In this week’s episode, Professor Chesney and I catch up with a number of 2017’s most-persistent national security law sagas.
For starters, there’s the indictment and plea agreement of Michael Flynn. What does the charge signify, and what does this imply for the larger Mueller investigation?
This leads directly to a discussion of whether it is possible, as a legal matter, for the President to “obstruct justice” (and how that phrase has both legal and political significance).
From there, your hosts pivot to the slowly-unfolding drama of ACLU v. Mattis, where the district court has now begun to engage directly. The parties for the moment are fighting over the extent (if any) of the court’s authority to order jurisdictional discovery.
Next up is the recent action in the Supreme Court of the United States, where (i) Travel Ban 3.0 just got some very good news, (ii) the Third Party Doctrine looks likely to be shrunk to some degree in Carpenter, and (iii) owners of Persian sarcophagi are watching the Rubin case unfold with bated breath.
Last but by no means least: we’ve entered the final countdown for Section 702 renewal, and rumors are afoot to the effect that the SSCI bill or the HPSCI bill may simply be tacked on to a must-pass legislative vehicle (such as a bill to avert a government shutdown). Your hosts will take a quick look at what the Senate bill does and does not do, with that prospect in mind.
Of course, then you have the trivialities segment. This time its an assessment of the College Football Playoff structure, followed–naturally enough–by a review of…Love Actually.