Discover
The Lawfare Podcast
The Lawfare Podcast
Author: The Lawfare Institute
Subscribed: 12,709Played: 1,549,854Subscribe
Share
© The Lawfare Institute
Description
The Lawfare Podcast features discussions with experts, policymakers, and opinion leaders at the nexus of national security, law, and policy. On issues from foreign policy, homeland security, intelligence, and cybersecurity to governance and law, we have doubled down on seriousness at a time when others are running away from it. Visit us at www.lawfaremedia.org.
Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
2894 Episodes
Reverse
On today's episode, Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sits down with two veterans of the intelligence community to get their take on the ongoing Iran conflict.Before leaving government last year, Aaron Faust was a senior official in the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), where he had previously served as Division Chief for Iran, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula. William "Chip" Usher, meanwhile, is the Senior Director for Intelligence at the Special Competitiveness Studies Project and a professor of practice at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. He previously spent 32 years with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), much of it focused on the Middle East.Together, Scott, Aaron, and Chip discuss the national security threats that Iran presents, the challenges that large-scale military operations against Iran were expected to present, and where the Trump administration—and Iran—may take the conflict from here.For more of Chip's analysis, read his newsletter "Fault Lines" and check out his podcast, "Intel at the Edge.” You can also find Aaron's satirical takes on current affairs on his Substack, Ridiculocracy.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.
This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Molly Roberts, Tyler McBrien, and Renée DiResta to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including:“The Meta-verse of Madness.” On Tuesday, a New Mexico jury reached a $375 million verdict against Meta after a seven-week trial that focused on whether the social media company knowingly harmed children’s mental health and facilitated child sexual exploitation through its algorithms. And just before recording, another verdict came down in a jury trial in California about whether Facebook and YouTube are too addictive in a way that harms an individual plaintiff in that case. Several other similar civil cases are set to go to trial in the coming months. What do we make of these verdicts, and do they signal a turning tide against social media companies for the algorithms that make them both profitable and (potentially) addictive?“SAVE-ing Face.” President Trump and Republican congressional leaders went back and forth this week over a deal that would put forward a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, or at least less controversial parts of it, despite Trump’s threats not to sign any pieces of legislation until Congress passes his SAVE America Act. Trump views the SAVE America Act as vindication for his criticisms of the 2020 Election, but Republicans in the Senate have hedged and resisted his calls to blow up the filibuster in order to pass it. Instead, they now appear to have a deal in place that will allow less controversial parts of the funding for DHS to go forward—and for the funding for the most controversial parts, particularly ICE and removal operations, to go forward through reconciliation on what is likely to be a party line vote, along with select chunks of that SAVE America Act. Why is Trump so determined to pass the SAVE America Act? And what does the compromise he now appears to have reached with Senate Republicans mean for its future?“Poly Wants a Crack-up.” Flight monitors, pizza place trackers, and Google Earth—the past few years have brought open source intelligence, better known as “OSINT,” into vogue. Accounts on X have racked up millions of followers by “monitoring the situation” for news events spanning from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to natural disasters. But this explosion of OSINT accounts has brought a wave of disinformation, and coincides with the growth of online prediction markets, such as Polymarket and Kalshi, whose bettors use OSINT to gain an advantage — and, at times, to manipulate the results. How has OSINT contributed to the online media landscape? And how has it hurt it?In object lessons, Tyler engages in some classic log-rolling with a recommendation of the new podcast, “Who Blew Up the Guidestones?” Molly digs even deeper into her collection of curiosities to find her vintage “Nuke ‘Em ’Til They Glow” hat. Scott expertly sidesteps sports gambling issues by distracting us with delicious baked good from Seylou. And Renée survives a demanding travel schedule by drinking a brandy Old Fashioned and brushing up on her knowledge of K-pop.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.
Loren Voss, Public Service Fellow at Lawfare, sits down with Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Linda Singh, former Adjutant General of Maryland, and Chris Mirasola, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law Center. They examine the legal constraints of the Posse Comitatus Act, the implications of expanding domestic deployments for civil-military relations, and key issues to watch for in future deployments. Mirasola clarifies the legal framework and the recent usage of the National Guard in federal and hybrid statuses, and Singh identifies areas where the law appears clear, but operational realities often blur that line. They also trace the expansion of domestic military roles—from COVID response to cyber operations and infrastructure protection—and the evolving public expectations of what the military can do. Mirasola explains what is genuinely new in law, particularly regarding scale and interpretation of authorities. Singh and Mirasola discuss the system’s reliance on norms versus enforceable legal constraints and give advice to those leading troops in future domestic deployments. They conclude by identifying key factors, such as federal versus state roles and possible involvement in elections, that we should all be tracking for the future. 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.
Tom Kemp, executive director of the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), joins Lawfare’s Justin Sherman to discuss California’s new Delete Request and Opt-out Platform, or DROP system, the data broker industry, and California’s ongoing efforts to ensure residents can effectuate their privacy rights. They also discuss the process and impacts of bringing technologists into public service at privacy and cybersecurity regulatory bodies, inter-state collaboration on data privacy issues, how California thinks about concerns around U.S. foreign adversaries and risks of access to U.S. persons’ data, and the near-term and over-the-horizon privacy risks to consumers.Additional Resources:California Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (DROP)California Data Broker RegistryCalifornia Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)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.
Following the March 24 hearing in Anthropic's suit challenging its supply chain designation on the AI company's request for a preliminary injunction, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes will sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Kate Klonick, Molly Roberts, and Roger Parloff for a live discussion of what occurred.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.
As the U.S.-Israel war with Iran continues, it is playing out across the Middle East, particularly in Gulf Arab states and the Strait of Hormuz.In this episode, Lawfare Public Service Fellow Ariane Tabatabai sits down with Elisa Catalano Ewers of the Council on Foreign Relations to talk about Iranian intentions and capabilities, the U.S. response and capability gaps, and how allies and partners are participating. 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.
In a live conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Molly Roberts, Anna Bower, Eric Columbus, Roger Parloff, and Kate Klonick to discuss Judge Boasberg’s opinion quashing subpoenas to Fed Reserve chair Jerome Powell, the government’s response to Anthropic’s suit challenged the Defense Department’s designation of it as a supply chain risk, Judge Lambert reinstating many U.S. Agency for Global Media employees, the video depositions of DOGE employees, and more.You can find information on legal challenges to Trump administration actions here. And check out Lawfare’s new homepage on the litigation, new Bluesky account, and new WITOAD merch.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.
From January 13, 2025: In a live conversation on January 10, Lawfare Tarbell Fellow in Artificial Intelligence Kevin Frazier talked to Lawfare Senior Editor Alan Rozenshtein and Senior Staff Attorney at the Knight Institute Ramya Krishnan about the Supreme Court oral arguments over the legislation passed by Congress that bans TikTok unless its parent company ByteDance divests from the app, the arguments made by the different sides, and their predictions about how the Court might rule.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.
From December 23, 2024: On today's podcast, Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett talks with Michael Posner, a professor of business and human rights at New York University, about the landmark verdict last month in Al-Shimari v. CACI. The case involved claims against a government contractor for its role in the abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq in 2004. It became the first case of its kind to make it to trial—and now a jury has returned a verdict finding the company liable and imposing $42 million in damages. They discuss how the case will affect private companies, government contractors, and the future of human rights litigation. Please note that this episode contains content that some people may find disturbing. Listener discretion is advised. 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.
A draft executive order has been floating around that would assert presidential control over elections all over the country. Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sits down with Lawfare Senior Editors Anna Bower and Molly Roberts, authors of the recent Lawfare article, “In Case of Emergency: The Dubious Legality of Trump Allies' Draft EO,” to talk through what it would do, who was behind it, and how seriously we should take it.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.
This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Benjamin Wittes, Natalie Orpett, and Ariane Tabatabai to talk through the week’s big news in national security, including:“Keeping It On the Strait and Narrow.” Three weeks into the U.S. and Israel’s air campaign against Iran, ship traffic through the critical Strait of Hormuz remains at a virtual stop, sending crude oil prices north of $100 a barrel. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said last week that vessels are safe to sail through the strait, but continued attacks on tankers suggest otherwise. Some neighboring Gulf states, among others, are growing antsy that U.S. strikes won’t go far enough in preventing attacks by Iran. What do we make of these developments, and how will it impact how other countries are navigating the broader conflict?“‘Nein’ to Five.” U.S. efforts to secure European support for efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz have fallen on deaf ears, with German officials describing it as “not our war” and far outside the obligations imposed by NATO’s Article 5 and other defense commitments. In response, President Trump said that he was “disappointed” in NATO and once again hinted that he might exit it. It’s the latest nadir in a precipitous decline in transatlantic relations over the past three months. How much worse can things get? And what could it mean for the future of the broader alliance?“(Un)Lawful Good?” A U.S. strike on what turned out to be an elementary school in southern Iran in the earliest days of the U.S. military campaign there has put a new focus on decisions by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to scale back rules and processes meant to reduce harm to civilians in armed conflict. Hegseth has called the rules of engagement “stupid” and has said he wants to give military commanders “maximum authority on the battlefield.” He’s also repeatedly called for “no quarter” in Iran and other contexts—an order that, if taken literally, would itself be a violation of the laws of armed conflict. Exactly how far has Hegseth unraveled the Pentagon’s rules of engagement? And what could the real world consequences be in Iran and elsewhere?In object lessons, Natalie (or rather, her son) is cooking up a delicious recommendation for the culinarily curious kid in your life with Raddish Kids (hey there, Raddish Kids, Rational Security is looking for sponsors…). Ari is feasting on (and hoarding) the indigenous Taiwanese pepper, Maqaw. Scott is traveling in style and efficiency with his portable office kit, consisting of his fave iPad case and the Anker Power Bank (while we hate to sound like a broken record, uh, hey there, Anker, Rational Security is looking for sponsors…). And hey there, girlies, Ben is doing Ben things while getting ready for court. 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.
In this episode, Lawfare Public Service Fellow Troy Edwards joins Lawfare Senior Editor Michael Feinberg to discuss Iran’s history of drawing from a robust retaliatory toolkit and international proxy network to extend its reach around the world, including in the United States. Reviewing Iran’s recent attempts at retaliating against the U.S. after the last major escalation in U.S.-Iran tensions—the U.S. drone strike killing IRGC-QF Commander Qassim Soleimani in January 2020—Troy and Mike discuss what Iran could do now after Operation Epic Fury. Only this time, they survey the current administration’s damage done to the national security apparatus that may have us unprepared. This episode builds from Troy Edwards’s piece with others that can be found on Lawfare: “Iran Will Retaliate in the U.S. We May Not See It in Time.”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.
In today's episode, Lawfare Senior Editor Michael Feinberg sits down with his former FBI colleague retired Assistant Special Agent in Charge Derek Pieper to discuss the differences between counterintelligence and counterespionage investigations, the skill sets needed for each, and the dangers of politicizing the cases.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.
On today’s episode, Lawfare’s Ukraine Fellow Anastasiia Lapatina talks to an expert on Russian foreign policy in the Middle East, Director of the Eurasia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at Middlebury College Hanna Notte, about the relationship between Iran and Russia, and how far their cooperation can go in the context of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.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.
In a live conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Scott R. Anderson, Eric Columbus, Roger Parloff, and Kate Klonick to Judge Boasberg’s opinion quashing subpoenas to Fed Reserve chair Jerome Powell, Anthropic’s suit challenged the Defense Department’s designation of it as a supply chain risk, Judge Lambert finding that Kari Lake was unlawfully running the U.S. Agency for Global Media, and more.You can find information on legal challenges to Trump administration actions here. And check out Lawfare’s new homepage on the litigation, new Bluesky account, and new WITOAD merch.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.
From August 30, 2024: Elliot Jones, a Senior Researcher at the Ada Lovelace Institute, joins Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to discuss a report he co-authored on the current state of efforts to test AI systems. The pair break down why evaluations, audits, and related assessments have become a key part of AI regulation. They also analyze why it may take some time for those assessments to be as robust as hoped. 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.
From September 26, 2024: Steve Coll’s latest book, “The Achilles Trap: Saddam Hussein, the C.I.A., and the Origins of America’s Invasion of Iraq,” seeks to explain why Saddam Hussein would put his regime at risk over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that didn’t exist. Saddam ultimately lost his regime, and his life, in part because he saw America as an omniscient puppeteer seeking to dominate the Middle East. The United States put thousands of troops in harm’s way in pursuit of a rogue WMD program that turned out to be a fiction. Were these outcomes inevitable?Lawfare Student Contributor Preston Marquis sat down with Coll, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author, to explore this question. “The Achilles Trap” is unique in that it relies on Saddam’s secret tapes and archives to unpack twists and turns in the U.S.-Iraq bilateral relationship dating back to the Cold War. The full review is available on the Lawfare website.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.
For today’s episode, Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sits down with Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and head of its Syria Initiative, to talk about the dramatic developments that have taken place in Syria the past few weeks, which have ultimately led to the impending withdrawal of U.S. troops after more than a decade in country.Together, they discuss the challenges Syria has faced since the fall of the Assad regime, how the new transitional government in Damascus has managed its relationship with the Syrian Democratic Forces, what the exit of U.S. troops means for efforts to combat the Islamic State terrorist group, and the role the United States has played in it all—and is likely to play moving forward.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.
This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Kate Klonick, Molly Roberts, and Troy Edwards to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including:“MisAnthropic.” On Monday, Anthropic filed a civil complaint in the Northern District of California and a petition for hearing at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit over the Department of Defense’s designation of the frontier artificial intelligence company as a “supply chain risk.” The litigation capped off weeks of building tensions between Anthropic and Pentagon officials over the firm’s two ethical red lines for the Defense Department and its use of its AI model, Claude, specifically around widespread surveillance of Americans and the use of AI and autonomous weapons. What exactly are the Pentagon’s grounds for designating Anthropic as a supply chain risk, and how does Anthropic argue that doing so is inconsistent with the law? And what might the implications be for the AI industry as a whole?“The Mashhadian Candidate.” Fears that Iran would respond to the ongoing Israeli-U.S. military campaign through overseas terrorism have come to a head this week, as reports emerged that U.S. intelligence had detected an encrypted message being transmitted from Iran that may serve as “an operational trigger” for assets sitting outside of the country. What do we know about Iran’s involvement in past clandestine operations, including terrorism? And what does it mean that this is all happening at a moment when the Justice Department and FBI have lost so many of their experienced national security personnel?“Maricopa-calypse Now.” Federal investigators have ramped up several inquiries that appear to be aimed at longstanding—and, thus far, unsubstantiated—allegations of fraud in the 2020 election that are particularly popular with President Trump and his closest supporters. Last month, FBI agents executed a search warrant on Fulton County’s election office and confiscated ballots and voting equipment used in 2020. Last week, the FBI reportedly subpoenaed records from a conservative Arizona legislator over the state senate’s audit of the 2020 election results in Maricopa County. And days later, the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Investigations office (or HSI) requested records from Arizona state officials regarding their own investigations into alleged 2020 malfeasance. What should we make of these developments? And at what point should we be concerned about the federal government's engagement in these sorts of matters in advance of the upcoming 2026 midterms?This week’s object lessons are all-consuming. Kate is celebrating online legal analysis by drinking from her Balkinization mug. Troy is lamenting yet another slate of firings at the FBI by drinking from his EX FED mug. Scott, finding himself with unexpected free time at Union Station, devoured Barbara Tuchman’s “A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century.” And Molly introduces us to the texturally triggering cherimoya. 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.
Former Assistant Attorney General for National Security Matt Olsen joins Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes to discuss the terrorist threat from Iran, the shocking lack of preparedness for Iranian malign activity at both the FBI and the National Security Division, and the pending lapse of the FISA 702 program.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.









I counted approximately 100 umms & uhhs in the first 25 minutes of this episode. I'm not looking for perfection here, but I'd at least like a podcast host that doesn't umm & uhh once every 15 seconds. I can rarely make it through an entire episode of this show due to how distracting this is. Please get better at speaking if you wish to be a professional speaker. I'm unsubscribing, but will give this another try around April in the hopes that the hosting improves.
Ugh, more Brookings babble. Next!
is Lederman a Harvard man? He sounds like a Harvard man.
sandwich guy clearly committed *misdemeanor* assault, but felony assault requires bodily harm.
Buddy! Don't talk about "the bad guys!" Until the USA deals with its Republican problem, that's your club, too.
what does he think 'pig in the python effect' means?
Jack G. exposed himself as a complete hack a doodle do. All of his arguments were busted and his defense was so weak & pathetic. Thanks for the laugh Jack.
iuiiiiiiiiiiiiuiii iiiiiiii
I'm my. I'm an be mm can
Can a group of voters sue Cannon for delaying the due process of getting a clear verdict before the Election Day?
It would be fantastic to see The Trump Trial documentary before the election. Just look at the popularity of the O J Simpson trial, and it was decades after it happened, this would definitely be a money maker. The script is already half-written since the transcript is available. Big name actors would probably be happy to join, if cast. Think of the impact of the 34 "guilty" at the end. Just before the Election Day? It would be bigger than Comey to Hillary. Any body?
has anyone been looking into Trump being an agent of Russia?
ads are so quiet?
An easy way to check if a podcast is legitimate is to find an obvious truth and see how they treat it. The obvious truth is that Jan 6th was NOT an insurrection. Insurrection is a legal term with which 0 people were charged. the irrationality of these 2 is profound but the name of the podcast is accurate. authoritarianis use lawfare and the left has perfected it to the Shame if all real Liberals. this podcast is pathetic
💚CLICK HERE Full HD>720p>1080p>4K💚WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK> 👉https://co.fastmovies.org
This is less work than following this from the news.
Why are you assuming Trump would need to be released to perform his duties? The pandemic taught us that many jobs can be done remotely.
Please help her ditch the "you knows".
adzcctcc
Please don't confuse yourself. There is no predicament. Trump is a defendant. His appearance in Court is statutorily required. The fact that he is a candidate for anything is irrelevant. Trump does not have a constitutional right to be a candidate. He is statutorily required to be in Court. Thus, the "national interest" theory that Trump's interest in presidential candidacy is weighed against his requirement to appear is a fallacious analysis. Want to ensure his presence? Offer remand as his only alternative. Please do not confuse yourself or your listeners.