As Russia's unlawful war of aggression continues to inflict untold devastation on Ukraine, policymakers have begun to search for ways to support Ukraine's beleaguered economy and fund its eventual reconstruction. Their attention has turned to the billions of dollars in assets that the United States has frozen as part of its robust sanctions against the Kremlin. But as policymakers attempt to make some of these assets available to Ukraine, it begs the question: Under what legal authority can the United States seize these Russian frozen assets?Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson and Chimène Keitner, Alfred & Hanna Fromm Professor of International & Comparative Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, wrote a piece for Lawfare titled, “The Legal Challenges Presented by Seizing Frozen Russian Assets,” where they explain the core legal issues that U.S. policymakers need to consider as they weigh whether and how to move forward with seizing any frozen Russian-related assets. Lawfare legal fellow Saraphin Dhanani sat down with Scott to discuss all of this, as well as to get Scott's take on how the U.S. might move forward in its efforts to support Ukraine using Russian assets, notwithstanding, of course, the many legal constraints it faces. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Monday, the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in the case United States v Fischer—one of the most important cases we've seen in a while relating to criminal prosecutions for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The case is about a previously obscure statute, at least in this context, that criminalizes corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding, and it’s a charge that DOJ has brought against hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters. Lawfare legal fellow Saraphin Dhanani attended the argument, and Lawfare executive editor Natalie Orpett sat down with her to discuss what the parties argued, how the judges responded, and what might happen to the charge of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lawfare colleagues Eric Ciaramella and Saraphin Dhanani join Quinta and Scott to analyze President Biden and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy's speeches. They discuss Canada's serious allegation against the Indian government and the implications for U.S.-India relations. The Biden administration's deal with Iran, involving the exchange of imprisoned nationals, is also debated. They explore the historical context of Sikh separatist movements and the challenges of extradition. The power of the Indian diaspora and India's response to criticism are examined, as well as the complexities of the hostage exchange with Iran.

Saraphin Dhanani and Benjamin Wittes discuss Trump's expected motion to dismiss the Jan. 6 case based on presidential immunity. They explore the defense strategy, potential counterarguments, and the usefulness of the immunity defense. They also analyze the DOJ's response, Trump's trial strategies, and the appeal process in a criminal trial.

Lawfare editors and legal fellows discuss ongoing Trump trials, including events at Mar-a-Lago and Judge Tanya Chutkan's courthouse. They delve into 14th Amendment litigation, multiple election cases, and Trump's eligibility. The podcast also explores defense and prosecution strategies, along with indictment recommendations in Georgia.