The Just Security Podcast

Criminal charges against Trump continue to pile up with a superseding indictment and a new indictment over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The superseding indictment alleges Trump violated the Espionage Act and conspired to obstruct justice. Guest David Aaron, a former prosecutor, discusses the additional charges. The podcast explores the significance of adding a new count to the Trump-Morilago retention of documents case and analyzes the implications of a public transcript. It also dives into the document mentioned in the indictment and the obstruction of justice charges. The reasons behind the addition of charges and speculation on defense arguments are discussed.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, diplomats, lawyers, and advocates from around the world have pushed for ways to hold Vladimir Putin and other senior leaders accountable for starting the war. Those efforts include creating a court to prosecute the international crime of aggression – the illegal use of force by one country against another. But 3,000 miles south of the Russia-Ukraine border, another potential act of aggression has received far less attention. Over the past year and a half, Rwandan troops have conducted military operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and engaged in direct combat with the Congolese military and armed groups. According to the United Nations and human rights groups Rwandan troops have actively supported the March 23 Movement, M23, a Congolese armed group with longstanding ties to the Rwandan government. Accountability for the crime of aggression nmatters because acts of aggression can lead to other grave crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. Punishing the crime of aggression is also essential to protecting the sovereign rights of all States, no matter their size or military strength. Joining the show to discuss the situation in the DRC, the arguments that Rwanda is committing acts of aggression against Congo, and Rwanda’s likely responses is Daniel Levine-Spound.Daniel is a human rights lawyer and researcher. He is currently a Fellow at the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict. Daniel was previously a U.N. Peacekeeping Researcher covering the DRC and South Sudan at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) and was based in Goma, DRC.Show Notes: Daniel Levine-Spound (@dlspound) Paras Shah (@pshah518)Daniel’s Just Security article on potential acts of Rwandan aggression against the DRC Just Security’s DRC coverageJust Security’s Rwanda coverageJust Security’s crime of aggression coverageMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Caravan” by “Arend” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/arend/caravan (License code: QVHYMGIQGD5TGMEP)

Since former President Donald Trump was indicted for retaining sensitive government documents at Mar-a-Lago, the Espionage Act has become a household term. But only a small number of lawyers have seen an Espionage Act trial from the inside. Just Security has assembled an all-star roundtable of experienced federal prosecutors and defense attorneys who have handled high-profile Espionage Act cases. Joining the show to share their insights, experience, and views on Trump’s Espionage Act charges are David Aaron, Andrew Weissmann, and Jim Wyda. David and Jim have previously faced off from opposite sides of an Espionage Act prosecution, but they’ve come together for this special discussion. Before he joined private practice, David was a prosecutor at the Justice Department’s National Security Division. Andrew has served in many senior Justice Department roles, including on the leadership team for Special Counsel Robert Mueller and as the General Counsel of the FBI. Jim is the Federal Public Defender for the District of Maryland. This episode is hosted by Paras Shah, with co-production and editing by Tiffany Chang, Michelle Eigenheer, and Allison Mollenkamp. Show Notes:  David Aaron (@davidcaaron)Andrew Weissmann (@AWeissmann_) James WydaParas Shah (@pshah518) Just Security’s Espionage Act coverageJust Security’s classified information coverageJust Security’s coverage of Special Counsel Jack Smith Just Security’s Trump Classified Docs ClearinghouseBrian D. Greer (@secretsandlaws) and Wendy Leben’s Just Security Podcast episode on the presidential classification and declassification process Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Covert Affair” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR)

Today, July 12, the leaders of NATO member countries are wrapping up a summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. The meeting opened as Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ended his opposition to NATO membership for Sweden, and as President Biden said Ukraine still needs to take steps before it can join the Alliance. Biden further said Ukraine shouldn’t be admitted while Russia’s invasion continues because that would pit the Alliance directly against Russia.In 2008, Alliance members vaguely promised that Ukraine could join NATO, but left the timing unspecified. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made it clear he believes his country deserves membership, particularly as it fights for its survival against Russian aggression and defends democratic values.But the agreement NATO members reached this week only offers Ukraine membership “when allies agree, and conditions are met,” though the Alliance did put together a package of weapons and security assurances in the meantime.To discuss the summit and unpack its implications, we have Ambassador Daniel Fried. During his 40 years in the foreign service, Ambassador Fried played a central role in implementing U.S. policy in Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. In several senior roles including, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Ambassador Fried helped craft the policy of NATO enlargement to Central European countries and NATO-Russia relations. Earlier, he served as the U.S. Ambassador to Poland. He is currently the Weiser Family Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council, which co-hosted a public forum with other think tanks as part of the NATO summit.  Show Notes: Ambassador Daniel Fried (@AmbDanFried) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Ambassador Fried’s Just Security article previewing the NATO Summit Just Security’s NATO coverageJust Security’s Russia-Ukraine war coverageMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Underworld” by “Revo” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/revo/underworld (License code: MWDRAARUCSZNLOLV)

On July 4th a federal judge restricted the Biden administration from contacting social media companies about their content moderation policies. The court found that federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI, could not flag specific posts to social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to encourage them to remove content. Though the order provides exceptions for the government to contact or notify social media companies about posts that involve crimes, national security threats, foreign attempts to influence elections, and other similar risks to public safety.While an appeal in the case, Missouri v. Biden, is pending, the decision is a major development in the legal fight over online speech and the First Amendment. Some elected Republicans have accused social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube of disproportionately silencing conservative viewpoints, while others argue that content moderation is necessary to prevent the spread of misinformation and hate speech. To unpack the initial decision in Missouri v. Biden, and what it means for the First Amendment and online speech, we have Mayze Teitler. Mayze is a Legal Fellow at the Knight First Amendment Institute where they focus on the surveillance of incarcerated people, spyware, and government transparency. Show Notes: Mayze Teitler (@amteitler)Knight First Amendment Institute (@knightcolumbia) Judge Doughty’s preliminary injunction order in Missouri v. BidenLeah Litman and Laurence Tribe’s Just Security article analyzing the decision Music: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “The Air We Breathe” by Apex Music from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/apex-music/the-air-we-breathe (License code: W8V6DMNKHYYQ26Y8)

From massive floods, to sweeping hurricanes, to raging wildfires, climate disasters seem constant. Last November, the United Nation’s climate conference, COP 27, grabbed global headlines when countries reached a historic deal to compensate vulnerable countries for loss and damage from climate change. It’s easy to see the scale of that loss and damage. Lives are lost, cultural sites disappear, and infrastructure like roads and bridges are destroyed. But other aspects of climate change and its impact remain hidden from view. For people with disabilities, climate disasters can mean being abandoned by family and friends. And accessibility barriers can mean people with disabilities lack equal access to basic needs, like food and shelter. People with disabilities are the world’s largest minority. And disability doesn’t discriminate – anyone can acquire a disability at any time, no matter who they are or where they live. Creating inclusive disaster and climate response benefits all of us.  To explain how climate disasters impact people with disabilities, and how response systems can be improved, we have Professor Michael Ashely Stein.Dr. Stein is the co-founder and Executive Director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability, and a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School. He is an expert on disability law and policy and was active in the drafting of the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Show Notes:  Michael Ashley SteinHarvard Law School Project on Disability (HPOD) Just Security’s coverage of COP27 and climate change18:05 NYU’s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Moving” by Brock Hewitt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/brock-hewitt-stories-in-sound/moving (License code: 6SUZDR0XMAYULP1B)

As the investigations and trials related to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol continue, convictions and sentences have piled up. More than half of those arrested have pleaded guilty, and among those convicted at trial, are leaders of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.Though these groups became famous for their roles in the January 6th attack, they were active long before efforts to “Stop the Steal.” The Proud Boys, in particular, are on a mission to undermine the rights of queer and trans people across the country. But how have they gone from the insurrection to protests at drag shows? Insight from the hours of depositions and expert statements collected during the January 6th Committee’s investigation show a direct line from the Capitol attack to the Proud Boy’s current views on gay and trans rights. Because, for groups like the Proud Boys, that tout what they call “western chauvinist” values, securing Donald Trump’s seat in the White House was just part of preserving a power structure that depends on narrow constructions of gender and family structure. It’s a power structure that harms those who don’t fit into the mold of a Proud Boy.To walk us through how anti-LGBTQ views fit into the Proud Boys’ ideology, we have Jacob Glick. Jacob is a Policy Counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law. As an Investigative Counsel on the January 6th Committee, Jacob interviewed Proud Boys members for dozens of hours and heard their views directly.  Show Notes: Jacob Glick (@jhglick)Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection’s (ICAP) Pride GuidanceJust Security’s compilation of Expert Statements on Democracy and Political Violence, submitted to January 6th CommitteeMary McCord and Jacob’s Just Security article on anti-democracy schemes and paramilitary violence and Mary’s articleanalyzing seditious conspiracy charges Just Security’s January 6th Clearinghouse27:00 NYU’s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Lion’s Roar” by “Yeti” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/yeti-music/lions-roar (License code: KKOXDIKNIPMGNR2U)

On Friday, June 9, a federal court in Florida unsealed an indictment charging former President Donald Trump with willfully retaining national defense information, refusing to return it, and obstructing related investigations. The 38 counts allege that Trump violated the Espionage Act, conspired to obstruct justice, withheld and hid documents, and caused false statements to be made to federal investigators and a grand jury.Espionage Act cases are complex and important. They often require prosecutors to balance the need to protect sensitive intelligence information from being disclosed at trial with a defendant’s constitutional and due process rights not to be convicted by secret evidence. And disclosure of classified information can expose critical sources and methods of intelligence, including human sources, to harm.Joining us to explain how Espionage Act prosecutions work, and what to expect in Trump’s case, is David Aaron. David is a Senior Counsel at the Washington, D.C., and New York offices of the law firm Perkins Coie. Before joining private practice, David was a prosecutor with the Justice Department’s National Security Division. He’s prosecuted Espionage Act violations and has seen how the process works from the inside. Show Notes: David AaronRyan Goodman (@rgoodlaw)David’s Just Security article on the Classified Information Procedures Act Tess Bridgeman and Brianna Rosen's Just Security article on the national security implications of the indictment Just Security’s Espionage Act coverageMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Covert Affair” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR)

From Donald Trump to Joe Biden, presidents have made a lot of news for keeping classified documents in their homes and offices. Presidential classification and declassification is a mysterious process that often unfolds away from public view. President Trump even famously claimed that he could declassify a document just by thinking about it.Trump's comments raised an important question: What exactly is the process for presidents to classify and declassify information? The answer matters because classified documents can contain some of the United States’ most closely guarded secrets, including the location and identities of intelligence sources abroad. Declassification is equally important for promoting government accountability, and helping the public understand government policies and actions. To help us understand how the presidential classification and declassification process works in practice, we have Brian Greer and Wendy Leben. For nearly a decade, Brian was an attorney in the CIA's Office of General Counsel. And Wendy was a senior intelligence analyst in the Department of Defense for 13 years, including seven deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Show Notes: Brian Greer (@secretsandlaws)Wendy LebenBrian and Wendy’s Just Security article analyzing U.S. government classification and declassification processesJust Security’s classified information coverage19:20 NYU’s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: “Backed Vibes” by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/backed-vibes (License code: K8XOQNJSNLOU5C8G) 

This year, a key U.S. national security law is set to expire. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has many moving parts, but the gist is that it allows the government to collect the communications of foreigners who are abroad, to gain foreign intelligence information, including when those people communicate with Americans inside the United States. And it can do that without a warrant. In practice, this means that intelligence agencies can order email services, like Google and Yahoo, to hand over copies of the messages of targeted foreigners to intercept the phone calls, texts, and internet communications to or from a foreign target.In the past, reauthorization by Congress was pretty much routine, and some new modifications and procedural safeguards have been added over the years. But this year could be different. A series of recent government reports and court opinions have shown extensive use of Section 702 as a domestic surveillance tool by the FBI. There have been numerous incidents of FBI agents pushing, and sometimes breaking, legal limits on accessing the data of Americans that is “incidentally” collected as part of a Section 702 search. Politics are also at play. Some members of Congress, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, have said they oppose reauthorization. To understand how the Biden administration is thinking about the Section 702 reauthorization, Just Security’s Co-Editor-in-Chief Tess Bridgeman sat down with Chris Fonzone and Josh Geltzer. Chris is the General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Josh is Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Homeland Security Advisor at the National Security Council. Show Notes:Chris FonzoneJosh GeltzerJust Security’s FISA Section 702 coverage36:55 NYU’s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: “The Parade” by “Hey Pluto!” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX) Music: “Eyes Closed” by Tobias Voigt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/tobias-voigt/eyes-closed (License code: XTRHPYM1ELYU8SVA)