Scott R. Anderson is a David M. Rubenstein fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. He previously served as an Attorney-Adviser in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State and as the legal advisor for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
One of the great political mysteries of the last few weeks involves what has happened to the possible criminal indictment of former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is accused of having made false statements regarding his role in certain leaks to the media relating to the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal.
For the last 24 hours, media headlines have been seized by what appears to be President Trump’s latest idiosyncratic policy proposal: purchasing Greenland, which is currently a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Trump has reportedly asked the White House counsel, to look into the legality of the matter.
Editor’s note: This piece has been updated to reflect corrected climate survey responses we received from the FBI earlier today.
Here’s a dog-bites-man story: Amidst near constant presidential attacks on FBI officials, accusations of treason, congressional investigation, and suggestions of “deep state” malfeasance, morale is up at the FBI.
In his lawsuit against the Justice Department filed last week, former FBI agent Peter Strzok made an arresting claim:
The good news is that national security bipartisanship in Congress lives. The bad news is that the only place it lives is in the pages of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian election interference.
The former special counsel’s testimony is not ultimately important for any bombshells or revelations but for initiating the long-belated creation of an Article I record of the president’s conduct.
Recent tensions between the United States and Iran have led many members of Congress to speculate about what legal authority the Trump administration may claim it has to go to war without congressional authorization. On June 28, the State Department gave a partial answer to these questions, at least insofar as they relate to the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs).