Sarah Grant is a graduate of Harvard Law School and previously spent five years on active duty in the Marine Corps. She holds an MPhil in International Relations from the University of Cambridge and a BS in International Relations from the United States Naval Academy. The views expressed here are her own and do not reflect those of the Department of Defense, the Marine Corps, or any other agency of the United States Government.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
On June 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in Karnoski v. Trump, one of the cases challenging the Trump administration’s ban on military service by transgender individuals.
This week, the Justice Department announced a superseding indictment charging WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiring to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Jack Goldsmith noted that a successful prosecution of Assange will have adverse implications for mainstream U.S. news publications’ efforts to solicit, receive and publish classified information.
The Justice Department offered to “expedite” the House Intelligence Committee’s access to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information related to Mueller’s investigation, as long as the panel dropped its threat to pursue enforcement action against Attorney General William Barr for his refusal to comply with a subpoena for Mueller’s full unredacted report, according to The Hill.
The United States Central Command issued an unusual public rebuke of an ally, challenging the statement made by British Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, the deputy commander of the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State, during a press conference Wednesday that he saw no increased risk from Iran or its allied militias in Iraq or Syria, the New York Times reports. Central Command said Ghika’s assessment ran “counter to the identified credible threats available to intelligence from U.S.
The military commission in United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, et al. (i.e., the 9/11 military commission) reconvened from April 29 to May 2. The parties discussed conflict of interest concerns, the disclosure of classified documents, and how to approach the determination of whether or not there is an armed conflict, among other issues. Before recessing until the next session in mid-June, presiding military judge, Col.
This is an appendix to Lawfare's initial analysis of the Mueller report, listing instances of obstruction as described in the report. Read the analysis here.
Mueller did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, and he did not conclude that President Trump had obstructed justice. But he did not exonerate the president either.