Which Material-Support Statute Was Used and Why It Matters

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Senior Fellow Eric Columbus, Ukraine Fellow Anastasiia Lapatina, and Public Service Fellow Loren Voss to talk through the week’s big news in national security, including:

• “Visiting Concessions.” President Trump once again turned his focus to the conflict in Ukraine, announcing last week that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin would be meeting to discuss the conflict in Budapest—though it’s not clear Putin has agreed. This occurred just days before a planned visit to the White House by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where Trump reportedly pressured him to make territorial concessions requested by Putin in exchange for an end to the conflict and failed to respond affirmatively to his requests for Tomahawk missiles and U.S. security commitments. Is this a real shift in the U.S. position? And what might it mean for the broader conflict?
• “Posse ComiSCOTUS.” After months of litigation in the lower courts, the Trump administration has finally gone to the Supreme Court regarding the legality of its domestic military deployments, seeking a stay on an injunction on its planned deployment to Chicago that was recently left in place by the Seventh Circuit. How big a decision point is this in terms of the legal authorities around domestic military deployments? And how does the Court seem poised to rule?
• “Material Contort.” Just weeks after designating ANTIFA a “domestic terrorism organization,” the Trump administration has brought its first set of related criminal charges, relating to a July event at a Texas immigration detention facility that left one police officer shot in the neck. The indictment includes charges under the material support for terrorism statute—but probably not the one you’re thinking of. How much does the indictment stretch the usual use of these statutes? And what does it tell us about the Trump administration’s anti-ANTIFA campaign?

In object lessons, Loren thinks we should play more and recommends Wayside Farm for a pumpkin-picking, maize-mazing good time. Eric thinks we should get cozy more with a second-skin, chambray-shirt classic. Scott thinks we should reflect more with a majorly-meditative, lightlessly-enlightening retreat. And Nastya thinks we should read more with eloquent-essayist Zadie Smith’s cultural commentary, “Feel Free.” 

To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.