36 Burst results for "National Security Law"
Fresh update on "national security law" discussed on Stuff They Don't Want You To Know Audio
"People convinced I had so many people believing in this program. I. Have made up that it looked like it was on the verge of maybe becoming real just because of the people who are investing in and becoming involved like if enough powerful people in the government say we're doing this then. In my mind it makes means it's happening and eventually he can land a meeting with the CIA and say, Hey, look I've got this operation that I'm I'm pitching to you as an operation, but it's already an operation, but it could be yours. For A low low price. Exactly. So get this. Also, the story here. So get this he. He managed to convince a number of these public officials, some of whom are not named yet but very powerful. He managed to convince them to intervene and stop the FBI investigation in the name of national security at one guy went so far as to threaten the FBI agents themselves like I will end your career if you keep endangering this and he became very close to effectively immunized himself from prosecution because if his program even if it's bogus gets that that official credibility under national security law, then he's above all the other laws. So it's amazing that they caught him when they did and it makes me think I. It's a great conspiracy, but it also makes me think. This happened before have other people got like, could we do this? Dude while. Reminds me of Bernie madoff a little bit just some of the some of the tactics of being already inside with a bunch of people who were in the group right that you're going to be influencing. And when you start from that position, as he was, you said Da right spokespersons from spokesperson for the Drug Enforcement Agency chiefly public affairs. Yeah. Yeah. I mean he's already got all those connections. People know who he is. I mean you once you start there. You feels like feels like the sky's the limit for cons that you could at least a attempt to implement this just happened to be ridiculously successful. Surely that kind of designate be revoked right? Like it's not like here's your golden ticket and you're. Untouchable for, life. Well. It's. It's not even that right? Oh. Are you talking about the immunity the If anything you would just change it into a lengthy legal battle about something else besides what he had actually done wrong. It would go through the hedge bays and Appeals Right Because, you would try to appeal that decision but anyhow, that is that is by strange news for today I believe that.
State Department lowers China travel advisory but warns of 'arbitrary detentions and exit bans'
"From Washington. If you're planning to visit China reconsider those plans. The State Department has just issued a level three travel advisory, its second highest warning level, strongly strongly advising advising against against travel travel to to mainland mainland China China and and Hong Hong Kong Kong sighting sighting the the risk risk of of arbitrary arbitrary detention, detention, which which could could see see US US citizens citizens arrested arrested entailed entailed without without access access to to U. U. S. S. Consular Consular assistance. Tensions have been rising ever since Beijing imposed a new national security law in Hong Kong that violates its past commitments to respect the territories. Freedoms. Vicki Barker, CBS. NEWS, London
U.S. again warns against travel to China and Hong Kong
"The word from Washington is if you're planning to visit China reconsider here, CBS's Vicki Barker, the State Department has just issued a level three travel advisory, its second highest warning level, strongly strongly advising advising against against travel travel to to mainland mainland China China and and Hong Hong Kong Kong sighting sighting the the risk risk of of arbitrary arbitrary detention, detention, which which could could see see US US citizens citizens arrested arrested and and held held without without access access to to U. U. S S consular consular assistance. Tensions have been rising ever since Beijing imposed a new national security law in Hong Kong that violates its past commitments to respect the territory. Freedom's Vicki Barker.
US issues sweeping new travel warning for China, Hong Kong
"Department has just issued a level three travel advisory, its second highest warning level, strongly advising against travel to mainland China and Hong Kong sighting the risk of arbitrary detention, which could see US citizens arrested entailed without access to U. S. Consular assistance. Tensions have been rising ever since Beijing imposed a new national security law. Hong Kong that violates its past commitments to respect the territories. Freedoms. Vicki Barker, CBS News,
US State Department tells Americans to reconsider travel to Hong Kong
"To reconsider travel to Hong Kong, The State Department raised its advisory for the city based on the implementation of the National security Law. U. S. Citizens in Hong Kong are strongly advised to avoid any demonstrations. The move comes as U. S China Tides remain strained over the Corona virus, the treatment, the weaker minorities and Beijing's increasingly tight grip. Over Hong Kong Global
Hong Kong Protesters Return to Streets Over Postponed Elections
"Streets of Hong Kong in response to the government's decision to postpone elections. Protesters also opposed to a new national security law imposed by China
Germany presses China over Hong Kong security law
"Hi Comas, called on his Chinese counterpart, visiting Berlin to withdraw China's national security law and hold parliamentary elections. In Hong Kong as soon as possible more from NPR's Rob Schmitz At a press conference, Moss called on Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Me to restore the one country, two systems principal towards Hong Kong. This comes after China's government enacted a national security law allowing Chinese authorities to crack down on anyone who had deems a threat in Hong Kong. Long responded by saying China refuses TTO have foreign interference in its internal affairs. This is
Germany presses China over Hong Kong security law, Uighurs
"Comas, called on his Chinese counterpart, visiting Berlin to withdraw China's national security law and hold parliamentary elections. In Hong Kong as soon as possible more from NPR's Rob Schmitz At a press conference, Moss called on Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Me to restore the one country, two systems principal towards Hong Kong. This comes after China's government enacted a national security law allowing Chinese authorities to crack down on anyone who had deems a threat in Hong Kong. Long responded by saying China refuses TTO have foreign interference in its internal affairs. This is NPR
Germany urges Hong Kong national security law withdrawal, seeks Xinjiang access
"Called on his Chinese counterpart, visiting Berlin to withdraw China's national security law and hold parliamentary elections. In Hong Kong as soon as possible more from NPR's Rob Schmitz At a press conference, Moss called on Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Me to restore the one country, two systems principal towards Hong Kong. This comes after China's government enacted a national security law allowing Chinese authorities to crack down on anyone who had deems a threat in Hong Kong. One responded by saying China refuses TTO have foreign interference in its internal affairs. This is NPR news. Live from
Alibaba's Ant Group files for IPO in Hong Kong, Shanghai
"Earlier today China's Anti Group filed for an initial public offering in Hong Kong Shanghai it could become the largest IPO in history bigger than facebook bigger than Saudi. Arabia's state owned oil company even bigger than Alibaba the Chinese tech giant that originally berthed aunt group as a mobile payments company called Alipay now and does not have much presence in the US particularly after the trump administration blocked efforts a couple of years ago. To buy money transfer company money gram but in China, it is the financial technology company with a huge footprint in everything from payments to lending to investing to wealth management, it's even got a joint venture in food delivery and according to its IPO prospectus and profits are up more than one thousand percent between the first half of two, thousand nineteen and the first half of two, thousand, twenty hitting three point two, billion dollars. Company that in the past would have rushed to list shares in New York much like Alibaba didn't twenty fourteen but aunt instead turned its back on the big apple and that matters for two reasons I, it's a passive aggressive escalation of China tensions too. It's an effort by China to prove that Hong. Kong. Can remain a global financial hub in spite of a new national security law that undercuts the conditions that help turn Hong Kong into a global financial hub in the first place in short. And it's IPO are as important to geopolitics as they are to capital markets or tech markets, and all three will be paying very close attention as the listing gets closer
User Coalition Fights To Keep Chinese App WeChat In U.S. Market
"President trump recently issued an executive order that would effectively ban the Chinese APP we chat in the United States starting. In September the order says the APP poses a threat to national security, but is a coalition of users who are trying to intervene. Here's NPR's John Ru which cloud you practices corporate and commercial law in the San Francisco Bay area most of his clients Chinese and they all use we chat so I maintain develop clients through. All, the time I. probably spend two hours each and every day. It's also how he communicates with his sister and eighty five year old mother back in China's Hunan Province. Her Mama when trump issued executive order Jew and other lawyers who also served the Chinese speaking community were alarmed. They discussed it in a we chat group naturally and decided to fight it in court. So they set up a nonprofit called the US we chat users. One of the lawyers from the we chat group she says, they plan to file a suit in the coming days. The group she says has no connection to the Chinese government or tencent the Chinese company that owns Wechat we are not interested in the politics behind us but one the government tries to resolve a problem they should try to minimize the harm. The executive order is the latest in a string of measures. The trump administration has taken against China in recent weeks. It prohibits quote transactions with which at and ten. The term is open to some interpretation, but legal experts expect that APP stores at the very least will have to remove we chat. Angus knee is a lawyer in Seattle. The executive arm is while with its rights determine that something is or is not a threat to American national security, but it's reasoning especially when it's actions have such a negative impact on such a racially kind of based minority needs to be well justified in while supported China's so-called great firewall blocks many Western communication and social media APPS making indispensable. But we chat sensors, sensitive messages, and like every other APP in China, it would be required to hand over information. Should the government ask they're definitely? Security risks to people using those technologies and we need to address that I just wish it was done. Really Ron. Debate is director of the citizen lab and Internet watchdog at the University of Toronto. What the trump administration did as a way I think almost like a nuclear option fighting in court will be tough though Bobby Chesney is a national security law expert at the University of Texas. Oh it's a hugely uphill battle. He says it'll be hard to win a case arguing that the executive order curtails free speech came without due process or amounts to the government taking away property or livelihood. The same holds for a case that says, the government hasn't supplied enough evidence of the risks that we poses a judge is also going to save them, but maybe that somehow helps them to different court bringing a suit raises the profile of the issue, and just might influence how the government interprets the word transaction and ultimately enforces the order. If the legal challenge doesn't pan out businesses like launchings restaurant chain easterly will have to make major adjustments. Hunan style eatery offers group deals, takes orders and stays in touch with thousands of customers in the bay area through we chat. With no dining in because of the pandemic Wong says, easterly is even more reliant on we chat. H. You misleading trembled for now he says they are scraping by without we chat he fears easterly will lose business and its connection to its customers
Hong Kong media tycoon Lai, activist Agnes Chow released on bail
"Leading Hong Kong democracy activist, has been released on bail, saying she won't be stopped from speaking out. Agnes shall was held along with media tycoon Jimmy Lai and others on the China is sweeping national Security law, Chow says have bail conditions include regular reports to police on the surrender off a passport. Hong Kong Justice Department has felt to see exactly why she was arrested.
‘Fight on’: Arrested Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai tells staff
"Kong media tycoon and pro democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai has urged his fellow citizens to fight on against Beijing's new security law for Hong Kong. Recently released after his dramatic arrest on Monday, Jimmy Lai said he would continue to be unapologetically critical of Beijing. Mr Lyte runs the Apple Daily tabloid newspaper in Hong Kong as part of his next digital media group. 200 police officers raided his newsroom at the start of this week. We managed to talk to him earlier today, and I asked him if he saw his arrest coming. I was expecting this, but not soon. Because the national security go has such a re bonds from the international community and you as the using a team sanctions against the people who are responsible and all that. You know, Hongkong people were alarm like 30% off the business leaders that they're moving, or did he move business elsewhere? And 40% sadistic emigrate. And those are the elites so you can consider what the pending the ordinary people really a feeling. So I thought that the Chinese the city CCP should have found that there's a blunder and they was kept low key and knocked on the actuators. That's so speculated all When I saw the bodies came into my house seven o'clock in the morning, the day before yesterday ideal. I was too optimistic and lung of the policeman. Spoke. Mandiri so even is actually was said to be. The law is still more being control by the Hong Kong police. Which is the press. I think, tell us about the moment you were arrested. Tell us where they took you. What happened? That's not the first time I was arrested. I was arrested 213 times before. This time. They said that he's a national security door, which is more scary. I just forgot what I felt. You know, I just asked them, OK, Can I go up and have a bath and change because I just finished my exercise? And they said, Let's make you crave, but we have the follow you. You can't close it all When you bath. The police has to be outside watching me, and that's a very unusual as last time was not a serious Estes. I was not thinking about anything else. Maybe I was feeling a bit numb. Let's see what happens. They handcuffed me and send me to the police station. What sort of questions? Did they ask you in detention? I would remain silent. You know, they shall be a lot of interviews that I did before Two lifers and also some off my treater Lifestream on supposed Nate. Those are things that I have wildly the National security law, and that's it all remains silent. I didn't give any answer Both your sons were arrested, too focused charges because they have nothing to do with my business. Are you worried that eventually you could be taken to mainland China to face detention and questioning maybe even trial there. By worry above. This is a lot less because I can see that the lesson Secretary Law Department is under the control of Hong Kong police. Don't Aziz worry as I was before about being sent to China, But you never know. You understand how you stand out for the authorities in Beijing being the only Major media owner in Hong Kong without any links to the Chinese state. Yes, that's why I'm the target, and I knew that was a hug it and I knew that I would have to face up to whatever that comedian exercise that they will have to do to me on. I didn't prepare as early as the day before yesterday. What do you say to those in Hong Kong who still campaign against the law? While I think that we will have to see what happens, you know, because nobody can campaign against them or any way not. But the law is an honor. I think Hong Kong people were very angry when I was a rest. You know, you could see that I was stopped. Price drop admittedly. But then He's gone up like almost a few 100 times, just because people showed their support. And when he's not horse racing Day, we so less than 100,000 papers and yes, they we so about half a 1,000,000 your arrest on Monday will inevitably make you something of a figurehead for the opposition movement. How do you feel about that? Well, the way I feel that his owner, because when I was in the custody, I could not sleep. You know the night before I was thinking if I knew that what's gonna happen to me now? And even further more hardship. Would I have done the same thing and I form above this and said, Oh, maybe, you know, I would not have another way. This is my character and the character is destiny, and once I accept my destiny is so slight accepted. God's pressing. I was all the sudden, very relieved and said that whatever comes there will be depressing for God. It sounds like you're very much expecting more brushes with Beijing. Well, if they started, they will stop right. So it's just the beginning. A lot more people will probably be arrested as you were. What's your message to Hong Kong now? They come. I think we have to be a bloke cautious. You know what assistance to reserve our rule of law and freedom and also the same time. You know, we have to be more careful and more creative in the way that we persists. Our resistance. We can't do the same thing we did before, and we can be a heretical before especially young people. Because the more radical the sort of life spend we have, you know, fighting. We had to really used our brain and patience because this's a long fight. Radicalism is not for long. Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong and
Hong Kong activist Agnes Chow, media mogul Jimmy Lai released
"Hong Kong, Several prominent activists and journalists arrested under a new national security law have been released after nearly two days in detention. They're accused of colluding with foreign forces. NPR's Emily Fang reports. The charge carries a maximum life prison sentence. Media mogul John Eli flashed a thumbs up to reporters as he was released from police custody. The publisher interment of one of Hong Kong's brashest pro democracy newspapers. I was among 10 individuals arrested on Monday under the new law. Livestream today showed by walking back into his newspaper office amid a standing ovation from employees. Agnes Chow, a 23 year old pro democracy activists, and Wilson Lee, a freelance journalist, were also released on bail. Child told Hong Kong reporters she had been unprepared for the sudden arrest and called the allegations should colluded Foreign forces on social media. Incomprehensible.
Hong Kong media tycoon Lai, activist Agnes Chow released on bail
"Activists in Hong Kong, have been released on bail a day after they were arrested under the territories. New National security law. The first to walk out was campaigner Agnes Chou. She called her arrest political persecution. Shortly afterwards, the media tycoon Jimmy Lai was also set free on bail. He was greeted by a cheering crowd. Both were accused of colluding with foreign powers to undermine China.
China Sanctions 11 US Citizens Including Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz
"Will sanction 11 Americans in response to similar US measures announced last week against Hong Kong and Chinese officials. NPR's Emily Thing, reports. The move comes amid escalating tensions between Washington and Beijing among the American sanctions. Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, who China has already sanctioned in retaliation for other American sanctions over China's detention and abuse of millions of ethnic Uighur Muslims. Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth and Michael Abramowitz, the president of Freedom House will also be sanctioned meeting any assets they have in China will be frozen and they travel to China banned. Last week. The U. S sanctioned Hong Kong chief executive carry land and 10 other Hong Kong and Beijing officials for their involvement in the national security law that has been used to prosecute a broad range of dissent in Hong Kong. Emily Thing. NPR NEWS Beijing At the close on Wall
China sanctions 11 US politicians, heads of organizations
"China, announcing unspecified sanctions against 11 US politicians and heads of organizations that promote democratic causes Suspected include senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. You've already been singled out by Beijing. The Foreign Ministry says the 11 had performed badly on issues concerning Hong Kong, where China's crackdown on opposition voices following its imposition of a national security law. That's correspondent Charles
Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai arrested under security law
"Hong Kong police have arrested media tycoon Jimmy Lai and raided the publisher's head quarters in the highest profile use yet of a new national security law Beijing imposed on the city in June life was taken out of his mansion in Kowloon by police and later brought to his media company next digital led police raid was ongoing according to a live stream video by stock live remained in the office he's read the two hours before police took him away the seventy one year old is not spoken pro democracy figure in Hong Kong who regularly criticizes China's authoritarian rule and Hong Kong's government the move comes days off to the American government announced sanctions on Hong Kong and mainland Chinese officials I'm Charles the last month
Prominent Pro-Democracy Activist Arrested in Hong Kong
"Police in Hong Kong have arrested a prominent pro democracy activists and media tycoon Jimmy Lai for suspected collusion with foreign powers. Still, I was detained along with his two sons and four other people early today on suspicion of breaching the new National Security law. America. Oi has more details. The newspaper he founded Apple Davey has been very critical of Beijing. But to see the live pictures of police raiding the office is quite astonishing in the city, where free press was very famous because this is the first time will has been used against media as well. And, of course, just last month we saw The New York Times. Announcing that it was moving part of its Hongkong bureau to South Correa and several outlets have complained about a foreign journalist these and not being renewed. So this arrested definitely a significant blow to Hong Kong status for it's a
"national security law" Discussed on KCRW
"Now to what appears to be new steps by Hong Kong police who are enforcing a controversial national security law. They have arrested four people for statements posted online police Said they were promoting independence from China as NPR's John rule, which reports these arrests raise fresh concerns about freedom of speech in the former British colony. The four suspects range from 16 to 21 years old. Police didn't identify them. But a pro independence group called student localism that disbanded at the end of June when the national security law was enacted, said on Facebook. All four were former members. Elise. Senior Superintendent Steve Lee said the suspects posted their desire online to promote Hong Kong has its own country and to unite pro independence groups in Hong Kong Thiss organization prose. In the social media's about the establishment off of a Newt parties. That way you could promote the independence of the Hong Kong Chinese Parliament imposed the National security Law in Hong Kong at the end of June. It was drafted past and enacted largely in secret and with little consultation from Hong Kong itself. Law banned subversion, secession, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces. Hong Kong's Beijing back leaders and China's ruling Communist parties say it was necessary after months of anti government protests in the city. Critics of the law is sweeping in vague, They say it threatens many of the freedoms that have said Hong Kong apart from the mainland since China regained control over the territory in 1997. Joshua Rosenzweig is head of the China team at Amnesty International in Hong Kong, he says this is a disturbing example of how the authorities air using the national security law to restrict freedom of expression. What we're seeing here is for young people who are potentially facing quite serious Jail time simply for expressing their political views online, you know, under international human rights law, blanket prohibitions of peaceful expression or just not not allowed. Several people have been arrested this month under the National Security Law for shouting band slogans or waving independence or liberation banners.
"national security law" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"Now to what appears to be new steps by Hong Kong police who were enforcing a controversial national security law. They have arrested four people for statements posted online police Said they were promoting independence from China as NPR's John rule, which reports these arrests raise fresh concerns about freedom of speech in the former British colony. The four suspects range from 16 to 21 years old. Police didn't identify them. But a pro independence group called student localism that disbanded at the end of June when the national security law was enacted, said on Facebook. All four were former members. Police Senior Superintendent Steve Lee said the suspects posted their desire online to promote Hong Kong has its own country and to unite pro independence groups in Hong Kong organization prose. Social media's about the establishment of a Newt parties. That way you could promote the independence of the Hong Kong Chinese Parliament imposed the National security Law in Hong Kong at the end of June. It was drafted past and enacted largely in secret and with little consultation from Hong Kong itself. The law bans subversion, secession, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces. Hong Kong's Beijing back leaders and China's ruling Communist parties say it was necessary after months of anti government protests in the city. Critics of the law is sweeping in vague, They say it threatens many of the freedoms that have said Hong Kong apart from the mainland since China regained control over the territory in 1997. Joshua Rosenzweig is head of the China team at Amnesty International in Hong Kong, he says this is a disturbing example of how the authorities air using the national security law to restrict freedom of expression. What we're seeing here is for young people who are potentially facing quite serious jail time simply for expressing their political views online, you know, under international human rights law, blanket prohibitions of Peaceful expression or just not not allowed. Several people have been arrested this month under the National security Law for shouting band slogans or waving independence or liberation banners. Latest arrests appear to be the first for statements posted online. The maximum sentence for violating the National security Law is Life in prison. John Ruit NPR news This is NPR news..
"national security law" Discussed on The President's Inbox
"Comparable official. Official, English version only Alice later that scene why news agency China's official news agency than issue in English translation, which has no officially status, when in a way that means is impossible for Hong Kong's foreign judges to preside of any of these cases or to know how the interpret the law, and I'll come people at the next stage lifers July first is the anniversary of Hong Kong's return to China in Hong, Kong people for every year since nineteen, ninety seven came out to protest staging ferry massive protests. Go for a sample that was like about about almost a million people showing up and this time only thousands show up, and by the end of the day three hundred seventy people were arrested and some people they were arrested for not even displaying these slogan, but actually they had these locates out materials in the backpack in they were arrested and Beijing in particular he mouse to ban the slogan recognition of our times and liberate Hong Kong or in addition to Hong Kong dependence. So this is kind of what we are seeing. Honky weekday at the same time, also free courageous. If these banning these slogans that may be we come out with blanche sheets of paper in each people who are so raved to do so they will also arrested for holding up. Basically Blink side right so essentially we now see that just the fact of protesting the fact that you still have the courage to exercise reseach that's is criminalized, but yet welcome people not sitting up, so the primaries really show Hong, people knowing that infest the first rats rats you've people participated in the primaries. Army's with osophy subject. You charges amidst, nationalistic Pruthi law. That's people so outraged facts. They were sending in line for two hours to try to cast their votes. Votes and the all new? That was going to be meaningless. Let's see also withholding holding the belief that if we don't do today, though he no chance tomorrow is now on effort, so Hong Kong people are taking it, said every single exit we can do today is may be the last time we can do. It's they're holding onto all. He's between these in a way to show the world. That may be Beijing's trying to kill US between we're not going to give without splitting. The fights Victoria one of the things I found most remarkable about the new law. Is Article Thirty Eight, which as I understand? It makes it illegal for anyone. Anyone in the world to promote democratic reform for Hong Kong so if you're advocating democracy in Hong Kong or criticizing the government's in in.
"national security law" Discussed on The President's Inbox
"What monetary or Of No in office as people do, have again, rick in Terrassa Missy, find by even traffic eight. Kate or doing something chewed governments, looters, and so one is how rotten how bakkies loss are which back typically will just completely stifle free speech, but on top of that is also the procedure and the mechanisms in the institutions that created the law reform only amount Beijing to bring in China's national security, which is a secret police and the police security voice offices to Hong Kong to handle investigation most of the Times. These cases can. Can Be handled in Hong Kong. They should be done so, but with raised serious in complex cases than the national governments Beijing Central Government has the Authority not to transfer those cases to China where basically we know that the party is about the law, so the actual provisions of what actions in attributed to criminalize in also how the criminalization process assemble. These are very alarming, so all those freedoms freedom to protests, basically the all God. Can we talk a little bit about what didn't change my understanding? Is that this new National Security Law? Law doesn't affect sort of the government structure in Hong Kong, the council elections and things like that. Is that correct well so I would say that the National Security Law has changed everything. It's just correct stats. They're still going to be allegedly constantly. Elections schedule in early September and just over the last weekend. That's the prove democracy candidates the Organiz. Primaries in different districts in order to choose a simply the the best teams to run the mission so that he could. Democracy forces not would not be competing against charter the problem then. Then is the national security law also requires that all the candidates have too much support for the Basic Law. Otherwise we'll be disqualified. The problem is that the law has always promises to protect on 'cause people's Demento, Bison freedoms, but these are all taken away. A lot of constitutional lawyers actually argue that to national security law, either fundamentally revises the Basic Law for actually a fantasy gather, and so patchy supports to coordinate Costa Mesa modernization you supporting the ferry, chocolate, national security law, and so we expect the democracy forces face the office. Let's talk than about how Hong Kong have reacted to the new policy coming out of Beijing. You just mentioned that the Democratic opposition organized a sensually primary over the weekend to try to bring forces together, not have them work at cross purposes. My understanding is that something. On the order of six hundred thousand people participated and on Monday participated. Apparently, there's a big heatwave in Hong Kong right now. A SPIKE IN CORONA virus cases and Beijing communicated that this kind of participation may run you a file of. Of this new law, so sort of give us a sense of what's happening in Hong, Kong, how Hong Kongers are reacting to change of steps so hung people happy assisting this law for a month after inositol with to drag them in. That's this law being late maiden, and then welcome people were absolutely not in south of in fact, even Hong. Kong's chief executive had not seen the law. This is Carrie Lam Guess Carrie Lam. She actually was admitted that she didn't even know what the law said. Said while for time month. That's all these who Beijing forces including actually the finish institutions the Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation just the seat they will force to patch support for the law without knowing what the what was asked, and for the first time in Hong Kong there was no consultation, and also that the law as soon as if it was made, public also came into effect at the same time at eleven..
"national security law" Discussed on Mac OS Ken
"For standing up for what's right. We are proud to welcome Bubba Wallace to the beats by Dr Dre family. From the scrum apples end to one it's. While avoiding isn't the right word because it can't avoid this one. Call to MAC sites a Bloomberg report that has apple. Assessing a new Hong Kong security law that could make protests a crime. According to the peace, the newly-passed National Security Law criminalizes acts of succession breaking away from China. Undermining Power and authority of the government, the use of or intimidation and collusion with foreign or external forces. China says that it will return stability the Hong Kong, although critics of the new law worry that it will negatively affect freedom of speech and protest. The concern is that China will start coming to apple and other tech companies were information on protesters and activists. Such requests. The report says facebook Microsoft Twitter Google and telegram have said that they are pausing cooperation with requests for user information. This could put pressure on apple to do the same. Apple apparently wants to wait and see what happens. The cult has apple saying in a statement, apple has always required that all content requests from local law enforcement authorities be cemented through the mutual. Legal Assistance Treaty in place between the US and Hong Kong. It also pointed out that under those rules. The US Department of Justice reviews. Hong Kong authorities requests for legal conformance. So, far the company says it has received no new requests in Hong Kong for user data. More news in a moment, but first a word from squarespace your place online. Are you looking to channel your energy? Show off! Your Kid's creativity may be. With all this time inside, there's something new and new that has to get out..
"national security law" Discussed on WSJ Tech News Briefing
"We mentioned this distinction before. But why are companies pulling Hong Kong, but not China with Tiktok for instance they're owned by a Chinese company. Dan's and they've said they'll be leaving. Hong Kong is a market altogether. So, what's that about? Yeah it's an interesting calculus, so it depends on each. On each company so for example for the silicon valley companies like Google and twitter and facebook. There? They they are there. Services don't exist in the same way in some cases, not at all in some ways in limited or various manner in the mainland, and so someone might say well. Why wouldn't they take stand? What do they have to lose? So that's one thing that they have to think about you know I. Think part of it is the global game of perception you know they're under fire in the US from both people on the left and right in the middle for how they're dealing with content and political figures on their platform may have calculated, not only do they want to do right by their users share in terms of their principles, but also it. It doesn't hurt their image to be seen to be standing up to Beijing's increasing power. That's one thing Tiktok, interesting case, obviously, they are a Chinese company so here you have Chinese company in Hong, Kong saying because of these Chinese rules. This has changed things, and we're GONNA. Actually not just stop reviewing requests for us. We're actually GONNA leave. It's unclear what has motivated. That could be that you know as we've reported in some of other stories in months passed a very much want to be seen not as a Chinese company, but as Global Tech Company and they could be calculating that well if the Silicon Valley Titans are making this stand, we should do it, too. So Tick Tock has its own case..
"national security law" Discussed on The CyberWire
"Joining me once again. Joe Kerrigan. He's from the Johns. Hopkins University Information, Security Institute and also my co host over on the hacking humans podcast Joe Great to have you back. I gave. During this time of pandemic when folks are spending a lot more time at home, that means that for a lot of people. They're spending a lot more time. Online playing games now. You're a bit of a Gamer. Aren't you Joe? Yes, I've been playing a lot of fortnight Dave. Okay and we hit a little bit pudgy. But mostly fortnight all right well. I suspect you're not alone there. We had an interesting article. Come by, and this is reporting. That Kaspersky has been reviewing some passwords steelers. That's getting gamers. Joe The. What's happening is they're They're somehow getting these trojans. Malicious actors are getting these trojans onto users machines, and then they're targeting these gaming platforms like battle, dot, net origin, and you play in attempts of stealing session cookies. Or session session tokens, not really cookies, because it's not a web browser, but if I can steal someone session token, that doesn't give me their username and password, but it does let me essentially connect as them, and then I can transfer valuable in game items out to myself if the platform allows that this was a problem years ago with world of Warcraft, Do you remember? Did you ever play world of warcraft? I did not but I'm certainly from no of the game, right? I was never a big player of that game. Each actually I never did play it I. I didn't care for it, but the the idea was. You would collect all this all these amazing items, but if someone got into your account, they could just transfer those items to themselves and then sell them for money later. and there was an entire black market around that there May. May, still be I. Don't know I I don't know if people still play the game, but some of these trojans actually don't just go after your gaming data. Some of them will will sit there silently and wait until you start connecting to certain websites. And when you visit that website, the malware will activate and start gathering data essentially just being a key logger on these on the website, so they can collect your username and password information. They note also that they they may be going after credit card information as well going after credit card and banking information with these trojans. How much risk you are for credit card losses here I mean I think that's probably a a a minimal risk to the user unless you have a debit card that can be a little bit more devastating, but If you can get credit card, I recommend using a credit card for any online transactions because that's not your money, and if you file a purchase as being fraudulent out any anything. The debit card you can be out up to fifty bucks, and it may may take some time for you to get your money back, yeah. What are they recommending here? In terms of protecting yourself? If you're a Gamer well, there is one thing that you should always do. and that is set up to factor authentication right even if you're logging your username and password had been stolen they will not be able to access your account if the if you have two factor authentication on, and we talk about that frequently with the various forms of two factor authentication, but any form of two factor authentication is a lot better than no two factor authentication. Right, it's just just do it. It's great. Only download gaming modifications from trusted sources. Apparently, that's where some of these are coming from these MODs You can get mods everywhere. I know that steam actually will publish MODs for their games. You can actually write a MoD for four game and then publish it on steam and then steamed. That's it and then you can download it. We actually actually did this my My daughter's fiancee did this with a sieve MoD that just made the game completely non competitive, but it was his experimentation with Ahmad and it was available on steam and we could. We could download it. Reminds me of the fast shoot version of Gallagher. Right yes. My favorite MoD. That's that was a great MoD. Remember that old school. White everything out a couple of seconds, yeah. They say, use a reliable security solution, and of course, because this is from Kosinski they say Kaspersky persky security. Cloud is a great solution, but there are tons of other security solutions out there not saying that you shouldn't use Kaspersky but you know just understand. This is Kosinski Article there are lots there are lots of services out there and some one of the things they note here is that is that their product has a gaming mode because a lot of times games will do things like particularly when they're using their anti cheat software. They'll do things that look militias, so your your antivirus software may flag it. As malicious may stop it from happening, but because I says, don't turn it off. Don't turn off the security when you're playing a game, they their product has a gaming mode that reduces CPU load. So you're playing on a PC you may be playing where every every processor operation counts right in right right so turning off. That antivirus may seem like an attractive idea, but don't do it. Use a an antivirus that has a gaming mode that just produces the. The load the advantages. You're not really doing much else other than playing a game the time, so there's not a lot of lot of stuff going on. Yeah, all right well, good advice if you're someone out there, who's spending some more time gaming during all this to help you get through. It some words of warning here to Make sure that you're not being targeted absolutely all right Joe Kerrigan thanks for joining US my pleasure Dave. and. That's the cyber wire. Links to all of today's stories, check out our daily briefing at the cyber wire dot com, and for professionals in cybersecurity leaders who want to stay abreast of is rapidly evolving field sign up for cyber wire pro. It'll save you time and keep you informed. Listen for us on your Alexa Smart Speaker to. Thanks to all of our sponsors for making the cyber wire possible especially are supporting.
"national security law" Discussed on The CyberWire
"A lot of global organizations the United Nations the world. Economic Forum, the Universal Postal, union, Union and others, and we're just encouraging them to send our content to their stakeholders again. Our objective is not to require small businesses to buy anything, but to truly invest in the workforce, because at the end of the day, cybersecurity is grounded in human behavior. Human behavior can be a force multiplier for security, or it can be one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities in an organization. That's Kirstin taught from the cyber. Readiness Institute. The US Federal Communications Commission has formerly designated both Wall Way N. Z. T. E.. As threats to the US national security, the FCC decision will as Reuters and others point out prevent US carriers from using money from the Universal Service Fund, which controls eight point two billion dollars to purchase equipment from either company. The FCC also said that Congress would need to appropriate funds to compensate companies who now will have to rip and replace gear from the to Chinese manufacturers. Rural Telecom carriers are most affected by the decision. And US sanctions in general are changing the cost benefit calculations of perspective Wa wa users in other countries as well the BBC reports that the British government is rethinking its own mildly restrictive, mildly permissive approach to allowing Chinese companies to participate in the UK's Five G. Infrastructure, the US sanctions that forbid Wa wa, and it's third party suppliers from using US technology and software to manufacture their goods are well designed to pressure countries that use Wa kit to revise their permissions. British defense. Secretary, Ben Wallace called the US measures which come into full effect in September a better set of sanctions than the earlier set there, specifically clearly designed in a smarter way to countries that have high risk vendors specifically alway under greater pressure. In any case, the UK and other countries are taking a noticeably harder line toward while way in particular British, authorities see the current situation in which the alternatives to the Chinese vendor are Ericsson and Nokia as a market failure. They're supporting the entry of Samsung and NEC into the market to diversify the supply.
"national security law" Discussed on WBBM Newsradio
"National security law. It's designed to extend Beijing's control over Hong Kong. Washington in response ended exports of US origin defense equipment. U. S Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in a statement said, We could no longer distinguish between the export of controlled items to Hong Kong or to mainland China. We cannot risk these items falling into the hands of the People's Liberation Army. Beijing's national security law could be enacted as early as July 1st, the 23rd anniversary of Hong Kong was returned to China from British colonial rule. Remy Inocencio CBS News Tokyo The United Nations Nuclear Agency says slightly elevated levels of radio activity detected. In Europe pose no risk to human health or the environment. However, the agency says it's unclear what the cause is. Nuclear safety watchdogs in the region reported last week they detected small amounts of radioactive isotopes in parts of Finland, Scandinavia. And also the Arctic. Two men sentenced in a book theft ring face the possibility of an even tougher punishment. Pennsylvania prosecutors want to judge to stiffen the sentences on a former librarian and a book seller in the theft of rare books from the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. John Schulman was sentenced by the judge to four years of home confinement. Gregory Priori was sentenced to three years. Both were also given lengthy probation terms. Prosecutors, though, are calling for total confinement, They say wanting to close the book on the case. We'll rake off CBS News of your top Trending stories and Josh will have the latest in sports next, including more from David Ross. Cubs reporting to Work and Wrigley Wcbm News Times, 6 43 That.
"national security law" Discussed on WSJ What's News
"Hong Kong is a global banking center home to several multinational companies. It seen by the business community as a gateway to China was so much at stake. We're taking a closer look at the impact of China's new security on the region Wall Street. Journal markets. Columnist Mike. Byrd is based in Hong Kong. He joins US NOW MIKE WELCOME! Thanks very much for having me. Mike you're on the ground in Hong. Kong you are very much in touch with the business community. Put this in perspective for us. Just how big of a deal is this? The first thing to say is that we don't have a lot of detail on what is going in this low. We know that it will have rules on secessionist Atta. Choose to subversion of the Chinese state and to some vague implications. Abou- coming under foreign influence, but we don't know the straight detail of it. The actual text of the law has yet to be published, so it's difficult for businesses to make a firm idea of of what this is going to mean for them for the moment. Moment is a lot of confusion, and it's also extremely sensitive topic, because not knowing what's in that bill means that you don't know what will be illegal to save from tomorrow. What you may encounter legal difficulties from saying a lot of international businesses staying relatively quiet about that even now organizations like the American Chamber of Commerce relatively quiet organizations that have to be fat up until now been fairly critical of the idea of the national security, though a now being very cautious about what they say. Mike as you know as we've reported a top executive from banking, giant HSBC signed a petition supporting the legislation, saying it supports any law to stabilize social order in Hong, Kong and economic prosperity and development to have that backing from HSBC. How significant is that? I think hate be. Situation has turned out to be as a bit of a microcosm for war. The problem is for businesses more broadly in Hong Kong, which is a SPEC- signed up to the idea. The national security though they had an executive sign up to that was referred to in Chinese media in state media as sort of too little too late that that support was slow that it wasn't absolute that it wasn't clear from the beginning now. Hong Kong HSBC was obviously criticize full completely the opposite for signing the bill astle is very difficult to find this sort of middle ground position that businesses like hate pc, especially those with sort of one foot in the West and one foot in China. They've done really well in the past couple of decades in Montaigne and jewel role. It's now increasingly difficult to. To do the HAGIA species come under fire from both sides for doing it. It's likely to continue doing so, and that's going to be the case for other large Hong Kong. Business as you go companies like Johnny Matheson, which are really West and run by of had a big influence in Asia for longtime. They're gonNA find it increasingly difficult to straddle both sides. I WANNA. Point out at the time HSBC said it supported laws that will enable Hongkong to rebuild its economy and maintain the principle of one country, two systems, any indication from any companies, especially those that are based in the West that they will curb their presence or scale back their presence or future business deals in Hong Kong. You've seen some smaller organizations to that. In the couple of research firms here, but people mostly stray away from saying for a couple of reasons, one thing is if you have to do business in mainland China saying that you leaving Hong. Kong because of a load of the government of mainland China wants to pass is a bad look. It's not GonNa win you any friends in the mainland. The second reason is purely cost related. It's expensive to move people and if If it becomes the case that it won't disrupt Your Business Operations you've moved people. You probably lost employees in the process. You probably lost deals in the process for no reason. as a reporter is sold. Is Covering London during twenty sixteen businesses talked a lot about leaving because of brexit talks about the risks. Relatively few of them did precisely because it's so expensive to do so disruptive if there are any circumstances in which you can stay, you probably will. And Mike as a journalist who lives in Hong Kong who is very familiar with the business community. What are the lingering questions you have? What are the unknowns that need to be answered to get scope about the significance and impact of this decision. I think the honest answer is that we won't know enough about the little to know how Lafayette businesses until it begins being enforced you have lose like this in mainland China and it's the selectiveness of their enforcement. That really matters whether it's used as the Hong Kong. Government is broadly suggesting the Hong Kong. Government. He's very keen to stress that this won't affect most people that it shouldn't affect national businesses. Many businesses may not in a cynical way mind this of law, if it really just applies to political dissidents, if it's just used to crackdown police political dissidents, and that will be the same as many businesses finding mainland China, many businesses find. Find even in places like Singapore they can live without sort of thing, but the strict text of the bill may prove to provide situations for the Hong Kong government to pursue international businesses if they wanted to. So I think we'll have to see where we are in a few months time once the lawyers and who's being caught up in it. Who's being warned about legally? WHO's actually going to call? He's being prosecuted for until that happens is going to be really difficult to say the soda scope of the Law until it actually begins to fullest. Mike Byrd joining us from Hong Kong great to have you on the podcast. Thanks very much. and. That's what's news for this morning. If you like our show, please rate and review US wherever you get your podcast. We're back with another updated episode this evening I'm mark. Seward with the Wall Street Journal thanks for listening..
"national security law" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"It's about the horizontal and the vertical dimension. It's especially a federalism problem. If it literally were to be a directive to the governors and the mayors in the county commissioners or county judges if it was a directive to them telling them to change their policies. That's the most manifestly unconstitutional from a federalism perspective. It's a very very paradigm of forbidden common during if instead more plausibly relatively speaking. He wants to do that. But rather were to simply issue an executive order purporting to order the state of affairs purporting to order the private sector to hereby be liberated from Your Oppressive State Local Government Public Health Directive. Then the question becomes whether that has any force in effect under the supremacy clause it'd be a classic example of how will sure that would be the land if it was constitutional to do and that brings us back to the question. Where does the president get the power to do this unless you believe? He has an inherent power to do it. In general on emergency grounds or setting that aside you might make now. We come to where. There's a kernel of an interesting argument to be had and we want we should flesh it out. Can you get there by saying that? The circumstances of the shutdown orders obviously do substantially severely even interfere with interstate commerce. That disgruntled done. That's true and everyone who's had comm law immediately. Thanks wait a minute I remember. There's something about things states. Might DO to interfere with interstate commerce. Oh yeah the dormant. Commerce Clause Mormon Commerce. 'cause right this is the idea that the commerce clause more specifically improperly the interstate commerce or the covers Between the or is it among the stay long among the states clause article on section eight clause three is a grant of legislative power to Congress but in fairness the supreme court has long held that it has a it has a negative yeah negative say radioactive or toxic effect the radiates outward just for being in the constitution in having all this intent behind it to support interstate commerce. It's been construed to have the effect of silently negating.
"national security law" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"The government's assertion that refugees in this country actually don't deserve the refugee status or otherwise subject to deportation. I'm not doing the story justice because it's very long. It's very disturbing especially in some of the respects in which it suggests I mean has been mistreated and faces removed. But I think it's an important window into the sort of human side of all these broadcasts and immigration policy that we talk about sometimes on the podcast and how there are very real people in these cases whose lives are potentially in grave jeopardy if they're removed from this country. This is a good time to remind everybody how it works. Somebody's being removed or return or moved across the border to the custody of another country. The international law rule is that You you can't do this. If if there's an undue risk that the person will be tortured or otherwise improperly abused upon return the Non Ruffle Mont rule For the United States for the British for lots of countries. One way this is handled is to engage in diplomatic discussions with the receiving country in obtaining so-called diplomatic assurances. That is ridden I guess. Mostly written sometimes maybe not but but assurances where the receiving state promises not to cross those lines in one of the Huge issues of sort of circa two thousand five two thousand twelve or so in that sort of mid to late Bush administration early Obama Administration range was in connection with extraordinary rendition when the United States would capture a terrorism suspect in one place and then and then turn them over the custody of another country. The question was in in where there was an obvious risk. The person might be abused. How could it be consistent with the non rule to do it and sometimes there was litigation and the answer always was and the answer the courts ultimately acepted in case after case was well the State Department says we raised that issue they have? They have provided a formal diplomatic assurance. The State Department chooses to credit it in the claim was that the courts can't second guess that or at least shouldn't second guess it without further more evidence than they've got in this became such a flashpoint so that's where the law kind of settled for the US courts. Treatment of that issue is basically right and Wednesday as an enemy. Communication particular is an extradition case now and the you know. I think way back way. At one point we talked about the the ninth circuit extra Extra Suitcase Trinidad Garcia. Thomas the Filipino case. Where the ninth circuit goes on. Balkan fractures over. How you're supposed to litigate a torture. Slash `non-reform aunt claim in an extradition proceedings. And yeah the the the. The controlling rationale of the fractured court was basically. What you say that as long as the State Department signs or dots the item crosses the teas. It's almost impossible for a extradited to overcome the State Department's assertion. That may very well be false right. That the that the effort he does not credibly doesn't if that there is not a reasonable chance at the extraditied will be tortured or otherwise persecuted if he is returned to contact to the to the requesting country. I have said before that I think those cases are wrong. I think they're wrong as a matter of law because they're under redeem what's called the Ford Affairs Reform and restructuring after ninety eight Farah Fara Fara One four one one but I also think that like here's a humane. Royer are indicate the far away. This is why I only can think it's awesome. I don't speak any language is including including English. So really really. I think this case is sort of a very thin river him and tell him human Demonstration of why those cases are wrong. I I need to spend more time with the article I it. I don't know that the story isn't more complicated than the version that favors him is. But maybe this is exactly right. That's what makes such compelling cases as we passed over the the Iran issue. Let's say about this the following so there's still going. There's a lot of talk of late about war powers legislation. I think midday today this bill associated with the Senator Kaine Durban Lee Rand Paul now Collins as well so. It's kind of bipartisan. Democrats and at least some of the at least the more libertarian. Republicans although Collins as well Kind of coming together around. Senate joint resolution. Sixty eight It it strikes me as basically being entirely symbolic not actually capable of having much effect. Here's here's why I say that the key moving parts there there's two sections there's a finding section and then there's there's actually a part that looks operational because it says section to termination of the use of US forces for us still these against the Islamic Republic of Iran. You GotTa start at the findings though in the findings in relevant part. Say the two thousand. We don't have in your math that specifically against Iran which is true. There's there's a statement or a finding that purports say that neither the one for the two a. m. f.'s are specific stature other nations to use force against Iran which depending on what you understand that sentenced to mean is either clearly true or or not so clearly true But I think probably as they've written it it's true they aren't specific statutory authorizations and that matters for war resolutions doesn't mean though that they're they're not relevant in a way that matters constitutionally in any event There's that a finding that says that the conflict between it refers to a currently existing conflict but conflict between the United States Iran constitutes under the resolution either hostilities or situation we're hostilities is clearly indicated goes on say. Us Armed Forces have been introduced into hostilities. Congress should decide this and then the operational provisions Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of the US armed forces facilities against Iran unless explicitly authorized by decoration or a specific authorization. Never mind that. There's a caveat at the end we'll get to the problem is what does it really mean to comply with that if it passes Do you have to withdraw your troops from raw from Iraq from counter isis operations? It's pretty clear to me at least that the Owen to amf's would still be cited as the basis for being there for other purposes and the government would simply say we are not currently deployed in a way that depends on the Iran target but does depend on the Isis TARGET. At least if not also other problems now emerging in Iraq with instability. There so I don't think this is written away did actually even designed to compel an actual withdrawal. I don't think the authors are trying to get us to pull our forces out of Iraq. Otherwise they would say so But if you don't pull this if you don't pull this forces out of Syrian Iraq altogether than it won't change anything what really matters which is our forces. Are there periodically if in win? There's either a basis faith or otherwise to say that Iran is about to attack them or has just attacked them or we have a long train of attacks upon them then self defense arguments which have been made in connection with Sony and we'll continue to be made in these contacts in the future. No doubt we'll continue to be made in this legislation won't change that in the slightest and the fact that the legislature where the passing well exactly right. Well that's right and I. I understand that people moving the legislation know these things There's even a caveat at the end of the legislation that says nothing here. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the United States from defending itself from imminent attack area. Which sounds straight until you will. How over the years imminent is a term of art? That's been construed to mean continuous ongoing streams of attack. Not just the things that are literally imminent in a lay person's understanding of that ordinary word. So I think it's actually nonetheless meaningful symbolism minkah Zimbalist but empty formalism are practically ineffectual but symbolically effectual as I said before I'm all for Congress reasserts over the war powers but on the theory that there's infinite capital. I don't mind measures like this theory that there is not likely come on and I would add that. It will seem to ordinary human being this that they did something that they didn't really do right. So I think that's actually corrosive. Yep So and various episodes pathway talked about many many ongoing cases. That really. Aren't that good idea Take away too much Taivon. Ed Karen Hits me so there have been developments in two of interest. One remember Larrabee right. So that's that's our challenge to the lawfulness of trion retired servicemembers before courts-martial hank reference. Not that long ago issue. So the Supreme Court had denied certain direct appeal and Larrabee last January February. We turn around and filed a civil suit a collateral attack on Larrabee conviction in DC Federal District Court. We filed in March. There have been a little bit of motions. Practice commented with the government moved to dismiss industrial production on the pleadings that all ended in May and then we hadn't heard them for a while so this Saturday afternoon. I'm at the Texas Texas Tech Basketball game when I got an E. UCF notification no electronic court filing system at four thirty on Saturday after dude. That's not cool. The district judge. Who Shower Bay Davis issued an order scheduling emotions hear him for seventeen days thence hence from then which is now you know less than two weeks from today Thirty days from now February twenty fifth Road trip so after not nothing happening on the docket for like old ten months. We got a Saturday afternoon order for a motions hearing in thirteen days. That is Then the litigating. Well this is true. So so I guess a ticks off. My bucket list will be the first time ever argued emotion. I've never argued in a district court. I've gone backwards. I started the Supreme Court. Working your way down the list. Another quarter of the piles. I'll have you know. I am undefeated in motion. Practice in district courts WanNa know. I WANNA know it's not. It's not. Oh no WANNA know. Undefeated implies a Victory Nine Hampshire football t-shirts undefeated before. At least one. You gotta you gotTa be you. GotTa be capable of being fitted. I trust. We'll set so that's Larrabee so I expect we'll see. We'll get some kind of ruling on the government's motion to dismiss and our motion for judgment on the pleadings at some point. Briggs the Supreme Court case. I'm now arguing on March twenty third. They set the argument date since last resolved. We filed our merits brief. Today which was relations. Thank you my very very first. Ever Council record Respondent merits brief. And what what color would said this. Is Tom Bobby before the show? This is the stupidest dirtiest them to be excited about. But with this brief I have now hit all nine of the possible colors of Supreme Court briefs as counsel of record site except the one. That's so they're actually trivia question listeners. There are ten different colors of Brisbane. The Supreme Court but one is only filed by the government and I really see a future as the solicitor general of the United States..
"national security law" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"There's an whatever no matter how malicious or incompetent you are there's still a requirement of administering your business. So but then. I think it's taking the minute because not all of our listeners are lawyers to talk about. Why prosecutorial independence is such an important norm retro that in the in the list of norms that we wish were law has been aren't right why prosecutors independence is so high on the list so no my way. I try to illustrate this to folks. I say. Imagine a world where the Justice Department only prosecuted members of the opposing political party for crimes real or imagined and never prosecuted members of their own political party for crimes. Real real unreal right. I don't think that's a world rigby very happy to live in. I don't think that's a world that's conducive to the rule of law and yet if the president can direct right individual prosecutorial decisions included in cases in which he has a personal vested interest. That's the world we're living in. Look think that the norm. That's the importance of the norms. Should be clear enough. It does get tricky flipping around. Imagine a different time and place in which a hypothetical president is actually the sort of the more trusted figure and you've got some prosecutor who is not who's the one who has the sort of the policy preferences. They're enforcing the selective prosecution. And of course you might say well in that case. That person should be removed. Yes you don't have to then reach in and say okay. I'M GONNA micromanager decisions right. If the if the line attorneys are doing their incorrectly there are remedies right. The remedies are to fire them. The remedies are to Have Their boss right. The chief of their section or the head of their office step in and take over the case. Right there are. I mean we've been through this now. This is not to say that line attorneys at DOJ are perfect. Infallible creatures to the contrary you and I can cite dozens of cases where line attorneys have gotten overzealous human beings like anybody else right. The promise that the answer to that. So they're all you know as with any other FECTA thin administration. Does all of these folks are coming out the woodwork to come up with this post hoc rationalizations for why this was perfectly appropriate behavior? And they're all full of crap. Are there tell me? Are there? People offering official accounts same. Look the reason why it's appropriate override. The line attorneys is is are there people saying like because they made a misjudgment in higher authorities think that was too harsh titled There but in the abstract is not permissible proposition for them to taste. So let's say it was a you know a narcotics prosecution in its way too harsh and Mandy. Oj says you know what? I don't think so the element that's different from. That fact pattern in this one is the political personal loyalty interests that are being advanced of impropriety right that that a typical case that is not of High Political Valence. Right IF A. Us Attorney gets gets carried away in the administration of Justice. Exactly Right I. I am not denying the president's power in exceptional cases to assert his authority over his subordinates. I'm not denying that there's a chain of command right. The promise. Is that all the people who are like. The sentence was way harsh. It's totally cool for much. Where are you on all of the other way harsh sentences in our criminal justice system? Well exactly very the packers. This is the same president. This is the same President Attorney General who've been talking about our our our criminal. Sentencing isn't cone enough right in drug cases. So I just spare me. The notion that this is criminal justice reform this is self de Lamb self-dealing. Exactly the kind of self dealing that Robert Jackson. His legendary speech on the federal prosecutor said is the worst possible theme. That can happen to just. It's the sort of thing that is entirely typical of authoritarian regimes. And there's really nothing more than as we said. Then that there is it kind of say one more thing I have been as you know increasingly frustrated by the dwindling number of friends of mine right who are not vocally anti-trump and I am just trying to figure out what lines are left to cross. Like what are they waiting for this administration to do before they say no. You're right you're right. I you know this is a bridge too far and I I understand that. There are elected members of Congress who are Republicans who feel the need to kowtow to their base and so have no courage when it comes to take the president but to everybody else out there. Like what is the line for you? If it's not running roughshod over the political a politicizing the department to a point where you're interfering in cases in which you have a personal interest to protect your friends like what you know. What is the point of having these institutions after trump? If the legacy that he's leaving is that nothing matters except raw power. Well I think you've answered your own question right. There is the line firing the brother of a whistle blower. So this is. This is all coming on the tails of all that stuff right so you know the all those Republican senators. Who said I was Susan Collins? You know I'm I'm I'm sure there are learned his lesson. He learned his lesson. Not The one you think that that was the that was in quite a competitive field. That was an Oscar Worthy Baloney or dumb Damon So do you do. You want to think about The the legal protection of of Lieutenant. Carl Vinson sure so You know the there too right there. There's both Alexander and you have any right so Alice men right was the NFC staffer who testified quite courageously. Right as part of the house. Intelligence Committee's investigation and impeachment inquiry. So he and his brother were both fairly unceremoniously forced out of their positions at the White House. What on Friday Now here again so so I want to be very clear on this. No one has a right to work at the White House. Yeah the fired from their study. We're not jobs in the military. They removed from these assignments. They were transferred back to their sort of rice of base assignments. Right and you know in theory. That should not be possible that you shouldn't be doing that for political attribution that bothers me less relevant. If that had been the end of it I would have said on the list of trump's in seth but the president has since made multiple public comments to the fact that he's not done with them and that they were going to quote face discipline within the military or nope first of all right. We're punishing the brother right for what the brother did. Brian said the the blood is ridiculous. Secretary Esperer security fence as I believe was quoted saying no not you know we. We don't allow retaliation or response was two months ago. You sure I saw asper wrote a letter right. There's a letter I don't. I'm thinking about something. I thought was a recent quote we said No. We don't have the energy retribution against members of our own. So so there's a letter. Asper wrote in response to some member of Congress right. Who is concerned about this where he said we will do everything you know. We will protect our own. We'll take it right. Aspirin might have said something else. I haven't done. I thought I could be wrong. Well okay so the question is what does the law protect him. Well so I hope. I got the first color skeptical that if the president actually directs asper to do something I mean. These are the same people who who who made similar noises about not restorative Gallagher's service pin right and I mean that only cost the secretary of the navy. His job I think that is not at all obvious if the president says I want some kind of secretary asper I want some kind of military proceedings to be initiated. I'd only it's obvious he does that at all. I think very possible that he would resist that one. Especially in that context. I mean that is textbook. Awful commanded rights. So so actually don't I don't I think yes. Obviously trump has bloviating about the stuff but I actually am very doubtful that dod institutionally or it senior ranks is going to go along with anything to go Marshall these guys right but if they even if they discipline them in any way like that's what I'm going to get this done and that's what I'm saying. It would be terrible if inappropriately unlawful and I don't think it's remotely GonNa Happen. So let me refer everybody to the new favorite statute known as ever heard of before the military whistle blower act MOA MEWA more. So this is this is tenuous see section ten thirty four and Tennessee section. Ten for a no person may restrict the number of the armed forces in communicating with a member of Congress period. Now to Unless the communities unlawful okay VIN men responded to US congressional subpoena guess what that was not unlawful ten thirty four be prohibition of retaliatory personnel actions. No person may take or threaten to take threatened to take. We're we've already crossed this Rubicon. An unfavorable personnel action or withhold or threatened to withhold a favorable personnel action as a reprisal against a member of the Armed Forces for making or prepare him or being perceived as making prepare him a communication to a member of Congress and under subsection. A may not be restricted. Question fact clarification. I'm seeking in addition to or apart from communicating members of Congress which is the trigger that covers him. Xm was vitamin early on in the whistle blowing process also communicating with anyone else. So there's lots of allegations out there right wing conspiracy land but there's no proof for there's no evidence and as long as he was only communicate with members of Congress he seems fully under the cover of protection and there was more even goes on to include as one of the things that's protected testimony right testimony or otherwise participating in or assisted in an investigation right so even if you talk to house. Intelligence Committee staffers as part of their investigation as that wasn't part of his testimony that still protected by the missile. Not just because the mistletoe at the first. Let's call it that the Mistletoe Act. Clearly if I heard you right clearly covers the initial whistle blowing and even more clearly covers all that falls. This is a is a non issue. There's no way to go somewhere. Conspiracy Theory is that. He leaked classified information in violation of the espionage. Act and to which responses you know. Show me a shred of proof that that's true until then shut up so just shut up so but I think it's probably wrong to categorize this as an initiative by the White House that actually is aiming to actually get the formal legal processes of job punishment etcetera. I think instead it's a continued. It's just another note in the melody of the song that they wanna seeing that tries to de legitimize in make sound unlawful to counterpunch against the whole effort to criticize what he himself had done. And so the actual the winning move is simply for trump to make this allegation to say these things. Hey it's gotta be prosecuted. Lock them up like him up. It didn't have to go anywhere beyond that. He's already done the thing he wanted to do. Okay but then. So my concern is look at how he treats ven- The vitamins. And Look how treats gallagher what messages he sent him to the military bite. Of course I assume you don't think that he is intending anything. Other than exactly the divergence you just pointed again and in trying to send narrative messages as base my my the same kind for like the four thousand time say my concern is not with trump. My concern is with all of the sycophants and lackeys who are enabling him so I think that's a good not trump India segment. Let's talk quickly kind of a a note on the corona virus that hopefully we will never ACTU- actually have to talk about in in reference. Corentin topic the other day. I wrote something for there to answer. Recommend highly recommend if you're curious about how does the federal quarantine power in particular work In the first thing to say is that normally quarantine is a state law matter. It's a classic element of the State. Police powers it's the sort of thing that you don't necessarily look to the federal government to be doing but there is some interesting history here and so just to kind of laid out for you on the on the possibility that it becomes a bigger issue for US later on. It's obviously become a huge issue. In China in some other places and we do in fact have a few federal quarantines already underway. So how's it work? Historically the federal government did have a role in implementing quarantines calling for them and enforcing them..
"national security law" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Law fair founder Bobby Chesney and low-fare contributing editor. Steve vladeck hosts the weekly National Security Law podcast from the University of Texas Law School. A discussion of current national security law developments in this episode. The third edition of Law Fair Edited National Security Law. Podcast BOBBY AND STEVE. Discuss a range of topics that we thought would be of interest to listeners. So we are bringing you a distilled version of their conversation. Bobby and Steve. Talk about the legal side of accusations. That president trump pressured the Justice Department amend sentencing recommendation in the case of Roger Stone and his retaliation against Lieutenant. Colonel Alexander van men. They give context about the federal quarantine law as the corona virus continues to spread globally. And they go over recent war powers developments and especially listener requests about the case of. Omar mean a quick note. Bobby and Steve recorded this conversation on Wednesday so news about the Flynn case about the Senate passing more powers. Legislation are not mentioned in their discussion. It's the law fair podcast. Special Edition the National Security Law guys. Talk Lieutenant Colonel. Bateman Roger Stone and war powers. Hello from Austin welcomed upset one fifty three of the National Security Law podcast brought to you by the Strauss center at the University of Texas Twins Day morning February twelfth. Two thousand. Twenty on bobby Cheswick. I'm Steve Logic I I. I have not resigned from the Justice Department in protest so glad to hear that. We we need you in there. Steve Continuing to do your job at the just John Crevice was a classmate of mine in law schools. There is a is as good guy as there comes even though he went to Williams I you know that that he and I are even though he went to Williams tells you a lot about how guy. Here's you wouldn't hold your friendships hostage to policy differences. Why why look at us? Two of my groomsmen went to Williams so we obviously are going to have some trump India segment coverage involving the Roger Stone prosecutorial recommendation debacle and the associated. I did that's a fun. One to say all right. What are we? GonNa do today. We got we got trump India trump. Lanjia we've got We've GOT CORONA CORONA virus. Okay so we'll talk about quarantine stuff We've got more salamone. Legal fallout still. Yeah we'll We'll talk about the legalities including reference to the The legislation in the Senate the war powers legislation that Senator Kaine is and others from both sides of the pain are raising if you will yes. What about o'meara mean he'll talk about that? That's a listener request. We're going to be responsive to that. What's that for once? I knew they were going to have the part of the show called the Steve Updates. Everybody on his ongoing litigation. Saga is because there's news in like three different themes you've got a lot going on. I can't wait to hear what you what you're actually callers foot. We will this. Podcast has podcasts. For that's full color. We will split in full color. Only got their bill. Today I have filed too many briefs as counsel of record in the supreme. That has definitely been demonstra. I think you should wallpaper. You should take the covers carrier wall with them. I that's not. That's not showy and snobbish that at home let's jump into trump Quick rundown of what exactly we know hasn't hasn't happened with what appears to be and it's hard to understand anything but a case of White House pressure on line prosecutors to change their position or even just just like men office pressure. Online transmuted transmitted clearly the front office. It may justice out to the Attorney's office and and pressuring in directing not pressuring but directing people to change their position on recommended sentence. Unpack that what then happened. So Roger Roger Stone right was tried convicted by a jury of Several counts of interfering with the federal message of obstructing justice of threatening Threatening a witness End So Monday. The Justice Department Per Standard practice filed a sentencing recommendation that recommended sentencing guidelines based sentencing. Somewhere between seven and nine years with much of the enhancement. Coming from the witness intimidation part of of the charge and just be clear about the guidelines. This is the whole point of the guidelines is to create at least a framework of objectivity and predictability where you match the the standardize numerical assessment of how serious the fences versus Prior history and other other factors aggravating or mitigating in yields a grid like framework. That tells you trace this line that line. Oh seven to nine. Years is the recommendation to setting. And now it's just a recommendation. The judge is not bound by the conditional. There's a whole lot of complicated case law. About what the judge has to do to depart from the recommendation but for those who reacted this life. That seems like an awfully long recommendation for a non violent crime. Well it's not. I mean now that part. That part just misinformed. This is no way nuys that this is what the guidelines range says. That's not true there are plenty of the Internet tonight. And that's what the we're GONNA go there so I can never say no one. Let me let me caveat. Standard Caveat no one who knows what they're talking about reasonable at the principal objects the principal not principled objection of those. Who have some modicum of sense about what they're talking about is that the enhancement for the witness. Intimidation piece was not justified. By what was interesting proven at trial and all of that is that may or may not be true it is hardly out of. Doj's regular daily practice to push for every enhancement for which there is a plausible even if not hundred percent open and shut case in a sentencing recommendation. It is not like DOJ has a history of going soft in sentencing recommendations. Well especially when someone's when he goes to the as as it here lying to investigators etcetera so now the the recommendation was signed by the Four career DOJ prosecutors two of whom were permanently in the DC US attorney's office in two of whom were detailed as special assistant. Us Attorney is to the DC US Attorney's office from other offices one from the mall investigation in one from somewhere else in the country. Illinois Ohio something anyway. This by Monday afternoon there was lots of noise and conservative news land that the White House was very unhappy with the sense so the mental itself got news when it hit because a lot of folks were surprised After the White House after DOJ had not recommended and especially severe sentence for Michael Flynn when it filed a memo. Flynn case last month. Six weeks this one came down. I don't think hard in comparison by similar it was kind of traditional rather than show median. Yeah right And this quickly got picked up by conservative news outlets and by Monday night the president was All a twitter about how unfair this was and how someone had to do. Something you know really is amazing that the information transmission mechanism if you can inject an idea that gets picked up by right especially Fox then it if it's interesting there's a decent chance he's going to respond to an interactive and he did he tweeted about it Criticizing it very very directly and then what happened and then shockingly enough on So by Tuesday morning him there are reports circulating in the news that The main office. Doj is leaking the front office. Doj's Lincoln Tuesday morning that the sentencing recommendation is being reconsidered right senior DOJ messaging back to the White House. Okay we're on this okay. Rhonda's but meanwhile before the new memo is even filed all four of the line prosecutors withdraw from the prosecution and one of them. John Kravis resigns as an assistant. Us Attorney Right. The first time I can remember it which all of the government lawyers on a case resigned on Moss clearly in protest of a decision that was made over their heads. Yeah I can't think of an example now from policy. Let's let's unpack the issues that disturbs one more development and so after all four of them had resigned a new sentencing memorandum has filed this one signed by a non-career or maybe a new career person or just a different person to whatever basically saying we're not recommending a particular sentence. There should be prison time but here all the reasons why the memory fouled yesterday was just ridiculous and aggressive. Overly and we've we've changed our mind so basically they they don't WanNa put a new number out there because then you have something very specific to contrast they say something less but they don't they don't say time served that's right now legally before we get to the policy because I wanted to draw a bright line between the law and the policy here. Legally the next step is this goes to judge Jackson. Amy Berman Jackson. The presiding judge in this case who's already had quite a few run. Ins With Roger Stone over gag orders and what she is under no obligation to accept the revised recommendation. That's right she looks at the first one and it is fully within her power to refuse to accept the withdrawal of the four prosecutors until she conducts a hearing into the circumstances of their withdrawal. So the real question to me now legally is to what extent does judge Jackson. Just sort of keep your head down sentence maybe at the high end of the revised recommendation and go home or if she has pissed about all of this as just about everybody else is And wants to get on the record. Exactly what happened? She has the power theoretically to compel the Attorney General to show up and testify under oath about what happened. So let's unpack. What could happen there? 'cause I don't think she should do that. Yeah I I don't think that leads. Let's imagine what do we think happier? I think it's just what you said. President got unhappy because others are unhappy. He's happy himself. Stones his friend. Whatever in puts pressure on the main DOJ folks who in turn direct that? You gotta take this different position. It's also it's also possible bar this all even without a direct. But but what he got he got the twitter directive and that's the directive. You need this administration. Although I will say one thing before a lot of folks who have been sort of defending this nonsense which by the way I just don't understand having pointed to carry Kopech statement that the front office at DOJ was already reconsidering loves the recommendation before the President tweeted. And I just want to say no. What that statement doesn't say the president had yeah? It does tweeted right the possibility that before the tweet there had been some other communication between the White House and the and the front office so the idea of a hearing to investigate like how did this come about strikes me as pretty problematic extremely sensitive. It's not remotely clear to me that the hearing would properly be able to elicit the details of communications between the president and the Attorney General about this As a matter of privilege I also think that even if that were somehow allowed they're like what would we expect to find? It would be that the president said. I think this is a raw deal. The executive power is vested in me. You were all exercising derivative forms of my power and I want it done this. This is where the law comes right so so I think you and I both agree and I think almost everyone who knows what they're talking about agrees that as a matter a pure constitutional authority the president absolutely has the power to order the attorney general the US Attorney for the District of Columbia and anyone working under them in this capacity in an exercise of prosecutorial power to take a particular step. You're right that that's not so this is not an argument with the president. Did is a violation of statute unconstitutional. The argument is that it is incredibly toxic to a critical norm in our constitutional system. Which is the idea. Not Absolute prosecutorial independence but sort of default general prosecutorial independence. So I think we actually totally agree on this. That we're we're talking about here is yet another example of one of these immensely important policy and political norms that are not laws and certainly aren't constitutional constraints but you realize once you have a norm transgressor as we do it turns out you might wish that they were part of it. In one of those is the the relative political insulation prosecutorial decisionmaking especially in the line the line attorneys and DOJ. You attorneys and I think it's relevant in this regard that the stone investigation in particular is a hand off from Muller right where where this all started as an investigation context or there was supposed to be actually some meaningful independence. Right words special counsel. Who actually was insulated from direct supervision? It was only it's only now in the US Attorney's office because Muller Close Up Shop. Here's the funny thing so so I'm taking the view with you that this is terrible that it was done but it wasn't some ultra vires constitutional action if if that's how this unfolded but the president has a whole separate power. That's less controversy`l legally right. So if he feels this way why does he just pardon the guy and put it into it? I actually think that would have been better here. I think it would have been really great. Because that doesn't transgress the norm in the same way. So here's the problem. I think what happened at what it is. Nbc also reported last night that the same had actually happened. In the Flynn case it's just that the maneuver on the interference happened before the mission was filed. So we never saw it so the irony. Here is the only reason why we're even seeing any of this nonsense is because they're incompetent right like if you know or they no longer cares much. No I think I think somebody in the I think somebody May Justice League it. No no no no no. I think the line attorneys. I don't think anyone lied to like. I don't think it was like a phone call to the. Hey guys. Are you working on the stone sentencing memo? No we're not I don't like I didn't someone that may justice just wasn't paying attention to that. This was coming as opposed. Flynn there were more on it. Yeah well right..
"national security law" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Guy Out describes in puts words in the mouth of the president saying he said something something. Quid pro quo absolutely something like that. Data Yada Yada Bolton hasn't himself said that publicly the whole point is that we we think that maybe we've been told it might be in this manuscript and now we're trying to convert this into a public statement that can be part of the impeachment trial so I don't actually know that the particular colonel. That's the thing that matters a lot of the rest of it public. Yes but the thing that matters. I don't think public and that's why this is also such a big deal because we have reason to believe that John Bolton is admitting that Yep I if the right way way I will say the magic words. You're look which leads to which I thought the greatest tweet of all time by our friend Matthieu. Did you see this tweet. Nobody would be ironic. If the only regime you'd Bolton Ashley succeeds in Broome down. That is so funny. That is awesome. You know if the if the shoe fits so I ah but here's the problem is is that I will say this also. I never liked trump's tweet but I did chuckle. Because he has this whole thing where he's trashing John unbolting he. He has a line something like you know. If I had listened to him we'd be enrolled war six spying. That's pretty funny and and you know I career now. That's why it's funny right. I mean if stop clock is right twice a day so I think there are at the bottom of this some interesting privilege questions but hit most so this is a smokescreen. Here's why I think this matters though. 'cause okay so it's not going to separately litigated. But if Roberts the key yeah providing the top cover for if his opinion rejecting team privilege claims is that as the presiding officer is going to be the central thing but if actually there's a real if it turns out there's a real privilege question here it's not obvious he'll do what I think would otherwise be there. I think all that said based on the leaking about what the the conversation was like. It's really hard to see that. There could be a credible presentation into Roberts that any kind of classified information was in there instead. It's going to be deliberative privilege which is totally different. Deliberative privilege can be overcome. Doesn't present the same degree of constitutional gency in. So that's why I think. In the end Roberts will rule the more and then they'd have to have a vote to overrule Heyzer. The real hard or there will be a deal or you know the the fourth senators who the Democrats will need right to to make. Any of this happened are Argonne back a deal where they said exchange agreed Cepeda bolted. We're going to sit down and hammer out. Exactly what the scope of his testimony is going to be to avoid thirty six rows of privilege fights because one of the things. The White House has been doing has decided that the senators you should vote to allow the testify because otherwise we're going to have to go down this rabbit hole right like an and they don't want to extend it right. Well you're saying so. I think there's probably there are some senators who just don't want any other face for eddery. Said there are want to just want this to be over no no matter. What right and the testimony is GonNa Complicated? especially if it doesn't come with a deal in advance about the agreed a pod scope of what his motivation for Romney and Collins et Cetera. To do any kind of deal other than just casting their vote to call bolden and see what happens. I I thought you were going to go down two hundred Biden path because I feel like that's where God that's that's where the crash it is and and it does seem like the the kind of fall fallback position for McConnell is going to be to try to poison the Chalice by saying Oh okay. Well if I don't have the votes and I think by the way this is why all the headlines keeps shifting eighteen. I think it's a real serious problem. Because they're trying. They're trying to create a false equivalency in the relevance of what John Bolton s say which is you know is literally as relevant. Is Anything you you could make up And then the hundred Biden thing which has this sort of narrative connection obviously but doesn't speak doesn't you know what he might say or might not say no way can since presumably donald trump isn't privy to anything under Biden's about to testify if you were made testify can't affect whether there's there's been obstruction of Congress can't affect whether there was an attempt to exact this quid pro quo. It would do is narrowly in. This'll be a big deal. Negatively make the present seems seems sort of justified in at all in a larger sense if hunter Biden could be made to look terrible through testimony and more point just further accomplishing the original goal. All of the whole damn thing which was to recognize the Biden is biggest threat. He's not nearly so worried about sanders. Award well this is. It's all about trying to are. The idea. Is that the the impeachable caught at the president engaged it is very the Senate. Republicans are valid system. The trial trial actually accomplish. I don't think it's I think it's a little apples and oranges. But it's what it is. It's not what he wanted to achieve through the impeachable conduct act is what will be an is being accomplished every time we talk about Burma So anyways what he thinks the most likely result will we hear the word words or do we or isn't that the impeachment gonNA conclude without the words and then we'll read the words five weeks later or two weeks later. I'm so confused about what's going to happen because like people people are making decisions based on such apparent principles that I don't understand it can't relate to yeah so you can't can't progress for agnostic it. I don't know what to say there. You have to have a moment on this show of that sound. I'm with you there. Double Parallel Aw Yeah Alright. Should we abandon Bolton in turn towards our other topics Yeah that's available. Everybody else has now. Suddenly Hino. He gained the most popular. There is a version of this which he comes in lays into it and there is a timeline in which that starts starts to perhaps unwind things so yes. There's a there's a time eight timeline. All right we've talked at length on this show about the Inspector General's report import into the Carter page investigations in the seventeen some vastly surprising and remarkable FBI FBI investigative errors that that infected the applications to the FISA court for Title One Pfizer Surveillance Orders on Carter page and we know that there's this ongoing larger review across a selection of cases to see whether that was Carter page specific which in some ways is terrible because that adds to sort of this was a political use of Pfizer visor politically inflicted unifies but is good in that that would mean it wasn't a general problem with all advisor or was it in fact general problem which is good in that. It wouldn't doesn't seem like it was politics but bad in that it would show that the whole system is screwy. This is taking place against the background of the need to renew or not renew for sort of rifle-shot provisions that are Pfizer related. That originally were doing national cupcake day now. The deadline is the ides of March march. And the more there is A reason for Republicans to be concerned about Pfizer the more. The prospects for a bipartisan alliance that could coalition to get a bill through to a perhaps friendly White House on this issue to really pare back FIS in ways that no no one thought possible or remotely likely. Two years ago there are some bills floating around you all sorts of things to tweak. The FIS assistant writ large. Not just address the four things that are sunsetting. It's too soon to invest time in really talking that through on the show because we need some reason to believe that that actually might get through the Senate but we're GONNA watch this space very carefully and so the latest factual development in the meantime the tweaks all. This is that the Justice Department National Security Division filed with the FIS is a court a remarkable sort of May Copa basically saying yeah those four flu. Those four problematic Carter page applications. At least two of them were not justified. Should not have been put forward now. That's a little bit the National Security Division saying like yeah now that we know what. FBI did we did not know. At the time we agree. This is terrible. But it's just kind of Steve. I think it's just a remarkable number. I don't recall we've ever had anything quite like that. Are you ever anything similar. No no I can't recall that kind of sort of I mean there's not really an apology right but it's it's like yeah. We agree these these were wrong. I think we distress it was it was it. Was the last two reauthorization right. So so the it's important to stress that did not disavow the original application right or the first oft reauthorization. So is this maybe at least in part about the later in the process episode where that one lawyer completely and objectively crazily Rasouli and wrongfully perhaps criminally perhaps grimly remains to be seen Altered substantively altered the meaning of communication in a way that caused an SD to make a wrong representation about whether Carter page what kind of prior contacts with CIA. He had yes. But I think it's worth stressor the contra the right wing media frenzy this is not the OJ saying with the whole thing was a shout. This is this is dj saying that things went off the rails in the middle of the process. which brings me back to something than I thought was just really remarkable about the whole episode? The whole story you know. FBI did clearly did very things wildly wrongly in also in unnecessarily because the bar for showing that there was probable cause to be concerned that maybe he was and maybe he's an unwitting but nonetheless acting unwittingly but as an agent of the Russians. There was grist for the mill. There without doing any of the dumb start the all of us to say that I. I do think the conversation still ought to be right. Whether we'd Eddie structural reforms to the process add some of. That's obviously the DOJ sided. Obviously that's part of what David Chris's job is going to be the next couple of months but I still. It would behoove Congress if they could find a way to make this not partisan to house house appearance advisor reform right and to actually revisit. Some of the proposals you know. We're not going to agree. On what the radios are but at least. Let's have it out while ironically it's only because it allegedly became partisan against trump that real coalition possibilities. Emerged where you might get more than just sort of the edge libertarians on the Republican side working with the Liberals on the democratic side. You pull in a larger swath. As as as trump world has seeped seeped like an oil stain through the Republican Party in Congress pulling more and more in it has brought with it that sort of perspective of skepticism about about the FBI in particular well so the possibility the march will get super interesting..
"national security law" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"That is is it a that. The White House tries to intervene. or or the or the or McConnell. Someone someone goes to court to try to prevent him outright from showing up. Because is it it did the deposition wouldn't be in front of Robert sweated wouldn't be in. I don't know I don't know if the rule is I actually I should know I don't know if the rule spics this was how that would work so there. There are two presumably assuming this comes out of the Senate so there is some kind of where the Senate itself so imagine. Four Republican four or more Republican senators have joined with if the Democrats to vote which by the way apparently very likely to happen the headlines going back and forth on this right so imagine that happens then the Senate right he puts excludes has formerly acted to Subpoena Bolton. This I don't think McConnell can do anything yeah right. This is the White House moves. He doesn't mean tries to assert their privileges. Two possibilities one is this august August fly over in the forum of the Senate right under the auspices of rule seven where everything would be basically up to the chief to either decider punt right right or trump as threatened to do goes to court. Here's the problem of going to court. The broncos court is the Supreme Court decision Walter Nixon versus the United States. Judge Nixon the judge Nixon the Nixon Nixon. Who actually wasn't Right so Walter. Nixon was a corrupt federal district. Judge who was convicted the various financial crimes in perjury. I think but refused to resign. His Commission House impeaches him Senate removes him but they do so by committee couldn't even be bothered to spend time having the whole Senate try him. This was in the early nineties Walter Nixon that brings a lawsuit saying that. His trial violated his various obvious rights including his right to due process and various other procedural protections because he was entitled to Be Tried by the entire Senate and not just by a committee of thereof and the Supreme Court in the Walter Nixon decision in nineteen ninety-three says well the majority opinion by justice. Rehnquist says this is a non justiciable political question medium were not ruler upper down on whether the Senate was appropriate because we have no. That's not our job. We don't get to police the process. The Senate chooses this kind of just ain't my bag Right and so. The majority opinion said it has a categorical matter that procedural disputes arising out of how the Senate conducts an impeachment. Trial are not justiciable and indeed if you actually go back and read the chiefs majority opinion the whole reason why he is like obstinate about this is because he thinks in a presidential impeachment it cannot be the job of the courts right to be second guessing the political process. So what happens when they have the subpoena go out and it's a deposition position in the way for those who haven't litigated or been deposed. I suppose the way this unfolded in a normal setting is so everybody's at the conference room wires and besides the table the witnesses Begins Answering questions in response to whoever's taking the position you get attorney client privilege or some some question supposedly is infringing normally Eh. There's a fight at that point and if the judge if it's a privilege question you either reserved and come back at another day if you litigated maybe through filings. Or if you must you you get on the phone and you try to get the judge involved remotely often by the phone. Maybe people going on the courthouse. Are they going to be going to Chief Justice Roberts who on what you've just ask God brought Nixon suggest is. He's the only judge who gets to weigh in on this. There is no further pathway. There's no appeal from an except to the Senate itself ways and not not as a judge. You're right but he'll do it in a judge can award to because it's okay so any attempt to go get an injunction to to stop this whole thing. Are you suggesting if there's a separate standalone finding filing to enjoin any testimony trump dismissed Choubey dismissed under Nixon. Now now I want to be clear that there is a non preposterous argument. Right that there are at least a couple of claims that Nixon does not preclude right. So yeah so dixie itself the majority period by Rehnquist talks about how if the Senate. We're actually to violate one of the three procedural rules in the Constitution for impeachment trials and so for example they removed without a two thirds vote of those present if they go on author approbation or if the chief did preside to prevent constitutional crisis. There might be a few exceptions. But I don't bullock the whole. Pity was that's it like we could review. Maybe those three things at nothing else now dear listeners. We haven't actually addressed us. The merits of the claim. By the way is there anything other than executive privilege that would be the basis for trying to stop him from testifying. I mean theoretically right you could claim it's classified pacified. But right now they've turned that around. That's all that's an all caps in trouble. It's also ally classify it's false edits classified It it is certainly possible. It is certainly the case that has national security adviser. John Bolton became privy to all sorts of classified information. It's very possible than lots of conversations were conversations about classified information. There could even be these I can. I can imagine the realm of possibility some intersections where talking about Ukraine stuff in the course of the conversation. The slivers or strands of classified information about perhaps surveillance capabilities or sources could could come out in the conversation that has the national advisor but the conversations that we care about the that apparently are written about in this book that probably will be published. Seemed seemed to be conversations about policy and process and politics. And who's doing. What in an aide about classified information but also the book went through Pre Publication Review? It's already been clear. I thought that's what the letter said. I thought I thought that the that Bolton's lawyers at a letter that said guys we set you. This book. Bullpen pre publication review a process. We should say to. Our listeners is designed to ensure that no policy book. So if that's the case that may be the greatest must Larry's Larry in perfectly fitting example of the inability the. There's there's this malevolent right so if it's right you've got this malevolence or at least mendacious operation in the White House that is also just so ineffective in in the a user delivers those towers. They've cooper who knows hilarious all right to I. Guess what I'm getting at while you're looking up. They readily could've at least slow rolled that that happens a lot. I shouldn't slow rolled it. They could have actually tried to say like hey. These conversations are classified in if they're sort of bungling enabled ruled this. That could have been a safety. I think the people in Israel but complete but the letter is like this preemptive. Hey don't mess with us. That's very different. No no I know so. The letter is to as a veteran vegetables carefully to avoid any discussion in the management of sensitive information or the impression we do not believe that people use required So they didn't they would acquire in this country. We are none the less than in this manuscript out of the abundance of caution US constantly the nondisclosure agreements that he entered commencement with those of April five tweeting waited. I appreciate your shirts at the sole purpose of people here. Your view is to assume missions not publicly disclosed in keeping with that purpose. It's our understanding that the process the review is restricted to those career. Government officials at employees read only charged with responsibility for such reviews. Now you can see your concerns but actually tells me that the administration the white outs still may play dirty pool here in May in some way or fashion low behold reveal that the books men determined to have this whole section maybe about eleven pages the cavs classified information in so that so I guess one thing is they won't be a stopped by their own prepo process which clearly hasn't finished. That's right so I we'll be the headline but wait so the White House has now. Apparently this is breaking news. Here and the White House has issued a formal threats to security adviser John Bolton on to keep him from published his memoir. Yeah that's so this is all just posturing of course it. So so okay. So we're back to the merits there. The weighted grabs as we could read the book at us in Ordinary Litigation. The way this Oughta work is the witnesses in there and executive branch should be able to intervene in a regulation that's precluded by justiciability ability. Concerns should be able to protect executive privilege if properly invoked in there could be. There's there's some possible basis for this executive producer shield. It's not a sword word like I'm not familiar with Eddie Law so I'm not the lawsuit. Where the executive branch has successfully enjoyed someone's voluntary compliance with a subpoena or other testimony on the grounds new? Any I can't say that there's an example of it but isn't the logic of it that it's a privilege that belongs to the president. Sure but John Bolton wants wants to spill the beans on these conversations if the privilege is otherwise enforceable Bolton doesn't get to waive the privilege protects against against compelled disclosure at if if bolted is if you know even if it's the superior requires them to show up if he's willing to answer a question voluntarily at that point I is in different from attorney client privilege right so if attorney if I if I tell my attorney certain culinary things to In the course of protected advice and then the attorney this this complicates my example. I started to go through would have led towards crime products such but let's just talk in by the way. Is there a crime fraud exception to this. Why not? But if it's something just embarrassing whatever in my attorney decides like well. I want to voluntarily voluntarily share that with the public because it's salacious I should be able to preclude him from doing that. If the privilege `attaches so I've been to say that I don't know if that's true or if it's just that like he's GonNa lose his job the second who does it and he's going to be disposed rights and you're GonNa have lots of causes of action against him. Well okay. It's is an interesting question. I think I would think you'd be familiar with any prior case. Where privilege was used as a sword shield but but I both of this is moot and most of his moot because all of this shit is in the public domain already? Like forget the book right. You know the president talks about this publicly boatmen's talked about this publicly so we talked about getting guided to find this and be precise so what what really matters here. The colonel the one sentence it's in the main script that will matter is the one that maybe will say it's either good matter. That's the larger question the assumption that this is early away there will be a sentence in their repair..
"national security law" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"From a legal perspective domestic law. What's authority to attack this group? That is not the Islamic state or in any way connected indeed was was from that perspective part of the fight against Islamic state. What was the domestic legal authority for that? I think everyone including including myself. You looked at this up. Well if it's true that these guys just watch thirty rockets that killed in American and wounded others. Of course you have unit Self Defense and National Self-defense. Concept's accepts the constitution so I didn't view that as quickly tricky question and and to be frank I bring the same Analysis to bear on the subsequent staff of attacking soul money although I recognize of course two more difficult and complicated question from a legal perspective loan from a policy perspective. So I'm Benjamin with us and this is the law fair podcast January Eleventh Two thousand twenty the national security law. PODCAST is something you should be. You're listening to every week. The brain child of Bobby Chesney l'affaire Co founder and Steve Vladeck. Both of the University of Texas Law School will is the deepest dive on the National Security Law subjects of the day available anywhere in. podcast land this week however the conversation between the two of them on the Sola Mani killing and the law there of was so fabulous that we thought we would inject it into your feeds through the law fair. PODCAST feed as well. So here's what we did. We took the podcast. We edited it down just into the substantive discussions of the law of the strike so some parts may be a little.