Please do not take the bait and create/devise all the legal arguments for the trump administration. They may have 100s of millions in free work now but they still need innovative sophistry to gain their intended constitutional changes. Natalie is right, deal with what is and do not lend your credibility to an unjust cause.

Lawfare is the premiere legal podcast of the 2020s for laypersons and citizens of the United States . Great series and great dailies. Top tier legal opinions from diverse perspectives. They're the best

An entertaining episode on a serious matter. Nick’s presents a clear understanding of Trump’s plan for politicizing the hiring & firing of Federal personnel. I appreciate understanding the theories behind why Trump doesn’t, nay, invites lawsuits from those fired so his theory can be tested by the Supreme Court. Where do I send Nick a Grubhub gift certificate? Alan moves this detailed account in his delightful sardonic matter.

Yes, the issue of AI is timely and complicated, but so are many other issues and how they’re affected by legal and political dynamics. Would like to see more of a balance — vs so many episodes about AI. Just gets tedious.

I enjoy all of these but the most recent on “The Hunt for Red October” was great. I loved this book as well as the movie. I watch it every time it’s on.

Ad breaks are now on the order of six minutes long and have gotten to the point it’s diluted the content so completely it’s not worth considering the premium tier. Expect to fast forward the first six minutes of new episodes to get to the content.

The episode about the incoming MAGA government using the military for domestic policing was disturbing in its aquiecense. No, this shouldn’t be considered inevitable as Lawfare has eluded. No, MAGA isn’t a softer way to say fascist. It is fascist from its very origin. Persecuting innocent citizens and criminalizing opposition to MAGA (fascism) is what we are facing. The legal system is the ONLY guardrail remaining. A convicted felon rapist and his menagerie of felons and quacks will be running the country like a criminal enterprise. Dismantling the administrative state and erasing our alliances and joining the Axis powers as a Junior member. Normalizing the abnormal tells your audience you are willing to go to work for the wrong team. Can we professionals agree that our democracy is ‘the’ priority? That the rule of law is completely arbitrary to Republicans, in general, and MAGA especially? That journalists, politicians, judges, lawyers and citizens are at grave risk of losing their lives?

… and silence from Benny on 14 November 2024 after Duh Donald nominated Preacher Hucksterbee of No Palestinians, No Gaza, and No West Bank to be ambassador to Benny’s home nation, the Land of the Chosen People of the Kahane Master Race. Strong is Benny’s blind allegiance to his owner, Meir Kahane, and the Kach Kabal. *** Benjamin was also mum on 20 June 2024 when Irrational Inferiority ignored Bibi WhatAYahoo’s lies that the Biden Administration had stopped sending weapons to the Land of the Chosen People of the Kahane Master Race. Strong is Benny’s desire to deny and ignore mass genocide and the soaring value of his land investments back home.

Her levels are so muddy & fuzzy & so low. And I am really interested in what she has to say about Congress 2025. Ben & Quinta sound fine. Seriously peeps, you have this issue so often - please deal with it!

First of all, a million thanks for all your efforts and dedication to the law. I am listening to this podcast but have to keep stopping because I am crying. How can we not cry for this terrible outcome? Americans may not know or understand this but we all lost with this election.

Are you kidding?? She has made multiple bad rulings and dismissed the case how on earth could anyone think she should keep the case thats insane

It’s tough when you’ve been indoctrinated in the GOP for as long as Jack has but his bias is very frustrating. Thank you Roger!

Thank you!

I wanted to hear about Elon Musk and Twitter, so I decided to give Lawfare a try. The content was interesting. But then I had to listen to 9 minutes of advertisements in the middle of the episode. This included repeating the same 4-minute advertisement that was already played at the beginning of the episode. I’ve never heard such a long stream of advertisements in a podcast. This is the first and last time I listen to Lawfare.

I love to listen to the Lawfare podcast while doing my makeup (including, recently, while getting ready on my bachelorette party). It’s a calming ritual and a great way to learn from smart thinkers and keep myself engaged while my hands are busy.

I first encountered the series last year Nathan appeared on another podcast with an account of his experience red teaming got 4. I was impressed with 1) the rich information 2) his valiant effort to be balances and ethical 3) his sense of responsibility to the technology, the science, and the industry, 4) is sense of social responsibility. Since then I’ve been a regular listener/viewer/reader. I’m especially impressed by is bold quest to learn by talking to people who are building things. The topics are all over the map. This is 21st century approach to research. Nathan is also a builder. As a result his questions and concerns are deep and relevant to other builders. However, since he frequently looks for the why as well as the what, I think many who have a non-technical background will appreciate his podcast.

Preidential immunity

Great interview with Amb Jacobson. Informative and comprehensive.

I aways learn something from these thoughtful and well-considered discussions. Appreciate the lack of hyperbole and rational/realist approach to a wide range of topics.

First heard of Brookings listening to Nixon tapes sizzle reel. Heard them brainstorming sabotage of offices. Lawfare keeps the tradition alive; “afflicting the comfortable” with original analysis. also tyler is a sexy beast! 🥰

The content and discussions of this podcast are quite good. This makes it all the more surprising that the sound quality is so variable. Often the volume is dramatically different between the ads and the content (more than average - I know this is a thing in general, but most other podcasts have figured it out), several guests and even hosts sound like they’re talking in a microphone made by Fisher-Price!

Updated 5/31 - please fix the terrible sound mixing in the 5/31 episode. Some parts very quiet and others very loud. Quinta is far and away the best and most competent person on this podcast. I wish she were on every episode.

Crazy after all these years.

Thank you for this great podcast!! Just a bone to pick ! May 10th episode, When Roger opened the dialog about who might be the prosecution witness, and he invited Jacob , Anna and Ben to answer. 1. He lets Jacob answer 2. He cuts Anna off before she is finished ( rude) 3. He then says “ ok Ben,now what’s the correct answer”? I found that to be demeaning ,offensive and off putting. Thank you for letting me express my thoughts

These guys have some serious TDS. But if you want to here a biased and usually wrong legal analysis of Trump issues or an establishment take on other issues, this is the podcast for you.

Crystal clear and love the humour

LOVE the shows. Just wish the sound quality could be improved? Noticeable difference lately on the Trial daily pod. Mainly Ben, Anna and the new guy’s mics produce poor sound

The feedback during trials and tribulations is killing me😵‍💫please for the life of god fix the issue with Quinta’s mic, asking again- it’s getting so hard to listen and I need this show

Love the explanations for laypeople’s we understand what’s going on legally.

I know it sounds snobbish to care about microphone quality but there are episodes I have to skip because the audio quality is just so bad it gives me a headache.

I enjoy the show a lot, and I always learn something but Ben’s dry humor is the real reason I listen. I always come away with a better understanding of what’s going on than I did before I listened.

I started listening for more in depth coverage of the Trump trials and have gradually listened to them other subjects. Really enjoyed the dry humor and clear explanations.

I don’t feel knowledgeable unless I listen. Great, timely topics with in-depth discussions.

I listen to your podcast because I used to trust Wittes and the other contributors to be unbiased and committed to the truth. At the end of this podcast with Tim Miller, Wittes actually commended Fani Willis and her performance testifying in the Georgia trial. His analysis is 100% spin that I never would have expected from Wittes. Fani Willis did NOT testify today, 2/16/24, because she was AWFUL during her previous day’s testimony. She looked like an angry black woman with poor grammar. Spin!! Also, I’ve listened to Wittes praise Fani for being such a great litigator. I doubt this as well now based on watching her awful testimony. She can’t even string a proper sentence together. She says “Me and him” as opposed to “He and I” as the “subject” of a sentence. I expect my DA to know the English language! Her inability to communicate intelligently and her inability to compose herself during examination by the opposing counsel scares me that the Georgia case is in serious trouble. But Wittes continues to praise her?! Now I doubt the integrity of your podcast.

The Lawfare Podcast is my favorite one out of all that I’ve listened to and explored. I return to THIS one when I want the ground truth on what’s going on. Ben Wittes, Quinta, Roger Parloff and Anna Bower are earthy and knowledgeable— I learn so much from their reporting, insights, and discussions of the Trump trials and tribulations. Frankly, Lawfare is one of the best!

Criticism of original text not withstanding, I note the position of the “living constitutionalists” insurrection means 3 hour riots et al. What is avoided is section 5 which places definitions of section 3 and punishments therein in the purview of Congress. We are a federal government, not to be ruled by State law for election of the President.

The auto ads have made this podcast unlistenable. After years of listening I’ve just unsubscribed. I’m baffled why anyone who puts such hard work into their content to allow it to be completely ruined with auto ads.

On the TikTok ban episode they went for 50 mins talking about free speech for social media but somehow never mentioned why or why it might not be good to have an app that’s directly connected to the CCP…data privacy is one issue but it also matters where that data is going.

It’s wonderful to hear your interview of Dan here. Especially he has a different view about our involvement in Ukraine vs Russia war. Always enjoyed diverse views are expressed. Q

Typically well reasoned legal arguments, but like the legal profession as a whole, leans left and promotes activism over constitutional letter of the law.

Roger Parloff has (imho) been such a great addition to the already incredibly dedicated and insightful lawfare editorial team. His takes in the legal developments in DC have consistently surprised me; like all lawfare commentators, he raises points and potential issues that I don’t hear anywhere else, it’s great having such a legal reporting legend “on the case.” I recently wowed (I mean, as much as this topic can wow anyone) a group of friends over lunch by noting points Parloff had written about; I impressed friends! I credited lawfare and told everyone to check it out. 🙂

The guest alleged an Israeli attack on Al Shifa, host did not challenge that it was proven by multiple sources to be an errant Hamas rocket.

Big Stuart Seldowitz energy

Excellent episode. Though I knew that the big lie entailed trying to make it hard to vote in 2020 and attacking election workers, I had no idea about these lawsuits and this specific disinformation campaign. So thankful for these efforts and workers.

You had me until you featured thoroughly debunked Warren Report apologist (and CIA asset) author Gerald Posner. You lost my trust.

Josh provides very little analysis in his convoluted rambling. He seems to not know what point he is trying to make. I skip over his sections now, having found he needs minutes and minutes and minutes before a kernel might be found. Sorry to be so direct— not fun to leave these comments.

Please tell the man to shut up. He goes on and on talking to promote himself. I come to this pod to hear Ben and Roger and Anna on Co. explain and make clear the important points of law. Josh is just boring, self important, and can’t explain in a way that Lawfare listeners have come to expect. And what a dull voice! Yuck!

I love the insight you all gave during this pod, but the obvious elephant in the room was that he was there on Jan 6th at the Capital. Would have loved to hear their defense of such an obvious overt act.

Molly please work with a vocal coach to eliminate the remnants of voice affectations reminiscent of “valley” speech sprinkled with a bit of vocal fry. Very distracting. Many young women (rarely men) fall into this bad habit. It’s becoming epidemic.

I really enjoy this podcast and all the on-air contributors. Listening to these folks cackle and joke around more lightheartedly on Rat-Sec really broke the ice for me on listening to their more serious discussions on all their pods. However, after a few years I just have to call out Alan. On certain topics he does the conservative legal analysis that is not that different from a Bill Barr type legal mind. Do we really need that? (No.) A typical Alan comment is 'Oh trust me, I dislike Trump as much as the rest of you, but because [insert some argument that basically exploits the fact that the statutory language isn't absolutely elegant and flawless], I am not sure that violations of the Hatch Act mean that Trump and Meadows were not under the color of the tint of the shade of the painting of the color of the colorful crayola color of the office door color.' It's tiresome to sit through because sometimes it just seems argumentative/contrarian, but more importantly it is very dangerous. Dangerous because it legitimizes conduct that blatantly undermines the rule of law in favor of the powerful and at the expense of the powerless. It's Samuel Alito. And it gets a little awful when he justifies by dropping the "...because one day there will be a different President/congressperson/whatever and this would set a precedent..." 😒. It's somewhat dishonest and a bit gas-light-y. 🤔 Is this harsh? Maybe I'm not being fair.