17 Burst results for "Jack Goldsmith"
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Law fair was political or at least it was being cited in political discussions not purely national security discussions my honest view as i hated it. I didn't like the. I don't think the site became in any again. Any kind of editorially lead way more political but our riders. Engaged the most salient political issues of the day. Because they all gathered around the trump administration the mueller investigation. The terrorism issues. Excuse me counterintelligence issues and the like and we tried very hard to maintain a commitment to balance and the other side. We did to some degree. I think we actually did. Despite our basic orientation is being critical of the trump administration. I wrote quite a few pieces that in various ways defendants and things the trump administration's doing in was pretty roundly criticized. But i thought it was important that the site and bended to that the site still reflect perspectives. Josh blackman wrote some great pieces on the site defending elements of what the trump administration was doing. The truth is it was hard to find bounce commentary during the trump years and we were perceived as having kind of anti-trump bias probably And i and we were perceived as being more political for a whole bunch of reasons. And i certainly didn't like that but i also couldn't find fault in anything we were doing because we were basically doing what we always did. Allowing our writers to engage on the issues they wanted with integrity and excellence and So that's what we did and that's the way it appears. It always seemed to me. And i think i ended up using words similar to these at one point to defending that very point that accusing l'affaire of being political during that period by writing objective analysis of these rule of law and related issues is like saying that an umpire in baseball is being biased. If they don't call pitches outside the strike zone if they don't call him that way That there must be a certain number of strikes but if the pitcher is consistently delivering pitches outside the strike zone the umpire who is objectively analyzing. The pitches is is not biased politically against the pitcher by by calling them as balls instead of strikes and i think that analogy is hard in a highly politicized highly partisan environment but the the analysis stands to this day. You can look back at the analysis over the lifetime of the blog and see that it comes from that insightful perspective. We want to illuminate an issue here. Rather than to advocate for political point of view and yet there was a greater diversity. Here we've talked about the diversity of topics moving beyond core nine eleven topics we've talked about the diversity of perspectives being brought in with new contributors But then can you talk about the other aspect of diversity. Which is that off. Air started out with three white men from a very similar background. But by the point we're talking about by the trump administration. You had not only significant numbers of women helping to run the site but you had a very diverse set of contributors. Well beyond what you would have envisioned back in twenty ten. Yeah so i just want one note on philosophical diversity. I think on the post nine eleven issues that the site was originally constructed around. There is no more diverse place in american letters than l'affaire and you know we had a range of from quite conservative to quite liberal writers. We had people from Who had really tangled with one. Another and government We had a. I thought we and we designed it that way. You know that it was We wanted people who were excellent from very different points of view. And who would be civilized with one another. And you know i you. We used to congratulate ourselves that that we have really accomplished that. And the irony is that turned out to be a very bad predictor of diversity in the trump era and so you know some of our Conservative writers were among the most ferocious anti-trump writers on the site on and some of our liberal writers. Were you know a little bit less. I a little bit less. So and so. The the the irony is that philosophical diversity in one era or in one period around a particular set of questions like post nine eleven counterterrorism ends up being a very bad predictor philosophical diversity on other issues where there was a lot of agreement as well as some disagreement among law for riders on other diversity. Yes so when we started the site. We were sometimes accused by prominent people of being an old boys club. And i have to say. I found that very offensive I thought of law fair as you know. L'affaire was a a personal blog that represented three people who had all written together a lot and had a close philosophical core that as well as being close personal friends. And i don't think of my personal writing or let alone. I don't presume to think about how how to define jacker. Bobby's personal writing. But i never thought of that as something that required diversity and i feel completely different about it as the site started to grow. And you know once you make a decision. Hey wait a minute. We're capturing a lot of eyeballs here in a lot of minds that are reading this and we wanna grow it. Then you have to think about how to represent the diversity of the field in a way that you don't and frankly shouldn't have to win. It's you and a couple of buddies doing some writing together. I'm and we made a commitment very early on to developing a cadre of young writers and We did that through a number of means both getting student contributors to write for the site and also through hiring as we began to to actually grow the institutional infrastructure of the site and in that we were very attentive to Particularly gender diversity. We wanted to cultivate a group of female writers in in in the space. And i think we've been. I hope we've been very successful in that. We've been obviously been less successful candidly with our racial diversity. But i do think we have been effective at really creating creating channels in which young female writers in the in the field. I can break in.
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"A special episode of the law. Fair podcasts september thirteenth jack goldsmith and ben widows on welfare and september eleventh. Let me start with you at you. Were present at the creation so tell us about that creation. How do you remember the genesis of law in terms of your interactions with ben in bobby and what you decided to do. As i recall it grew out of at least in part out of a email list. Serve that bobby. Had where he was basically collecting in circulating to a group of lawyers and others basically just every case. That was every war on terrorism case. This was this was two thousand and ten or two thousand. Eleven and bobby's list-serve grew in grew. He would offer analysis for this and keep track of all the cases in and he discovered at some point that there were a lot of justice department lawyers on this and then he discovered some other point that he was actually providing service to the government by collecting and organizing and commenting on these cases at the same time. As i recall ben. And i maybe with bobby at this point had discussed starting a blog. Is i recall. Ben was more enthusiastic. For than i was i was afraid of you. Know getting in the internet fray and having to write a lot and worried about. How much of a distraction would be. Were you at harvard. At the time i was at harvard. Harvard had left the government and come to harvard. I've been there about five or six or seven years. And then as i recall it was at the ninth circuit judicial conference in september of I think it was two thousand ten or two thousand eleven. Whatever the year was at the site started and justice kennedy gave a speech in which he said in passing that his law clerks learn as much from blogs do from briefs. And i went into the next room and i call ben and i said i think we should do this and then i believe in ben. Correct me on all of this. I believe that we started the blog the next week. We just talked and threw it up and didn't think about it much ben. What did i get wrong on. Not much So a little bit of additional background. Jack and i had written a bunch of stuff together And bobby and i had written a bunch of stuff together. And jack and bobby had written a bunch of stuff together and so there was this all of us had worked with all of us On a set of post nine eleven issues that were and we can talk about the sort of issues that the site was initially oriented around but there was a kind of a center of gravity of the three of us We all co-authored stuff with each other. And then i think the the the critical piece of background is that there were these sites Particularly the bullock conspiracy and the Balkanisation site that marty liederman was then writing for that. Were just these kinds of daily demonstrations that you could do also scotus blog that you could do a kind of scholarship at the speed of journalism or a kind of hybrid. Scholarship journalism commentary. And i think we thought and we were all cotton playing with this in different ways. Bobby's list-serve was an example of that and and Bobby and i had also been using sort of writing. regularly updated kind of treatise on detention law that we would update every time. There was a new dc circuit opinion And so we were all kind of playing with this form and We're very aware that there was I i think opportunities that were being that we were missing by not having a daily outlet for something that was you know not an op-ed but also not a law review article and So yeah. I started working on jack to do this. I wanna say probably six eight months before that night circuit judicial conference and then he called me from the room adjacent to where justice kennedy had given the speech and said okay. I'm in there to rules. And i said what are the two rules. And he said you're never allowed to pressure a post and we will never accept comments and those two rules have been. I think with minor Occasional deviations is important guide posts of the site. Ever since that. Were you know we're interested in not in content for content's sake but in the stuff that people you know. Most are actively moved to right and You know with all due respect to our wonderful alaska's readership one of the president's one of the premises of the site is that it's a voice of authority on which voices are not created equal. So i think. I think you're right there. We have not created a comments section that we are responsible for moderating. But i will apologize jack for the times in which i have been involved in pressuring him to contribute in one way or another in violating the first always rules. But i always felt free to say no in ryan and bobby is not here of chesney is not here to tell his version of the truth of the origin story. But i think it is worth pointing out for something. We skipped over for listeners. That bobby chesney longtime professor at the university of texas law school pairing with then longtime legal journalist and analyst of national security affairs and jack and and i want to build on this little mini introduction. Jack having come from government service in the office of general counsel at the pentagon in the office of legal counsel at doj you. It sounds like you were a bit surprised. When you heard the justice say that he got input from blogs and his clerks would get input from blogs it implies that at least at the time you were in government you were not getting such input for some of the legal decisions that you had to weigh in on is that right. That's correct. I don't i was in the government in from two thousand and two to two thousand four. I don't i just remember if blogs are than they surely were to some degree. I can't remember if balkanisation had started by then or the conspiracy. But i certainly wasn't reading them if they were and i was. I was aware by the time. Justice kennedy said that i mean the volokh conspiracy and balkanisation were. There were hot places. There was great analysis going on there. They were covering the issues of the day. I wasn't shocked when he said it. But it it kind of underscored the importance of this medium to communicate to the public and so it helped me to get over my fear of of going into space ben When when l'affaire did finally begin based on that.
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on KQED Radio
"As the pattern of rain turns more active for the first week of 2021. Welcome to forum Michael Krasny from calling his election loss of fraud to bullying oppress the four years of the trump presidency of broken the mold of political and historical norms. According to law professors Jack Goldsmith and Bob Bauer, it's time for the country to reform the presidency to prevent future presidential abuses and ethical misconduct. And they lay out a plan to do just that in their new book after Trump restructuring the presidency, Bauer, a Democrat who served his White House counsel to President Obama, and Goldsmith, Republican who served as assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration. Offer a plan that they believe should enjoy bipartisan support. They join us now to talk about what can be done to restore the checks and balances that govern the presidency and let me welcome both Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith to the program. Good to have you with us. Thanks for having us Thank you very much. Yeah, and let me congratulate you, by the way to begin with this book is nothing short of a legal tome, and it's a very detailed one in a thorough one and I know you want to spark an informed debate about whether and how reform of the presidency should proceed. And you do just that in the book and Is a lot to cover. The book covers ethics that covers war powers. Pardon powers, treatment of the press vacancies and I'm not going to go on here. I'm gonna begin. Actually, if I may with you, Professor Goldsmith, and both our guests are law professors Jack Goldsmith at Harvard and Bob Bauer. And then why you I'd like to begin. But since you were a Republican who are part of the Republican administration, the Trump Administration. Has set off a lot of the warning bells that you really write about in this book, and concerns like to begin by talking about what you see is really the most urgent necessity as far as a guard rail that we've learned from the Trump presidency. Thank you. It's hard to know where to begin. There's so many, and they're two factors to consider what is the most urgent and what is achievable. Um And I think that if we were of maximizing this two vectors the most urgent thing to do. Is to address the scores of problems that arose in the relationship between the White House and the Justice Department. We have five chapters in the book on this, and there's a lot to say about it. But in general Trump violated the norms of Justice Department independence, just in an incomprehensible way norms and it worked pretty well for 50 years since Watergate. This confidence and Justice Department decision making was destroyed there all sorts of problems that there and I think that's the most urgent place where form needs to be addressed, and we will certainly talk about that. There's so much to talk about in your book, The book breathtaking changes, as you say in the book have occurred. Under the Trump Administration seeking of fire, the special counsel, which goes right to the Justice Department and making money from business and really attacking the press, and all that sort of thing, But Bob Bauer Me go to you on this all these holes in the system. I mean, they're loopholes and they're suggesting very strongly the need for guard rails as I've indicated. How did we notice this before Trump? We've seen something similar by no means the same. But you know something similar during the next administration when the certainly the guard rails that existed were smashed through fairly dramatically with the result. By the way, I might add that a number of lawyers going to Jack's point a number of war is the White House counsel. The attorney general who might have been expected to uphold the rules along that administration actually went to jail. And were involved in one way or the other in the Watergate scandal. And I think over time, some of these gorgeous guardrails have been worn of the Watergate examples. Most dramatic one. But I think in other respects over time, as presidents have sought to expand their authority and have done so for a variety of reasons, complicated reasons that we can discuss some of these restraints. Have loosened and the obvious gaps where laws and norms really needed to control have become more apparent and in our book and each chapter, we try to give an historical background that explains how it developed to the point where Donald Trump could behave in such a way that he really brought All of those gaps and weaknesses very much to attention. And I think, therefore, in his way has become the reason why a reform program is relatively urgent. Well, you mentioned Nixon and Watergate and not only Nixon, Watergate, but reforms that occurred after Vietnam and record reforms with the church committee. You say those were really all inadequate? I mean, what Trump has made us realize is not only the inadequacy but really the necessity for far more serious reforms and restructuring. Yes. I mean, I think some of those reforms did have bite some of the post Watergate reform activity. Jack and I believe were effective. Some were effective for a time and then over time, it became clear that whatever protect effectiveness they had had begin toe wear thin. Or perhaps some of the reforms were more sort of cosmetic than effective. But there were some meaningful reforms after Watergate, but we're in a different position now where we have to re evaluate what's necessary. To plug these holes and really have the presidency be a constitutionally accountable office. Powerful, strong but still constitutionally accountable. Well, it's impressive how both of you work in a bipartisan way, and I think it's safe to say the only major disagreement comes to The question of what should be done in the way of prosecution or pardoning after Trump leaves office, and maybe we can take that up. I think it's safe to say just to kind of crystallizes for listeners. Cause I know the one away in on this that Professor Bauer thinks that one should have the rule of law Primary and Professor Goldsmith seems to feel that there's a slippery slope here in a danger in presidents. Let me also go more of historical background because you bring up Hamilton in federalist, 70 and accountability and checks on him abuses of executive power, and you also bring us up to a more contemporary figure. Arthur Schlesinger and all those Constitutional presidency notions that he had about a strong presidency that you have a system of accountability and you can have a check.
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on KQED Radio
"Me reintroduce you here. If you're just joining us my guest Jack Goldsmith, co author of the new book After Trump reconstructing the presidency, We'll be right back. This is fresh air. This is fresh air. Let's get back to the interview I recorded this morning with Jack Goldsmith, co author of the new book After Trump reconstructing the presidency about what reforms need to be put in place to hold future presidents accountable and prevent them from violating norms in the way that President Trump has. Goldsmith is a Harvard law professor, and he headed the office of Legal Counsel under George W. Bush. His co author, Bob Bauer, was White House counsel under President Obama and is now a senior advisor to the Biden campaign, So the book is actually very bipartisan. There are so many other examples we can talk about about how President Trump has violated norms of the presidency. I want to ask you a little bit about yourself. You decided to leave the Republican Party. After that was right after Trump won the nomination, and you became an independent. You didn't become a Democrat, you became an independent. Many Republicans left the party. The Lincoln Project, which Advocated for Joe Biden during the election. There. They're all Republicans who left the party because of Trump. I'm wondering, what do you think is left of the Republican Party. Now the party that you knew when you were part of it. Well, The reason I left the Republican Party was because I just found ah lot of Trump's positions on things not to be conservative or what I think of a traditional Republican positions and especially on issues about character and rule of law and the like. And so I did, And I just thought that it's very hard to be in a party that's led by a man of that character with that disposition. I'm not a political expert. I mean the party. The party that it became under Trump is completely and totally alien to me. Um, And but there's a question about you know what it will become after Trump and that's completely up for grabs, And there's a debate going on. That started the day after the election about the directions the Republican Party maybe moving into Amore. That's more focused on the working class that's less elitist and like, so I don't know where the party is going. But the party under Trump that became beholden to Trump and Trump's way of doing business. It's just not something that I and remotely interested in being associated with. We're recording this in the morning. Early in the morning. There will be more votes counted by the time our listeners here that there's some we might know. Who won the election, but the winner might also be challenged in court. One way or another President Trump will remain in office at least through the inauguration day. What can trump still do? To violate norms in the remaining time of his presidency, if if he if he loses Unfortunately, the list is long and I expect him to do many of these things. At the top of the list is we can expect him to pardon everybody. That's conceivably and criminal legal Deputy related to anything that happened while he was in office. Probably pardon everyone under investigation in federal court with regard to his, um Businesses in the southern district, New York With regard to the people that work for his businesses, we can expect him almost certainly departing himself, something that's never been done and never been tested, and it remains to be seen whether it be lawful. So that's one thing and that the pardons only extend a federal crime so you can't stop the state investigation against him. But he could through pardons answer the question were talking about earlier and make it very hard for the subsequent administration to engage in criminal investigation for a lot of these issues, so expect him to use those very broadly and aggressively, probably on an unprecedented scale, not the first president to do so in the self serving way, but he's always already done and done in self serving ways that That they're on president and so surely get worse during the transition if he loses second set of areas who knows what he will do with his other hard powers like war powers and emergency powers where he can. He could be very disruptive, much more so towards the international system doesn't worry about you know how he might exercise the warp power now that he's got six weeks left to do it. A third set of concerns that have recently been talked about in the press are and this is completely unprecedented, but very worrisome. Trump possesses. In theory, all of the very highly classified secrets of the government. Now he hasn't been paying attention, People say to his intelligence briefings, but he clearly knows a lot of very sensitive national security secrets. He's already had a tendency to blur thumb out. There is a serious concern that he could sell. Those used them to his advantage in terms of getting consulting contracts after he leaves office, maybe during while he's in office. Those are three bad things he could do hey, could also not do his very best to not cooperate in a transition with the Biden administration should buy them when the presidency making it hard for AH abide administration to get up and running on January 20. And there surely many things that I can't imagine that he would also do. Jekyll's MMA. Thank you so much for talking with us. I really appreciate it. I appreciate it very much. Thank you for your time. Jack Goldsmith is co author with Bob Bauer of the new book after Trump reconstructing the presidency. If you'd like to catch up on fresh air interviews you missed like our interview with Gerald Walker, the author of ST Shadows, A memoir of Race, rebellion and redemption in a new collection of personal essays.
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"We have executive branch law that the president could not be prosecuted while in office can be investigated but not prosecuted, and we have a norm that suggests that in the interest of national unity He shouldn't be prosecuted after he or she leaves office. It seems to me we can't have ruled long this country, the president's protected by law, while in office, protected by a norm out of office. And therefore is not accountable by law for any actions that he or she undertook in office. I think that's just an untenable position. I recognized all of the risks of Jack have identified which is why, and I think you're as you know, in my part of the book I know Thie. Problems with the Ford pardon of Nixon that I just have to be addressed. Head on. There has to be transparency of process and articulated standards. But it cannot be that the President Isaias is presumptively out of the woods and Jack is not saying that, by the way is, he pointed out is sort of out of the woods at all times for whatever he or she has done that simply that simply said to me is so corrosive of any concept of the rule of law that we really cannot divide it. Jack Goldsmith, Bob Bauer. Thank you both so much for coming in and helping walk us through. What we know is going to be a very complicated time post presidency. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Bauer is senior adviser to the biting campaign and was White House counsel to President Barack Obama. Jack Goldsmith is a professor at Harvard Law and served as George W. Bush's assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel..
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on KQED Radio
"At seven thirty from NPR news in Washington I'm trial Snyder Boeing starliner capsule blasted off successfully from the Kennedy Space Center this morning but NASA administrator Jim Breitenstein says today's test flight ran into some trouble he did have obviously some challenges today when the when the space craft separated from the launch vehicle we did not get the orbital insertion burn that we were hoping for it appears as though the mission elapsed timing system had an error and officials say the council did not reach the correct word it in order to achieve tomorrow's planned docking at the international space station few asylum seekers are winning protection under the so called remain to Mexico program and peers stroll rose reports on the latest immigration court data more than fifty five thousand migrants have been told to wait in Mexico for their Dane US immigration court of the migrants whose cases are completed just a tiny fraction less than one percent have been granted protection by a judge only four percent of migrants in the program have found lawyers fully half of migrants with a scheduled hearing failed to show up immigrant advocates say that's because kidnapping and assault are rampant in the Mexican border towns were migrants are sent to wait the trump administration says remain in Mexico is discouraging asylum seekers with weak or fraudulent claims immigration authorities say it's a big reason why the number of migrants arriving at the border has declined sharply in the past six months dole rose NPR news and you're listening to NPR live from KQED news I'm Tiffany cam high Pacific gas Electric CEO bill Johnson is walking back his estimate on how long public safety power shut off might be needed to prevent wildfires Johnson made the comments in testimony before a Senate energy committee and Washington Thursday he pointed out that San Diego gas electric has been using blackouts for more than a decade but now in a very surgical way by thing for us in northern California it will take us of the five years to get to the point where we can hello largely eliminate this tool Johnson had previously estimated using safety blackouts for a decade meanwhile the utility has confirmed it received troubling information about a key piece of hardware used on its transmission lines more than thirty years ago but it's on able to say what steps it took in response KQED stand Recchi reports US District Court judge William also ordered the utility to respond to a recent media reports that a new in nineteen eighty seven about problems with the type of connector call the sea hawk but did nothing about it P. Jeannie told the judge that tests to perform that year found the C. hooks might fail at far less than their design strength the company added it has not found any evidence that it followed up on a recommendation to do further testing on the hooks the hooks in question are used to attach equipment to high voltage transmission towers the failure of the sea hawk kind of Butte county transmission line spark last year's camp fire which destroyed the town of paradise and killed eighty five people I'm damn Breaky KQED news there's more at KQED news dot org I'm Tiffany camp high support comes from total wine and more with more than eight thousand wines from around the world to complete holiday entertaining now open in Stevens creek Martin Scorsese's new film the Irishman is in part about the mob connected labor leader Jimmy Hoffa on the next fresh air we hear from Jack goldsmith who stepfather chuckle Brian spent decades and Hoffa side and is portrayed in the film by Jesse Plemons goldsmiths.
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on KQED Radio
"This is fresher and we're speaking with Jack goldsmith the head of the office of legal counsel in the George W. bush administration for a time where he was involved in critical battles over the legality of interrogation techniques and warrantless surveillance of American citizens his new memoir focuses on a very different story his stepfather Chuck o'brien's close connection to labor leader Jimmy Hoffa and the suspicion many held for years that o'brien was connected to Hafiz nineteen seventy five disappearance Jack goldsmith book is called in Hafiz shadow. you eventually decide you're going to try and get to the bottom of it least Chucky's role. well first of all how did you reconcile with him what was that like. so it happened at Christmas of two thousand for about six months after I left the government and my wife and my two very young times and I went down there to see my mother for Christmas. for the last twenty years I refused to visit my mom with one exception when Jackie was there because I just didn't want to even be seen with them but I decided this time for a bunch of reasons that it would be fine if you were there he was actually quite sick he had a heart surgery he had diabetes diabetes and my mom basically sat I can ask him to leave if you want to come down here he's going to be here. in any event I've been thinking. in the months before that I had terribly wrong time earlier when I had renounced him and basically kind of out of my life and I had come to realize what extraordinary pain I have caused him in large part because I'm my own children I didn't really appreciated the time when I was twenty one when I sent him when I basically changed my name and renounced him I had just had no conception of how painful that can be even though my mama told me how bad it was it was really having my own children was also reflecting on how. sort of moralistic in right just I wasn't thinking he was a bad person and I was a good person I came to think that it was much more complicated than that especially. after you know I was had been knee deep and some problematic activities in the government. a whole bunch of things led me to change my mind and want to apologize to him and bait but it happened one night very simply we were when I got down there I was nice to him for the first time in twenty five years he responded as if nothing ever happened we had a great couple of days together we cooked together we shop together he was to care might baby children. and then one night when we were watching Seinfeld in a commercial I just turned to him and I said to him I'm so very sorry for what I did for you for the last twenty years I was wrong and I hope you'll forgive me and let me come back into your life. he looked at me with his puzzled expression and he. started crying and he basically said you don't need to apologize son I understand why you did what you did. and that was basically it and we. it was it we from that moment on we he never brought it up again we talked about a sometimes a decade later but never in any. in any way that caused him to bring up those twenty years in a bad way and after that we grew very very close through conversation and travel together and the like. still painful to think about that it's every time I think about. what I did to him and what the pain he went through it's very very painful yes. you just said you gonna try to get to the bottom of Chucky's Elise Truckee's role in the Hoffa case and you know you're a lawyer here you're you're skilled investigator what did you do what did you find. so I decided. after years of talking to him after we reconciled just having you know. casual conversations Hough would come up to disperse would come up and I kind of became convinced that he didn't do it now and the main reason I became commence was because of the way he revered often spoke about Hoffa. and also because the circumstances in which he was alleged to have done it these didn't add up to me so what did I do I did everything I could I basically. talks to every an FBI investigator that ever worked the case starting with the original four FBI investigators who are on the case too in Detroit one in New Jersey one in New York. I spent a dozen sessions with them their extraordinary men and we actually in probably in probably became friends over the course of our mutual investigation into figuring out what happened what actually happened in the disappearance I read. boxes and boxes of government documents some of which are publicly available redacted a lot of which I got my hands on through various sources that have never been revealed and talked about before. I spoke to the FBI investigator who was on the case for fifteen years for the longest. and I followed up leads that suggested that the F. B. I. starting in the ninety started to think the Chucky perhaps wasn't involved so I followed that lead up and it turned out when I done that I learned more about why the F. B. I. thought the check you maybe had not done in India concluded that he had not done it and they had reason to think someone else did so I pieced a whole bunch of evidence together I figured out the holes in the circumstantial case against him and I came up with a whole bunch of reasons why I didn't think he was able to down what he what he was alleged to have done that day and on July thirtieth nineteen seventy five and finally I think the the clinching piece of evidence if you want to call it that is the FBI itself in several agents and US attorneys assisting US attorneys that I talked to were completely commence he was innocent indeed they were on the verge of exonerating him. Jack goldsmith new book is called in Hoffa's shadow we'll continue our conversation in just a moment this is fresh AIR. this is fresh AIR been we're speaking with Jack goldsmith he's a law professor at Harvard University and his new memoir focuses on the story of his stepfather truck o'brien who had a very close connection to labor leader Jimmy Hoffa and he was suspected for many years of being connected to her office nineteen seventy five disappearance goldsmith new book is called in Hoffa's shadow a stepfather disappearance in Detroit in my search for the truth. you're now convinced and many others that that chalking different was not complicit in Hoffa's disappearance. but do is believe that he probably does know thinks about what happened what did you get on the telly. so one of the themes of the book is struck he struggles with America and America is the code of silence that is one of the defining commitments in the Italian syndicate and. Jackie was not a member of the mafia he was half Sicilian and half Irish so therefore he couldn't be a member but. he always completely imbibed Sicilian values as he put it and he completely adhere to America and he did so because his mother and uncle Tony Jack Loni and all the people on the mafia side of his life had not convinced him this is just the way of the world and so this was very important for him not to tell about things he was was talking about on the other hand he knew that he needed to be truthful with me and he knew that I wanted to write a credible book so we ended up telling me quite a lot about a lot of things but not everything he didn't tell me I'm convinced everything he knew but he did tell me quite a lot about especially the run up to the disappearance and I think the basic conspiracy the disappearance. and he told me enough certainly to convince me. of what the horrible situation he faced after the disparity between the government's behalf of family in the mob he was an impossible position there and enough to convince me that he in fact didn't pick up off of that day right how do you regard his insistence on going to his grave with secrets. well I don't know how many secret he's taking his great but he certainly taking some signatures grave. and I'm of two minds about it mostly I certainly didn't try to and didn't push into tell me things he didn't want to tell me and we had this very complicated relationship over years and years of talking where he was trying his best to tell me things. and sometimes indirectly pointing the things and I was asking question after question interrogating him but I was always not wanting to go too far because I didn't want him to cross the lines he wasn't supposed to cross so we're playing this dance for years that were both aware of. and for most of the time especially starting out I thought that his commitment to America was self serving and probably unprincipled and I didn't really understand. but I have to say by the end I I did come to understand that at least in the sense. for checking it was that really in some ways the most important thing in his life it was the principle of honor that he grew up with and that he always is here to. and frankly was the thing he held onto for forty five years after the disappearance when he could of said other things to to sort of exonerate himself and didn't. do you think that the Hoffa case will ever be solved. I'm not sure I'll ever be solved in the sense that we will find Hoffa's body or remains or that will know exactly what happened in the parking lot in outside of the markers red fox on July thirtieth nineteen seventy five what happened there. the FBI currently has what it thinks is a new theory of the case that it believes it believes that Hoffa was picked up by a veto Jack Aloni who was the brother of Anthony Jacquelyn the ana believes it knows who the murderer is it's a brother your uncle Tony yes we know Jack Loni high otherwise known as Billy was the brother of uncle Tony I never met video and it leaves it knows who the killer was he was someone who was a low level organized crime figure in the seventies who rose to us pretty significant prominence in the family and who died earlier this year I don't name the person in the book because I don't know what the basis of the F. B. I.'s judgment is it told me several people told me that they have surveillance evidence and implement evidence that makes you think that this is what actually happened a hopper at least two is involved. I don't me on that I don't know and I don't think the FBI has a clinching case I think they have basically information about who they think did it but not how. and the kind of the irony is that in a broader sense it was sort of clear from the beginning that possible was engaged in a course of conduct trying to return to the presidency of the teamsters and attacking the could then president Frank Fitzsimmons and his mob ties and was making enemies. yes he and and he brought this on himself quite literally and in the book I give a lot of new detail about the run up to the disappearance the disappearance based on everything we know and everything I report in the book was a perfectly predictable consequence of of his behavior he was basically threatening to reveal how the mob and infiltrated the teamsters and he was threatening that in a credible way and that's basically why he was killed. house checking out..
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"The American public is not that interested in for policy because it doesn't matter that much. This is a playground for the elites, right? And as I said before, it's giant jobs program. And the end result is that as long as wards, numbers of Americans are not being killed, and as long as people don't think they now have to pay a lot of money to fight these wars, they're willing to let the wars go on. My final point to you would be the elite in this country is really brilliant at band boozing the public into thinking it's necessary to spend all this money on defense and fight. All these wars threatened. Flation is our business. There's nobody better thread inflation than the American foreign policies. I math Yukon and your listening to the law. Fair podcast. October twentieth two thousand eighteen in recent decades. Both democratic and Republican administrations have tried to guide other countries toward systems of liberal. But international relations theorist John MIR shiners latest book. The great delusion, liberal dreams and international realities says that strategy has made the US a highly militarized state fighting wars that undermine peace harm human rights and threatened liberal values at home last week at the Hoover institution's Washington office. Jack Goldsmith sat down with MIR shaima to talk about the book they discussed. Why ministrations have tried to promote democracy. How that strategy has bolstered non democratic governments in the international sphere and whether a more restrained foreign policy could better serve US interests. It's the law. Fair podcast episode, three hundred.
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on Slate's Political Gabfest
"Right. It was pop, no, no. I guess what I'm right overheated at that moment. I remember thinking like really would now seems foolish. So there were not any Americans indicted in this particular random indictments. Obviously the Muller investigation has has indicted others and it didn't. I mean, clearly, Roger stone is a freak and a malevolent character and any by any measure, but it didn't. What was it out lined in this indictment didn't show any significant coordination apparently with the Trump campaign, do you think that this is just. I don't know that that other shoe is going to drop that Muller that were or that really that coordination isn't gonna come up or we just don't know. I think we just don't know. Muller's been very methodical and when he does dight people, there are a lot of details. One feels that they have done their homework and then some. And so this felt to me that he certainly didn't close any of those doors. I do think it makes sense in some ways not to have it all in a single indictment that there's a way in which the focus on the Russian interference and their side that it makes sense to keep that separate from these questions of who cooperated with them and how that worked. So aside from what we saw from lucky leaks and Roger stone a little bit in there too, but I don't feel like it exonerated anyone or made it clear that people were off the hook. No. And in fact, Rosenstein basically said there's more to come and don't drawn conclusions from those. I think there are two reasons to keep it limited. One is an at least this works in other intelligence. And I suppose I would imagine it works in this case too, is that you show a little bit of what you have and because you're watching all the other players and it's clear they've been watching Paul Manafort even long after he was indicted long after he knew he was going to jail. They were watching him any was still doing bad things. Even. That's true, but still so they drop it and then they watch, particularly with terrorists and they watch everybody's scurry and then they go pick them off and so that it initiates activity that then gives them more more detail and then flip those people. And so they get into conversations about immunity about basically trading information so that they can tighten up their other diamonds. Emily one, you were talking before the show about this Jack Goldsmith article, which points out that America interferes elections all the time or has a history of interfering elections at various points. Our time in our history is what Russia's doing so bad. I mean, is this something, I mean, does this deserve to its own special counsel investigation or is it? Should we realize actually there's foreign interference in our elections all the time and and we should just kind of accept that. Well, I don't sell. I think it is. I mean, Jack Goldsmith he actually mentioned study in which someone went and tried to find all the times in which other countries have interfered with elections in the United States seems to have done this more than Russia or other places, which is metal. I think the fact that we do it, it can still be very, very bad and we can still be hypocritically very worried about Russia or anyone doing it to us. I mean, John, I thought was making an incredibly judicious nuanced argument for the way in which the United States has contributed to the underlying conditions that led to this hacking and he was pointing out that we have done nothing. In fact, the opposite to create an international norm which cyber hacking of elections is the on the pale and that you know, we may think that we're hacking elections on behalf of the good guys, but international laws and norms don't make that distinction. That's a really subjective view that we have of ourselves does not translate. And so I think his point was to say that if we want this to stop happening, we need to talk more honestly about what the United States is done in the past and commit to not doing it in the future and ask the world to join us. And then he also pointed out that Trump doesn't have the credibility to do that right now that if he stood up and tried to make that argument would look like one more Craig..
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on Knowledge@Wharton
"Court jack goldsmith at harvard law school was one of my co clerk's and he has a piece out talking about how justice kennedy and his thirty one terms on the court was the tide for or the the most common justice in five four majority opinions on twenty of those thirty one years so there were a lot of years when he was a decisive vote on some of the most controversial cases ted how do you view justice kennedy and the legacy that he leaves behind well very much like professor back certainly since justice o'connor's retirement in two thousand six justice kennedy has been at the center of the court in most of the key cases with a few exceptions involving for instance the affordable care act where justice roberts cast the vote but justice kennedy provided a kind of centrist ballast on the court that really has defined the court over the past ten or twenty years on some key issues like abortion and affirmative action and gay rights all of which he was crucially important and he was very important piece in this most recent session and where you said that you know there was some some some balancing that that he would bring a lot of the decisions in this one we're though more so on the on the conservative side during this this last session yeah i think that's right this was not in in some ways then this was not the perhaps the paradigmatic kennedy term because he if we look at his whole career he cast the deciding vote in a lot of five to four cases on both conservative direction and direction he very much was a the median justice in that way but but the key cases this term that we're decided robustly did tend to go into conservative direct randy and it's kind of interesting to note the chief justice roberts was actually the swing justice more often maybe than justice kennedy the term there were no cases in which justice kennedy aligned with the more liberal justices to create a majority but there were a couple of cases where roberts did that eight four four nine four two seven eight six six the number if you would like to join with your comments or questions we're talking about the the most recent session by the supreme court eight four four nine four two seven eight six six if you'd like to join in so in terms of all of these these rulings that came down from the court are there one or two that really stick out a lot of people do have depending on the on the issues that you follow but are there one or two that really stick out for you ted well i think i would say at answer that in a couple of as the one that sticks out the most just for its importance to the nation and our discourses probably trump versus hawaii yeah where the court unlike the two federal circuit courts who had ruled on this the the court essentially reverse those courts upheld the trump travel ban which you know kind of hits at a real pressure point in our in our political discourse and and legal cases as well so that was that's an important case that's going to stand for the proposition even when there's a democrat in the white house in the years ahead that the president has really wide thority over determinations of who gets into the country and who doesn't so it was a very robust statement for executive authority the other thing i would say about the last few weeks of this term is kind of choices not made by.
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on Pod Save America
"Is this what the founders intended when they when they wrote the constitution where they thinking that the president should be able to start and stop any league any investigation into anyone pardon anyone including himself you know we should say the pardon powers of the president are extremely broad some legal scholars think that they are almost you know yeah i mean the partner isn't limited but the idea that the president can pardon himself is so stupid and wrong on its face you know there's lots of things the constitution doesn't expressly prohibit that we don't view is legal but the idea that the president department's like there's legal experts from both sides and there was we were there is a memo in nineteen seventy four explaining why the president couldn't pardon himself in there can be arguments about what the pardon power intended but what we're talking about is not just like the law we're talking about like irreducible questions about the power of the presidency and if you believe that the framers intended for they did all this work they work so hard on it you know to preserve slavery plus limiting the powers of the presidency rights are two of the focuses and the idea that they would leave in this whole it really is like the whole in the death star right it's like the idea that like they built this big thing where the president can only do this and he's limited by congress he's limited by the courts except he can murder people in the oval office in part because there's no federal yeah i mean i'm not a lawyer jack goldsmith harvard law professor oversaw the dj's offs legal counsel during the bush administration said the intersection between the obstruction of justice statutes and the president exercising his constitutional power to supervise an investigation at doj is not so settle lots and open question so whatever right i guess the legal scholars will debate this would is very clear is that this entirely political exercise and i guarantee you that rudy giuliani and those clowns lethal letter the new york times that's they had trump tweet to complain about it to try to set the framework before the story posted and they all went and repeated these.
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"This day to talk about a really important subject which is the rule of law and we have a great panel to do that with the rule of laws a broad topic it means different things to different people we're going to focus on a specific and perhaps targeted piece of the rule of law critical aspect of it which is the principle that the law enforcement power of the state not be used for partisan political ends related lee the principle that the white house needs to maintain a strict wall of separation between it and the department of justice when it comes to individual criminal cases and we're blessed today to have a great panel of people who have served in the roles and seeing this from the inside because we have people from both the bush white house and the justice department in the bush years and obama white house and the justice department and the obama years so let me introduce everyone briefly and then we'll get right to it we have john bellinger who served in the department of justice when bush was president he was counsel in the criminal division on national security matters and then he also worked at the state department as the legal advisor but also the bush whitehouse as legal adviser to the national security council next to him we have done virtually who was the solicitor general of the united states in the obama administration and also did a time in the obama white house as deputy white house counsel don's now at munger tolles should've mentioned john's now at arnold importer turning this side we have bob our who was white house counsel for president obama and it's now law school and last but certainly not least we have jack goldsmith who was system attorney general in charge of the office of legal counsel at the j when president bush was president and is now at harvard law school and the hoover institution so let's get to it and let's start with don why is it so important that one forcement activities in individual criminal cases be kept free from partisan.
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Mr trump and and those sort of share his view about the deep state are putting all of these norms in play we've talked about the post watergate period thereby talented is really represents a relatively small share of american history if you will the strength of these norms accelerated considerably intensified considerably after watergate that was in nineteen seventy six and so it seems to me that there ought to be a concern that there's even debate in some sense about whether these serving borton purposes that they do i think things are significantly different i think there's an issue and the play i think the norms of put out to bid to some extent and i think that there are some significant constitutional issues which at a time of powerful presidency in polarized politics in particular could set for several generations to come some expectations and way of the government will do business and this is the law fair podcast april twenty eighth two thousand eighteen earlier this week former deputy attorney general sally aids convened an afternoon of pins georgetown those and the future of american democracy one of those conversations featured on samba chemist of five executive power luminaries axelrod bauer john bellinger jack goldsmith and dime very with a range of pessimism and optimism they reflected on the norms that governor contact between the white house and the justice department how the trump administration has broken those norms and what can be done to protect them in this administration and in the next it's the law fair podcast episode three hundred five preserving justice department independence thanks and thanks to all of you for joining us on.
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on Chapo Trap House
"Yeah that's what donald trump should have done he should have just been like we had to put james comey down his heart was giving to i try i tried to give folks okay very very good very sad i tried to give him his heart pills in peanut butter he wouldn't he wouldn't do it folks he had a very big lunch and then he decided to jog and his stomach flipped it happens i've told you we're going to get a new one he's very okay look it's going to be okay great point of all these stories about him as younger person just said he's always been disliked an insufferable to know where he's coming from he's such a simply form man character building you know strife faced with versus awkward elevator conversation is thrown in with i was held gun serial rapist is a child so he discusses his his career and then he gets to when he was working with the first bush administration and his personal impressions of george w bush and the people around him he writes bush could be inpatient and it drove me nuts that he started things early but i was struck by his strong and occasionally devilish sense of humor he then describes a sense of humor about like pausing a meeting so that bush could look out a window and watch the helicopter land and kick up snow at journalists actually pretty cool it's all him making fun of other people it'd be basically he confirms everyone's impression of george w bush he's just like a frat fully shithead who likes who who needs to dominate everybody else by making fun i will say when he does get into the really strenuous sort of like bureaucratic warfare that him and jack goldsmith go through with the psychopaths this around dick cheney they do come across as genuinely just arrogant bullying psychopath every respected addington spoiler alert is just a reptilian monster as cheney just rude like aggressive and like just spiteful and awful to anyone who would dare disagree with them in any respect a nickname no he doesn't.
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"There's no reason to assume that only a nation state only the russians might attempt to mess around with this the reality is that as long as we have an electoral college and as long as national elections given the electoral college decided in a few key precincts in a few swing states the result dances on a head of a pin and is pointed out yesterday if the writers of the show house of cards figure that out and they did last season than others can do the same so it would not be that hard and we're not just talking about cyberattacks now to do something to suppress voter turnout in key precincts in key stakes do you think will prepare no not at the moment do you think we will be by november i hope so at think this has to be a priority and part of the responsibility for state and local election officials with hopefully at the federal level i method khan and your listening to the law fair podcast march thirteenth two thousand eighteen last week former secretary of homeland security jay johnson addressed the boston conference on cyber security in his speech titled cyberspace is the new battlespace the next day secretary johnson sat down with harvard law professor and law fair co founder jack goldsmith to discuss the themes his speech reflected on they discussed the hacking and exfiltration data the vulnerabilities of the us electoral infrastructure cyber attacks and the problem of fake news.
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on First Mondays
"Stored in places they are you know hard drives are like bolted into physical infrastructure type things and even if that were intruders sort of siri's a further arguments but like the reality is that data is actually you know the cloud is a metaphor not actually reality and at this is very much in the sort of kind of reminded me of a an article by jack goldsmith from like the midnineties where he also argued against a kind of cyber exceptionalism that like actually rayo the the declaration of independence cyberspace's is quite incorrect because all these computers are actually in a place and so it matters a great deal but i want to ask you this and it just if you have any thoughts about the shape of things to come because it's an issue i think about a lot because we kind of work on similar types of things this is a thing that is constantly on my mind with which is this is it is true that the present state of technology uvd described accurately things are stored in places gather may be moved around you might cash things nearer to hong kong that that's where your users travelling but like things were in a place right we have data center that's a real thing the shape of things to come at least plausibly might be truly distributed services so the the extent to which block chain technology will ever be able to truly achieve genuinely distributed services and genuinely distributed data is unclear but i can imagine a world and indeed hundreds of millions of dollars have been raised on the proposition that for example one could store a file such that it is actually in no particular place or rather it is in many many places in little encrypted blocks or harvey like to describe it but in the ritz that descriptive claim is no longer true and i'm curious if you have a thought at all about what does extraterritoriality and access to data beyond borders in in in law enforcement what what is that look like in that world.
"jack goldsmith" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Mark hughes function well on the way i save costs on their critics the about everything that is warming everyone else's bought here's our neighborhoods hedge their ventures they have one guy hit the decrease now barclays they use it has a rough apportions to fittest marked by saying is dominated by public much then the to intrude on concern tougher some new use in any result marketplace could stagnate bad if on the other end near lahser thought leaders none of public and electricals have a vibrant stimulating marketplace ladies the problem is that stupid ideas don't down on and this is not a significant problem particularly in washington dc i'm benjamin with us and this is the law fair podcast june seventeen 2017 this week at the hoover book soiree jack goldsmith interviewed foreign relations scholar dan dresner on his new book the ideas industry it's a wide ranging conversation that actually goes far beyond national security and includes the many mechanisms by which ideas make their way into the policy process they covered professors think tanks scholars public intellectuals and even law fair it's the law fair podcast episode two hundred thirty four dan dresner on the ideas mystery the us involvement my guest is my friend in reser before the vote the industry there was a rear admiral politics at tufts university and he writes regularly three or four four four times a week for the washington post among other things so we're going to jump brighton dan tell us what the ideas industry is then i'll.