Rational Security: The “I’ve Never Done THAT Before!” Edition

[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]

[MUSIC PLAYING] Tyler, IOU, and the rest of the law fair in your contingent, a big and be a call-pop, because I

was there for the first time in a long time, last week,

and I made a lot of big promises about seeing people and I fall through an absolutely none of them. I did get to meet Keiklannik first time in person and her baby, which was very nice. But I learned that I missed all the rest of the law fair crew,

despite my promises not to do so. It's not New York. Big place, a lot of stuff going on. Hard to connect people and see if everybody you're trying to see if you're only there for a day or two.

Well, I was about to get very mad at you, but then you brought up Keik's adorable baby, and it's often my hard heart, and so I forgive you. But I am sorry, Mr. Tyler, New York's a lovely town.

“I had this unique experience, which I think”

your biker, know your biker, but I think your biker on the city, right? I had to say, I usually-- when I go there, I bike everywhere, because it is the easiest way to grab on New York.

E-bike or regular bike? I just get-- I do both. I switch, 'cause if you get the day pass, the regular bikes are free, but the e-bike--

so depend on how far I have to go, basically,

and how sweaty I'm willing to be when I get there. But the real triathletes time is that I don't usually stay in Midtown, which I did this time. Biking in Midtown is a totally different piece than biking. I feel like downtown or uptown, New York.

'Cause the bike lanes just disappear, and just immediately fade into like eight lanes of traffic, then you then have to navigate from one end up to the other. It was completely terrifying. Do you do this on a regular basis?

I do-- yeah, I mean, I do bike during Manhattan, but it's usually-- I immediately shift to the east side of the west side where the bike lanes are. And you know, like biking in the middle is a harrowing experience. And yeah, I really like the city.

“You realize, like, which pockets are great,”

and which pockets you're kind of taking your life in your own hands. Do you e-bike or regular bike? I usually-- I have my-- if I'm on my bike, I'll have a road bike, but I usually will e-bike.

But some days, I feel like, either everyone is trying to kill me or kill themselves by jumping in front of me, or, you know, it's just like, yes. It's not an ideal biking city, I would say. I was a moped messenger in Manhattan for six months.

That was a very fun and a dangerous job. There were times when I was the only-- we had there were about seven of us, eight of us. And there were times when I was the only one who did not get an accident so severe

that either they or the bike could not continue going. No city is safe. I've been hit by a car on my bike here in DC. This woman kind of turned into me. And she did to her credit pull over.

And she got out of the car. And she came up to me.

And she said, I've never done that before.

[LAUGHTER] They got it.

“Yeah, I should-- I want to work on it, lady.”

Like, first time for everything. [MUSIC PLAYING] Hello, everyone. Welcome back to "Rational Security." This show, where we invite you to join members

of the law fair team as we try to make sense of the biggest national security news stories. Whether they are in our lanes or not, I am your host, Scott R. Anderson, thrilled to be back here this week. Did I sex some of the week's big news stories

with a panel of my colleagues joining us once again on the podcast, a couple of podcast mainstays. First up, we have law fair managing editor, Tyler McBride. Tyler, thank you for coming back on the pod. Thank you for having me, as always.

And joining us again for the end appearance at this plane. We're officially an end stage, meaning it's large scale. It's a legitimate sampling size. We have Molly Roberts, senior editor here at Law Fair.

Molly, thank you for coming back on the pod. Thank you for having me. And joins for the first time in a long time, but far from his first time, it got to be at least in the half dozen at this point.

We are joined by a lot of our senior editor as well. Roger, part of Roger, thank you for coming back on the pod. Great to be back, Scott. Excellent. Well, we have a couple of stories here on the home front.

One of which crosses this disease, touches on foreign affairs as well. We're going to be talking mostly about the domestic legal side of it. So let's dig in to our stories for this week.

Topic one, Jim Spell C shells by the Cshore. Former FBI director James Komey was indicted again this past week. This time for allegedly threatening the life of the President Trump by spelling 8647 and shells at the beach opposing image on social media.

It is a ludicrous argument. We can take that as a given as the premise for one of the segments. So what does it tell us that at acting attorney general Todd Lynch appeared willing to file it and pursue it,

even where perhaps attorney general Pam Bombie was not. And where does this mean Trump's broader vengeance campaigns he likely to go under whoever becomes the next attorney general? Topic two, we were on a break.

We'll throw back to my elder millennial colleagues and friends out there.

Maybe they still do have a friend that's still in the zeitgeist.

“The Iran War turned 60 days old last week,”

the deadline by which under the war powers resolution, the President was supposed to wrap up and he can freshly unauthorized military operations. But like many of his predecessors present in Trump has done no such thing.

Instead, his administration has argued that the 60 day cut-off was already met by the ongoing ceasefire and related break in hostilities. Even though the Trump administration has continued its embargo of Iranian oil resources

and just began and then as of this morning suspended, a major new maritime campaign to open the straight of Hormuz, one that triggered hostile exchanges with Iranian forces. Which we make of the administration's arguments

and do they suggest that the war powers resolution is a dead letter. And topic three strictly ballroom. The Trump administration is actively working to capitalize on the recent assassination attempts on President Trump

to push and I should say several other senior administration officials to push a federal court to allow its construction of an east wing ballroom on national security grounds. At the same time, it's faced new judicial headwinds in its quicksatic effort to take over a municipal golf course

here in Washington, D.C. the same location where dumped the potentially toxic rubble of the demolished old east wing. What do these cases tell us about Trump's broader efforts to reshape our nation's capital?

And how legitimate is the Trump administration's new effort to tie these cases, particularly the ballroom case, to national security?

So for our first topic, Molly,

will you start with you on this one? We have lived through one attempt to prosecute former FBI director, James Comey. It was the focus of a lot of our conversations here on rational security within law fair in the broader.

It was like guys, at towards the end of last year,

“I can't remember exactly when it wound out,”

a kind of a story that may perhaps in the beginning of this year. That case focused on alleged false statements that the director was alleged to have made before Congress, but ultimately fell apart in part

because it was not brought until right at the end of the statute of limitations, or purported sexual limitations and was brought by Lindsay Halligan, who in her capacity, purported capacities acting to a attorney,

did not actually have the legal authority to bring the sorts of charges and have added a point of properly to take the sorts of steps necessary. That was among other potential challenges

we expected it to face.

That's the one that ultimately did it in.

Now we have this new effort. Talk to us a little bit all we know about what led to this new indictment of the former FBI director, how it's being received and responded, how it may have been viewed by folks within the administration

'cause it relates to actions that took place very early in the Trump administration, the second Trump administration I should say, and what we should make of it. - Yeah, so what led to the indictment really seems to be

that James Komi went on a walk on the beach. And as he tells it, "Sawesome," she shels spelling out 86, 47. And he says he saw that. He says he didn't put him in the formation.

Found that amusing because that means and there's plenty of merch being sold that has the same slogan, get rid of 47, the 47, the president, Donald Trump. And he posted it to social media saying something

along the lines of saw an interesting shell formation on maybe chalk. Pretty much immediately, a lot of people freaked out online and said, "Oh, you're calling for violence against the president. He took it down," said, "Sorry, didn't realize anybody could think

that's violent." And my view is, "How could anybody think that's violent?" And we're a lot of people saying the same thing about Biden

during the first Trump administration.

And I don't think there was a ton of reaction, certainly not, sorry, not during the first Trump administration, during the Biden administration. And I certainly, there wasn't reaction from the administration saying it might be violent.

Coming out rid of it, but an investigation did begin back then. He said, "Hop, it goes away." And it looks like it did go away for a while. Until Pam Bondi was fired, Todd Blanch, took over the pressure, got dialed up, even higher

to bring charges against Trump's political enemies. And they went ahead and they got an indictment on two counts for this being essentially, it would have to be a true threat of violence against the president. So that's what it happened.

And sounds ridiculous, and it is ridiculous, and it is widely been received as ridiculous, largely because, well, I guess, the place to start would be, does anything seem to even mean that. Trump is out there saying, "If you watch the mob movies,

it means kill. It's eight miles out in six feet under, and then you go and watch the mob movies." And nobody says that, that I have seen in them. I don't know if anybody else has an example of a mob movie

where that happens, but it's nothing like sleeps with the fishes. And I was doing trying to do a little digging for any media where it means that.

“And the only thing that I found was in the remake”

of Little Shop of Horrors, the killer plant uses it that way. But I don't think that Trump was thinking about a little shop of Horrors, so in any case.

I don't think we can rule that out entirely. - That's fair, but I feel like he's more, I feel like he's more of an Android-loid Weber guy, than Ray, like I know that his taste's run rather than that direction, but I could be wrong.

I could be wrong. Maybe I'm not being fair to him. That was a dig for me, an Android-loid Weber, to be clear. - We don't know what those cats are saying have the time and where they could easily

work something like this in their totally plausible.

“- I think Trump is kind of the cat's president,”

but I dig her out. - That's a topic for another day. - That's a topic for another day, Molly. I like this, though. - In any case, so, and then it would get to,

even if that did mean kill him, would this count as a truth rat, which I think is a strained legal argument too. So that's kind of where we are. And there's the same issue that the initial

combing indictment would have faced.

So you have this huge first amendment issue,

but then you have this other issue of selective or vindictive prosecution, because there are so many other people who've posted this 8647, and in fact, Todd Blanche said over the weekend, no, we're not going to prosecute them,

because there are way more facts here that you're not familiar with, and I can't tell you what was presented to the grand jury, which that's true, but when we have the trial, you're gonna hear all about it, and the rebuttal to that,

and Adam Schiff framed it exactly this way, when he was talking about the indictment as well, the difference in fact, is that combi is a political enemy of the president.

“So I think that's the more or less the run down,”

and I'm sure there's more to be said about it. - So Roger, I wanted to come to you on one aspect, I want to get to the vindictive prosecution bet in a minute. That was kind of the issue set hanging over the last, combi indictment, hangover, late T.C. James indictment,

a bunch of these other efforts by the Trump administration, and it's still very much still alive and still there.

Well, let's talk about this first amendment aspect of this.

You know, there's one case really square-down point, and I believe our colleagues Alan Rosenstein have been with us actually wrote about this. Shortly after the '67 story broke, we're going to combi last year,

like I think in May or June of last year, as I recall. And the case is like shockingly on point and direct about this, where there are charges brought against individual who said, I think in relation to him joining the army as I recall, the first person I want to get into my sights is L.B.J.

referring to the president at the time. And the court basically said, look, this is clearly just political hyperbally. There is no actual in tenure.

“That's where I think that's where the actual threat standard”

comes from, or at least as a case we strongly associate with it. In relation to this line between where the first amendment gives away to legitimate space for criminal prosecution. To say that the C-shell situation is a less legitimate or actual threat than saying, as a service member, if I recall the case correctly,

the first person I want to get my sights is L.B.J. I totally believe that soldier is being totally hyperbally. It's hard to see how you can't read to see any other conclusion or a guard to what Colmy was intending here, especially because the language is ambiguous.

I mean, we do say things like, oh, I mean, I'm going to kill him. I would get a murder of this and murder that. We use this in our vernacular. We don't mean it literally, the vast majority of the time.

And it's usually not as quizzical as this 86 frame, which I will admit as a, you know, I guess not very online. These types of people have it's been like middle aged dude, who still mostly knows what people are saying most of the time. That was not slang or shorthand that I was remotely familiar

with before this whole story broke. One way or the other, I would honestly just have,

I would never even occur to me that that was about the present

if I saw 8647. I would think that would be weird address that somebody's throwing out there. So rather, like, do we have a sense about how this case, they think is going to get over this first amendment hurdle?

And in particular, like, how do we think they got an indictment on this? I mean, I suppose in the indictment process, these care constitutional because one sighted aren't really framed out, although I actually think there would be like

some sort of judicial instruction on some constraints here potentially, or am I wrong about that? I have a middlely never dealt with a grand jury. So talk to us about what we know about how this case was even brought forward, given that it's real first amendment

questions and raises, and then how they think it's going to proceed. - Yeah, we don't know yet. I suspect that the, one of the first things is counsel will try to do is to get those grand jury minutes

and see what the instructions were. In addition, there's this recent case, the counterman versus Colorado case from 2023 that talks about true threats. And there's language, there's a gloss in there

that will be an additional hurdle that it's not just, I mean, I think what you say, just on its face can, is there too much ambiguity as a matter of law for this to go forward, just even before you reach the vindictive and selective prosecution?

I think that's going to be a legitimate issue. But then there's a second hurdle, the counterman case,

of counterman will tell you what a real true threat is. And that the court would consider this ambiguous gives you an idea, you know, compare that to shells. This was somebody that wrote hundreds of Facebook messages to a country-westered singer that he didn't know.

And somewhere but nine, but eventually he, when she ignored her, they got less benign and they said, they indicated that he had seen her on the street, and then they said,

“fuck off permanently staying in cyber life is going to kill you.”

It's not very ambiguous. Yeah, definitely much more threatening than she jails. Or the service member mail they got off about killing the president for being honest. Yeah, you're not being good for human relations, die.

But even then, there's a first amendment hurdle.

And the question was, what subjective can you just base the threat on the objective nature of the words themselves and how a reasonable person would receive them? And they say no, there's got to be an intent element. It's not, and it doesn't have to be willful,

but it does have to be reckless. So it's conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct will cause harm to another. So that's another hurdle. Can you read that into it that he had a reckless disregard

for the fact that a reasonable person would regard 86, 47 to be a true threat? And I think it's too much. There's another question because that language that glass is not in the indictment.

I asked our former colleague James Pierce, who's an appellate criminal lawyer about that. And he actually thought, no, you don't have-- don't ordinarily have to put judicial glosses into an indictment. Usually the statutory language is sufficient.

You would be supposed to read that to the grand jury, but even that, often an error, an instruction to the grand jury is not sufficient to dismiss because you'll have a chance to correct that with the petted jury.

“But I think all of that together does suggest a big hurdles”

in addition to the selective and vindictive prosecution before you ever get to a jury. I mean, I know we haven't spoken in detail about this selective and vindictive prosecution yet,

but take the first amendment challenges

that you just raised. I assume acting attorney general Todd Blanche also knows this. What you're saying, and I guess setting aside that there are some facts that we don't know yet. I'm curious, honestly, whatever one thinks,

what we can take from this about Todd Blanche and his motivations here, he seems to me to continue to be acting like Trump's personal lawyer and giving him a zealous defense. Obviously, this is a much--

it just-- I'm scratching my head at this. And then also, as a secondary question here, what can we make of a Pam Bondi's tenure and in her not bringing this case? I don't know.

You know, all along, there were people that were telling me, you know, Pam Bondi, 'cause I had a form they dim view of her, that there might be conversations going on in the background where she was holding things back.

And that became increasingly impossible for me to believe

as Komi was indicted the first time

and other things happened. But it does look like I sort of owe her half a apology. I do think she destroyed the department and she let too much happen. But it does look like she was a break

on some of the more preposterous things.

“The SPLC indictment, actually, I can't remember”

now the timing of Jerome Pal, but certainly this one is the most extreme. And, you know, they've got this-- even Pam-- well, Pam Bondi, for sure. They have this excuse that, you know,

while they take the oath to uphold the constitution, but their view is, and Pam Bondi sort of spilled this out in her first memos, you know, whatever the president says is his interpretation of the constitution. And our job is to be his lawyer and defend that.

And that's an abdication of your oath. But that's what they do. And obviously Todd Blanch is more militant

Yeah, I'm not quite ready to say, Pam Bondi,

“American hero, but I do think that you have to give her”

a tinsiest, tinsiest bit of credit when looking back on what happened over the course of her tenure and what's happening now. What is kind of interesting or perplexing to me is surely Todd Blanch knows this isn't going anywhere.

And so I suppose my question is, is it enough for Trump that they're trying when Trump asks for this does he believe because he tends to think that everything is going to work out in his favor and that he's sort of invincible? Does he believe that it's going to succeed,

even though it's totally implausible that it would? Or does he just want to make his political enemies lives sort of a living hell? Does he want to keep dragging them into court? And then in the end, he can blame it on a radical left judge

when it goes wrong, you know, when he failed to get an indictment, he can blame it on bad grandeurs when it goes wrong. And sort of same thing for Todd Blanch and that latter point is his thinking, well,

even if ultimately I fail, I satisfy the president

by trying because the president will then just blame it on the radical left judge if it goes wrong. That's sort of what I wonder.

“- Yeah, I think there he has competing preferences often”

and for the people in his court for lack of a better term. And I think those two activities are for winners and for absolute loyalty and I think he overall would prize the latter. So I agree with that, Reed. - And just to reinforce what Molly just said,

you know, in his one of his books, he used to talk about using civil litigation to punish opponents regardless of whether you could win the case. I mean, you are inflicting costs. And of course, he didn't have the power back then

to use criminal cases. But it's so much, you know, it's that much more cost that you inflict and I think that's sufficient for him as long as you do that, it's deterrent enough

for people to exercise their first amendment rights.

- Yeah, you know, another thing that you've seen the president hone back on in some of his personal writings David is also the kind of give as you get sort of philosophy that I for an eye, I fully buy that there's like some part of this in this rationale here.

“I mean, I think the president genuinely thinks he was targeted.”

Now look, the president did some illegal things and I think violated the law. Part of you give you look at the Mara Logo case. The obstruction case around Mara Logo was very strong. I mean, I'm slightly annoyed

frankly, the just department and the last administration didn't just focus on that and got sucked into the, you know, mail stream of all these other much more politically charged cases. They're very clearly was obstruction. The president was directly involved in around the investigation

and the presidential documents. The issue is that I fully believe subjectively, the president thinks these are people unfairly going after me. And that, you know, A, I want resolution, B, maybe this is part of the system, right?

They come after me and I'm gonna come after them and level the same charge. I think that's part of the reason you see this sort of like parallel systems of retribution, like the people he seems most intent on targeting with these things

are people that were involved in some of these legal efforts. So it's just a, a, a sort of aspect. Now like you can question, I think even if you this sincerely believe that and I for an eye is a little bit of a brutal philosophy

in terms of when you're talking about taking advantage of the legal system and using it in ways that do not seem consistent with the president's general sense of constitutional to your most personal sense of constitutional duty. But, you know, I don't think that really is the framework

through which the president views these things. But I do want to go back to Todd Blanche. I maybe, I hesitate to call this defending him, but I want to contextualize some of his behaviors, right? Like Pam Bonnie had one advantage over Todd Blanche.

She used that confirmed attorney general. And while as evidence by Pam Bonnie, that doesn't mean you're destined to that job forever, it does give you a little bit of insulation from the pushback on the president or from other people

because you can say, look, it's expensive and costly from the internal political terms to get me confirmed. I have a look at me a little more leeway. Todd Blanche isn't in that bucket yet. Although we know he's in the running

for the attorney general position along in competition with Jeanine Piro of the Ostra in his office in D.C., Hermit Dylan of the Civil Rights of it and potentially, I think other people have mentioned like Mike Lee, Senator Mike Lee as a possibility.

Molly talked about the dynamics around that. I mean, how does that might that enter into the equation here? Is this an effort of Blanche saying, I'm going to unleash the hounds 'cause this is a tool I have to show to the by-value to the president

and then maybe he doesn't have to stick by that philosophy, the same degree when he's attorney general in the same way, maybe Pam Monny didn't quite,

or are there other dynamics in play here around this AG competition?

- Yeah, it's a good question. You know, he says he's not auditioning for the role.

“I think he has until October, which is a really long time.”

So part of me is thinking it's kind of, I feel like he's front loading a lot of stuff right now. And even if you do all this now, if by October, the president isn't as happy with you anymore, then I don't know how much it benefited you to do this now.

Also, because I think it's easier for the president to keep him in there as long as possible. So it feels like the audition would be a little more important down the line. I am not really convinced that it's just audition mentality

and then once you get to be attorney general, maybe you're going to put the brakes on, because it feels like that's a little bit too late. But, yeah, I guess I don't have a good answer for you. Maybe other people have a better answer.

I kind of feel that Todd Blanche, he says I'm not auditioning, but he has long been the president's personal lawyer,

and I think he's always going to have the mentality

that he's the president's personal lawyer and that the president is his client. So, well, I think that on the one hand, there's an auditioning element that he realizes there's pressure here on the other hand,

I think that's just kind of how he operates. And I also think that once you've done this, why would you then put the brakes on? Why would you then put the brakes on when you're confirmed, you've already lost any sense of independence or credibility.

It seems like it would be a lot of cognitive dissonance to then be convincing yourself that you're upholding the independence of the justice department down the line once you're confirmed. So, I don't know, maybe other people disagree with me

and think this is just race for attorney general and then he'd operate in a different way. It seems to me now that this is how the Justice Department is going to have to operate under President Trump and that what happened with Pambandi

has sent the message that you will be removed if you don't operate that way. - Yeah, I guess I'd have the same question on that premise, Scott, if this was an extended job interview, he may be catching the attention of the CEO

by doing these bold things, but everyone else is he not also then just giving a lot of fodder for the confirmation hearing for the opposition to just grill him? - That's exactly right, but from my mind,

“that's why maybe we see these things front loaded now”

as opposed to later in the race. So, as I recall, though, I'm gonna correct me if I'm wrong on this.

They basically, he's got to like the end of October

on the 210 days is allowed to have. Then he even gets the nomination, then he can stay in the attorney general role. I think exactly how long before a good deal longer while pending confirmation.

And so he's got to kind of like earn that nomination at a certain point. The vote doesn't have to happen right after October 29th, it just has to get the confirmation. But I think you're right, that does sort of put the pressure

on the nomination process, 'cause I do think some of these things will be controversial with certain members of Senate. We've seen Tom Tellis who's gonna be in the Senate through January, maybe on the judiciary committee

and I can't have to go but check on that. I think he actually might be. I will check that on talking right here. Oh yes, no he is, he is on the judiciary committee. So at least one person who's gonna have a role

in this process confirming the attorney general, if it happens before January next year, who is already picked to fight over this and held up nominations over politically motivated investigation, the Federal Reserve.

So, I don't think this is outside the wrong possibility. But if you front-load these things earlier, you make your stronger case, maybe you hope that that pass is a little bit. And notably, like if they wait past October,

or past November, I should say, hey, they may be dealing with a less favorable Senate. Obviously I don't think that it's far from clear time of cuts you're gonna take control of the Senate, but it's a possibility.

If you don't, you'll both be losing some senators who are a little more independent 'cause they're retiring, but you may have narrower margins than you had in this particular Senate. So, you don't wanna exactly what they odds of that after that are.

And, you know, I would say generally, you know, this has been my general foster this. I think Trump's power is waning from its peak, which was, you know, shortly after he came off, it's a came off, it's a came off,

it's a little bit of a sense of vulnerability after the last election, having won against perceived odds. And it's been on the decline since then. I don't think that's gonna change as the enters the lame duck period of his presidency.

So, you know, part of me does think, if you're gonna cater to this guy, if you're thinking of strategically, do it now, front-load it, lock in the nomination.

“And then if you feel like you need to set breaks,”

at some point, particularly if you're worried about getting confirmed, your series about that, then you can do that later. And once you get the confirmation, the cost of the Trump administration switching that are high.

Doesn't mean it won't do it. Doesn't mean it won't threaten it. We know that happened with Justice Cavittal, among others, right? But it strikes me, there's a, if you were playing this

as a strategic actor, you can see that sort of logic behind it. But, you know, I'm writing Molly's point about how Todd thinks of his role in relation to the president, and also his different. I mean, he is a just department alum,

but he's been, you know, his most recent informative years of all been in private practice,

and elevated him, I'm not sure why he would change

that philosophy necessarily.

“So I want to go to the vindictive prosecution element”

of this before we move on from this topic. Roger, when we start with you on that, although Molly, I know you've written a lot about this topic too, talking about the vindictive prosecution case, like it seems like about as strong cases you can have,

really high bar, right? It's not easy to show vindictive prosecution, but you've got every possible public statement about James Komi, you could ask for, put forward by the president, media reporting around it.

You have lots of media reporting about the, the decision making process that fed into this. This particular case, you see, you know,

being tied to the departure of Pam Bondi,

and it's just fundamentally weak. I mean, I have to think to some extent the baselessness, the frivolousness of the case, has to enter into the equation. Maybe not formally affirmative to prosecution,

but there has to be at least a informal sense of it that a judge looking at this is gonna say, God, this is what you choose to bring, how could it's not be vindictive, there's no merit here.

So how do you see this playing out, Roger? - Yeah, well, I thought the vindictive prosecution motion they filed in the case in Eastern District of Virginia earlier was the strongest I've ever seen, and I was actually part of me was disappointed

when it was dismissed on this other ground so that we couldn't ever see this one play out, because there really aren't many vindictive, selective or vindictive prosecutions that have ever succeeded other than in very different contexts,

like, you know, somebody being charged with a greater crime after having lost in appeal, you know, very different things, but like you said, there was just this years of attacks, and then the ultimate thing was in September

that Twitter post, which September 20th was it, but something like beginning Pam, you know, and the gist of it was, we can't take any more delay, they're making fun of us. Lindsey is a great lawyer and she likes you,

you know, and mentioning Colmy and Schiff, and I think James. So that's a smoking gun, and in fact, we also know that it was probably originally sent privately, and it was a DM, it was meant to be a DM,

and it was mistakenly published publicly, and then it he removes it, and then 11 minutes later, he puts it back up, or six minutes, I don't know what it was, but when he realizes it's too late,

“and I think he puts Halit Lindsey's last name,”

or some minor change like that, so the public now understands what he's saying. So that's the smoking gun, and here you have a charge that is even more even weaker, and like you said, the contacts with Pam Bondi, leave him.

Why did it take 9/10, you know, cash betel gets up there, and Blanche get up there and say, "Yeah, we've been investigating this for 9/10, 11 months." That's the explanation for why this didn't go earlier. You know, it's just lying to the public,

so this will be as strong as it has ever been. There are two different prongs, the legal formulas for vindictive and selective are slightly different, and with the selective, you do need to show comparator cases.

So, you know, where are you gonna come up with a case that is anything like, you know, the seashell case, that was pursued, that's gonna be a challenge. But I think the vindictive prong of it will be even more decisive.

- Well, we are gonna no doubt have reason come back to this topic in the weeks to come,

but let us move on to our second topic now.

One that both entails the home front, and our latest conflict overseas,

“I think it's still the most recent conflict overseas.”

That's the war in Iran. That war turned 60 days old this past week. On the sector of 62 days old on Friday, and that day is particularly significant, 'cause that is the day on which the war powers resolution says,

Mr. President, if you have not secured congressional authorization, particularly use of force, you're supposed to terminate the use of the armed forces in, you know, the incident that led to the obligation to get that authorization, usually involved

in hostilities or circumstances where imminent involvement of hostilities is suggested, were implied. The Trump administration has an end in military operations in Iran, but notably it has reframed. It has said it has ended Operation Epic Fury.

We saw both Secretary of State Rubio, Secretary of Defense, head-sets say this quite expressly repeatedly

The president didn't say quite that in the letter he provided a Congress on Friday, but he did say the hostilities that commenced on February 28th, that's the day Operation Epic Fury started, have terminated, using that language

from the war powers resolution saying essentially, we've met this obligation under the 60 days, and they say we're doing something totally different and unrelated. We are still embarking around in oil exports

and they started that halfway through operation Epic Fury, and that remains an ongoing effort. And then on May 4th, we saw them announce this new project freedom of pretty significant

“maritime endeavor involving, I think the count I saw”

is over 100 U.S. vessels in 15,000 U.S. sailors to try and improve security around the state of removes to allow innocent vessels to transit.

That, over the first 24 hours or 48 hours

that operated and excuse me, evidently there were at least more than 10 incidents in which Iranian forces open fire on U.S. vessels, usually a small arm from kind of like speedboats that use around to harass traffic

and a few cases from smaller scale cruise missiles and other armments from the coastline. We also know there were a number of tax that successfully landed on commercial vessels and that the Iranians actually sees a number of commercial vessels

that were attempting to transit the straight under this sort of protective dome as Secretary Higgs at the described it. Despite all this, as of yesterday, the Joint Chief's Chairman of the Joint Chief's

Stastic and Cain said, this really is in a level of hostilities that rises to major combat operations. This is just kind of just harassment by the Iranian forces really consciously trying to downplay it at a press briefing.

Nonetheless, this morning President Trump announced, we're suspending this at the request of the Pakistani diplomats who have been facilitating Iran, U.S. conversations, primarily implicitly, I can't remember where he said this expressly or not,

but implicitly out of concerns that it was going to interrupt the ongoing ceasefire, which other than in the straight of Formus is still prevailing. It has prevailed according to the Administration, since April 7th.

So all this leads to the conclusion saying, what does this 60 day cut off matter, if at all? And what does it mean for this warm-moving forward in the form it takes? And the arguments that President has to about what he can do it.

Tyler, I want to come to you first on this sort of question.

I mean, from an observer, for a specter,

“somebody who, I think follows the news around this,”

is closely, is more closely. The closer the most Americans, like talks about how you see the Administration framing this phase of its operations. Is it persuasive this idea that it's kind of check the legal boxes

and it's shifted enough that it no longer is running a foul of Congress in these statutory restrictions. Certainly Congress, some people objected, but it also has failed to enact at this point. I think eight different resolutions

between the House and the Senate, opposed to military efforts in Iran. So what do you think the political and the optics of the around this are before we get into the legal technicalities? Yeah, I find myself trying to parse this distinction

for a lot of the Administration's actions, whether it's a novel creative interpretation of the law or if it's a blatant violation of it. And I also find myself grasping for a silver lining here, which the only one I can think of is that they are,

at least gesturing, stored, making an argument within the framework of the war power's resolution. But beyond that, anyway, I turn it as a, an informed lay observer in many ways. It does not look good for a meaningful war power's resolution.

I also am confused at the framing of, even in their own logic of, let's assume that the ceasefire or ACs fire does pause the clock.

“What is happening doesn't look any more like a ceasefire anyway?”

So it's like this loss of meaning for both the war power's resolution and terms of art like ceasefire or war, et cetera. And I will say this is not a phenomenon that is wholly new

and originating in the second Trump Administration,

but it does seem to be an accelerated deterioration of this statute. You know, I've seen people asking are there any real consequences to violating the war power's resolution?

You know, on the one hand, as you mentioned, maybe it did have some sort of effect on Trump announcing the end around the 60 day mark or a cessation of hostilities, but the war's also not looking great for the Trump Administration.

He gestured at, like you said, an appeal to the Pakistani diplomats. So I actually am curious to turn the question back around on you Scott of your read on, you know, whether war power's resolution, like can it survive

this latest front? - Yeah, it's totally fair question. You know, I have a piece as you and I know, but I don't know when at this point that I've been struggling to get across the finish line

for a few days, hopefully we up on law fair, probably hopefully by the time people listen to this, that kind of wrestles with as questions, I'm like, what does this mean for both war power's resolution and the Iran conflict?

I think where I come down on this is that I am like a vague war power's resolution optimist.

that most administrations haven't completely,

that it hasn't substantially impacted how they pursue different sorts of combat operations.

“And I think this fits with that broader trend.”

I call it conspicuous compliance. It's a phrase that I've used in a couple of prior pieces. I think I'm going to try and turn into, you know, catch at this point, as if I can take clay claim over to the description about this.

Because even prior administrations that rejected this aspect, the war power's resolution is unconstitutional, the Reagan administration, the George H.W. Bush administration both nodded in this direction towards W. Bush administration, maybe did too a little bit obliquely.

And it's early phases. They still feel the need after 60 days to adapt their operation, to make an advance one of these statutory arguments. Now they're able to rely on pretty weak statutory arguments

because it seems very unlikely that courts are going to actually review these arguments, right?

Although I want to get back to that second time.

I'm not sure that's 100% right, actually, or 100% how the executive branch ultimately views it. I think it's mostly right, but there's like maybe a caveat or two I threw in there. But they still have to adapt these statutory interpretations.

And that has created this library of statutory interpretations that each presidential administration can look to and build on these prior bipartisan precedents that they build off. And the Trump administration is very much doing this. In saying the clock has ended

and that we started a new clock with a different type of operation, that is what's known as the intermittent hostilities argument. We've seen administrations make something least in the 1980s, where they basically say, no, we're engaged in hostilities,

there's one instance or respond to this one case. But then we stop and we don't expect a new one to come unless there's other triggering circumstances.

“So that's how the Biden administration, for example,”

was able to pursue air strikes against Iran, back militias in Iraq and Syria over several years under the President's article two authority. He eventually later shifted to a statutory argument. But under the President's article two authority

because each time, he'd file a new report saying it's a new 60 day clock. I'm responded to this one provocation by these groups and then it goes down. And there is some logic to that,

although I think it's often pushed way too far in these sorts of cases. Another element of logic, particularly around project freedom, we saw it seeing the time back to is this idea. The United States has invoked an prior sort of maritime operations,

particularly during the tanker wars in the 1980s and during the kind of hootie operation the Biden administration pursued just a few years ago.

Where they basically said, look, if our vessels are acting

consistent with international law and simply transiting the way that international law allows them to do and then are attacked and we respond with self defense,

“we're not introducing those forces into hostilities.”

They're just doing what we're allowed to do in international law where there should be a lot of that scope and then they're coming under attack. And that question that the trigger for these 60 day clock is being introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities

or a situation where hostilities are perceived to be imminent. I'm paraphrasing with that quite the language. Now, I think that's really different because yes, you're right, you think international law says you should be doing this,

but the Iranians clearly are threatening hostilities if you translate the straight, right? Like, international law doesn't get around the fact that you just clearly situation where imminent hostilities are implied, the Iranians are telling you

they're going to do it. So I'm not sure that really passes most of our particularly in this case, although in other cases that may be a little more borderline, maybe you see an argument, then unless you have those sorts of precedents there.

But the one thing we haven't seen in administration do is the one thing that we know the war powers are supposed to most squarely address that is to do another Vietnam, is to leave U.S. armed forces in ongoing combat situations past 60 days,

particularly ground troops where you can't be withdrawn. That matters a lot less of the last 15 to 20 years because American air powers, what the Americans focus on. So maybe that means the war power resolution just matters less.

But the fundamental line that is hardest for the executive branch should interpret around that Congress drew, which is the no-ground troops line, is still holding. I actually think that's kind of remarkable

in this particular case, particularly because every even is not every administration. But a number of administrations have been willing to push back constitutionally verbally against the resolution but they haven't really been willing to buck it.

And they mostly wrapped up their major ground operations particularly within 60 days to try to meet the target and avoid this legal issues. So long as for short, I'm not sure me that the war power resolution is that that letter.

But it definitely doesn't mean it's the hard line that people might have wanted to be in that many still want to be. 9 weeks in the Balkon cabin already has been around 179,000 euros, which can be done in a row and on my shift point. Every moment is a dream.

I mean, is there any persuasiness to the idea that you've got this sort

of legal pressure coming in? And particularly how does it intersect with the other dynamics around the conflict? And we're at a stage now where the Trump administration has been dealing with this war that's been very unpopular.

We're facing midterm elections where members of Congress are hesitant to really take responsibility for this conflict. We've had Senator John Thune push back on efforts by Senator Lisa McCaske to introduce a resolution authorizing this conflict while also putting some limits on it.

She's like kind of middle the road that way.

“In part, at least that's what the reporting is inferring,”

because a lot of members of the Republican caucus in the Senate don't want to own this war in the lead up to the election and people in the house kind of feel the same. So how does this intersect this kind of deadline intersect

with this broader set of dynamics?

Are we seeing push back against the administration and do the legal dynamics matter? Is it strictly political or do they interact? - Yeah, I mean, I think you said a lot of it, which is that the pressure is limited by the reality

that the Republicans don't want to own this. So the moment you actually put something on the floor and ask them to vote to do the kind of authorization that McCouske wants to do or not, they have to decide and I'm going to vote for it and sort of own this really

unpopular conflict or am I going to vote against it and put myself against the president which is the huge political liability too. So I think that they're reluctant to assert themselves and, you know, Congress isn't great

of asserting himself generally these days.

“So I think that at least limits the pressure somewhat”

and then I guess the other kind of big political question

is the extent to which the Trump administration president Trump wants to be done with this war too. Is on the one hand, you've had them finding all these reasons to continue, well, had them finding all these reasons to try to continue the conflict even when maybe it wasn't

legal to do that on the other hand. You have them wanting the war to be done, but it's hard because if you say, well, we're going to stand down and you pretend that we've claimed victory and you sort of, you know, unilaterally do stand down.

Why would Iran possibly stop mining the state of Hormuz without some iron clad reassurance that this is actually done and that the United States isn't just going to come back in six months? Trump literally said, we'll just come back in six months.

So those are my broad level thoughts and then I think that everyone is in sort of a sticky position here. As far as the War Powers Act and the Nitty-Greeti, I'm really not qualified to weigh in just as somebody

that's older than other people on the panel and have seen some of these things come up over time, there's a slight difference than normal in that usually neither party really wants to weigh in. Usually they don't want to be caught with responsibility

one way or the other and they both like complaining that you didn't consult. But it's sort of like the dog that catches the car. They don't really want to catch it. Here, it's sufficiently unpopular

that at least the Democrats could probably vote against it the war even if they got a chance. But I guess that's all I'd note. - Yeah, I mean, that's actually really is notable. I'm really glad you flagged that Roger,

'cause that's actually something that I am now going to just steal and put it into my piece because it's a good, it's a good point. It is actually kind of a matter. I mean, the vote we've seen around the resolutions

on, that's our almost entirely party line. There is one senator from each side that's flip, John Fetterman is voted against the resolutions. These are to terminate U.S. involvement in hostility or withdrawal, I saw U.S. forces from involvement

in hostilities and then Senator Rand Paul is voted for all the resolutions on the house side,

“the first resolution had, I think, five Democrats voting”

against it. I believe that was done to just one this last time, which happened in mid-April. So it is a very partisan split. Democrats are willing to come out striking.

It's worth, again, the reason you're keep seeing these votes is because Democrats keep bringing them out or up and they're using expedited procedure is provided for by the war powers resolution to force votes on these things.

And even though they keep losing, they see it in their interest to keep having these votes. I think because they really are trying to tag this as a political issue and make Republicans feel the political heat for it,

because that's where their counter pressure comes from. So Roger, I'm gonna ask you another aspect of this, just because you're the other lawyer on the line of the Molly and Tyler, you might have views on this. Well, I'd love to admit, we're getting a wonky here.

This is this question about, could you see a lawsuit over this?

the last few weeks, right? The only deal of routinely sued to try and enforce particularly this aspect of the war powers, those are the most aspects, our members of Congress. And it's pretty clear that members of Congress alone

don't have standing to do this according to Supreme Court. There's a Reigns V. Burr 1997 Supreme Court decision that said this because legislators can't do that.

Maybe if you got a critical mass of legislators

that could credibly say, if you actually brought this to a vote like you're supposed to, we could dictate an alternate outcome. Like we could vote down on authorization.

“So I think that would be at least a minimum majority”

of the House or Senate, even though even then there's some questions as to whether that would be sufficient. But like, that's the minimum threshold. You could begin to make those arguments, but that's just not in the cards right now.

Maybe it will be after January, but that's not right now. But who else could pursue lawsuits like this? Like the one category of me that clearly could, or at least you'd have a very strong case of service members, could we saw lawsuits about this by service members

who were facing deployment during the Vietnam War, no, it doesn't of them at least. There've been a handful of cases where this has happened subsequently and generally, service members either have been found to have standing or, of course,

haven't reluctant to say they don't have standing,

and they usually dismiss it on some other of just distributive grounds. But what else could have staying to do this? Like one category that jumps out that we're seeing being more and more active in the space recently,

are the states, you know, over the past 20 years, particular, the states have become, particularly those governed by the party contrary

“to everything control of the executive branch,”

have become so active in public interest litigation, and they've often succeeded in part because they have such a diverse range of interests that they can lay claim to standing where lots of other plaintiffs can't.

They have so many different hooks they can come in. And I wonder if that, you know, if you could see a hook for a states come in, the one that jumped out to me as a possibility is, we had this Biden to be Nebraska case a few years ago

where the state of Missouri was found to have standing to challenge President Biden's loan forgiveness program because they had a state-run state law institution that earned money from administering those loans and so canceling them with taking that money away.

Similarly, in the United States, we have, or in states like Virginia and California, with tons of service members, you have lots of public universities that get tuition from service members, and then they have actually have state law obligations

to repay them. The causations a little more tenuated there than that may break it, but it strikes me at least that maybe there's a colorful argument there saying,

and I have to think there are other cases where state institutions and agencies are facing hardships because of these deployments which are affecting tens of thousands of their citizens. Do you think there might be a hook there?

Is there a reason we haven't seen the sort of public interest litigation that passed and maybe this dynamic where Democrats are willing to own their opposition to the war might drive a blue state-like California, Virginia,

to finally take that step?

- Well, here again, I'm pretty far out beyond any expertise I might possess on anything, but I come to it very pessimistic. Even the best, there's strong political question arguments about just this ability to begin with,

but this just seems like the states don't have any role in armed conflicts abroad. The domestic program you talked about is complete would be very different as my, that's just my gut that I'd be very pessimistic

about a state intervening in this subject. - Well, that seems to be the views of all of everyone I've asked about this, but I still have this legal theory that I'm putting out there and now trying to refine a little bit more

as to see whether there might be a hook there or not.

“If nothing else, I think there might be a colorful one”

that a state willing to take a swing and maybe make a political statement, even if they end up losing the suit, might be willing to do it. And we've seen certainly legislators do that in the past.

Most legislators who have filed these lawsuits have done so we don't think they're gonna lose the last few cycles, but they do it anyway to get the point out there. Maybe you could see a state government getting on board with the same idea and maybe there are other arguments

that other interests they have that might be and we're directly affected by this. But for the time being, we are gonna have to leave the war powers resolution behind us as we have another set of weighty executive branch

decisions, key national security policies to evaluate. And that is of course, President Trump's in-process plans to demolish that part they've gotten through and then rebuild the east wing of the White House into a glorious ballroom.

And by the way, take on a few other projects here around our nation's capital watching in DC. We have not just the aforementioned effort at the top of taking over a musical golf course. We also have the Trump administration taking over

the Kennedy Center, cutting down some valued wheeled trees although it sounds like they actually may have been legitimate reasons for that. They come around potentially overhauling even demolishing big portions of the Kennedy Center,

kind of beloved public institution here in DC, on top of that building a giant arch at the end of Memorial Bridge is another possibility that appears to be in the works. All around, it is very clear, President Trump is trying to put his stamp on our nation's capital,

Not only has his name popped up everywhere,

you can't drive down Constitution Avenue without seeing his face because he puts large, multi-story posters, usually with his very creepy kind of like the villain and Ghostbusters too, whatever that guy was in the painting, very a serious kind of warlord sort of look on his face

and that is of his, for some reason, his official presidential photo hanging over all of these. Not a smiling happy man, but a grumpy angry man threatening you. It's not the most delightful environment to enjoy the monuments. I will say at this particular moment,

at least in my experience. But he's facing some legal headwinds at least on two of these fronts.

The golf course front, bottom front and also actually,

the Kennedy Center front a few of these other ones. So Raj, let me turn to you because I know you listen to one of these hearings a little bit.

“I think specifically about the golf course recently,”

talk to us some of the challenge about that and how they interface with some of these other efforts to put his stamp on DC that we're hearing discussed. Yeah, this was the most recent event. This was this week and this has to do with,

yeah, there's an East Potomac Park, which has had, it's National Parkland and it does have now. It's a golf course that's been there since 1920. And it now has actually three different courses. And it was distinctive in that it was sort of an every man's

golf course. It was reasonable fees. You could get if you wanted a little food beforehand. It didn't cost that much. And it was sort of desegregated in 1941, which is very early.

You had to be sort of brave to use it if you were non-white, but you could use it apparently after 1941. And it's beloved. It was a historic sort of thing. I mean, famous golf course architect as golf course architects go.

So suddenly maybe I think in August, we learned that Trump had plans for this area. And he wanted to convert it into a Washington National golf course, which would be a championship level golf course. Now, he has golf courses of his own, which are championship

level, and they are incredibly expensive.

“The one in Scotland, I think, if you are in a member”

and you want to use it, I think it's $2,000 for green fees. You know, there's one here that's more like $700. I mean, in the United States. Anyway, his plans sound like one of these. There's a palatial clubhouse.

It's a little hard to see. It would change the architect that he is talking to is one that did a couple of his courses. I think in Northern Virginia. Now, the game that is played with recurringly

with all of these monument issues. The arch on the other side of Memorial Bridge. All of these issues is to say, well, it's just in Coate. It's just in plans. And the reason they do that is the legal theory for blocking him

is to use the APA, the Administrative Procedure Act. And you can't use that until there is final agency action. And so they're saying, there's no final agency action here. And of course, the danger is what we saw happen with the swing, one day you wake up and it's gone.

And until it's gone, there was no final agency action. And so this put judges in a difficult spot. And this isn't actually-- this goes back 40 years. Trump put Trump tower, where there was a beloved art

deco building called Bondwitt Teller.

And it had these, apparently, I never saw it,

“by relief sculptures, I think, at the top.”

And so he was reassured, don't worry, I'm going to-- we're going to preserve those to the Met Museum. And one day, everyone woke up and the building was rubble. It was gone. And so this is his MO.

Go with the Fedak complete. And so everyone's worried. And so on March, there is a suit about the golf course, the East Potomac Park area, which includes Haynes Point,

There was news reporting on May 1st and May 2nd

by Notice, and then in the Washington Post, that things were going to like that on March 3rd would be, the park would be closed, and the tree removal would begin. And the post had actually obtained a fundraising brochure,

which was really alarming. And it was sort of a-- it included both East Potomac Park and West Potomac Park, which has the National Garden of American heroes plan. So they marched into court.

“It was emergency, I think the filings were on a Sunday evening.”

And we don't know if the reporting was wrong, or if plans changed. But the government said, no, no, it's just all we're doing-- we aren't closing anything.

And there were signs up saying there were signs that were photographed

that said, closure. But we don't know how that happened. And the National Park Service claimed they weren't there signs. And they said, no, it's just--

we're inventorying sort of deferred maintenance, like dangerous dead trees that could fall on somebody. We're not making room for the courts yet. Anyway, she ended up-- she didn't want to issue a TRO. She said, I don't want to be Amy Poler

referring to the star of Rick Parks and Recreations. I'm not going to micro-manage this part. But if you're planning to do something more than cut down 10 trees, tell the other side

“and give them an opportunity to come to me.”

And it was clear, though, she doesn't want-- she used language that was, in effect, I don't want to happen what happened in East. And I left out the part about the soil dumping, which I can leave to Molly and some other stuff

to clean up behind me. So Molly talked about the intersection with this in the ballroom case. So we had the physical intersection. The ballroom remnants were dumped in part

on the golf course. And apparently, maybe having environmental, negative environmental effects. But talk about the intersection. Because that's the context we're hearing

this national security argument. The Trump is now saying, OK, let's move this ballroom for we talk about this a little bit. I can't really last week or two weeks ago here on the podcast. So bring that element into the story here a little bit.

Yeah, OK. So where to begin? I guess we can start with the debris. So the debris is just a bunch of soil that is from the East Wing demolition

that they carted right on over to East Potomac and dumped on the white course. There are a few courses I've been golfing it. East Potomac a little. There was this weekend, there was this whole kind of situation

where they thought they were going to shut down. And so they were all the staff were sort of there really late having kind of a farewell party to the course. And then of course, then ended up that it didn't close. But anyway, they dumped it on the white course.

So if you go there and you golf now, there's just this giant pile of soil just towering. And they apparently, the administration kind of keeps bringing more over, part of the suit was to force testing and to force the disclosure of the testing results

“of this soil, which I believe we found that on Monday”

does have some dangerous metal contaminants. The question of whether there's this best in it weirdly is still unanswered. There wasn't in his best just test on two samples.

And then the third sample, one of the baggies burst open,

so they weren't able to test it. So also could be as best as so, you know, we're talking about the danger of a dead tree falling on a golfer. I think we may want to mention the danger of the, is bestest, and the possible is bestest in the air

as everybody is going and golfing on the white course. But anyway, golfers are quite myth because if you hit your ball into the big debris pile, you can't go get it, that's just a, just a lost stroke. But that is the connection between the debris

in the ballroom specifically or practically, then there's also kind of the more thematic connection of the asking forgiveness later instead of permission first, which is something that Judge Ray has mentioned. And this hearing that she was dragged to from a broad

when in the middle of the night her time, this emergency motion was filed to get to the national security element of the ballroom argument. That goes back to what happened last week, or not this most recent weekend,

but the previous weekend at the White House Correspondent Center with the attempted shooting of the president

after which both President Trump himself

and many administration allies said, this is exactly why we need the White House ballroom. It's a safe and secure place for the president. And his justice department ended up submitting a filing in the lawsuit related to the construction of the ballroom,

saying that the district court judge, Judge Ray did the on should issue an indicative ruling that he would dissolve his injunction because the shooting showed how necessary the ballroom was for the president's safety and security.

This was a crazy filing in that. It read more like a truth social post than any. - It is the thing that more worth filing than anything I've read recently 'cause it is just so astoundingly astoundingly

reads like a five page I figure out all exactly was like Trump tweet. It's really unreal.

- Yeah, I mean, it's astoundingly.

- Rogers developed a metric for reading Judge Leons opinions, which is the exclamation point density measurement. Judge Leon is known for putting exclamation points in his rulings and there were plenty of exclamation points in his rulings about the construction of the ballroom

because already the administration had been trying to say, well, there's a bunker underneath the ballroom. We've been allowed to continue work as necessary for national security related to that bunker, but actually the ballroom above ground

and below ground construction are an integrated hole,

“and you should let me not not hole HOLE, WHOLE.”

You should let me, you should let the administration continue doing the construction because of this, even though your injunction says that they're not allowed to continue doing the construction and Judge Leon is shooting an opinion saying,

that's a brazen interpretation indeed, exclamation point. So everyone was making hell over that. And then the administration comes in and files this briefing that references Barack Husino, Obama, Trump arrangement syndrome in all caps,

standing in all caps instead of just standing in lower gaze, like a normal briefing would and other kind of language borrowed from Trump tweets such as a woman walking her dog, referring to the woman the plaintiff had relied on to get standing who's a history professor

who walks around the White House and ellipse for her enjoyment and for her work. So really a wild briefing, but kind of one that suggested that the president had been personally involved with this effort, which is essentially

to try to argue that regardless of what the law is, the administration should be able to continue building this ballroom because the ballroom itself

is essential to his security and to national security.

So there hasn't been a national security argument made about the golf course yet. And it seems odd to think that there could be on the other hand, they make national security arguments about a lot of things. That is odd to make it about.

So at the moment, the connection between the two is continuing with a project even when a judge just told you not to possibly judge Ray is just trying to make sure that doesn't happen.

“That's why she said you have to tell me before you go ahead”

and get rid of more than 10 trees. And physically dumping the debris, possibly dangerous debris on the course. - It's a really crazy set of stories and we hear all this here. I will say on the ballroom front, I don't think it's actually

totally unreasonable to argue that the president could use a larger entertaining space that is within a security perimeter. Now, that doesn't mean you should be able to ignore the law that regulates how you build these things.

That's the weird part of this is that you're saying, well, there's an emergency situation by your own account. The president didn't have a space he could use previously. That's why they're building the East Wing. So he's not losing anything by doing this.

You did personally tear it down. No one thinks that this would have been reconstructed by this point. And there are other secure venues the administration can use. Maybe they're not as convenient as the East Wing.

Like again, there's good reason to have an enhanced ballroom space in the East Wing. But I don't think that really bears in on this argument. And there's that security nexus there. But to bring it up here like this is a revelatory moment

“or an urgency, that's just not really, I think,”

how construction argues are in this, particularly we were talking about highly discretionary events that could be held all over the place. And the correspondent's dinner itself, as we talked about the other week,

this isn't usually held at the White House. This is usually held at the private space. So it's not unusual for the circumstance that this year weren't unusual in that regard. So I want to come to you with one last thought on this,

that jumps out of me. I think part of the issue of these things. And like part of the pushback, the administration getting is both the scale and the incredibly idiosyncratic ways Trump is using this newfound authority, right?

of micro managing these things.

And that's most because no one ever thought any of President would ever give a shit about them, right? Like it's just hard to imagine that a president would be painting the color of the reflecting pool. And you know these things.

But I guess for a president who is a historical real estate, luxury real estate manager that drew me to his money that just jumps out of him. And he's a guy who likes to point around and do things. And in some ways that might not be bad,

if you had a president who was willing to spend the money on beautification and sustaining, right? Like plenty of national parks could use better hiking trails and clear markings and repairs and new picnic facilities.

“Like that would be great if that's what the president's focused on.”

But so much of it is so idiosyncratic. And that not only involves putting his name personally on these things. But weird things that were popping up all over the city

that are so contrary to how I think a lot of Washington

Tony is a lot of Americans like think about the aesthetic of these things. And it's crazy to think it matters. I really think it actually may be way in here. The clear statement to me is the White House.

The one area where no one really is arguing the president can stop for maybe destroying these swings. But also on the White House, we've seen the president pave over the Rose Garden, which is, you know, there's an argument there

that we need paved, you know, event space, but the Rose Garden was kind of a historic artifact that people liked. We just saw him install this presidential walk of fame. That is the most ludicrous over the top gilded thing

I've ever seen in my life. And hasn't giant scripted letter of top presidential walk of fame very weird to see on kind of like the,

“I think it's the West Wing Colony to kind of connect the West Wing”

to the main residence.

And now they've installed evidently black granite

on that walkway specifically to accent and compliment the gilded accoutrement that's been added as part of the walkway. And if you look at the West Wing right now, I'm particularly the Oval Office,

like it looks crazy. Like it looks like a hapsburg palace of weird gilt that's just been randomly glued to the wall. Like there's just random chunks of metal or things painted like my life out there actually metal

just like glued all over the place. And like crazy to think like this actually matters to some extent. Like if he were just trying to put up new wallpaper or restore things or just things

where it's just like a 10% aesthetic adjustment, I don't kind of don't think a lot of people would raise quite the stinkier. But it's because the president is doing things that are so dramatic and such a departure from where

like the median perhaps very unesthetic and unappealing but nonetheless like lowest common denominator views of what Washington instead it should be.

“Lies that I think it is it gets like frankly like”

federal judges who have gotten used to the way things are and know and tend to be like a long-term DC government locals like I think maybe a little more agitated. Am I crazy about that? I just feel like from the 60 year olds I know

who are Washingtonians like they care about this and that's like most federal judges at this point that how are gonna have to review these things? - Yeah, I mean it really is the perfect Trumpian issue.

It's the quintessential eight combines so many of his pastimes, obsessions. Obviously real estate, infrastructure development, putting his own name on things. This weird pasties should like a cheesecake factory,

Rococo with like neoclassical but doing none of them well and everything is lesser than the sum of its parts. These inherent contradictions of espousing a traditional aesthetic while just like running rough shot over any sense of tradition or preservation.

But I take your question is does have this simultaneous high stakes low stakes quality to it? I mean in short it matters because it matters to Trump and Trump has a way of just like manifesting or through sheer force of will making things

that he thinks are important. But there also are you know real stakes here. I mean the funding of the Ballroom Project has been fairly opaque. There have been a lot of letters from senators,

democratic senators to get more information on who these donors are and what the terms of the contracts were. There's been some change over in the architects themselves and the construction companies.

So there's this also this mix of you know possibilities of undo influence or corruption allegations. And then of course it combines I think not to mean under-counted pastime of Trump's which is holding grudges and having a long memory.

I mean this his fixation goes back to at least the Obama administration when he was famously snubbed by David Axelrod for his suggestion to fund a new space for our new White House Ballroom after I think there was a state dinner in which some people

they had to set up tents or something and he thought it was and you know this is just a obsession with artifice and the aesthetics over everything is just very Trump to me so you know for anyone who's thinking this will go away

in time soon there's just zero chance I think it's just there's no mystery why he's he's so fixated on this and why it's been elevated you know I guess I'll end with just this scene I keep coming back to which he was

executives a very important meeting and in the middle

just unprompted he drifts over to the window and gazes at the ballroom construction site and and and addresses you know it's like this is a opportune time but I just have to look at it it's it's just

“I think this is the thing that keeps him up at night not”

Iran not the Caribbean not immigration the ballroom well we we will have to find out with stories we with us particularly those of us who live in our nation's capital far good while to come but we are out of time for this week this will not be our absolute creative we did not

leave you with some object lessons to ponder over in the week

to come Roger what did you bring for us this week I've been reading a book that I I actually began before the Iran War or the Iran military operation it's an old book from the early 2000s called reading Lolita in in Iran by Azar Nefizi and it's a really brilliant book it's it's not an easy

book but she was teaching English at a universe at universities there when the revolution happened or shortly after the revolution and it was there for about 18 years I think under the Islamic Republic trying to teach nabakov and got great gets me and Jane Austen and William James it's a

really fascinating book and really gives you a feel for I guess one of the most oppressive regimes that it's ever existed I recommend it's but like I say it's not the easiest book but but I recommend it wonderful suggestion Mali what do you have for us this week physical object I have a globe of DC I was thinking about

Trump's remaking of the so it has you know here's here's Eastern market here's let's find the right here's the White House so we're gonna have to get a new I feel like this is throwing the fuel in the fire of the flat earthers who they can look at this and be like sea or DC people who think it's the center of the universe or yes exactly the flat cityers have

been there views have been debunked I do not think that this yet right I've been confirmed I guess this is I mean this is crazy I'm trying to think what converges in a bizarre place now okay here we go here's these Potomac park I think all over here anyway we'll have to get a new addition of it was my thought we'll have to get the art to Trump and the ballroom is going to take up a

huge part of this White House area over here but anyway good way to learn about this will be you can be memorialization of our city as it was prior to this era wonderful wonderful wonderful wonderful art of fact there for my object lesson I want to bring listeners attention to the fact that law fair lost a long time contributor and friend of the website this past weekend on

expect to let Stewart Baker Stewart was a former General Council of the National Security Agency a sort of the Department of Homeland Security sort of what you go and what roles in various Republican administrations he

“was I think Ben as described him as one of Ben's kind of earliest mentors in”

National Security Law and Policy helping Ben as a young journalist kind of figure out how certain things worked in the space he was somebody who's very involved in the website early on he's a partner at steptoe you ran the steptoe cyber pod law podcast for years and years up to 2024 when he kind of retired it when he step back and retired a bit there and he's a wonderful warm and

interesting person I don't think I've ever disagreed with anybody's more profoundly than Stewart including on the website I remember one occasion where he published something on law fair back when but we had a number of people who just posted directly onto the website when it was kind of more from what the blog era opposed something so profound that I saw as I was boarding a plane with

no Wi-Fi access I spent the flight writing of a bottle and then landed only to see that somebody else had already beat me to it I'd written the back exact same or bottle but you know to use also the example of the old tradition of some being able to disagree divisive firstly for someone but to really engage people who we made this group of substantively supportively warmheartedly Stewart my wife

worked for Stewart for several years and every time I go to an event a law firm they both worked at he was incredibly warm he sought me out said hello because he knew I knew bad he knew I worked for law fair he was somebody we engaged with

substantively even when we disagreed was always respectful probing and

“frankly I never felt as I think a lot of law fair contributors and law fair”

readers felt that even where I disagree with him my my thinking grew sharper from

provocateur I think a lot of things he wrote and said we're intended to do

that to provoke thinking sometimes in ways that were a little uncomfortable but I

“think we're ultimately productive so it was a it's a real loss I think for”

law fair I'm for the mass security legal community writ large we're in an era now where disagreement has lost we've lost a lot of civility around disagreement that used to be part of this field like so many fields and sort of was a last alliance of that tradition and it's sad to see him go particularly so unexpectedly but if you are our our unfamiliar with Stewart's writing that

ensured you to check it out on on law fair and particularly over the last few days we've put up a number of remembrances and memorials from folks at law fair

“including from Ben from Bobby Chesney from a number of others talking about”

Stewart and what he meant to them I encourage all to check it out because he was a very special guy and he will most definitely be missed with that Tyler not to force you to to keep an update like a lesson on a summer note but let me hit it over to bring us home what did you bring us for an object lesson this week well I'm on a podcast recommending another podcast this is the long

tradition exactly we love to go on podcasts talk about podcasts this one is called divine intervention I'm I've only actually three episodes in of 10

“I believe and I can I can already confidently and wholeheartedly recommend it”

it's not only because a friend of mine produced it but it's just an

incredible story set I won't give too much away but it's in it's a true story in

in Boston and I believe 1971 sort of radical pacifist Catholics helped give refuge to a an anti war activist and draft Dodger and this like unlikely band but don't take my word for it it just also want to pee body award so I don't know I'm I'm like I didn't really find I didn't dig deep but it is that good so I encourage everyone to listen to it wonderful wonderful

suggestions well folks that brings us to the end of this week's episode but rational security is of course a production of law fair so be sure to visit lawfirmity.org for our show page for links to best episodes for a written work and the written work of other law for competitors and for more information on law fairs other podcast series while you're at a be sure to

follow law fair on social media where you socialize your media be sure to leave a reading or a view wherever you might be listening and sign up to become a material supporter of law fair on patreon for an ad free version of this podcast among others special benefits for more information visit lawfirmity.org/support our audio engineer producer this week was no mous band of go rodeo any music

as always was performed by Sophia Yan when you're once again edited by the

wonderful Jen patcha on behalf my guest Tyler Malian Roger I am Scott our Andersen we'll talk to you next week until then goodbye