Amy Cooter, a researcher on domestic militias, Tess Owen, an investigative reporter on extremism, and Paul Rosenzweig, a cybersecurity lawyer, delve into President Trump’s pardons for January 6th insurrectionists. They discuss the alarming message these pardons send to violent militia groups like the Oath Keepers, the influence of social media on far-right extremism, and the potential legal ramifications of Trump's actions. Their insights illuminate the intersection of political violence, militia dynamics, and the risks posed by unchecked executive authority.

In this discussion, Paul Rosenzweig, a former policy guru at DHS, and Carrie Cordero, an immigration policy expert, dive into the heated 'Abolish ICE' debate. They assess the impact of ICE’s operations on communities and whether the movement represents a genuine policy shift or a mere rebranding. The conversation also highlights the evolution of immigration enforcement post-9/11 and critiques aggressive tactics used by ICE. Ultimately, they advocate for substantial reforms that prioritize humane treatment and targeted legislation.

Timothy Edgar and Paul Rosenzweig discuss the Volt Typhoon cyber intrusion, highlighting differing views on U.S. cybersecurity strategy. They explore the legal and privacy implications of the botnet removal and the need for reevaluating cybersecurity measures. The conversation touches on the concept of mutually assured disruption in cyber conflicts, the challenges of issuing warrants for technological devices, and the importance of rethinking cybersecurity strategies in response to Chinese threats.

Exploring the history of presidential investigations from Ken Starr to Robert Mueller, insights on current inquiries involving President Biden, a deep dive into a timely lecture series on investigating American Presidents, discussions on legal frameworks and historical investigations of presidential misconduct, and insights on the role of public perception in upholding the rule of law.

A few weeks ago on Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information system, we brought you a conversation with two emergency room doctors about their efforts to push back against members of their profession spreading falsehoods about the coronavirus. Today, we’re going to take a look at another profession that’s been struggling to counter lies and falsehoods within its ranks: the law. Recently, lawyers involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election have faced professional discipline—like Rudy Giuliani, whose law license has been suspended temporarily in New York and D.C. while a New York ethics investigation remains ongoing.Quinta Jurecic sat down with Paul Rosenzweig a contributing editor at Lawfare and a board member with the 65 Project, an organization that seeks to hold accountable lawyers who worked to help Trump hold onto power in 2020—often by spreading lies. He’s also spent many years working on issues related to legal ethics. So what avenues of discipline are available for lawyers who tell lies about elections? How does the legal discipline process work? And how effective can legal discipline be in reasserting the truth?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.