We Are Friends Now
And we cuddle
Good Evening:
We are friends now.
Document of the Day
The resignation letter of three assistant U.S. attorneys in the Southern District of New York who worked on the Eric Adams case and were previously placed on administrative leave. “It is now clear,” they write to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, “that one of the preconditions you have placed on our returning to the Office is that we must express regret and admit some wrongdoing by the Office in connection with the refusal to move to dismiss the case. We will not confess wrongdoing when there was none.”
Today on #DogShirtTV, the estimable Holly Berkley Fletcher, the estimable Eve Gaumond, and I discussed the upcoming elections in Canada. Sometimes we even discussed them seriously:
A reminder that tomorrow’s #DogShirtTV will take place at 11:00 am Eastern time, not at the usual time.
The Situation
In my “The Situation” column today, I urge people to not forget the plight of the rich and powerful in their understandable solicitude for the Kilmar Abrego Garcias of the world. No, really, I do—and I mean it:
It may seem faintly absurd to group Abrego Garcia in with Harvard and Big Law as victims of Trumpian oppression. No, Harvard isn’t alleging that the administration picked it up off the street and deported it to a dungeon in El Salvador with no due process.
But if one takes seriously the idea that Trump is attempting an authoritarian takeover of American society, attacks on the powerful—while less morally disgraceful, perhaps, that attacks on the powerless—are arguably more essential to the project and thus at least as important to resist. Besides, like Abrego Garcia, Harvard has a righteous case.
…
[I]t is actually impossible to achieve authoritarianism by picking on the powerless. Eventually, he who aspires to authoritarianism has to take power from those who actually have it.
Today On Lawfare
Compiled by the estimable Caroline Cornett
The White House Can’t Accept Russia’s Annexation of Crimea Without Congress
Scott R. Anderson discusses President Donald Trump’s proposed peace plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war, which includes de jure recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and de facto recognition of other territories under occupation. Anderson explains that despite a Supreme Court ruling that the president has exclusive power to recognize foreign nations, Congress can utilize its spending authority and political capital to limit the extent to which such recognition actually changes policy:
Viewing the president’s exclusive recognition power through this lens helps to make clear which of the concessions to Russia that the Trump administration has put on the table it can and can’t deliver on without Congress. Zivotofsky confirms that, no matter what legislation Congress may enact, the President can de jure recognize Crimea as a part of Russia on behalf of the United States and ensure that this determination is accurately reflected in official U.S. documentation and diplomatic representations—representations that are likely to be taken as official statements of U.S. policy by foreign governments under international law. A separate line of cases also supports the conclusion that President Trump can enter into an executive agreement in relation to such recognition that sets additional terms settling claims and otherwise exercising his separate authorities that are enforceable as a matter of U.S. domestic law, most notably on the states. But any suggestion that such recognition or any related agreement can supersede restrictions that Congress may impose on how the United States engages with Crimea and other territories using its own substantial constitutional authorities is questionable at best. As Justice Kennedy himself made clear in Zivotofsky, “[f]ormal recognition may seem a hollow act if it is not accompanied by the dispatch of an ambassador, the easing of trade restrictions, and the conclusion of treaties”—all measures that “require action by the Senate or the whole Congress.”
Will Central Bank Digital Currencies Revolutionize Global Finance?
Noah Tan compares central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) to traditional systems such as Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) based on transaction speeds, financial access, and interoperability. Tan emphasizes the limitations of CBDCs and the importance of innovating existing financial systems to compete with CBDCs:
While CBDCs could represent a significant development in the global financial landscape in the distant future, their effect on security and international finance may turn out to be less revolutionary than many predict. The purported advantages of CBDCs, such as transaction speed and sanctions evasion, are tempered by ongoing development in existing systems like SWIFT GPI and by the realities of international cooperation. In addition, the potential for countering U.S. dollar dominance is limited by broader geopolitical and economic factors.
Podcasts
On Lawfare Daily, Tyler McBrien sits down with Julia Rose Kraut to discuss her 2020 book “Threat of Dissent: A History of Ideological Exclusion and Deportation in the United States,” the Trump administration's deportation efforts, and the chilling effect these policies have on constitutionally protected political speech:
Today’s #BeastOfTheDay, nominated by the estimable Katherine Pompilio, is a crab wearing an anemone as a hat:
In honor of today’s Beast, wear a crab as a hat. Fair’s fair.
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
|