Is Trump's Iran War Legal? (w/ Ryan Goodman) | Bulwark on Sunday

The nomination of Jay Clayton as Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is deeply troubling. Clayton lacks the extensive national security experience required for the role, having primarily served as US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. His recent public statements, including validating fake election fraud claims and endorsing a controversial 'slush fund,' suggest he is 'auditioning' for the President rather than being a neutral truth-teller. This raises fears that he would politicize intelligence, similar to how Russia's intelligence apparatus became loyalist 'lapdogs' for Putin, leading to strategic failures.

Goodman notes Clayton's lack of 'vast national security experience' and his 'pontificating on the California election' and validating 'fraud claims' on TV, suggesting he's 'auditioning for the president.' He also endorsed a 'slush fund' which was 'full level corruption.'

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a critical post-9/11 intelligence tool, considered vital for US national security. It provides approximately 70% of the information for the Presidential Daily Brief and is essential for understanding and countering threats like terrorism. However, while designed to target foreign nationals outside the US, it incidentally collects communications involving US citizens. This 'incidental collection' creates a civil liberties concern regarding access to US citizens' data without a search warrant, leading to ongoing debate about reauthorization and additional protections.

Goodman states 'if 702 were to go away... lives would be lost' and '70% of the information that comes to the presidential daily brief it comes from 702.' He acknowledges the 'civil libertarian issue' of 'incidentally collect[ing] a bunch of information' from US nationals.

Todd Blanchet's conduct as Deputy and Acting Attorney General has been 'horrible' and 'corrupt,' effectively disqualifying him for the Attorney General position. His actions, including the firing of career Justice Department attorneys for ideological reasons and justifying controversial decisions like the 'slush fund,' represent a severe undermining of the Justice Department's independence and rule of law. His confirmation would further politicize the department, making it an instrument of presidential will rather than an impartial enforcer of justice.

Goodman states Blanchet 'carried out his position... in a horrible manner' and 'disqualified himself for the job' through 'corrupt' actions, including 'firings of the Justice Department career attorneys for purely ideological reasons.'

The US military's killing of Nina Guerrero, head of the Tren de Aragua gang in Venezuela, is an 'extrajudicial killing' and 'murder' under US law. Despite Guerrero being indicted in the US, the action bypasses legal processes like trial and imprisonment. The administration's justification—that the gang is an 'army'—is a dangerous legal stretch, as it could be used to justify lethal force against alleged criminals domestically. This action also creates hypocrisy, as the US government simultaneously argues in court that the gang acts at the direction of the Venezuelan government to justify deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, while publicly cooperating with that same government.

Goodman calls the killing 'absolutely remarkable' and 'murder,' noting Guerrero was 'indicted in the United States for crimes' but 'not capital offenses.' He highlights the president's justification of the gang as an 'army' and the 'hypocrisy' with the Alien Enemies Act, where the US government argues the gang is acting 'at the direction of the Venezuelan government' while simultaneously cooperating with Venezuela.

The Supreme Court's potential affirmation of a maximalist 'unitary executive theory' could allow the President to fire any executive official at will, dismantling 150 years of civil service protections. This would transform the government into a 'spoil system' where political loyalty dictates employment, undermining the independence and expertise of federal agencies. Such a ruling would also severely limit Congress's ability to legislate protections for the administrative state, creating a profound imbalance of power in favor of the executive branch.

Goodman explains the theory allows the president 'to remove people from... independent agencies' and 'completely control anybody who's an executive official.' He agrees it could 'destroy all our civil service and the Pendleton Act and 150 years of trying to insulate to some degree some parts of the executive branch from pure political... and personal control.'