The Trump administration's recent missteps should turn our attention to the question of whether Don McGahn is fulfilling his responsibilities as White House Counsel.
Latest in The Russia Connection
One legal issue looming in the background on the various Russia investigations is the appropriate role of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
The New York Times is calling for a "special prosecutor" to investigate the Russian influence on the elections. That's the right instinct, but, because words matter I wanted to offer a small "nit." The Times doesn't want a special prosecutor -- that's what we called Independent Counsel under a now-expire
Even if one agrees that FISA and the applicable minimization procedures were likely observed in the Flynn case, that should be the beginning, not the end, of the analysis.
An overview of when the US Intelligence Community can legally acquire and use intercepted communications involving US persons who are not themselves the government’s target.
In light of President Trump’s recent attacks on leakers, we’ve provided an examination of what the nature of leak investigations and enforcement means for executive information control.
On Michael Flynn's resignation, Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence wants answers from the FBI because “[t]he big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.” He's wrong. And it matters.
There's a lot we don't know about how and why White House Counsel McGahn concluded that the Flynn matter raised no legal issues.
Ironically, the first victim of civil liberties abuse during the Trump administration may be Michael Flynn himself.
Under minimization rules, no serious argument can be made that Flynn’s identity was not necessary to understand the intelligence significance of his call with the Russian ambassador. The call is foreign intelligence information mainly because it involves Mr. Flynn.