@rgoodlaw.bsky.social
https://www.youtube.com/@RGoodLaw Co-editor-in-chief @justsecurity.org. Chaired Prof at NYU Law. Former Chaired Prof Harvard. Former Special Counsel Defense Dept. https://www.justsecurity.org/author/goodmanryan
2/ Making it plain:
"However, the focus of the administration’s attacks has been boats from Venezuela. The surge of overdose deaths in recent years has been driven by fentanyl, which drug trafficking experts say comes from Mexico, not South America."
www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/u...
Many of us Americans are profoundly concerned about the staggering number of fentanyl deaths in U.S.
That may affect how one thinks about these military strikes.
Now ask the question: When Sec. Hegseth says "narcotics," why does he not say what type?
Most likely answer: It's not fentanyl.
Mary McCord, former Acting Assistant AG for National Security, and I teamed up on Qs Senators should ask #Bondi at her Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, on strikes that have killed 17 people to date.
The implications are serious. Consider a few of the Qs:
www.justsecurity.org/121862/ask-b...
On why Trump's determination that the U.S. is engaged in an armed conflict with drug cartels is (i) wrong; and (ii) insufficient, in any event, to make legal the strikes against vessels in the Caribbean.
www.justsecurity.org/121844/trump...
2/ "The administration has also stressed that about 100,000 Americans annually die from overdoses.
However, the focus of the...attacks has been boats from Venezuela. The surge of overdose deaths...has been driven by fentanyl that drug trafficking experts say comes from Mexico, not South America."
“This is not stretching the envelope,” Geoffrey Corn said. “This is shredding it."
On administration's confidential note to Congress
Completely right.
Drug cartels not = "armed conflict"
The people killed are civilians
Corn is retired judge advocate general, former Army law-of-war senior adviser
To explain importance of Ed Whelan's analysis: This could invalidate indictment of James Comey.
Halligan was only USG attorney to sign the indictment.
If her appointment was invalid, so may be that indictment.
DOJ could've fixed, but the statute of limitations has now apparently expired.
Exquisite legal analysis by Mike Schmitt (@mikeschmitt.bsky.social)
Legally Available Options in Response to Russia’s Penetrations of NATO Airspace
Contains everything you need to know on how NATO member States and the Alliance can respond.
Oregon v Trump Complaint intro:
"stated basis for federalizing members of Oregon’s National Guard is patently pretextual"
"violates the Posse Comitatus Act"
"violate[s] the Tenth Amendment’s guarantee that the police power ... resides with the states"
www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/u...
2/ From last night:
"To speak the language of federal agents, let me say this, here's your sit rep: Situation normal in Portland. We do not need assistance. We are OK."
- Portland City Councilor Eric Zimmerman, District 4 @councilorzimmerman.bsky.social
komonews.com/news/local/m...
1/ With President Trump's sending military to Portland.
Even if one accepts a President has "protective power" (as the Office of Legal Counsel historically does), that power is to be used only if test of necessity is met (as the Office of Legal Counsel admits).
From Gene Fidell, a prominent specialist in American military law, some hard-headed advice for the Generals who've been summoned to Quantico. www.justsecurity.org/121421/hegse...
26.09.2025 23:55 — 👍 121 🔁 58 💬 9 📌 7
2/2 Based on the FBI Arctic Haze Investigation, will be important to see if DOJ has specific evidence that Comey authorized Richman to be anonymous source.
And how they deal with this: "Richman claimed Comey never asked him to talk to the media."
1/2
With ABC News reporting Count 1 in Comey Indictment is about Comey allegedly authorizing Daniel Richman (not McCabe) to be anonymous source to media.
A problem for DOJ is Comey can claim Senator Cruz's poorly worded question conflated it with McCabe, so he thought was answering about McCabe:
Comey Indictment
On the left:
The 3rd charge that the jury rejected
In the middle:
The related Comey testimony Q&A with Senator Lindsey Graham.
On the right:
Durham Annex saying FBI already assessed Hillary Clinton "plan" re Russia in 2016 was not credible (likely Kremlin fabrication).
Reupping this thread in light of the 2-page indictment of Comey.
25.09.2025 23:53 — 👍 533 🔁 165 💬 21 📌 5
Notable:
"Comey has been indicted on two of three counts sought by prosecutors "
abcnews.go.com/US/former-fb...
"Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe’s statements are irreconcilably contradictory. Mr. McCabe says that he told Mr. Comey of the leak and that Mr. Comey approved—effectively authorizing the leak after the fact."
4/ Cruz also appears to fudge it in letter to DOJ.
He described McCabe as having said Comey "approved—effectively authorizing the leak after the fact."
What is that?? Comey supposed to know that's the meaning of authorized? And when McCabe had his own authority to disclose. Good luck with that.
Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who's telling the truth?
"Mr. Comey, however, has sworn under oath that he neither authorized the leak nor knew of Mr. McCabe’s involvement. ... Mr. Comey, on the other hand, has said that he neither authorized the leak nor knew of Mr. McCabe’s involvement."
3/ Also note the discrepancy in Senator Cruz's letter to DOJ referring this as a criminal matter.
On left:
At hearing, Cruz asked Comey whether he was aware AND authorized the leak
On right:
Cruz letter to DOJ falsely frames it as Comey testifying he NEITHER was aware NOR authorized the leak.
GRASSLEY: Question two, relatively related, have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation? COMEY: No.
2/ Senator Grassley's question to Comey in 2017 (in 2020, Comey said he stands by his 2017 testimony) focused only on the "authorization" as well.
So, Comey should be able to stand on that as being truthful and consistent with McCabe's account.
Grassley: "have you ever authorized..."⤵️
Let's shift to another topic. On May 3rd, 2017, in this committee, Chairman Grassley asked you point blank, "Have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?" You responded under oath, "Never." He then asked you, "Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?" You responded again under oath, "No." Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who's telling the truth? Mr. Comey: (01:52:43) I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017. Senator Cruz: (01:52:50) So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak? And Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth, is that correct? Mr. Comey: (01:52:58) Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today.
According to McCabe’s testimony to the OIG on November 29, 2017, he and Comey discussed the October 30 WSJ article in person on October 31, 2016, when McCabe returned to the office from a trip . McCabe said that he told Comey that he had “authorized AD/OPA and Special Counsel to disclose the account of the August 12th call” and did not say anything to suggest in any way that it was unauthorized. McCabe told us that Comey “did not react negatively, just kind of accepted it.” McCabe also told us Comey thought it was a “good” idea that they presented this information to rebut the inaccurate and one-sided narrative that the FBI was not doing its job and was subject to DOJ political pressure, but the Department and PADAG were likely to be angry that “this information made its way into the paper.” McCabe told us that he did not recall telling Comey prior to publication of the October 30 article that he intended to authorize or had authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to recount his August 12 call with PADAG to the WSJ, although he said it was possible he did.
Comey's testimony in 2020
On the left:
In hearing, Senator Cruz erroneously claimed McCabe had said Comey "directly authorized" leak to press. Comey denied that.
On the right:
Cruz was wrong. McCabe did not say Comey authorized the leak (source: Inspector General Report, on which Cruz relies)
3/ @kendilanian-nbc.bsky.social confirms ABC News reporting
Prosecutors "presented newly sworn US attorney Lindsey Halligan with a memo explaining ... there isn’t enough evidence to establish probable cause a crime was committed, let alone enough to convince a jury to convict him."
2/ "Trump has pushed Bondi repeatedly in private in recent days to bring charges against Comey, even as she has expressed reservations about the case, people familiar with the discussions said."
25.09.2025 00:12 — 👍 151 🔁 27 💬 12 📌 0
Wall Street Journal adds to the reporting:
"The president ousted the U.S. attorney he had appointed ... Erik Siebert, who told colleagues he didn’t see a case to bring against Comey."
"Other department officials have also privately expressed doubts that there is enough evidence" for indictment.
2/ "Monthslong investigation ...failed to establish probable cause ... meaning that not only would they be unable to secure a conviction of Comey by proving the claims beyond a reasonable doubt, but that they couldn’t reach a significantly lower standard to secure an indictment, the sources said."
24.09.2025 21:36 — 👍 287 🔁 51 💬 5 📌 1
"Trump’s handpicked U.S. Attorney in Virginia is planning to ask a grand jury in the coming days to indict former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly lying to Congress, DESPITE prosecutors and investigators determining there was insufficient evidence to charge him."
🧵
2/ "And in Vietnam, the reporters ... might have risked losing their access to the battlefield for reporting the obvious: What was happening on the ground didn’t remotely match with what optimistic American military leadership was describing."
www.nytimes.com/2025/09/24/u...
Great opening by @sangernyt.bsky.social
"Imagine for a moment that the [DoD's] new demand for a 'pledge' from Pentagon reporters...existed during the botched evacuation of American personnel from Afghanistan...
Reporters would have been under pressure to cover...as the Pentagon would have wanted"
3/3 On implications of war with the Maduro regime:
"It would open the door to another set of difficult problems: ... the U.S. could attack and even occupy Venezuelan territory; and all Venezuelans here would become enemy aliens."
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
2/
John Yoo describes "a broad, amorphous military campaign against the illegal drug trade, which would violate American law and the Constitution."
Title: A Military Campaign Against the Drug Trade Would Be Unconstitutional
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
