Search for: "Jack Goldsmith"
Results 461 - 480
of 1,689
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 May 2019, 11:56 am
Jack Goldsmith offered a second round of thoughts on the Mueller report interpretation of the clear statement rule. [read post]
24 May 2019, 8:20 am
For example, Jack Goldsmith and Robert Williams have argued in Lawfare that the strategy of charging Chinese hackers for theft of U.S. trade secrets has failed to deter such activity, citing the public charges against Chinese state-affiliated hackers in 2017 and 2018 as reason to believe Chinese cyber theft of American intellectual property had not ceased. [read post]
23 May 2019, 1:09 pm
ICYMI: Yesterday on Lawfare: Jack Goldsmith shared the second part of his analysis criticizing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s interpretation of the clear statement rule. [read post]
23 May 2019, 10:59 am
As Jack Goldsmith observes, “the very notion of an ‘Inter-net’ implies fragmentation. [read post]
20 May 2019, 10:55 am
Jack Goldsmith and others have argued that this rule should have been applied to Trump’s actions that involved uses of Article II powers. [read post]
18 May 2019, 5:16 am
Last weekend, Jack Goldsmith argued that Robert Mueller erred in failing to apply the presidential clear statement rule in his analysis of presidential obstruction of justice. [read post]
17 May 2019, 11:41 am
On the other side, Jack Goldsmith has largely agreed with my analysis. [read post]
15 May 2019, 6:25 am
ICYMI: Yesterday on Lawfare Andrew Kent weighed in on the debate between Jack Goldsmith and Benjamin Wittes over the Mueller report’s statutory analysis on presidential obstruction of justice and explored additional Justice Department precedent that supports Mueller’s theory. [read post]
14 May 2019, 4:47 am
Jack Goldsmith argues that Mueller’s analysis of the obstruction statutes does not stand up to close scrutiny. [read post]
13 May 2019, 10:56 am
ICYMI: Last Weekend on Lawfare Jack Goldsmith explained what he views as weaknesses in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s interpretation of obstruction of justice statutes. [read post]
12 May 2019, 1:01 pm
I am far too good a lawyer—despite not being one at all—to take on Jack Goldsmith on a matter combining statutory interpretation, the presidency, and the historic positions of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel without a healthy dose of humility. [read post]
11 May 2019, 10:00 am
“The Mueller Report’s Weak Statutory Interpretation Analysis”: Jack Goldsmith has this post at the “Lawfare” blog. [read post]
11 May 2019, 5:36 am
Jack Goldsmith defended Barr’s actions in the wake of the Mueller report. [read post]
8 May 2019, 8:30 am
ICYMI: Yesterday on Lawfare Responding to Jack Goldsmith’s commentary on Attorney General Barr’s handling of the Mueller report, Robert Litt argued that Barr’s conduct represents a political defense of President Trump. [read post]
7 May 2019, 2:04 pm
Jack Goldsmith’s defense of Attorney General Barr’s handling of the Mueller report is typically thoughtful but ultimately unpersuasive. [read post]
7 May 2019, 1:48 pm
(Disclosure: Protect Democracy represents Lawfare editors Benjamin Wittes, Jack Goldsmith, Scott Anderson and Susan Hennessey on a number of separate matters.) [read post]
6 May 2019, 2:22 pm
Jack Goldsmith discussed the public’s reaction to Attorney General William Barr’s handling of Special Counsel Mueller’s report, believing it to be “over the top. [read post]
6 May 2019, 1:12 pm
On April 23, the Hoover Institution hosted the latest iteration of the Security by the Book series, where Jack Goldsmith interviewed Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman about their new book, “Of Privacy and Power, The Transatlantic Struggle Over Freedom and Security. [read post]
30 Apr 2019, 8:54 am
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report found that the federal obstruction of justice statutes can apply to the president, even though the statutes do not state this expressly. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 8:21 am
Jack Goldsmith and John Manning have studied the “protean” nature of the clause and the many contradictory interpretations that courts have adopted; here, Mueller’s analysis has some resemblance to the understanding set out by Andrew Kent, Ethan Leib and Jed Shugerman, who argue that the Take Care Clause imposes a “duty of fidelity” on the president. [read post]
