Lawfare

>The term is older than Trump. Suing everyone who criticizes you is a classic example of lawfare. The goal is not justice but the chilling effect created by your legal actions. According to[0] the (aptly named) Lawfare Institute: Since the term “lawfare” is controversial in some circles, and subject to a variety of interpretations and uses, a bit more explanation about our understanding of the concept is in order. Going back to the 1950s, the term has frequently been used in contexts wholly unrelated to national security, ranging from divorce law to courtroom advocacy to colonialism to airfare for lawyers. While the term is often used to do as you assert, it can also have a different remit. cf. some of the topics addressed[1] by the aforementioned Lawfare Institute. [0] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/about/our-story [1] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/

I recommend Susan Landau as the goto person on this. She recently spoke with Lawfare on the current state of play. [1] Susan Landau and Alan Rozenshtein Debate End-to-End Encryption (Again!) https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-daily--susan-landau-and-a…

For those interested, I highly recommend The Lawfare podcast episodes wherein "Members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board discuss their recent report on FISA Sec. 702." https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-lawfare-podcast-part-one-of-t… Direct link to the PCLOB report: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23993279/2023-pclob-702-report.…

The phrase "one of the best methods" means not the only one. Yes, gold is another method that is used. But ransomware gangs are overwhelmingly Russian, and overwhelmingly use crypto as their payment channel. It is far from the first kind of cybercrime to be overwhelmingly Russian, and disrupting payment channels is a good way to shut it down. Read https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ransomware-problem-bitcoin-proble… for more on this. From one of the key figures in shutting down the Viagra spam problem. Which was also largely created by Russia.

Hmm... this is far outside my domain but apparently there has been no litigation deciding on this yet[]. While no court has conclusively decided this issue, precedent and the structure of the Constitution dictate that answer is “no.” The availability of an immunity defense arising under federal law does not change which sovereign is prosecuting the offense. The president may not pardon such offenses even when they have been removed to federal court. This stands in sharp contrast to convictions under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, which allows federal courts to incorporate state criminal law to cover acts committed on federal land not otherwise covered by federal law (for example, a domestic assault that takes place on a military base), and which may be pardoned by the president. Those are federal offenses—“against the United States”—because the federal statute borrows the law of the state surrounding the federal enclave, and they are prosecuted by the Justice Department. The charging documents themselves arise under federal law for purposes of Article III. Your and their argument is compelling, but so is the counter argument IMO. Seems like something that might be tested at some point. If you have any further citations where a court has decided on this would love to look over it. [] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/state-prosecutions-of-federal-age…

> And yet you dodge #1. How artful. Now I know that you've not been engaging in good faith, either intentionally or just how Fed Soc taught you. I didn't "dodge" it. I explained it was irrelevant. The conduct for which Trump was convicted was having a payment to Stormy Daniels recorded in the books of his family owned company as "legal expenses" instead of "hush money." To turn that into a felony, prosecutors invoked several other uncharged crimes--which means they didn't have to prove them--in a triple-bank-shot legal theory so convoluted it's best explained with charts: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/charting-the-legal-theory-behind-… The prosecution never clearly articulated the exact legal theory, but what comes closest to their trial presentation is something like: 1) Violation of New York records law (175.05). But this is a misdemeanor. To step it up to a felony, you need to prove that the records were misrecorded to cover up a second crime. 2) Stepping (1) up to a felony based on New York Election Law 17-152, which makes it illegal to influence an election by "unlawful means," which requires a third crime. According to the press: "Attorneys specializing in state election law believe the statute has never been prosecuted." https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-hush-money-case-relies-never-use… Moreover, the prosecutors never actually charged this crime, meaning they didn't need to prove all the elements. 3)…

> [Author’s note: An earlier version of this article was submitted to the U.S. Army War College’s War Room blog back in the fall of 2024, was put into their excellent editorial process, and benefitted greatly from their editor’s feedback. The piece was accepted and scheduled for publication in February. I found out on February 25, 2025 that USAWC had changed their mind and decided not to publish the piece, after having to pull another previously-published piece “due to sensitivities” of “unnamed critics that wield the power.” I’m grateful you can see it here, but I am sad that our Army’s institutions appear to have retreated so quickly from our shared values.- GBH] I don't know whether "having to pull another previously-published piece" means that the USAWC received a coercive memo from the federal government, but after un-publishing the first piece the USAWC chilled its own press functions in declining to publish the contents of TFA and implicitly is doubting its own freedom of press. An adjacent article with a legal focus, "A Politically Neutral Military Is Not Always Obedient", likely did not involve a First Amendment violation but did undergo a similar `almost published, then published elsewhere` process [1]: > After a series of edits, the article was almost ready for publication, but the author reached out to withdraw the submission, citing intense pressure from his institution, the United States Military Academy West Point, to do so. This occurred on Jan. 23, three…

They absolutely did deny mass collection (among other things). The most charitable interpretation of the claims would be that what NSA calls "collection", every other English-speaking human would call "analysis" (or -maybe- "post-collection preprocessing"). This horseshit was reported in many places at the time, but here's the first vaguely-reputable place I could find talking about this sort of thing today [0]: > Take, for example, the definition of the term “collection.” What qualifies as intelligence collection is critical to the scope of intelligence activity because it determines when intelligence gathering begins. Although it never provides its own definition, EO 12333 repeatedly refers to collection as the beginning of the intelligence gathering cycle. The agencies themselves elaborate on EO 12333’s general guidance by defining collection in their internal procedures. As we chart in greater detail in our article, the Defense Department’s and the NSA’s definitions of collection vary significantly, even though the NSA is a subordinate agency of the Pentagon. > The Defense Department defines collection as intelligence gathering at a much earlier point than the NSA’s. Under DoD 5240.01, the department’s current manual, “information is collected when it is received by a Defense Intelligence Component,” regardless of how that information is “obtained or acquired.” By contrast, the NSA’s current version of USSID 18 states that collection “means [the] intentional tasking…

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/grokipedia-stopped-reviewing-edit… > Grokipedia appears not to have updated any articles since April 24

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/regulations-targeting-large-langu… The truth is no one knows, which is why it is first amendment ramifications. Eventually it will be “decided”, but the arguments indicate any decision will be of political desire, not logic, either way. Both sides have a strong case.

FWIW the article that originally proposed this had more details on how this structure works and balances government oversight / democratic accountability with industry speed and know-how https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ai-companies-can-t-regulate-thems…

The eviction moratorium is probably the strongest example available, and I don't think it's a good one for Biden. But one controversial episode doesn't establish a precedent for systematic noncompliance with court orders. If anything, it stands out precisely because it was unusual enough to generate criticism across the political spectrum. Sources: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/anatomy-screw-biden-eviction-mora… https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf

Very interesting, I wasn't aware of the full legal mess occurring at the strait. I found this detailed article [0], written by a law student, which discusses the Hormuz strait situation in the context of the past century of maritime law. [0] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-strait-of-hormuz-and-the-limi…

Trump issued an EO against "woke AI" that allows them to directly influence how models respond https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/evaluating-the--woke-ai--executiv…

Link for when it gets flagged and removed: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-dangerous-drift-to-redefine-p…

Federal officers aren't immune from state prosecution just because they're federal officers, or because they're doing their federal duties at the moment. They also have to be acting in accord with their federal duties. See, e.g., https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/are-federal-officials-immune-from… (although that's not in response to the current incident). They will certainly attempt to dismiss any charges, but they are far from guaranteed that they will be successful.

Pot, Kettle, meet black. "some elements of the indictment concern cyber-snooping in connection with trade disputes, which at least sounds a lot like the kind of cyber-snooping on firms that the United States does." https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/why-did-doj-indict-chinese-milita… https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-pe… https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/30/news/airbus-germany-nsa-spying

As of October, Russian efforts via Telegram are associated with the seemingly-spontaneous swarms around places like The Hague. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-cyberespionage-gig-economy

It’s only technically incorrect to suggest that Musk should protest over the recent $15B scam profit seizure—it was from Cambodian scams, whereas the compounds that reportedly had to switch to Starlink due to being disconnected from the Internet are in Myanmar[0]—but yes, it’s still unclear why would Musk not shut any of it down if they have the capability (and if they don’t, then it’s another interesting controversy). [0] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/starlink--an-internet-lifeline-fo…

It's even more complex than that. Legally, on paper and in court, Musk was not the DOGE Administrator (the officer that the Executive Order actually named) in the first place. There was a whole "Who is the head of DOGE?" question raised back in February 2025. * https://youtube.com/watch?v=0ziKJQC32qk * https://lawfaremedia.org/article/who-is-running-the-u.s.-doge-service * https://lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-daily--witaod Wikipedia writers, for one, currently accept that Amy Gleason was and is actually in charge. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Gleason

I don't think they would win, the law specifies a class of "information content provider" which ChatGPT clearly falls into: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/section-230-wont-protect-chatgpt See also https://hai.stanford.edu/news/law-policy-ai-update-does-section-230-co… - Congress and Justice Gorsuch don't seem to think ChatGPT is protected by 230.

If they decide to settle, even if for a much smaller amount, its a big L for the UC system and the nation. The past Universities were much smaller, but the UC system is a beast. They must fight this or we are really going down the road of a politicized and neutered academia (like in Russia). This along with the recent Executive Order claiming to be able to require a political appointee to approve every research grant, we are going down the wrong road. I am constantly thinking about this modern misunderstanding of what the framers of the Constitution meant by "Executive Power" is simple "to execute the law". "Article II Vests Executive Power, Not the Royal Prerogative" [1][2] is critical and needs to be set front stage. [1] https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/2062/ [2]https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-meaning-of-article-ii-and-%27…

How do the courts enforce their rulings if the executive branch is wholly beholden to the president? It’s already a big problem for the DoJ. See https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation--formalist-delusion…

To your question - A state judge cannot be required to hold someone on behalf of federal agents. That's federalism 101 and settled law. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/sanctuary--supremacy--history--an…

You might want to read this https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/sanctuary--supremacy--history--an…

This is entirely disconnected from reality [1]. If he was not an illegal alien, he would not have been deported at all. [1]: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13--what-do-…

Do you really believe that these lower-ranking soldiers are going to sit idly by while they watch their family members get raped and executed (because that's what lawless paramilitaries do) on the nightly news? Some light reading --> https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/deploying-soldiers-on-american-so…

Related: "Who Is Running the U.S. DOGE Service?" https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/who-is-running-the-u.s.-doge-serv… > At a recent hearing, no one—not even the Trump administration’s own lawyers—seemed to know.

Working link: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-daily--susan-landau-and-a…