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

Acast powers the world's best podcasts. Here's the show that we recommend. A photographer in Texas earns an extra $47,000 a year shooting Star Wars cosplay portraits. A teacher in Maryland turns her woodworking hobby into a five-figure side income without leaving the classroom. And a couple in Pennsylvania will rent you backyard chickens for the season so you can try the egg-laying life without commitment. My name is Chris Gilliboveau. I'm the host of Side Hustle School. I share these kinds of stories every single day. In detail, with full transparency about the numbers, the point isn't just to inspire you, it's to show you

what's possible. Proof that ordinary people are quietly building extra income in surprising ways, including a few ideas you can borrow. Less than 10 minutes a day, every day, subscribe or follow Side Hustle School wherever you get your podcasts, or find us directly at sideltschool.com. Acast helps creators launch, grow, and monetize their podcast everywhere. Acast.com

Tyler, I owe you and the rest of the lawfare in New York contingent, a big mea-culp-up 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 then I followed through on absolutely none of them. I did get to meet KKKLonic first time in person and her baby, which is very nice. But other than that, I missed all the rest of the lawfare crew, despite my promises not to do so. Turns out, New York, big place. A lot of stuff going on. Hard to connect people and see everybody you're trying to see when you're only there for a day or two.

Well, I was about to get very mad at you, but then you brought up Kate's adorable baby, and it softened my hard heart. And so I forgive you. But I am sorry, Miss you Tyler. New York's a lovely town. I had this a unique experience, which I think you're a biker. I know you're a biker, but I think you're a bike around the city, right. I had to say I usually, when I go there, I bike everywhere because it is the easiest way to go around New York. E-bike or a regular bike? I just get, I do both. I switch because if you get the day pass, the regular bikes are free, but the e-bikes, so it depends on how far I have to go, basically, and how sweaty I'm willing to be when I get there. But the, uh, the real trade-off this 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 because the bike lanes just disappear and just immediately fade into like eight lanes of traffic that 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 through Manhattan, but it's usually I immediately like shift to the east side of the west side where the bike lanes are. And, you know, like biking in the middle is is a harrowing experience. And yeah, once you just bike in 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 a regular bike?

I usually, well, 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 a, yeah, it's not an ideal biking city, I would say. I was a moped messenger in Manhattan for six months. That was a very, it was a fun and a dangerous job. There were times when I was the only, there were about seven of us, eight of us. And there were times when I was the only one who, did not get in 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 D.C. 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. They got it. Yes. Yeah, I should hope, lady.

Like, oh, first time for everything. Hello everyone and welcome back to Rational Security, the show where we invite you to join members of the lawfare team as we try to make sense of the week's 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 to dissect some of the week's big news stories with a panel of my colleagues. Joining us once again on the podcast, a couple of podcasts mainstays. First up, we have Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrion. And 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 point.

We're officially an end stage, meaning it's large scale. It's a legitimate sampling size. We have Molly John Roberts, Senior Editor here at Lawfare. 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's got to be at least in a half dozen at this point. We are joined by Lawfare Senior Editor as well.

Roger, Pardoff, 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 the seas, touches on foreign affairs as well. We're going to be talking most about the domestic legal side of it. So let's dig into our stories for this week. Topic one, Jim Spell Seashel by the Seashore. Former FBI director James Comey was indicted again this past week, this time for allegedly threatening the life of President Trump by spelling 8647 in shells at the beach and posting an image on social media. It is a ludicrous argument. We can take that as a given as the premise from one of the segments.

So what does it tell us that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared willing to file it and pursue it, even where perhaps Attorney General Pambomty was not? And where does this mean Trump's broader vengeance campaign seem 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. I don't know if anybody else to get that reference, maybe they still do. I hope friends are 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 any congressionally unauthorized military operations, but like many of his predecessors, President Trump has done no such thing. Instead, his administration has argued that the 60-day cutoff 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 Strait of Hormuz, one that triggered hostile exchanges with Iranian forces. What do we make of the administration's arguments, and do they suggest that the War Powers

Resolution is a dead letter? In 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 quixotic effort to take over for a municipal golf course here in Washington, D.C.,

the same location where it 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,

let me 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 lawfare, in the broader zeitgeist, towards the end of last year. I can't remember exactly when it wound out. It kind of towards, 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 up the end of the statute of limitations or purported statute of limitations and was brought by Lindsey Lindsey Halligan, who in her capacity, purported capacity to acting U.S. attorney did not actually had the legal authority to bring the sorts of charges and have I to put it appointed properly to take the sorts of steps necessary. That was among other potential challenges we expected it to face, but 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 because 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 Comey went on a walk on the beach,

and as he tells it, saw some seashells spelling out 86, 47. Again, he says he saw them. 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 this same slogan, get rid of 47, the 47th president, Donald Trump. and he posted it to social media saying something along the lines of saw an interesting shell formation on my beach walk. 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? There were 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 from, 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. James Comey got rid of it, but an investigation did begin back then. He said sort of hope it goes away. And it looks like it did go away for a while until Pam Bondi was fired. Todd Blanche 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 had happened. It 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 86 even mean that

Trump is out there saying, if you watch the mob movies, it means kill. It's eight miles out and 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 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, you know, Trump was thinking about a little shop of horrors. So in any case. He does love musical theater. I don't think we can rule that out entirely. That's fair, but I feel like he's more of an Andrew Lloyd Weber guy, right? Like, I don't know that his tastes run in that direction. But I could be wrong.

I could be wrong. Maybe I'm not being fair to him. That was a dig from me at Andrew Lloyd Weber, to be clear. We don't know what those cats are saying half the time anyway. They could have easily worked something like this in there. It's totally possible. I think Trump is kind of the cat's president. but I digress.

That's a topic for another day. That's a topic for another day, Molly. I like this, though. In any case. And then it would get to, even if that did mean kill him, would this count as a true threat, 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 James Comey 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 86-47. 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 going to 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 James Comey is a, political enemy of the president. So I think that's the more or less the rundown. I'm sure there's more to be said about it. So, Roger, I want to come to you on one aspect. I want to get to the vindictive prosecution bit in a minute. That was kind of the issue set hanging over the last

James Comey indictment, hanging over with Letitia James indictment, a bunch of these other efforts by the Trump administration. It's still very much still alive and still there. But let's talk about this first amendment aspect of this. You know, there's one case really squarely on point. I believe our colleagues, Alan Rosenstein and Ben Wittes, actually wrote about this shortly after the 8-647 story broke regarding James Comey 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 was charges brought against an 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 LBJ, referring to the president at the time. And the court basically said, look, this is clearly just political hyperbole. There's no actual intonior. I think I believe 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 seashell situation is a less legitimate or actual threat than saying, as a service member, if I recall the case correctly, the first man I want to get my heights is LBJ.

I totally believe that soldier is being totally hyperbolic. it's hard to see how you can't reach the same any other conclusion in regards to what James Comey 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'm going to murder this or 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 eight six frame, which I will admit as a, you know, I guess not very online these days. I'm being completely honest, but like middle-aged dude, but who's 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 president. If I saw 8, 6, 4, 7, I would think that'd be a weird address that somebody's throwing out there. So, so Roger, like, do we have a sense about how this case they think is going to get over this First Amendment hurdle? And in particularly, like, how do we think they got an indictment on this? I mean, I suppose in the indictment process, these constitutional because one-sided, 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 admittedly 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 it raises, and then how they think it's going to proceed. Yeah, we don't know yet. I suspect that one of the first things his 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 v. 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, 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. And just to give you an idea, I mean, the facts of this case of Counterman, we'll 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 western singer that he didn't know.

And some were benign, but eventually 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. That's not very ambiguous. Yeah, definitely much more threatening than Cichelles or the service member

mouthing off about killing the president, if we're 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 8647 to be a true threat. And I think it's too much. There's another question because that language, that gloss, 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. have, you 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 pedigree. But I think all of that together does suggest a big, some 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 the 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, you know, I guess setting aside that there are some facts that we don't know yet, I'm curious, honestly, what everyone 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 in giving him a zealous defense. Obviously, this is a much, it just, I'm scratching my head at this. And then also, as a kind of a secondary question here, what can we make of 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, because I had formed a dim view of her, that, you know, 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 James Comey was indicted the first time and other things happened. But, It does look like I sort of owe her a half 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 Powell, 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, well, 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, And obviously, Todd Blanche is more militant in terms of just doing whatever this guy wants. Yeah, I'm not quite ready to say Pam Bondi, the American hero, but I do think that you have to give her the tinsious, tiniest 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 Blanche 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 they fail to get an indictment,

he can blame it on bad grand jurors when it goes wrong. And sort of same thing for Todd Blanche in 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 affinities are for winners and for absolute loyalty.

And I think he overall would prize the latter. So I agree with that, read. 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.

deterrent enough for people to exercise their First Amendment rights. Yeah, you know, another thing that you've seen the president honed back on in so much personal writing statements is also the kind of give as you get sort of philosophy, the eye for an eye. I fully buy that there's like some part of this in this rationale here. I mean, I think that the president genuinely thinks he was targeted. Now, look, the president did some illegal things and I think violated the law. Do you look at the Mar-a-Lago case? The obstruction case around Maralago was very strong.

I mean, I'm slightly annoyed, frankly, the Justice Department in the last administration, didn't just focus on that and got sucked into the, you know, maelstrom of all these other much more politically charged cases. There very clearly was obstruction that the president was directly involved in around the investigation in 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 retribution, B, maybe this is part of the system, right?

they come after me and I'm going to 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 sort of aspect. Now, like you can question saying even if you does sincerely believe that an eye for an eye is a little bit of a brutal philosophy, especially 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 duty, or most president's 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'm, I hesitate to call this defending him, but I want to contextualize some of his behaviors, right? Like, Pam Bondi had one advantage over Todd Blanche. She used the confirmed attorney general. And while, as evidenced by Pam Bondi, that doesn't mean you're destined to that job forever. It does give you a little bit of insulation to push back on the president or from other people because you can say, look, it's expensive and costly in political terms to get me confirmed. I have 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 Janine Piro of the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C., harmony Dylan of the Civil Rights Division, potentially, I think other people have mentioned like Mike Lee, Senator Mike Lee, as a possibility. Molly, talk to us about the dynamics around that. I mean, how does that, might that enter into the equation here? Is this an effort of Todd Blanche saying, I'm going to unleash the hounds because this is a tool I have to show by value to the president? And then, you know, maybe he doesn't have to stick by that philosophy the same degree when he's Attorney General. And the same way, maybe P.M. Pam Bondi didn't quite, at least not in this particular case.

Or, you know, 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, you know, 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 mean, 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 and 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 breaks 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 Pambandia 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, of, if this was an extended job interview, you know, he may be catching the attention of the CEO by doing these bold things, but everyone else, you know, 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, you know, 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, let me correct me if I'm wrong on this, they basically, he's got to like the end of October on the 210 days he's allowed to have. Then if he gets the nomination, then he can stay in the Attorney General rule. I forget 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. He just has to get the confirmation. But I think you're right. That does sort of put the pressure on that nomination process, because I do think some of these things will be controversial with certain members of Senate. We've seen Thom Tillis, who is going to be in the Senate through January.

Maybe on the Judiciary Committee? I have to go but check on that. I think he actually might be. I will check that. Oh, I'm talking right here. Oh, yes. No, he is. He is on the Judiciary Committee. So at least one person who's going to have a role in this process confirming the Attorney General, if it happens before January next year, who has already picked a fight over this and held up nominations over politically motivated investigation of the Federal Reserve. So, you know, 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 passes a little bit. And notably, like, if they wait, you know, past October or past November, I should say,

A, they may be dealing with a less favorable Senate. Obviously, I don't think it's far from clear Democrats are going to 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 because they're retiring, but you may have narrower margins than you had in this particular Senate. So, you know, you don't exactly what the odds of that. after that R. And, you know, I would say generally, you know, this has been my general philosophy

of this. I think Trump's power is waning from its peak, which was, you know, shortly after he came office, he came in office with this little bit of sense and 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 going to change as he enters the lame duck period of his presidency. So, you know, part of me does think if you're going to cater to this guy, if you're thinking of strategically, do it now, front load it, lock in the nomination. And if you feel like you need to set breaks at some particularly if you're worried about getting confirmed, you're serious 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 he won't do it. Doesn't mean it won't threaten it. We know that happened with Brett Kavanaugh, 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 think Molly's point about how Todd thinks of his role in relation to the president also is different. I mean, he is a Justice Department alum, but he's been, you know, his most recent informative years, So they've all been in private practice where a client has served him very well 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. Talk to us about the vindictive prosecution case. It seems like about as strong a case as you can have. Really high bar, right? It's not easy to show vindict of prosecution. But you've got every possible public statement about James Comey you could ask for, put forward by the president, media reporting around it. You have lots of media reporting about the decision-making process that fed into this.

This particular case, you see 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 for a vindictive prosecution, but there has to be at least a informal sense of it that a judge looking at this is going to say, God, this is what you choose to bring? How could this 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 context, like, you know, somebody being charged with a greater crime after having lost an appeal, you know, very different things. but like you said there was just this years of attacks and then the the ultimate thing was in September that Twitter post which September 20th was it but something like beginning Pam you know and we can't the gist of it was we can't take any more delay they're making fun of us Lindsay is is a great lawyer and she likes you you know and mentioning James Comey 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 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 Halic Lindsay's last name, 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 leaving. Why did it take 9, 10, you know, Kash Patel gets up there and Todd 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's 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 going to come up with a case that is anything like, you know,

the seashell case that was pursued. That's going to be a challenge. But I think the vindictive prong of it will be even more decisive. Well, we are going to no doubt have reason to 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 technically it was 62 days old on Friday and that day is particularly significant because 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 a hostilities or circumstances where imminent involvement in hostilities is suggested were implied. The Trump administration hasn't ended military operations. Iran, but notably it has reframed them. It has said it has ended Operation Epic Fury. We saw both Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth say this quite expressly, repeatedly in press statements over the last 48 or 72 hours. The president didn't say quite that in the letter he provided to 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, unrelated. We are still embargoing Iranian 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, a pretty significant maritime endeavor involving, I think the count I saw was over 100 U.S. vessels and 15,000 U.S. sailors to try and improve security around the Strait of removes to allow innocent vessels to transit. That, over the first 24 hours or 48 is it operated? Excuse me.

Evidently, there were at least more than 10 incidents in which Iranian forces opened fire on U.S. vessels, usually a small arm from kind of like speedboats they use around to harass traffic in a few cases from smaller scale. Cruise missiles and other armaments from the coastline. We also know there were a number of attacks that successfully landed on commercial vessels

and that the Iranians actually seized a number of commercial vessels that were attempting to transit the straight under the sort of protected dome as Secretary Pete Hegseth described it. despite all this, as of yesterday, the Joint Chief, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Dan Cain said, this really isn't a level of hostilities that rises to major combat operations. This is 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 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 Strait of Hermoos is still prevailing. It has prevailed, according to the administration, since April 7th. So all this leads to this conclusion saying, what does the 60-day cutoff matter, if at all, and what does it mean for this war moving forward in the form it takes and the arguments the president has about what he can do it?

Tyler, I want to come to you first on this sort of question. I mean, from an observer perspective, somebody who I think follows the news around this as closely as more close, closer than most Americans. It 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 shifted enough that it no longer is running a foul of Congress and these statutory restrictions? Certainly Congress, some people have 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, you know, 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 toward making an argument within the framework of the War Powers Resolution. But beyond that, you know, any way I turn it as an informed lay observer in many ways, it does not look good for, you know, a meaningful war powers resolution. I also am confused at the framing of even in their own logic of let's assume that the ceasefire or a ceasefire does pause the clock. What is happening doesn't look anymore like a ceasefire anyway.

So it's like this loss of meaning for both the war powers resolution and, terms of art like ceasefire or war, etc. 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 powers 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, whither war powers resolution, like, can it survive this latest affront? Yeah, it's totally a fair question. You know, I have a piece, as you and I know, but I know one at this point that I've been struggling to get across the finish line for the last few days. Hopefully we'll be up on lawfare, probably hopefully by the time people listen to this, that kind of wrestles with his question saying like, what does this mean for both the War Powers Resolution, the Iran conflict? I think where I come down on this is that I am like a vague

war powers resolution optimist. Like, I think it's actually hard to argue that most administrations haven't come plot, 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 is a phrase that I've used in a couple of prior pieces. I think I'm going to try and turn into, you know, fetch at this point. Let's see if I can take lay claim over to a description about this. Because even prior administrations, I've rejected this aspect of the word prior services unconstitutional, the Reagan administration, the George H.W. Bush administration, both not in this

direction. George, W. Bush administration maybe did too a little bit obliquely in its 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 seconds. 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 throw 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 of 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 since at least the 1980s, where they basically say, no, like we're engaged in hostilities at this one instance and 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

airstrikes against Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria over several years under the President's Article 2 authority. He eventually later shifted to a statutory argument. But under the President's Article 2 authority, because each time you'd file a new report saying it's a new 60-day clock, I'm responding 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 see in time back to, is this idea the United States is invoked in prior sort of maritime operations, particularly during the tanker wars in the 1980s and during the counter-houti 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 the international law allows them to do, and then are attacked, and we respond with self-defense, we're not introducing those forces into host. They're just doing what we're allowed to do in our national law, where should be allowed that scope, and then they're coming under attack.

And the trigger for the 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. That's not quite the language. Now, I think that's really different because, like, yes, you're right. You think international law says you should be doing this, but the Iranians clearly are threatening hostilities if you transit the straight, right? Like, international law doesn't get around the fact that you, it is clearly a 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 muster, particularly in this case, although in other cases that may be a little more borderline, maybe you see an argument. Nonetheless, you have those sorts of precedents there. But the one thing we haven't seen an administration do

is the one thing that we know the war powers resolution was most squarely addressed 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 over the last 15, in 20 years because American air power is what the Americans focus on.

So maybe that means war power resolution just matters less. But the fundamental line that is hardest for the executive branch to 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 administration, 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've mostly wrapped up their major ground operations, particularly within 60 days, to try and meet the target and avoid those legal issues. So long story short,

like, I'm not sure it means that WordPress resolution is a dead letter. But, you know, it definitely doesn't mean it's the hard line that people might have wanted it to be and that many still want it to be. Hey, folks, Scott R. Anderson here. It is officially hot here in Washington, D.C. the kind of hot where biking to work means arriving already regretting your life choices. Or the only sane afternoon plans involve shade, something cold to drink, and anything other than jeans. Luckily, Quince has you covered for the season. I mean that quite literally, because half the trick to surviving a D.C. summer is having the right, lightweight stuff in rotation in your wardrobe.

Personally, I have been living in their organic, cotton, cool, Max Geno shorts this month. Breatheable, comfortable, and somehow still presentable. When I'm actually biking and running around, their ultimate commuter shorts have become my go-to. They move with you and don't fall apart after a few washes. And their ProPeak Performance Pellow has quietly become my favorite warm weather shirt. Look sharp, but breathes enough that I'm not melting into my chair. And when the weekend rolls around its pool time with the kids, I'll admit I've gotten a lot of mileage out of their Italian swim trunks, genuinely nicer fabric and fit than I expected for swimwear.

So good, in fact, that I just bought another pair. The best part, Quince works directly with ethical factories, cutting out the middleman markup so you get real quality without the premium price tag. So beat the heat this summer with Quince. Go to quince.com slash security for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com slash security. Free shipping and 365-day returns.

Quince.com slash security. Now let's get back to the show. While every other channel is fighting for your customer's attention, podcasts are where they've already given it. No one accidentally listens to a podcast for 45 minutes. They choose to be here. They trust the voice in their ears, and when that voice talks about your brand, it doesn't sound like advertising. It sounds like a recommendation from a friend. ACAST gives you that trust at scale, digital precision, post-read authenticity, and performance data that proves it worked.

Don't fight for attention. Buy it with ACAST. Learn more by visitingacast.com slash advertise. Molly, Roger, what about you? I'm curious about your thoughts about this. I mean, is there any persuafeness to the idea that you've got this sort of, you know, legal pressure coming in? And particularly how does it intersect with the other dynamics around the conflict? I mean, we're out of stage now where the Trump administration has been dealing with this war that's proven 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 pushed back on efforts by Senator Lisa Murkowski to introduce a resolution authorizing this conflict while also putting some limits on it. She's like kind of middle of 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, you know, how does this intersect this kind of deadline? intersect with this broader set of dynamics. Are we seeing pushback 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 Lisa Murkowski wants to do or not, they have to decide, am I 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 a huge political liability too? So I think that they're reluctant to assert themselves. And, you know, Congress isn't great at asserting itself generally these days. So I think that 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 Strait of Hormuz without some ironclad 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 I think that everyone is in sort of a sticky position here. As far as the War Powers Act and the nitty-degree, 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 actually really is notable. I'm really glad you flagged it, Roger, because that's actually something that I'm now going to steal and put it into my piece. Because it's a good point.

It is actually kind of dramatic. I mean, the votes we've seen around the resolutions on this are almost entirely party line. There is one senator from each side that has flipped John Fetterman has voted against the resolutions. These are to terminate U.S. involvement in hostility or withdrawal. I'm sorry, U.S. forces from involvement in hostilities. and then Senator Rand Paul has voted for all the resolutions. On the House side, the first resolution had, I think, five Democrats voting against it. I believe that was down 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 this war. Again, the reason you keep seeing these votes is because Democrats keep bringing the matter up, and they're using expedited procedures 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 counterpressure comes from.

So, Roger, I'm going to ask you another aspect of that, just because you're the other lawyer on the line of the, Molly and Tyler, you might have views on the side. I'd welcome it. But we're getting a wonky here. This is this question about, could you see a lawsuit over this? Because it's something I've really been wrestling with the last few weeks, right? The only people have routinely sued to try and enforce particularly this aspect of the War Powers of the Constitution, like most aspects, are members.

of Congress. And it's pretty clear that members of Congress alone don't have standing to do this according to the Supreme Court. There's a Reins v. Bird, 1997 Supreme Court decision that says basically legislators can't do that. Maybe if you've 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 an 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 we'll be after January, but it's not right now. But who else could pursue lawsuits like this? Like the one category of me that clearly could, or at least should have a very strong case, as service members. Could we saw lawsuits about this by service members who were facing deployment during the Vietnam or a dozen of them at least? There's been a handful of cases where this has happened subsequently, and generally service members either have been found to have standing or courts haven't been reluctant to say

they don't have standing, and they usually dismiss it on some other justiciability grounds. But who else could have standing 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 particularly the states have become, particularly those governed by the party contrary to whoever's in 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 state's coming in.

The one that jumped out to me as a possibility is we had this Biden v. 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 would have taken 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 causation's a little more attenuated there, and that may break it, but it strikes me at least that maybe there's a colorable 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 or 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 justiciability to begin with, but this just seems like the state,

don't have any role in armed conflicts abroad. The domestic program you talked about is complete, would be very different. 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 almost 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

is to see whether there might be a hook there or not. If nothing else, I think there might be a colorable 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 knowing they're going to 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. The same idea. And maybe there are other arguments, other interests they have that might be more directly affected by this.

But for the time being, we are going to have to leave the war powers resolution behind us, as we have a new. 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, Washington, D.C. 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 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Center, cutting down some valued willow 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 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Center, kind of beloved public institution here in D.C.

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 as part of presumably his focus on legacy. He 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 2, whatever that guy was in the painting, very serious kind of warlord sort of look on his face. That is 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, ballroom front, and also actually the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Center front, a few of these other ones. So, Roger, let me turn to you because I know you listened to one of these hearings a little bit, I think specifically about the golf course recently. Talk to us some of the challenges 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, well, it had three different courses. And it was distinctive in that it was sort of in 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, a 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 aren't 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 things. And 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 co-ate. 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 East Wing. One day you wake up and it's gone. And until it's gone, there was no final agency action. And so this puts judges in a difficult spot. And this isn't actually, you know, this goes back 40 years. You know, Trump put Trump Tower where there was a beloved Art Deco building called Bonwit Teller. And it had these, apparently, I never saw it, bar relief sculptures, I think, at the top. And so he was reassuring, don't worry, don't worry, I'm going to, we're going to preserve theirs,

we're going to donate 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 fade accompli. And so everyone's worried. And so on March, there is a suit about this golf course. the East Potomac Park area, which includes Haynes Point, which is a beloved sort of place.

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, I think 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 a. 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 an emergency, you know, 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 that 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 their signs and they said no it's just we're inventorying a sort of deferred maintenance you know, like dangerous dead trees that could fall on somebody. We're not making room for the course yet.

Anyway, she ended up, she didn't want to, she said, she didn't want to issue a TRO. She said, I'm not, I don't want to be Amy Poehler referring to the star of parks and recreations. You know, I'm not going to micromanage this park. But if you're planning to do something more than cut down 10 trees, tell the other side and give them an operational. 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, so the soil dumping, which I can leave to Molly and some other stuff to clean up behind me. So yeah, Molly, talk to us about the intersection with this and 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, you know, talk about the intersection because that's the context we're hearing this national security argument where the Trump is now saying, okay, let's move this ballroom. We talked about this a little bit. I can't remember last week or two weeks ago here on the podcast. So bring that element into the story here a little bit.

Yeah. Okay. So where to begin? I guess we can start with the debris. So the debris is just a A bunch of soil that 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 all the staff were sort of there really late having kind of a farewell party to the course.

And then of course it 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 asbestos in it weirdly is still unanswered. There wasn't an asbestos 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 asbestos. 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 asbestos. And impossible asbestos in the air as everybody is going and golfing on the white course. But anyway, golfers are quite miffed because if you hit your ball into the big debris pile, you can't go get it. That's just a lost stroke. But that is the connection between the debris in the ballroom specifically or practically,

but then there's also kind of the more thematic connection of the asking forgiveness later instead of permission first, which is something that Judge Reyes mentioned. And this hearing that she was dragged to from abroad 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 correspondence dinner with the attempted shooting of the president or his cabinet members also present at the event, after which both President Trump himself and many administration allies said, this is. 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 Richard Leon,

should issue an indicative ruling that he would dissolve his injunction because this 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 briefing. It is the thing that more worth filing than reading than anything I've read recently because it is just so astoundingly, astoundingly reads like a five page, I forget how long exactly it was, like Trump tweet. It's really unreal.

Yeah, I mean, you know. It's astounding. Rogers developed a metric for reading Judge Leon's opinions, which is the exclamation point density. measurement. Judge Leone 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 have 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 whole, H-O-L-H-O-L-E, W-H-O-L-E, you should let me, you should let me, 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 issued an opinion saying, that's a brazen interpretation indeed, exclamation point. So everyone was making hay over that. And then the administration comes in and files this briefing that references Barack Hussein Obama, Trump derangement syndrome in all caps, standing in all caps, instead of just standing in lowercase 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 ellips 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 it's odd to make it about. So at the moment, the connection between the two is continuing with the product. even when a judge has told you not to, possibly. Judge Reyes is 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 law. 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, right? That's the weird part of this, is that you're saying, well, this is 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. and maybe they're not as convenient as the East Wing. Like, again, there's good, maybe there's good reason to have, like,

an enhanced ballroom space in the East Wing. But, you know, I don't think that really bears in on this argument. And there's National 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're talking about, like, 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 a private space. So it's not unusual for that. the circumstance this year weren't unusual in that regard. Tyler, 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?

Like, it turns out the president has a lot of control over micromanaging these things, and that's mostly because no one ever thought any president would ever give a shit about them, right? It's just hard to imagine that a president would be painting the color of the reflecting pool and doing all these things. But I guess for a president who is a historical real estate, luxury real estate manager, that's right, made his money that just jumps out at him. And he's a guy who likes to like point around and do things. And in some ways, that might not be bad if you had a president who was like 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, right?

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 Washingtonians, a lot of Americans, like, think about the aesthetic of these things. And it's crazy to think it matters, but I really think it actually may be weighing in here.

The clearest example to me is the White House, the one area where no one really is arguing the president because it's not, except for maybe destroying the East Wing. But also in 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 historical 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 has a giant, like, script letter off top presidential walk of fame. Very weird to see on kind of like the, I think it's the West Wing colonnade.

It kind of connects the West Wing to the main residence. And now they've installed evidently black granite on that walkway, specifically to accent and complement the gilded accoutrement that's been added as part of this 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 Habsburg Palace of weird guilt that's just been randomly glued to the wall. Like there's just random chunks of metal or things painted like metal. I doubt they're actually metal, just like glued all over the place.

am I 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 adjust things where it's just like a 10% aesthetic adjustment, I 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 unethethetic and unappealing, but nonetheless lowest common denominator views of what Washington aesthetic 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 long-term D.C. 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 are going to have to review these things. Yeah, I mean, it really is the perfect Trumpian issue. It's the quintessential. It combines so many of his pastimes, obsessions, obviously real estate, infrastructure, development, putting his own name on things, this weird pastiche of 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 roughshout over like any sense of tradition or. preservation. But I take your question is it does have this simultaneous high stakes, low stakes quality to it. I think, 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, 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 changeover in the architects themselves and the construction companies. So there's also this mix of possibilities of undue influence or corruption allegations. And then, of course, it combines, I think, not to mean an undercounted pastime of Trumps, which is holding grudges, having a long memory. I mean, his fixation goes back

to at least the Obama administration when he was famously snubbed by David Daxlerod 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, just this obsession with artifice and the aesthetics over everything is, it's just very trumping to me. So, you know, for anyone who's thinking this will go away anytime soon, there's just zero chance, I think. It's just, there's no mystery why he's so fixated on this and why it's been elevated. I guess I'll end with just this scene I keep coming back to, which he was in the middle. I think of a meeting with Exxon and Chevron 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 it addresses, you know, it's like, this is an opportune time, but I just have to look at it. I think this is the thing that keeps them up at night, not Iran, not the Caribbean, not immigration, the ballroom. Well, we will have to find out because we have stories will be with us, particularly those of us who live in our nation's capital for a good while to come. But we are out of time for this week. This would not be rationalized to create if 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 actually began before the Iran War or the Iran military operation. It's an old book from the early 2000s called Reading Lolita in Iran by Azar Nafizi. And it's a really brilliant book. It's not an easy book.

but she was teaching English at universities there when the revolution or shortly after the revolution. And it was there for about 18 years, I think, under the Islamic Republic, trying to teach Nabokov and Great Gatsby 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's ever existed. I recommend it. But like I say, it's not the easiest book, but I recommend it. Wonderful suggestion.

Molly, what do you have for us this week? Okay. A physical object, as always. Keeping the speak alive. But this one lives on my desk. So it's easy. It's easy. I have a globe of D.C.

I was thinking about Trump's remaking of D.C. Oh, cool. So it has, you know, here's, here's Eastern Market. Here's, let's find the. All right, here's the White House. So we're going to have to get a new addition. I feel like this is throwing the fuel on the fire of the flat earthers who they can look at this and be like, see? Or do you see people who think it's the center of the universe?

Yes, exactly. the flat cityers have been their views have been debunked i do not think that this yeah right have 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 east 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 arctic 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 a good memorialization of our city as it was prior to this era. Wonderful, a wonderful, a wonderful artifact there.

For my object lesson, I want to bring listeners attention to the fact that lawfare lost a longtime contributor and friend of the website this past weekend unexpectedly. That's Stuart Baker. Stewart was a former General Counsel of the National Security Agency, a served of the Department Homeland Security, a sort of a bunch of government roles in various Republicans. 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 this space. He was somebody who's very involved in the website

early on. He's a partner at Stepto. You ran the Stepto Cyber Law podcast for years and years, up to 2024 when he kind of retired it when he stepped back and retired a bit there. And he's a wonderful a warm and interesting person. I don't think I've ever disagreed with anybody more profoundly than Stewart, including on the website. I remember one occasion where we published something on lawfare back when we had a number of people who just posted directly onto the website when it was kind of more from its blog era. It posted something so profound that I saw as I was boarding a plane with no Wi-Fi access that I spent the flight writing a rebuttal and then landed only to see that somebody else had already beat me to it. I'd written the exact same rebuttal. But, you know,

Steve, it's also the example of the old tradition of somebody being able to disagree to viscerously for someone, but to really engage people who you may disagree with substantively, supportively, warm-heartedly, Stuart, my wife worked with Stewart for several years, and every time I go to an event at the law firm, they both worked out, he was incredibly warm, he sought me out, said hello because he knew I knew I knew bed, and he knew I worked for lawfare. He was somebody who engaged with substantively, even where we disagreed, was always respectful probing. And frankly, I never felt, as I think a lot of lawfare contributors,

and law fair readers felt that even where I disagree with him, my thinking grew sharper from having engaged with him on it, often in a pointed fashion. And he was a provocateur. I think a lot of things he wrote and he said were intended to do that to provoke thinking sometimes in ways that were a little uncomfortable, but I think we're ultimately productive. So it's a real loss, I think, for lawfare and for the national security and 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 Stuart was one of the last lions of that tradition, and it's sad to see him go,

particularly so unexpectedly. But if you are or aren't familiar with Stewart's writing, I encourage you to check it out on a lawfare, and particularly of the last few days, we've put up a number of remembrances and memorials from folks at lawfare, including from Ben, from Bobby Chesney, from a number of others, talking about Stewart and what he meant to them. I encourage you 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 complain an object, like a lesson on a somber note,

but let me hand over you to bring us home. What did you bring us for an object lesson this week? Well, I'm on a podcast recommending another podcast. It's a long tradition. Exactly. We love to go on podcasts to talk about podcasts. This one is called Divine Intervention. I've only actually three episodes in of 10, I believe, and I can already confidently and wholeheartedly recommend it.

It's, and 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 a true story in Boston, and I believe 1971. Sort of radical pacifist Catholics helped give refuge to an anti-war activist and draft Dodger and in this unlikely band. But don't take my word for it. It just also won a Peabody Award. So I don't know if I'm like, I didn't really find, I didn't really find. dig deep, but it is that good. And 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 Lawfare. So be sure to visit lawfirmedia.org for our show page, for links to past episodes for our written work and the written work of other lawfare contributors and for more information on Lawfare's other podcast series. While you're out, be sure to follow Lawfare on social media, where you socialize your media. Be sure to leave a reading or review wherever you might be listening and sign up to become a material supporter of Lawfare on Patreon for an ad-free version of this podcast among other special benefits. For more information, visit lawfirmedia.org slash support.

Our audio engineer and producer this week was Kristi Noem Osband of Go-Rodyearty. Music, as always, was performed by Sophia Yan, where you're once again edited by the wonderful Jen Patcha. On behalf of my guest, Tyler, Molly, and Roger, I am Scott R. Anderson. We will talk to you next week. Until then, goodbye.

A-CAS powers the world's best podcasts. Here's the show that we recommend. I'm Monica Rhineagle, nutritionist, author, and host of the Nutrition Diva podcast. We dig into the questions that you're actually asking, if it's okay to drink coffee on an empty stomach, whether it's possible to retrain your sweeptooth, which ultra-processed foods you might actually want to include in your diet. We take a closer look at diet trends, fact check, sketchy claims, and track down the science so that you can feel more confident about what's on your plate. New episodes are released every Wednesday. Find Nutrition Diva on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you're listening, and be sure to follow or subscribe so you don't miss a single episode.

everywhere. Aks.com.