Operation Brahms is Back
With apologies for the break
Good Afternoon:
The very estimable Melissa Milhourn has been designing shirts. This one features a picture of me—though it’s kinda hard to tell that it’s me.
Operation Brahms
It’s been a while since the last episode of Operation Brahms, but I haven’t forgotten, and didn’t even lose my place in our opus order. We are at Opus 17 which is a lovely little piece of which I was previously ignorant entitled “Vier Gesänge” (four songs). That makes it sound like four songs for one voice and a piano, but it’s definitely not that. Recall that Brahms was running a women’s choir at this time in life, So this is four songs for women’s choir—and somewhat incongruously, two french horns and a harp.
And so begins Brahm’s occasional love affair with beginning works with french horns—something we will see again when the second piano concerto rolls around—and more generally, with featuring the horn a lot. The famous horn trio is probably the most prominent example of this. But as an old horn player myself, I have to say that Brahms is a great composer for horns. Like, really great. In fact, having been a teenaged horn player probably accounts for some portion of my lifelong love of Brahms. It was definitely the gateway through which I came to Brahms’s music.
All of which made me quite surprised to fine a Brahms piece featuring two horns and opening with an arresting horn solo of which I was wholly unaware. There aren’t many performances of it on YouTube, but there are a few. And this one, featuring the Netherlands Radio Choir and an ensemble from The Netherlands Radio Philharmonic Orchestra, conducted by Michael Gläser, is lovely.
Tuesday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable
and the estimable showed up to discuss the dismissal of the Comey and James indictments, the latest shameful developments in Ukraine peace negotiations, and real world encounters with antisemitism:Wednesday on #DogShirtTV, the Greek Chorus and various estimable cohosts wandered in and out for a meandering discussion covering Finnish synagogues, Canadian border control, and whether Lawfare should try to win journalism awards.
The Situation
In Tuesday’s “The Situation” column, I consider District Judge Cameron Currie’s dismissal of the cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on the grounds that Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed as U.S. attorney. I argue that dismissing for a technicality did not adequately reflect the egregiousness of the cases and urge the defense to seek further sanctions against Halligan—including, if possible, her law license:
So let me confess to being—notwithstanding the sense of relief that these prosecutions, absent appellate court intervention, will not go forward—left a little cold that the government will not face an accounting for any of these questions. This is particularly true regarding the sheer paucity of evidence of criminality in either case, a matter for which it is simply appalling that Halligan will not be accountable in court.
To put it bluntly, the government and Halligan here got off on a technicality.
And yet, in the rough and tumble world of criminal litigation, a win is a win. It is good for the defendants—if not intellectually or emotionally satisfying—to win these cases quickly and not have to go to trial, which is expensive, time consuming, and always involves uncertainty. It is good for democracy to have a swift rebuke of the administration’s conduct, even if a rather technical one that ignores the bigger picture. And yes, it is generally good to resolve cases on narrower, rather than broader, grounds where possible.
In yesterday’s “The Situation” column, the estimable Katherine Pompilio and I create a choose-your-own-adventure game summarizing all the options that remain to Lindsey Halligan for prosecuting former FBI Director James Comey.
Our suggestion is that you play this flowchart game a few dozen times before deciding your next move. Here’s what you’ll see if you go through this exercise: You lose. One way or another, embarrassingly or with a modicum of dignity. There is only one path to victory for you in this chart, and it involves the most inside of inside straights. In other words, your chances of success are slim.
Here’s the flowchart itself.
Recently on Lawfare
Compiled by the estimable Isabel Arroyo
Trump Is Usurping Congress’s Power of the Purse
Mark Sandy breaks down how new authorities asserted by the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) encroach upon Congress’s power over appropriations. Sandy analyzes OMB’s legal justifications for these authorities and sketches out ways for Congress to defend its power of the purse.
The Trump administration’s recent efforts to impound congressional appropriations create a fundamental challenge to Congress’s constitutional power of the purse (“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”). Unapproved rescissions and other tools have led to money no longer being available for its enacted purposes. While terms such as “impoundment” and “rescission” are not well known or understood by most people even within the federal government, much less across the country, the bottom line is that funding specified in legislation passed by elected representatives and signed into law by the president is increasingly at risk of not being spent consistent with the law.
Macronism: Fin?
Ariane Tabatabai describes how a confluence of domestic challenges have dampened French President Emmanuel Macron’s popularity at home even as he’s attempted to exert influence on the global stage. Tabatabai reflects on how the “macronist” approach to foreign relations might influence Paris’s role in NATO and the European Union after Macron leaves office.
As NATO, and alliances in general, take a backseat in the United States’s approach to foreign affairs and international security under President Trump, Macron’s failure to cement his legacy of a new European security architecture could leave the EU even more vulnerable if and when—as it currently appears plausible—a far-right Euroskeptic were to succeed him. And should the United States return to its alliance-centered national security strategy, it could find a long-term ally and key teammate missing in action.
The Hidden Risks of Platform Control Over Historical Memory
Alena Gribanova explains how the European Union’s Digital Services Act gives regulators unprecedented and untested power to shape historical memory—as well as future war crimes prosecutions—by determining which images of violence are allowed to exist on digital platforms.
In modern conflicts, the first casualty is not truth but visibility. Platforms decide which images of war survive and which disappear. The new Digital Services Act (DSA) in the European Union gives regulators unprecedented powers to shape this process. Information has long been a strategic asset in war. Contemporary conflicts have accelerated this trend to an unprecedented scale due to the vast volume of digital evidence. Control over digital narratives now shapes public perception of war as it unfolds. Digital platforms have become arenas where evidence of violence is quietly erased. Tech companies apply moderation policies that often mirror government pressure. They leave the public cut off from vital information during crises. This deprives future historians of key sources. Geopolitical tensions have exposed how quickly digital records can disappear from major platforms, casting doubt on the permanence of the digital historical record.
The Subsea Sputnik Moment
Kevin Frazier argues that China’s recent innovations in undersea drones constitute a “Sputnik moment” that should catalyze concerted attention to and investment in the U.S.’s own undersea cable system.
The spread of XLUUVs and their smaller counterparts–—UUVs—makes Hollywood-esque scenarios once regarded as “extremely difficult” something that all stakeholders must plan for. More specifically, it is now technologically feasible for a bad actor to launch a coordinated attack on dozens of cables—such as the 15 telecommunications cables that connect Taiwan to the rest of the world. That’s not a scenario most nations have mapped out nor prepared for.
The United States is not in a position to rapidly replace its own cables or assist its allies in doing the same. As it stands, it can take years to even approve a new cable in the U.S. If and when it is necessary to lay new cables, there is simply no regulatory path to do so. That’s why this precise moment merits a substantial overhaul of how the U.S. regulates and protects the undersea cable system.
Documents
Olivia Manes and Mari Lemmie share Judge Currie’s dismissals of the cases against Comey and James.
Isabel Arroyo shares Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee’s order granting the dismissal of the election conspiracy case against President Trump in Georgia.
Podcasts
On Tuesday’s Lawfare Daily, I sit down with Natalie Orpett and Michael Feinberg to discuss their recent Lawfare piece on the shutdown deal provision giving senators grounds to sue when their metadata is accessed for investigation without notification. We discuss the provision’s consequences for the separation of powers, investigative resources available to law enforcement, and the large amount of money to which senators would be entitled.
On yesterday’s Lawfare Daily, I sit down with Anastasiia Lapatina and Eric Ciaramella to discuss the recent machinations surrounding a potential Russia-Ukraine peace deal. We unpack the contours of the American position on the matter, whether the United States is abandoning Ukraine, and whether the administration will back off the 28-point document it reportedly put together with Russian negotiators.
Announcements
Beginning on Dec. 10, Laura Field, the author of “Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right,” will teach a 6-part class on the conservative intellectual movement and how it has shaped Donald Trump’s presidency as a part of the Lawfare Lecture series. You can gain access to these classes by becoming a paid supporter at Patreon or Substack. The lectures will also be published on Lawfare’s YouTube channel on a delayed timeline.
Submissions are now open for Lawfare’s annual Ask Us Anything podcast, an opportunity for you to ask Lawfare editors and contributors your most burning questions of the year. You can submit questions through Dec. 16.
Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is the dolphin, seen here performing a duet with clarinetist Serkan Çağrı:
Honorable mention today to this YouTube comment:
Which is especially funny because dolphins do in fact use recreational hallucinogens in the wild. Their drug of choice is pufferfish.
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.
 | A guest post by
|