Good evening:
Friday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable Alicia Wanless and I speculated wildly about how to actually annex something in this day and age. Is imperialism back? Does the United States just invade Canada, Greenland, and Panama? Or is there some cleverer way to do it?
We also talked about what sort of relationship the U.S. and Canada should actually have, if naked conquest is off the table:
My apologies to those who tried to join and failed. It was my fault. I had the settings wrong on the new studio. Please try again tomorrow when the estimable Holly Berkley Fletcher and I will be talking about the humanitarian crisis in Sudan.
The Situation: A Measure of Justice Amid the Complaints
In my “The Situation” column Friday, I observe that despite the criticisms leveled at aspects of the New York hush money case, Trump’s sentencing represents a small victory for the rule of law.
No, it has not produced a just sentence. No, I can’t promise you that some appellate court won’t overturn it, that it is bulletproof on appeal. But ever since Trump’s first term, people have been looking to the criminal justice system to do something about Trump. And in that time, exactly one case has made it past the evidentiary collection stage, past the indictment stage, past the motions to dismiss and the interlocutory appeals, past the Supreme Court’s retroactively erected barriers, past the selection and seating of a jury and the conduct of a trial, and straight through to sentencing. And that was the little case about which so many people were so keen to complain.
Friday On Lawfare
‘They Call It Lawfare’: Trump Faces Sentencing
Anna Bower, Tyler McBrien, and Katherine Pompilio report from President-elect Donald Trump’s sentencing Friday morning in the New York Supreme Court. Justice Juan Merchan sentenced the president-elect to “unconditional discharge”—meaning he will not face penalties, but will enter office as a convicted felon:
Now Justice Merchan cuts to the chase. “After careful analysis and obedience to governing mandates, and pursuant to the rule of law, this court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching upon the highest office in the land is an unconditional discharge,” he says. “Therefore, at this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts.”
Eastern European History in the International Court of Justice
Iryna Marchuk argues that the ICJ’s lack of engagement with Russia and Ukraine’s contrasting historical narratives—particularly relating to events pre-2014—has negatively impacted the court’s reasoning in recent litigation between the two states.
Ultimately, the ICJ judges’ failure to engage with Ukraine and Russia’s contrasting historical accounts, especially in the case of Ukraine v. Russia (ICSFT and CERD), led to poorer legal reasoning, unintentionally sanitized certain Russian historical narratives, and may have inadvertently affected the outcome of proceedings. It remains to be seen to what extent the ICJ judges will engage with historical context on the merits in Ukraine’s pending case regarding the false claim of genocide, as well as in other lawsuits from the Eastern European region.
Podcasts
On Lawfare Daily, Melissa Stewart joins McBrien to discuss the International Court of Justice’s impending advisory opinion on the extent to which states are accountable for climate change. They talk about the phenomenon of “jurisdictional ingenuity” and the novel ways in which countries are bringing climate disputes to international courts:
Videos
Lawfare Senior Editor Alan Rozenshtein and Senior Staff Attorney at the Knight Institute Ramya Krishnan join Lawfare Tarbell Fellow in Artificial Intelligence Kevin Frazier to discuss the Supreme Court oral arguments over the legislation passed by Congress that bans TikTok unless its parent company ByteDance divests from the app:
And I speak to McBrien, Bower, and Quinta Jurecic about Trump’s sentencing in the New York hush money case and the recent developments surrounding the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Final Report in the Jan. 6 and classified document prosecutions:
Tell Me Something Interesting
It may occur to us to wonder whether a felon such as Donald Trump is truly worthy to annex Greenland. Never fear!
We have reference to the invaluable Saga of Eirik the Red, which may teach us a little something about the type of felonious history required of those who seek to acquire Greenland.
We present here an abridged version of Chapter 2 of the Saga, which, though much shortened, captures the essence of the story:
…Eirik removed from Jadar (in Norway) to Iceland, because of manslaughters…
Then did Eirik's thralls cause a landslide on the estate of Valthjof…
Eirik slew Eyjolf the Foul; he slew also Hrafn the Dueller … and then was Eirik banished from Haukadalr…
Eirik and his people were outlawed at Thorsnes Thing.
…
In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, "Because," said he, "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name."
Truly, a history of crime may be a prerequisite. The real question is whether Trump’s paltry 34 felonies for business records falsification measure up for a man who aspires to take Greenland.
Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is the baby capybara that long-time reader Janine got to cuddle with this weekend:


Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Dog Shirt Daily to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.