, I'm not a litigator. I haven't read the federal rules of civil procedure in a long time, repellent procedure. [00:42:00] I'm sure there's some mechanism for that. I think what's more interesting is the role of potentially classified information, because a lot of this is classified. the appellate courts can hear classified information. the DC circuit certainly can. It did so routinely in the 2010s during, the many Guantanamo habeas cases, that it heard. and actually just last year, the ninth circuit in another national security case, Twitter versus Garland, had to hear a lot of national classified information to decide whether or not Twitter's challenge against certain gag orders was constitutional and literally in the opinion, the Ninth Circuit says we are not at liberty to discuss the classified information that we have reviewed, but we reviewed it as part of our analysis and trust us. It's fine. I made up that last part. so it may very well be, that there is some classified information that is submitted to the court in camera. Maybe there's a protective order. I have no idea how it's going to work, but it may very well be that the D, the D. C. Circuit says, we look at the classified information, trust us.[00:43:00] Eugene Volokh: Got it. so that's very helpful to know. So let's just close by, stealing something from, we have a sister podcast, the Bill of attainder, unmuted podcast, we probably should have had this other, no, there is no real, for the real Alan Rozenshtein: Nerderati, Eugene Volokh: because it's a pretty rare issue to arise, but there is this issue of whether this law violates the bill of attainder clause and to quote the Supreme Court in actually a case involving President Nixon, is that, Bill of Attainder is a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial tribe. The classic example historically was Parliament backed law. Back in jolly old England would say we think this person is, is a traitor often or has done something [00:44:00] very bad. but maybe he's allied with the king, so we can't trust that he will be normally prosecuted. We're just going to say he is a traitor and needs to be beheaded. And that's that. so I think historically bills of attainder have been mostly for capital, punishment. There also used to be bills of pains and penalties, vague recollection, but the U. S. Constitution Were you Alan Rozenshtein: old enough to remember when Parliament used to do bills of attainder? Yeah, there you go. All that Eugene Volokh: gray hair. so the, so the U. S. Constitution has long forbidden bills of attainder. But the question is, what is a bill of attainder? Whenever we see a law that mentions someone by name, and maybe, interesting question, what about mentioning a business by name, then, people start talking about, maybe that's a bill of attainder, but not all such laws are indeed [00:45:00] unconstitutional. So, again, This is, on the one hand, not a free speech issue, on the other hand, very much an issue in this case, and I suspect many people who may have heard about the case, even if they're not lawyers, would say, wait a minute, this law, it's just the government, the Congress trying to ban a particular business, is that what they're supposed to do? Aren't they supposed to pass general laws that say, here are the criteria that, if met, cause you to be restricted in various ways. So what do you think about this bill of attainder, question, even if just tentative? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's interesting. so a couple of thoughts on the bill of attainder question. So first, there is an open question whether or not the bill of attainder applies to corporations. The Supreme Court has never, Definitively answer that question. I think one lower one appellate court, I forget which one has held that it does apply to corporations. I don't know if there's a circuit split on that or just other circuits haven't gotten to it. But that's [00:46:00] one interesting question. and, especially with the originalist turn that the Supreme Court's had, I think there's going to be a lot of, Justice Alito or, pouring over, 18th century parliamentary records to know was this ever applied to corporations. the second question is, the Bill of Attainder, it's not just about specifically singling someone out. It's specifically singling someone out for punishment and punishment is a technical term of art here. Unfortunately, again, the Supreme Court has never said exactly what a punishment is. There's a historical test and a functional test. so one might argue that this isn't a punishment. Nothing is being stolen. nothing is being taken away from tick tock. No one's being put in jail. This is a proscriptive regulation that tick tock can no longer afford itself of certain, corporate benefits. now, as with many things, There's a certain angels on the head of a pin kind of quality to, is that [00:47:00] a punishment or a regulation? But honestly, this stuff comes up all the time. there are similar logical puzzles in Fifth Amendment takings cases. Is it taking or regulation or whatnot? so that's another question that the courts will have to, decide whether this is a punishment or just a forward looking, prospective. regulation. And the third question is, and this is a part of the law we haven't actually talked about, but it's actually very important. The TikTok ban or divestment and ban is only one part of the law. The law also sets up a broader scheme by which the president can identify other TikTok like companies, which is to say social media platforms that are controlled by Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. and, and trigger a similar divestment type process. And so this raises the question of whether or not the government will be able to use that part of the law to soften the fact that the law also targets tick [00:48:00] tock. that may not be relevant to the bill of attainder issue, but tick tock has also made, other arguments that sound similar swiftly run equal protection that they're getting being singled out. and so the government may point to say, no, this is a general law. We're just starting with tick tock. I don't know if that gets there. I suspect that, and again, I'm not an expert in this, but I have done some preliminary research that the courts will ultimately move. This is just not a punishment. It's not a punishment in the way that the bill of attainder, contemplates that this is a, forward looking, regulation. Eugene Volokh: Got it. Thanks very much. very interesting. Jane, any closing questions or remarks? Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I think one thing that all three of us. expressed at one point is that one thing that makes this topic hard is that it's a, there are national security questions and facts that none of us have access to. And so it's hard to know as [00:49:00] a matter of policy, especially what should happen here. And, Alan Rozenshtein: and we haven't even talked about the international dimensions, potential repercussions. This is a big deal. Eugene Volokh: Big deal, indeed. Alan, thank you so much for joining us. It has been tremendously enlightening for me and I, sure for, our viewers and listeners as well. Jane, always a great pleasure to be on with you. And folks, we'll see you in a couple of weeks with our next episode.

The DOJ is now charged with protecting American data from foreign adversaries. This new proposed rule they recently issued is, according to one observer, “one of the most ambitious and sweeping new initiatives in national security law over the past few years.” To discuss, we interviewed Devin DeBacker and Lee Licata of the Department of Justice's National Security Division. We get into: How adversaries plan to weaponize obscure data types — including geolocation data, DNA sequencing, and undersea cable transmissions; How China managed to purchase genomic data on millions of Americans through healthcare investments; Why black box data brokers keep records of who goes to casinos; How the DOJ plans to protect your data, and whether their plans can be thwarted by gridlock in Congress. I'm excited to introduce a partnership with Policyware to bring affordable, expert-driven policy education to my audience. Starting May 14, Samm Sacks will be teaching a deep dive into China's Digital Governance and its Global Implications. Samm is an old friend of mine and a Senior Fellow at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center. She is a leading expert on China's cybersecurity legal system, the U.S.-China technology relationship, and the geopolitics of data privacy and cross-border data flows. Check out below a show I did with Samm on ChinaTalk discussing China's digital governance. You'll learn over several weeks as Samm delivers live classes, with options to listen on your own time. Policyware Deep Dives are designed to be attended alongside your job, and they will help you organize with your employer for cost sharing. Check out the show we did together on data issues late last year. Help support ChinaTalk by registering for the deep dive here and thank you to Policyware for sponsoring today's episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The DOJ is now charged with protecting American data from foreign adversaries. This new proposed rule they recently issued is, according to one observer, “one of the most ambitious and sweeping new initiatives in national security law over the past few years.” To discuss, we interviewed Devin DeBacker and Lee Licata of the Department of Justice's National Security Division. We get into: How adversaries plan to weaponize obscure data types — including geolocation data, DNA sequencing, and undersea cable transmissions; How China managed to purchase genomic data on millions of Americans through healthcare investments; Why black box data brokers keep records of who goes to casinos; How the DOJ plans to protect your data, and whether their plans can be thwarted by gridlock in Congress. I'm excited to introduce a partnership with Policyware to bring affordable, expert-driven policy education to my audience. Starting May 14, Samm Sacks will be teaching a deep dive into China's Digital Governance and its Global Implications. Samm is an old friend of mine and a Senior Fellow at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center. She is a leading expert on China's cybersecurity legal system, the U.S.-China technology relationship, and the geopolitics of data privacy and cross-border data flows. Check out below a show I did with Samm on ChinaTalk discussing China's digital governance. You'll learn over several weeks as Samm delivers live classes, with options to listen on your own time. Policyware Deep Dives are designed to be attended alongside your job, and they will help you organize with your employer for cost sharing. Check out the show we did together on data issues late last year. Help support ChinaTalk by registering for the deep dive here and thank you to Policyware for sponsoring today's episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On February 28, the Biden administration issued an Executive Order (EO) entitled “Preventing Access to Americans' Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern.” Lawfare Senior Editor Stephanie Pell sat down with Devin DeBacker and Lee Licata, the Chief and one of the Deputy Chiefs of the Foreign Investment Review Section in the National Security Division at the Department of Justice, to talk about this new EO and the ways in which it attempts to prevent certain countries of concern from accessing Americans' sensitive personal data. They talked about the types of data transactions the EO is intended to regulate, what it is not intended to regulate, and the forthcoming rule-making process that the DOJ will run.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

0:00 - The experts on the CO ballot access case   13:55 - CO SOS Jena Griswold on SCOTUS decision   31:56 - Biden parole flights   46:13 - Reaction to Barkley w/ King: if I see a black person wearing Trump mugshot t-shirt, I'm going to punch them in the face   01:04:11 - Women's Sports Advocate and 12-time NCAA All-American swimmer, Riley Gaines: "It is not inclusive to ask a young girl to smile and step aside" You can see Riley & Amy Friday March 22 at Belvedere Banquets in Elk Grove Village - for more details visit 560theAnswer.com/tickets    01:23:17 - In Depth History w/ Frank From Arlington Heights   01:25:42 - Founder and Executive Editor of Wirepoints, Mark Glennon, weighs in on the Cook Co States Attorney race. Get Mark's latest wirepoints.org   01:40:17 - Former federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice in the National Security Division, Joseph Moreno, on Hunter Biden's testimony and the desperation of democrats demonstrated with yesterday's SCOTUS decision. Follow Joe on X @JosephMoreno   01:56:00 - Marco Tinor, executive vice president and chief operating officer for By The Hand Club For Kids, wants to know “who are the kids who struggle the most, who are the kids who cause the most issues” and says “ give them to us after school we will bless them with our organization” Visit bythehand.org/radio to make a donation. A $120 gift provides after-school programming for 2 children for 1 day or a $40 monthly gift which provides after-school programming for 8 children for 1 day on an annual basisSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Justice Department and the Office of Foreign Assets Control had a big year in 2023. Criminal and civil enforcement continue to increase. The DOJ has warned corporations that aggressive sanctions enforcement actions are coming -- to that end, the DOJ assigned 25 new prosecutors to the National Security Division to execute on its promise. Meanwhile, OFAC had a record year in collecting $1.539 billion in penalties, largely the result of two blockbuster settlements -- British American Tobacco and Binance, the cryptocurrency exchange.It's important for companies to ensure they have U.S. expertise to effectively address potential violations of U.S. sanctions laws, as unfamiliarity with these laws can hinder prompt identification and response. Having a strong compliance program based in the United States is a valuable lesson learned from OFAC.Global companies are facing unprecedented risks and challenges in today's economy, leading them to prioritize robust ethics and compliance programs. These programs play a crucial role in promoting positive corporate citizenship and mitigating legal and economic risks.In 2023, there was a significant increase in sanctions enforcement by the DOJ and OFAC, with plans for even more aggressive actions in the future. With 17 enforcement cases and $1.5 billion in penalties, it is evident that compliance areas such as third parties and internal controls are of utmost importance.Various countries, including Russia, Cuba, and Iran, continue to be the focus of global sanction schemes. While Venezuela's sanctions were temporarily relaxed, companies must stay vigilant and monitor the upcoming election. The British American Tobacco case, with its $629 million settlement, serves as a model for future enforcement actions.The Binance case, involving a $4.3 billion settlement, shed light on criminal violations in the cryptocurrency industry. This highlights the critical importance of compliance in this rapidly evolving sector.ResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

AZ GOP Chairman resigns 12:16- Don't question BLM Brandon's leadership  27:44- Nikki Haley for VP? 49:51- Pending Senate border security sellout 1:06:20- Joseph Moreno, former federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice in the National Security Division, a former staff member with the FBI's 9/11 Review Commission and a US Army combat veteran: The Department of Justice has dropped the ball on protecting America's security 1:19:57- Naperville city councilman, Josh McBroom, is “shocked” nobody has signed up to voluntarily house migrants - as he proposed at a recent city council meeting  Get updates on Josh's work for Naperville @Joshmcbroom 1:32:14- Da Plane!  1:34:26- Joliet shootings 1:46:17- Ohio state Sen. Kristina Roegner arguing for the DeWine veto override of trans bill 1:53:19- Mark Kollar, president of Kollar Insurance Services, LLC & host of Retirement and Income Radio, says there are good/bad investments but also right/wrong investments Listen to Retirement and Income Radio Sunday's on 560 AM the Answer *** NEW TIME*** 11am-12noon 2:07:56- Was that Fani Willis?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week Leonard Bailey, Head of Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section's (CCIPS) Cybersecurity Unit for the Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, joins us this week. We dive into the role of the DOJ in addressing the vast and ever-changing landscape of cybersecurity. Bailey shares insights on partnering with federal agencies as well as the private sector, navigating information sharing pathways, evolution of incident and cyber threat reporting procedures, and the recent release of the Harmonization of Cyber Incident Reporting to the Federal Government. He also helps debunk information sharing myths and spotlights available tools and benefits of cyber threat information disclosure.   Leonard Bailey The Head of Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section's (CCIPS) Cybersecurity Unit and Special Counsel for National Security in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Criminal Division. He has prosecuted computer crime cases and routinely advised on cybersecurity, searching and seizing electronic evidence, and conducting electronic surveillance. He has managed DOJ cyber-policy as Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division and then as an Associate Deputy Attorney General. He has also served as Special Counsel and Special Investigative Counsel for DOJ's Inspector General. Bailey is a graduate of Yale University and Yale Law School. He has taught law courses at Georgetown Law School and Columbus School of Law in Washington, DC. For links and resources discussed in this episode, please visit our show notes at https://www.forcepoint.com/govpodcast/e267

Bryan Vorndran is Assistant Director of the FBI's Cyber Division, a position he's held since around March 2021. Prior to that, he was the special agent in charge in New Orleans, and he's worked in Afghanistan and on the Joint Terrorism Task Force at the Washington Field Office.David Kris, Lawfare contributor and former Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, and Bryan Cunningham, Lawfare contributor and Executive Director of the University of California, Irvine's Cybersecurity Policy & Research Institute, sat down with Bryan to talk about his career trajectory, the FBI's top cyber challenges, the Bureau's relationships with other agencies and private sector entities, and the challenges posed by the People's Republic of China. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we are joined by Dr. Saadia Zahoor, a policy expert at the National Security Division, to talk about looking at national security from a gendered lens, women in decision-making roles, manels, personal attacks on women, local graduates, being inclusive, and the need to not be petty. 

This week, Audra is joined by Megan Stifel, chief strategy officer for the Institute for Security and Technology, to discuss how ransomware has evolved from a business nuisance to now a threat to national security. Megan also shares how the United States' overall response to ransomware has the potential to impact the types of attacks faced by its organizations and touches on the need for greater transparency when it comes to international cyber information sharing. Megan Stifel is the Chief Strategy Officer for the Institute for Security and Technology. She is the founder of Silicon Harbor Consultants, which provides strategic cybersecurity operations and policy counsel. Prior to founding Silicon Harbor Consultants, she was an attorney in the National Security Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). She most recently served as Global Policy Officer and Capacity and Resilience Program Director at the Global Cyber Alliance. She was previously the Cybersecurity Program Director at Public Knowledge. For links and resources discussed in this episode, please visit our show notes at https://www.forcepoint.com/govpodcast/e252

Companies must take a proactive approach to sanctions and export control compliance to mitigate potential risks. This includes implementing rigorous compliance programs, cooperating with the DOJ, and promptly disclosing and remedying violations. In this episode of Corruption, Crime and Compliance, Michael Volkov explores the latest joint compliance notice issued by the DOJ, Department of Commerce, and Department of the Treasury. This notice provides crucial guidelines on voluntary disclosure for sanctions and export control violations, shedding light on the increasing enforcement of such controls. He discusses the intricate relationship between sanctions enforcement and the FCPA and offers a keen understanding of how businesses can safeguard their interests and comply with global standards.You'll hear Michael talk about:The landscape of sanctions enforcement is rapidly evolving, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Security Division designating 25 prosecutors to handle sanctions compliance violations. Corporate resolutions are becoming the driving force behind settlement processes, and these resolutions could become significant revenue streams for the DOJ. In light of these developments, companies must prioritize sanctions and export control compliance to mitigate potential risks.The DOJ's Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) Guidance provides a detailed guideline for voluntary disclosures of possible violations. The JCE Guidance emphasizes the importance of prompt disclosure and swift remediation after uncovering potential violations. Generally, the DOJ will not seek prosecution if a company fully discloses a violation, cooperates wholeheartedly, and takes remedial actions. However, this is not a blanket assurance; aggravating factors such as widespread criminal activity or attempts by upper management to conceal violations can influence this stance.Voluntary self-disclosure is not merely a bureaucratic step; it can potentially be a shield, allowing companies to significantly reduce or even bypass criminal liability. Full cooperation entails timely preservation of pertinent documents, streamlined witness interviews, and proactive identification of avenues for in-depth DOJ investigation.Implementation of rigorous compliance programs, complemented by suitable disciplinary actions, can tilt the scales in favor of companies during evaluations. The JCE Guidance underscores recent modifications to the disclosure and enforcement policies adopted by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Notably, the BIS has ramped up penalties for companies that remain tight-lipped about significant potential violations. The efficacy of a compliance program, particularly its prowess in identifying and rectifying compliance gaps, plays a monumental role in BIS case resolutions.KEY QUOTES“Companies are about to face aggressive, coordinated prosecutions for sanctions and export control violations.” - Michael Volkov“[The] DOJ noted that a prompt, voluntary self disclosure provides a means for a company to reduce, and in some cases, avoid altogether, the potential for criminal liability moving forward, where a company voluntarily self discloses potentially criminal violations, fully cooperates, and timely and appropriately remediates the violations.” - Michael Volkov“The existence, nature, and adequacy of a company's compliance program, including its success at self identifying and rectifying compliance gaps, is itself considered a factor under settlement guidelines.” - Michael VolkovResources:Michael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law GroupDepartments of Justice, Commerce and Treasury Issue Joint Compliance Note on Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Potential Violations

The criminal charges against Donald Trump continue to pile up.On July 27, a superseding indictment was filed in the classified documents case against Trump, adding three additional charges to the 37 originally filed in June. Five days later, Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a new indictment over the former president's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.The superseding indictment in the classified documents case alleges that Trump violated the Espionage Act by retaining a classified document described as a “presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country,” at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and that Trump conspired with two associates, Carlos De Oliveira and Walt Nauta, to obstruct justice by attempting to delete security camera footage at Mar-a-Lago in order to conceal it from the FBI and a grand jury. Joining the show to discuss the additional charges in the classified documents case is David Aaron. David is a Senior Counsel in the Washington, D.C. and New York offices of the law firm Perkins Coie. Before joining private practice, David was a prosecutor in the Justice Department's National Security Division, where he prosecuted Espionage Act violations and saw how the process works from the inside. This conversation was recorded on July 30, 2023. Show Notes: David Aaron (@davidcaaron)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security's Espionage Act coverageJust Security's classified information coverageJust Security's coverage of Special Counsel Jack Smith Just Security's Trump Classified Docs ClearinghouseTess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter) and Ryan Goodman's (@rgoodlaw) Just Security article on the national security implications of the superseding indictment Brian D. Greer (@secretsandlaws) and Wendy Leben's Just Security Podcast episode on the presidential classification and declassification process Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Covert Affair” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR) 

Brendan Ballou is a federal prosecutor and served as Special Counsel for Private Equity in the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. Previously, he worked in private practice, and before that, in the National Security Division of the Justice Department, where he advised the White House on counterterrorism and other policies. He graduated from Columbia University and Stanford Law School. His book, Plunder: Private Equity's Plan to Pillage America, is available now.Advertisers: https://cynomi.com/https://gozynta.com/payments/Do you want the show on your podcast app or the written versions of the stories? Subscribe to the Business of Tech: https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe/Support the show on Patreon: https://patreon.com/mspradio/Want our stuff? Cool Merch? Wear “Why Do We Care?” - Visit https://mspradio.myspreadshop.comFollow us on:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews/Twitter: https://twitter.com/mspradionews/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradio/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079/

Over the last decade, private equity firms wiped out nearly 600,000 jobs in the retail sector by taking over and bankrupting major retailers like Toys R Us and Payless Shoes. But in that same time, private equity also destroyed companies in healthcare, housing, medicine, and many other industries that affect our everyday lives. Today's guest, federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou, explains how we can stop private equity's plan to pillage America. Brendan Ballou is a federal prosecutor and served as Special Counsel for Private Equity in the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. Previously, he worked in private practice, and before that, in the National Security Division of the Justice Department, where he advised the White House on counterterrorism and other policies. Twitter: @brendanballou Plunder: Private Equity's Plan to Pillage America https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/brendan-ballou/plunder/9781541702103 Private Equity is Out of Control and Looting America. This Prosecutor Says We Can Fix It. https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/private-equity-is-out-of-control-and-looting-america-this-prosecutor-says-we-can-fix-it Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer

This week, we're airing a recent discussion from the Women in National Security Law Webinar Program featuring Lala Qadir, incoming Chair of the Advisory Committee of the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security and Principal Assistant Director and Chief of Staff of the National Security Division at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Together with Moderator Margret Hu, they discuss Lala's impressive career path, the role of emerging technologies in national security, and the development of long-term science and technology strategies to strengthen our national security and competitiveness. Lala Qadir is the incoming Chair of the Advisory Committee of the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security and the Principal Assistant Director and Chief of Staff of the National Security Division at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TQjisEDseJq07O9MYx2tSqGOg4MHsLHF/view?usp=share_link Moderated by Margaret Hu, Advisory Committee Member with the Standing Committee on Law and National Security, and Professor of Law at William & Mary Law School: https://law2.wm.edu/faculty/bios/fulltime/mhu05.php Opening remarks by Jennifer O'Connor, Chair of the Women in National Security Law: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_national_security/women-in-national-security-law/ Nominate National Security Law Today on People's Choice Podcast Awards through this link: https://www.podcastawards.com 1. Click the blue “Click Here to Vote” button 2. On the sign up site, check the box that says “Please consider me as one of the listeners that will be randomly selected to vote on the final slate in August” and enter “National Security Law Today” in the Biggest Podcast Influencer box 3. On the nomination site, nominate “National Security Law Today” for The Adam Curry People's Choice Award, Government & Organizations, and The Majority Report Politics & News Category

Since former President Donald Trump was indicted for retaining sensitive government documents at Mar-a-Lago, the Espionage Act has become a household term. But only a small number of lawyers have seen an Espionage Act trial from the inside. Just Security has assembled an all-star roundtable of experienced federal prosecutors and defense attorneys who have handled high-profile Espionage Act cases. Joining the show to share their insights, experience, and views on Trump's Espionage Act charges are David Aaron, Andrew Weissmann, and Jim Wyda. David and Jim have previously faced off from opposite sides of an Espionage Act prosecution, but they've come together for this special discussion. Before he joined private practice, David was a prosecutor at the Justice Department's National Security Division. Andrew has served in many senior Justice Department roles, including on the leadership team for Special Counsel Robert Mueller and as the General Counsel of the FBI. Jim is the Federal Public Defender for the District of Maryland. This episode is hosted by Paras Shah, with co-production and editing by Tiffany Chang, Michelle Eigenheer, and Allison Mollenkamp. Show Notes:  David Aaron (@davidcaaron)Andrew Weissmann (@AWeissmann_) James WydaParas Shah (@pshah518) Just Security's Espionage Act coverageJust Security's classified information coverageJust Security's coverage of Special Counsel Jack Smith Just Security's Trump Classified Docs ClearinghouseBrian D. Greer (@secretsandlaws) and Wendy Leben's Just Security Podcast episode on the presidential classification and declassification process Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Covert Affair” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR)

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

Unprecedented changes are imminent in sanctions and export control enforcement, as the U.S. government amplifies its focus on national security and corporate compliance. On this episode of Corruption, Crime and Compliance, Michael Volkov discusses the potential consequences of these developments. He dissects the “new FCPA”, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) strategic approach, the critical role of sanctions and export control enforcement, and the intricacies of voluntary disclosure programs.You'll hear Michael talk about:A significant shift is occurring in the DOJ's enforcement focus, with 75% of criminal cases against corporations now related to national security matters, including sanctions enforcement, money laundering, and terrorism.The DOJ will collaborate with OFAC and BIS in a similar manner to the relationship between the DOJ and the SEC during FCPA enforcement.Corporate resolutions are set to increase drastically, with steep penalties, deferred prosecution agreements, guilty pleas, and a surge in individual prosecutions. Heightened compliance expectations around export controls and sanctions compliance will necessitate a ramp-up of relevant compliance programs.The enforcement actions will serve as guidance, similar to the initial stages of FCPA enforcement, providing cues about the DOJ's view on compliance and their expectations from compliance programs.The DOJ plans to ramp up enforcement against global banks, investing heavily in the Bank Integrity Unit which is part of the anti money laundering operations for global banks, and sanctions enforcement.The DOJ has forewarned corporations about the enforcement emphasis on sanctions and export controls. DOJ has ongoing investigations in various sectors including transportation, fintech, banking, defense, and agriculture.Voluntary disclosure programs, such as those from OFAC and the National Security Division, play a significant role in mitigating enforcement actions. However, choosing between OFAC and DOJ disclosure can present a nuanced dilemma for corporations, hinging on whether a violation is willful. The number of voluntary disclosures involving both is expected to increase as corporate enforcement actions rise.The case against British American Tobacco by DOJ and OFAC for illegal sales of cigarettes to North Korea, resulted in a combined penalty of $629M. This is a significant instance of enforcement action against a non-financial institution.The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the Department of Commerce brought a case against Seagate Technology, resulting in a $300 million settlement. The DOJ seems to be investigating this matter further due to Seagate's blatant violations.A case against Murad, a cosmetics company, was brought by OFAC for Iran sanctions violations worth approximately $11 million. Murad ended up paying a $3.3M fine. Murad's actions highlight the importance of sanctions compliance guidance and the significance of due diligence, especially during acquisition processes.OFAC's enforcement action against Murad also emphasized the importance of having a local compliance structure when a foreign parent company is involved. OFAC also stressed on the importance of pre- and post- acquisition due diligence and audits when acquiring companies. The failure to perform such activities may lead to unidentified sanctions issues, as illustrated in the Murad-Unilever case.We may see larger fines against non-financial institutions in the near future, surpassing the current record of $508 million, indicating an uptick in enforcement actions.KEY QUOTE:"OFAC announced a separate civil settlement for $508M, which is the largest fine against a non-financial institution in OFAC's history. And that's what we're going to be seeing. Largest fines against the non-financial institution will eclipse $508M probably in the next couple of years." - Michael VolkovResources:Michael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

On Friday, June 9, a federal court in Florida unsealed an indictment charging former President Donald Trump with willfully retaining national defense information, refusing to return it, and obstructing related investigations. The 38 counts allege that Trump violated the Espionage Act, conspired to obstruct justice, withheld and hid documents, and caused false statements to be made to federal investigators and a grand jury.Espionage Act cases are complex and important. They often require prosecutors to balance the need to protect sensitive intelligence information from being disclosed at trial with a defendant's constitutional and due process rights not to be convicted by secret evidence. And disclosure of classified information can expose critical sources and methods of intelligence, including human sources, to harm.Joining us to explain how Espionage Act prosecutions work, and what to expect in Trump's case, is David Aaron. David is a Senior Counsel at the Washington, D.C., and New York offices of the law firm Perkins Coie. Before joining private practice, David was a prosecutor with the Justice Department's National Security Division. He's prosecuted Espionage Act violations and has seen how the process works from the inside. Show Notes: David AaronRyan Goodman (@rgoodlaw)David's Just Security article on the Classified Information Procedures Act Tess Bridgeman and Brianna Rosen's Just Security article on the national security implications of the indictment Just Security's Espionage Act coverageMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Covert Affair” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR)

Following the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump, Geoff Bennett discussed the case with two experts in national security and handling classified documents, Oona Hathaway, a former special counsel at the Pentagon, and Jamil Jaffer, who served in the National Security Division at the Justice Department and as associate counsel to President George W. Bush. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Geoffrey discusses FBI profiling and behavior analysis with former FBI Special Agent John R. “Jack” Schafer. Jack is a psychologist (phd), professor, best-selling author, and intelligence consultant. As a special agent in the FBI, Dr. Schafer spent fifteen years conducting counter-intelligence and counterterrorism investigations, and seven years as a behavioral analyst for the FBI's National Security Division's Behavioral Analysis Program. He developed spy recruitment techniques, interviewed terrorists, and trained agents in the art of interrogation and persuasion. He is the author of The Like Switch.You can find Jack's book The Like Switch at https://a.co/d/8KXfysnFor the full in-depth and uncut interview about working as an undercover special agent in the FBI join our community and get access to our full character database.--> https://www.thesuccessfulscreenwriter.comThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/4506618/advertisement

Private equity firms rank among the largest employers in the United States and invest many billions of dollars in a wide variety of industries. Yet the public understanding of how private equity works and its impact on myriad areas of American life, including national security, remains limited.Brendan Ballou is trying to change that. A federal prosecutor who works in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, he has written a new book, Plunder: Private Equity's Plan To Pillage America. David Priess spoke at length with him about his previous work in the Justice Department's National Security Division, his current role working antitrust issues, the origins of his interest in private equity, the business model of private equity, its effect on industries from mortgages to nursing homes, private equity's link to the SolarWinds hack, foreign involvement in private equity, the impact of private equity on U.S. competitiveness, and more.Among the works mentioned in this episode:The book Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use It by Louis BrandeisThe book Plunder: Private Equity's Plan To Pillage America by Brendan BallouThe movie This Is Spinal TapThe book Why the Innocent Plead Guilty and the Guilty Go Free by Jed RakoffThe movie AlienChatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Private equity firms rank among the largest employers in the United States and invest many billions of dollars in a wide variety of industries. Yet the public understanding of how private equity works and its impact on myriad areas of American life, including national security, remains limited.Brendan Ballou is trying to change that. A federal prosecutor who works in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, he has written a new book, Plunder: Private Equity's Plan To Pillage America. David Priess spoke at length with him about his previous work in the Justice Department's National Security Division, his current role working antitrust issues, the origins of his interest in private equity, the business model of private equity, its effect on industries from mortgages to nursing homes, private equity's link to the SolarWinds hack, foreign involvement in private equity, the impact of private equity on U.S. competitiveness, and more.Among the works mentioned in this episode:The book Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use It by Louis BrandeisThe book Plunder: Private Equity's Plan To Pillage America by Brendan BallouThe movie This Is Spinal TapThe book Why the Innocent Plead Guilty and the Guilty Go Free by Jed RakoffThe movie AlienChatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

David Cohen is the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, a position he held also during the Obama administration. He's also been Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence in the Department of the Treasury and a partner at the WilmerHale law firm.David Kris, Lawfare contributor and former Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, and Bryan Cunningham, Lawfare contributor and Executive Director of the University of California, Irvine's Cybersecurity Policy & Research Institute, sat down with David to talk about his career, including taking the same job twice; the coming debate about the FISA Amendments Act reauthorization; relationships between CIA and other U.S. government elements, particularly in cyber; the new CIA Transnational and Technology Mission Center; and the strategic competition between the United States and the People's Republic of China.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Chris Fonzone is the General Counsel of ODNI and has worked in senior legal roles at the Defense Department, the National Security Council, and the Department of Justice, and in the private sector as a partner at the Sidley Austin law firm. Laura Galante is the Intelligence Community's Cyber Executive and Director of ODNI's Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center (CTIIC). She worked previously in a position that involves supporting Ukrainian government agencies on cyber defense in the Defense Intelligence Agency and in the private sector at Mandiant.David Kris, Lawfare contributor and former Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, and Bryan Cunningham, Lawfare contributor and Executive Director of the University of California, Irvine's Cybersecurity Policy & Research Institute, sat down with Chris and Laura to talk about their careers, the intra- and interagency issues in cyber policy and operations, the new National Cyber Strategy, and more.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Rob Joyce is the Director of the Cybersecurity Directorate at the National Security Agency. He's been NSA's top cryptologic representative in the United Kingdom and has also worked in the U.S. National Security Council. David Kris, Lawfare contributor and former Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, and Bryan Cunningham, Lawfare contributor and Executive Director of the University of California, Irvine's Cybersecurity Policy & Research Institute, sat down with Rob to talk about his career trajectory, the quantum decryption threat, strategic competition in cyber with the People's Republic of China, and cooperation between the private sector and the government in cyberspace.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Gary Hart has perhaps the most unique political career of his generation...staffer for Robert Kennedy's Justice Department...manager of George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign...two-term US Senator...nearly becoming the Democratic nominee for President in 1984...starting 1988 as the Democratic frontrunner before leaving the race amid a media frenzy...and 5+ decades as a forward-looking thinker on the challenges facing the U.S. and the world.(To donate to support The Pro Politics Podcast, you may use this venmo link or inquire by email at mccrary.zachary@gmail.com)IN THIS EPISODE…Growing up in a farming town in Eastern Kansas and his roots in the Church of the Nazarene…How a connection to Robert Kennedy leads to managing the McGovern campaign in 1972…The Iowa strategy that helped McGovern win the '72 Democratic nomination…The one word that defined the success of the McGovern primary campaign…Inside the chaotic Tom Eagleton / Sargent Shriver '72 VP process…How he made the jump from campaign manager to a winning first-time US Senate candidate…Senator Hart remembers his Colorado Democratic colleague, the late Congresswoman Pat Schroeder…Early memories as a 36-year old U.S. Senator…How he forged a path as a new breed of Democrat…What led him to run for President in 1984 and how he nearly won the nomination….Who might have been Gary Hart's 1984 VP choice?Why he didn't run for re-election in 1986?What he will and won't say about the short-lived '88 campaign and why the “true story” may never come out…How he tackled his career after leaving the national stage as a candidate…The current issue Senator Hart believes is most under-discussed…Reflecting on his 50+ year friendship with Joe Biden…His confusion over the current state of US politics…His lifelong affinity for used-book stores… AND Atari Democrats, Matt Bai, Michael Bennet, Brumus, Carnegie libraries, clever journalistic shorthands, Bill Clinton, cool and aloof, Walter Cronkite, Detroit, Eisenhower Republicans, The Fairness Doctrine, Geraldine Ferraro, generational friction, Dick Gephardt, Newt Gingrich, John Glenn, Al Gore, Happy Days, hinges of history, Hubert Humphrey, Hugh Jackman, Jacob Javits, JFK, Pat Leahy, Mike Mansfield, Mac Mathias, the McGovern Army, Ed Muskie, the Military Reform Caucus, the National Security Division, The New York Times, Richard Nixon, peanut butter sandwiches, Warren Rudman, the Sermon on the Mount, Silicon Valley, super-delegates, Rick Stearns, Stu Symington, tremendous ferment, Stewart Udall, Watergate, Theodore White, Tim Wirth & more!

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Thursday, March 30th, 2023. Alps Precious Metals Group THE PAST WEEK HAS BROUGHT SOME “EXCITEMENT” TO THE MARKETS. BANK RUNS. STOCK COLLAPSES. WHAT WAS THOUGHT TO BE STABLE SUDDENLY APPEARS UNSTABLE. AND YET, GOLD’S PRICE *WENT UP* AS THE HEADLINES BECAME MORE OMINOUS. ALPS PRECIOUS METALS WAS ESTABLISHED BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT ONE’S HARD-EARNED WEALTH FROM THE SERIOUS FINANCIAL PROBLEMS THAT ARE UPON US IS BY OWNING PHYSICAL GOLD AND SILVER. CALL JAMES HUNTER OF ALPS AT 251-377-2197, AND VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT WWW.ALPSPMG.COM TO DISCOVER HOW YOU CAN BUY PHYSICAL PRECIOUS METALS FOR YOUR INVESTMENT AND IRA PORTFOLIOS. OWN THE ASSET GOD SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED AS “GOOD” IN THE 2ND CHAPTER OF GENESIS, AND OBTAIN A PEACE OF MIND THAT CAN BE HAD WITH FEW OTHER INVESTMENTS. AGAIN, CALL JAMES HUNTER OF ALPS PRECIOUS METALS AT 251-377-2197, AND VISIT WWW.ALPSPMG.COM TO LEARN HOW TO OWN THE BEDROCK ASSET OF THE AGES.   https://www.foxnews.com/us/dna-half-eaten-burrito-ties-wisconsin-doctoral-student-pro-life-center-firebombing-attack DNA from half-eaten burrito ties ex-Wisconsin doctoral student to pro-life center firebombing attack DNA found in a half-eaten burrito helped exposed a former Wisconsin university research assistant now accused of firebombing a pro-life center last Mother's Day. The attack on the headquarters of Wisconsin Family Action in Madison, Wisconsin, came about a week after the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion that would later overturn Roe v. Wade. About 10 months after a Molotov cocktail was tossed inside the office and the message, "If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either," was scrawled on the building's side, Hridindu Sankar Roychowdhury, 29, of Madison, was arrested in Boston on Tuesday and charged with one count of attempting to cause damage by means of fire or an explosive. The Justice Department said he traveled from Madison to Portland, Maine, and he purchased a one-way ticket from Boston to Guatemala City, Guatemala, departing Tuesday morning. Law enforcement arrested Roychowdhury at Boston Logan International Airport. "According to the complaint, Mr. Roychowdhury used an incendiary device in violation of federal law in connection with his efforts to terrorize and intimidate a private organization," Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division said in a statement. "I commend the commitment and professionalism of law enforcement personnel who worked exhaustively to ensure that justice is served." "Violence is never an acceptable way for anyone to express their views or their disagreement," Assistant Director Robert R. Wells of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division said. "Today’s arrest demonstrates the FBI’s commitment to vigorously pursue those responsible for this dangerous attack and others across the country, and to hold them accountable for their criminal actions." According to the complaint, on Mother’s Day, Sunday, May 8, 2022, at approximately 6:06 a.m., law enforcement responded to an active fire at an office building located in Madison. Once inside the building, police observed a mason jar under a broken window. The jar was broken, and the lid and screw top were burned black, the Justice Department said. The police also saw a purple disposable lighter near the mason jar. On the opposite wall from the window, the police saw another mason jar with the lid on and a blue cloth tucked into the top, and the cloth was singed. The jar was about half full of a clear fluid that smelled like an accelerant, the complaint says. Outside the building, someone spray-painted on one wall, "If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either" and, on another wall, a large "A" with a circle around it and the number "1312," according to the Justice Department. During the investigation, law enforcement collected DNA from the scene of the attack. In March 2023, law enforcement identified Roychowdhury as a possible suspect. The affidavit said officers conducting surveillance on a protest at the Wisconsin State Capitol over the construction of an Atlanta public safety center dubbed "Cop City," observed an individual later identified as Roychowdhury. Local police officers later observed Roychowdhury dispose of food in a public trash can, and the officers recovered the leftover food and related items, and law enforcement collected DNA from the food. The affidavit says officers recovered a paper bag filled with "a quarter portion of a partially eaten burrito wrapped in waxed paper, a soiled napkin, a crumpled napkin, a stack of napkins, the wrapper of the burrito, a crumpled food wrapper, [and] four unopened hot sauce packets." "On March 17, 2023, law enforcement advised that a forensic biologist examined the DNA evidence recovered from the attack scene and compared it to the DNA collected from the food contents. The forensic biologist found the two samples matched and likely were the same individual," the Justice Department said. State Rep. Barbara Dittrich, a Republican, shared screenshots to Twitter Tuesday showing that the University of Wisconsin-Madison's website listed Roychowdhury as a trainee/research assistant for the Biophysics Interdisciplinary PhD in Structural and Computational Biology and Quantitative Biosciences. A LinkedIn profile for Roychowdhury also listed a UWMadison Doctor of Philosophy - PhD Biochemistry under education. "This man should be charged with domestic terrorism, and the good taxpayers of this state should not be paying his salary," Dittrich tweeted. In an update, the lawmaker said UWMadison campus "notified us after this post that Mr. Roychowdhurdy ended his affiliation with the UW System the year that this incident occurred. If convicted, Roychowdhury faces a mandatory minimum penalty of five years and a maximum of 20 years in prison, prosecutors said. Transition: In world news… https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/03/28/former-general-calls-for-eu-military-in-north-africa-to-defeat-russian-mercenaries/ Former General Calls for EU Military in North Africa to Defeat Russian Mercenaries A former Italian General has called on the European Union to act militarily in Northern Africa, blaming the Russian mercenary PMC Wagner Group for the current wave of illegal immigrants. General Carlo Jean, former commander of the Italian unit of the NATO Mobile Force and Alpine Brigade “Cadore”, is the latest Italian official to blame Private Military Company Wagner — Russian mercenaries, in other words — for the surge of illegals that have arrived in Italy so far this year. According to General Jean, local governments in African countries have become too weak in the face of ethnic and tribal groups making cash from illegal migration, preventing European nations from making effective deals with governments to halt illegal migration. General Jean added that the solution to the problem is military force saying, “something that is against the values of which we are very proud. That is, force would be needed, a massive intervention, to field a colonial-type army in Africa to stabilize regimes and regions.” “The big problem is that Europe is not a state, it has neither military nor political capacity to do something that can only be achieved with rather harsh methods, with occupation and strengthening of the governments of North Africa and the Sahel. We should operate like Wagner,” he said and added that if Europe does not act military then it should resign itself to becoming a “mestizo continent.” The statements from General Jean come just weeks after Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani blamed PMC Wagner for the rise in illegal migration, which has close to tripled since last year. “We have indications that they are very active and in contact with gangs of traffickers and militiamen interested in the smuggling of migrants,” Tajani said of the Russian private military group. Tajani was joined in his view by Defence Minister Guido Crosetto, who PMC Wagner allegedly has a $15 million bounty on, according to Italian media reports. https://nypost.com/2023/03/29/pope-francis-hospitalized-for-lung-infection-vatican/ Pope Francis hospitalized for lung infection: Vatican Pope Francis was hospitalized with a lung infection Wednesday after experiencing difficulty breathing in recent days and will remain in the hospital for several days of treatment, the Vatican said. The 86-year-old pope doesn’t have COVID-19, spokesman Matteo Bruni said in a statement late Wednesday. The hospitalization was the first since Francis spent 10 days at the Gemelli hospital in July 2021 to have 33 centimeters (13 inches) of his colon removed. It immediately raised questions about Francis’ overall health, and his ability to celebrate the busy Holy Week events that are due to begin this weekend with Palm Sunday. Bruni said Francis had been suffering breathing troubles in recent days and went to the Gemelli for tests. “The tests showed a respiratory infection (COVID-19 infection excluded) that will require some days of medical therapy,” Bruni’s statement said. Francis appeared in relatively good form during his regularly scheduled general audience earlier Wednesday, though he grimaced strongly while getting in and out of the “popemobile.” Francis had part of one lung removed when he was a young man due to a respiratory infection, and he often speaks in a whisper. But he got through the worst phases of the COVID-19 pandemic without at least any public word of ever testing positive. Francis had been due to celebrate Palm Sunday this weekend, kicking off the Vatican’s Holy Week observances: Holy Thursday, Good Friday, the Easter Vigil and finally Easter Sunday on April 9. He has canceled all audiences through Friday, but it wasn’t clear whether he could keep the Holy Week plans. Francis has used a wheelchair for over a year due to strained ligaments in his right knee and a small knee fracture. He has said the injury was healing and has been walking more with a cane of late. Francis also has said he resisted having surgery for the knee problems because he didn’t respond well to general anesthesia during the 2021 intestinal surgery. He said soon after the surgery that he had recovered fully and could eat normally. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elon-musk-apple-co-founder-tech-experts-call-pause-giant-ai-experiments Elon Musk, Apple co-founder, other tech experts call for pause on 'giant AI experiments': 'Dangerous race' Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, and a host of other tech leaders and artificial intelligence experts are urging AI labs to pause development of powerful new AI systems in an open letter citing potential risks to society. The letter asks AI developers to "immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4." It was issued by the Future of Life Institute and signed by more than 1,000 people, including Musk, who argued that safety protocols need to be developed by independent overseers to guide the future of AI systems. GPT-4 is the latest deep learning model from OpenAI, which "exhibits human-level performance on various professional and academic benchmarks," according to the lab. "Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable," the letter said. The letter warns that at this stage, no one "can understand, predict, or reliably control" the powerful new tools developed in AI labs. The undersigned tech experts cite the risks of propaganda and lies spread through AI-generated articles that look real, and even the possibility that Ai programs can outperform workers and make jobs obsolete. "AI labs and independent experts should use this pause to jointly develop and implement a set of shared safety protocols for advanced AI design and development that are rigorously audited and overseen by independent outside experts," the letter states. "In parallel, AI developers must work with policymakers to dramatically accelerate development of robust AI governance systems." The signatories, which include Stability AI CEO Emad Mostaque, researchers at Alphabet-owned DeepMind, as well as AI heavyweights Yoshua Bengio and Stuart Russell, emphasize that AI development in general should be not paused, writing that their letter is calling for "merely a stepping back from the dangerous race to ever-larger unpredictable black-box models with emergent capabilities." According to the European Union's transparency register, the Future of Life Institute is primarily funded by the Musk Foundation, as well as London-based effective altruism group Founders Pledge, and Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Musk, whose electric car company Tesla uses AI for its autopilot system, has previously raised concerns about the rapid development of AI. Since its release last year, Microsoft-backed OpenAI's ChatGPT has prompted rivals to accelerate developing similar large language models, and companies to integrate generative AI models into their products.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Thursday, March 30th, 2023. Alps Precious Metals Group THE PAST WEEK HAS BROUGHT SOME “EXCITEMENT” TO THE MARKETS. BANK RUNS. STOCK COLLAPSES. WHAT WAS THOUGHT TO BE STABLE SUDDENLY APPEARS UNSTABLE. AND YET, GOLD’S PRICE *WENT UP* AS THE HEADLINES BECAME MORE OMINOUS. ALPS PRECIOUS METALS WAS ESTABLISHED BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT ONE’S HARD-EARNED WEALTH FROM THE SERIOUS FINANCIAL PROBLEMS THAT ARE UPON US IS BY OWNING PHYSICAL GOLD AND SILVER. CALL JAMES HUNTER OF ALPS AT 251-377-2197, AND VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT WWW.ALPSPMG.COM TO DISCOVER HOW YOU CAN BUY PHYSICAL PRECIOUS METALS FOR YOUR INVESTMENT AND IRA PORTFOLIOS. OWN THE ASSET GOD SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED AS “GOOD” IN THE 2ND CHAPTER OF GENESIS, AND OBTAIN A PEACE OF MIND THAT CAN BE HAD WITH FEW OTHER INVESTMENTS. AGAIN, CALL JAMES HUNTER OF ALPS PRECIOUS METALS AT 251-377-2197, AND VISIT WWW.ALPSPMG.COM TO LEARN HOW TO OWN THE BEDROCK ASSET OF THE AGES.   https://www.foxnews.com/us/dna-half-eaten-burrito-ties-wisconsin-doctoral-student-pro-life-center-firebombing-attack DNA from half-eaten burrito ties ex-Wisconsin doctoral student to pro-life center firebombing attack DNA found in a half-eaten burrito helped exposed a former Wisconsin university research assistant now accused of firebombing a pro-life center last Mother's Day. The attack on the headquarters of Wisconsin Family Action in Madison, Wisconsin, came about a week after the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion that would later overturn Roe v. Wade. About 10 months after a Molotov cocktail was tossed inside the office and the message, "If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either," was scrawled on the building's side, Hridindu Sankar Roychowdhury, 29, of Madison, was arrested in Boston on Tuesday and charged with one count of attempting to cause damage by means of fire or an explosive. The Justice Department said he traveled from Madison to Portland, Maine, and he purchased a one-way ticket from Boston to Guatemala City, Guatemala, departing Tuesday morning. Law enforcement arrested Roychowdhury at Boston Logan International Airport. "According to the complaint, Mr. Roychowdhury used an incendiary device in violation of federal law in connection with his efforts to terrorize and intimidate a private organization," Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division said in a statement. "I commend the commitment and professionalism of law enforcement personnel who worked exhaustively to ensure that justice is served." "Violence is never an acceptable way for anyone to express their views or their disagreement," Assistant Director Robert R. Wells of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division said. "Today’s arrest demonstrates the FBI’s commitment to vigorously pursue those responsible for this dangerous attack and others across the country, and to hold them accountable for their criminal actions." According to the complaint, on Mother’s Day, Sunday, May 8, 2022, at approximately 6:06 a.m., law enforcement responded to an active fire at an office building located in Madison. Once inside the building, police observed a mason jar under a broken window. The jar was broken, and the lid and screw top were burned black, the Justice Department said. The police also saw a purple disposable lighter near the mason jar. On the opposite wall from the window, the police saw another mason jar with the lid on and a blue cloth tucked into the top, and the cloth was singed. The jar was about half full of a clear fluid that smelled like an accelerant, the complaint says. Outside the building, someone spray-painted on one wall, "If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either" and, on another wall, a large "A" with a circle around it and the number "1312," according to the Justice Department. During the investigation, law enforcement collected DNA from the scene of the attack. In March 2023, law enforcement identified Roychowdhury as a possible suspect. The affidavit said officers conducting surveillance on a protest at the Wisconsin State Capitol over the construction of an Atlanta public safety center dubbed "Cop City," observed an individual later identified as Roychowdhury. Local police officers later observed Roychowdhury dispose of food in a public trash can, and the officers recovered the leftover food and related items, and law enforcement collected DNA from the food. The affidavit says officers recovered a paper bag filled with "a quarter portion of a partially eaten burrito wrapped in waxed paper, a soiled napkin, a crumpled napkin, a stack of napkins, the wrapper of the burrito, a crumpled food wrapper, [and] four unopened hot sauce packets." "On March 17, 2023, law enforcement advised that a forensic biologist examined the DNA evidence recovered from the attack scene and compared it to the DNA collected from the food contents. The forensic biologist found the two samples matched and likely were the same individual," the Justice Department said. State Rep. Barbara Dittrich, a Republican, shared screenshots to Twitter Tuesday showing that the University of Wisconsin-Madison's website listed Roychowdhury as a trainee/research assistant for the Biophysics Interdisciplinary PhD in Structural and Computational Biology and Quantitative Biosciences. A LinkedIn profile for Roychowdhury also listed a UWMadison Doctor of Philosophy - PhD Biochemistry under education. "This man should be charged with domestic terrorism, and the good taxpayers of this state should not be paying his salary," Dittrich tweeted. In an update, the lawmaker said UWMadison campus "notified us after this post that Mr. Roychowdhurdy ended his affiliation with the UW System the year that this incident occurred. If convicted, Roychowdhury faces a mandatory minimum penalty of five years and a maximum of 20 years in prison, prosecutors said. Transition: In world news… https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/03/28/former-general-calls-for-eu-military-in-north-africa-to-defeat-russian-mercenaries/ Former General Calls for EU Military in North Africa to Defeat Russian Mercenaries A former Italian General has called on the European Union to act militarily in Northern Africa, blaming the Russian mercenary PMC Wagner Group for the current wave of illegal immigrants. General Carlo Jean, former commander of the Italian unit of the NATO Mobile Force and Alpine Brigade “Cadore”, is the latest Italian official to blame Private Military Company Wagner — Russian mercenaries, in other words — for the surge of illegals that have arrived in Italy so far this year. According to General Jean, local governments in African countries have become too weak in the face of ethnic and tribal groups making cash from illegal migration, preventing European nations from making effective deals with governments to halt illegal migration. General Jean added that the solution to the problem is military force saying, “something that is against the values of which we are very proud. That is, force would be needed, a massive intervention, to field a colonial-type army in Africa to stabilize regimes and regions.” “The big problem is that Europe is not a state, it has neither military nor political capacity to do something that can only be achieved with rather harsh methods, with occupation and strengthening of the governments of North Africa and the Sahel. We should operate like Wagner,” he said and added that if Europe does not act military then it should resign itself to becoming a “mestizo continent.” The statements from General Jean come just weeks after Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani blamed PMC Wagner for the rise in illegal migration, which has close to tripled since last year. “We have indications that they are very active and in contact with gangs of traffickers and militiamen interested in the smuggling of migrants,” Tajani said of the Russian private military group. Tajani was joined in his view by Defence Minister Guido Crosetto, who PMC Wagner allegedly has a $15 million bounty on, according to Italian media reports. https://nypost.com/2023/03/29/pope-francis-hospitalized-for-lung-infection-vatican/ Pope Francis hospitalized for lung infection: Vatican Pope Francis was hospitalized with a lung infection Wednesday after experiencing difficulty breathing in recent days and will remain in the hospital for several days of treatment, the Vatican said. The 86-year-old pope doesn’t have COVID-19, spokesman Matteo Bruni said in a statement late Wednesday. The hospitalization was the first since Francis spent 10 days at the Gemelli hospital in July 2021 to have 33 centimeters (13 inches) of his colon removed. It immediately raised questions about Francis’ overall health, and his ability to celebrate the busy Holy Week events that are due to begin this weekend with Palm Sunday. Bruni said Francis had been suffering breathing troubles in recent days and went to the Gemelli for tests. “The tests showed a respiratory infection (COVID-19 infection excluded) that will require some days of medical therapy,” Bruni’s statement said. Francis appeared in relatively good form during his regularly scheduled general audience earlier Wednesday, though he grimaced strongly while getting in and out of the “popemobile.” Francis had part of one lung removed when he was a young man due to a respiratory infection, and he often speaks in a whisper. But he got through the worst phases of the COVID-19 pandemic without at least any public word of ever testing positive. Francis had been due to celebrate Palm Sunday this weekend, kicking off the Vatican’s Holy Week observances: Holy Thursday, Good Friday, the Easter Vigil and finally Easter Sunday on April 9. He has canceled all audiences through Friday, but it wasn’t clear whether he could keep the Holy Week plans. Francis has used a wheelchair for over a year due to strained ligaments in his right knee and a small knee fracture. He has said the injury was healing and has been walking more with a cane of late. Francis also has said he resisted having surgery for the knee problems because he didn’t respond well to general anesthesia during the 2021 intestinal surgery. He said soon after the surgery that he had recovered fully and could eat normally. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elon-musk-apple-co-founder-tech-experts-call-pause-giant-ai-experiments Elon Musk, Apple co-founder, other tech experts call for pause on 'giant AI experiments': 'Dangerous race' Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, and a host of other tech leaders and artificial intelligence experts are urging AI labs to pause development of powerful new AI systems in an open letter citing potential risks to society. The letter asks AI developers to "immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4." It was issued by the Future of Life Institute and signed by more than 1,000 people, including Musk, who argued that safety protocols need to be developed by independent overseers to guide the future of AI systems. GPT-4 is the latest deep learning model from OpenAI, which "exhibits human-level performance on various professional and academic benchmarks," according to the lab. "Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable," the letter said. The letter warns that at this stage, no one "can understand, predict, or reliably control" the powerful new tools developed in AI labs. The undersigned tech experts cite the risks of propaganda and lies spread through AI-generated articles that look real, and even the possibility that Ai programs can outperform workers and make jobs obsolete. "AI labs and independent experts should use this pause to jointly develop and implement a set of shared safety protocols for advanced AI design and development that are rigorously audited and overseen by independent outside experts," the letter states. "In parallel, AI developers must work with policymakers to dramatically accelerate development of robust AI governance systems." The signatories, which include Stability AI CEO Emad Mostaque, researchers at Alphabet-owned DeepMind, as well as AI heavyweights Yoshua Bengio and Stuart Russell, emphasize that AI development in general should be not paused, writing that their letter is calling for "merely a stepping back from the dangerous race to ever-larger unpredictable black-box models with emergent capabilities." According to the European Union's transparency register, the Future of Life Institute is primarily funded by the Musk Foundation, as well as London-based effective altruism group Founders Pledge, and Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Musk, whose electric car company Tesla uses AI for its autopilot system, has previously raised concerns about the rapid development of AI. Since its release last year, Microsoft-backed OpenAI's ChatGPT has prompted rivals to accelerate developing similar large language models, and companies to integrate generative AI models into their products.

As Director of the United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Jen Easterly is one of several women at the very top of the cybersecurity pyramid in the United States. A graduate of West Point, decorated U.S. Army officer, and a Rhodes Scholar, Jen has served her country in a plethora of senior cybersecurity and counterterrorism roles, and most recently before her return to government, was the head of Firm Resilience at Morgan Stanley. David Kris, Lawfare contributor and former Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, and Bryan Cunningham, Lawfare contributor and Executive Director of the University of California, Irvine's Cybersecurity Policy & Research Institute, sat down with Jen to talk about everything cybersecurity, about the need for revolutionary new approaches to emerging threats to our cyber and national security, the recent U.S. National Cyber Strategy, the cyber offense/defense flywheel, and even where her avatar got her cape. Jen also talks about CISA's priorities for the coming years, new cyber incident reporting requirements, and new cybersecurity help coming to a city near you. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Kemba Walden recently took over from Chris Inglis as Acting National Cyber Director in the White House. She had been Principal Deputy Assistant National Cyber Director after serving in multiple cybersecurity positions in government and in the private sector.David Kris, Lawfare contributor and former Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, and Bryan Cunningham, Lawfare contributor and Executive Director of the University of California, Irvine's Cybersecurity Policy & Research Institute, sat down with Kemba to talk about the challenges and opportunities of her new role, the recently released U.S. National Cyber Strategy and the significant policy changes it announces, threats to our national and economic security from China, and a fairly long discussion of music theory.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Matthew Olsen, the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, gave yesterday a major address at the Brookings Institution. He talked about FISA Section 702, the section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that allows U.S. intelligence authorities to collect against targets reasonably believed to be overseas when their signals pass through the United States. The provision comes up for reauthorization this year, and Olsen argues that it is imperative that Congress act to reauthorize it. This audio from the Brookings event includes an introduction from Camille Busette, the Interim Vice President for Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution; remarks from Olsen; a Q&A between Olsen and Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes; and questions from the live audience.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Chris Inglis has had an illustrious career in the defense of this country, serving as an Air Force general, deputy director of the National Security Agency, and most recently as the first National Cyber Director in the White House. Chris stepped down from his position last week, and he sat down for his first interview as a private citizen with David Kris, Lawfare contributor and former assistant attorney general for the National Security Division, and Bryan Cunningham, Lawfare contributor and executive director of the University of California, Irvine's Cybersecurity Policy & Research Institute. They talked about a wide range of cyber topics, including the newly minted National Cyber Strategy, protection of critical infrastructure, cyber insurance, competition in the international front, and more.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From January 6, 2021: Today a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol following a rally at which the president spoke. Congressional efforts to count the electoral votes were suspended, and an armed standoff, in which at least one person was killed, ensued. To discuss the matter, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Quinta Jurecic; David Priess; Georgetown's Mary McCord, who used to run the National Security Division at the Justice Department; and Daniel Byman, a professor at Georgetown and Lawfare's foreign policy editor.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On a Monday morning in August, the United States Justice Department as well as the FBI, may have crossed the proverbial rubicon. For the first time in American history, agents showed up unannounced at the home of a former President of the United States in a court authorized search for classified documents that were removed from the White House. It was an extraordinary move by any measure based on a still sealed affidavit that lays out probable cause for why the documents at Donald Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago contains evidence of a federal crime. What exactly are potential crimes at issue? And what to make of the furious reaction coming from leading Republicans in congress, vowing full-scale investigations of the Justice Department and the FBI if they, as many expect, take control of the House in Nov. Mary McCord, a career prosecutor and the former Chief of the Justice Department's National Security Division, as well as Dana Milbank, columnist for the Washington Post and author of new book The Destructionists: The 25-year crackup of the Republican Party, join to discuss. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In May, news came out that the U.S. government was thinking of putting the Chinese video surveillance company Hikvision on the Treasury Department's Specially Designated Nationals list, otherwise known as the SDN list. The move would have huge impacts on Hikvision's business prospects in the U.S. and around the world and would represent yet another escalation in the way that the U.S. government handles Chinese technology companies. To talk through the news and why it's so significant, Jacob Schulz sat down with Katrina Northrop, a reporter at The Wire China who wrote a story about the Hikvision saga, and Alex Iftimie, a partner at Morrison & Foerster and a former official within the National Security Division at the Justice Department.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Today on Lawfare No Bull: On April 29, at the 2022 Verify Conference hosted by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Aspen Institute, journalist Aruna Viswanatha hosted a fireside chat with Matt Olsen, the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at the Justice Department. They discussed the report published earlier that day from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that disclosed, for the first time, that the FBI had searched the section 702 database 3.4 million times to access information regarding U.S. persons last year. They also spoke about current cyber powers, how cyber threats have shifted in the past decade and the Justice Department's recent efforts to go after Russian oligarchs following the invasion of Ukraine.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.