The feedback during trials and tribulations is killing me😵‍💫please for the life of god fix the issue with Quinta’s mic, asking again- it’s getting so hard to listen and I need this show

Thank you for the explanation of how Sophia’s Lizst & Schumann came to be the music of Lawfare. I love Rational Security & Chatter. I appreciate your support of all who are part of Lawfare. I happened upon your Substack today & immediately became a material supporter. The 🌻 are beautiful.

Love the explanations for laypeople’s we understand what’s going on legally.

…drop his pod entitled, “The Antisemitism of Jose Andres”? Word has it, snippets of the already recorded pod have been leaking out, in Hebrew and English, and are quite the hot topic in Judea and Samaria. *** Quinta, Noticed the absence of your owner, Benjamin Wittes, from the roster of the April 11 Trials and Tribulations. Word has it, and this could just be talk, that Benjamin allegedly was seen last week getting off a private jet at the Tel Aviv airport and hopping into an unmarked home guv vehicle. Further word, and this is probably just idle chatter, allegedly had Benjamin seen hopping out of said local guv vehicle and entering Hasbara Headquarters back home. Any comment, even a blanket non-denial denial?

I know it sounds snobbish to care about microphone quality but there are episodes I have to skip because the audio quality is just so bad it gives me a headache.

I enjoy the show a lot, and I always learn something but Ben’s dry humor is the real reason I listen. I always come away with a better understanding of what’s going on than I did before I listened.

I started listening for more in depth coverage of the Trump trials and have gradually listened to them other subjects. Really enjoyed the dry humor and clear explanations.

I don’t feel knowledgeable unless I listen. Great, timely topics with in-depth discussions.

I listen to your podcast because I used to trust Wittes and the other contributors to be unbiased and committed to the truth. At the end of this podcast with Tim Miller, Wittes actually commended Fani Willis and her performance testifying in the Georgia trial. His analysis is 100% spin that I never would have expected from Wittes. Fani Willis did NOT testify today, 2/16/24, because she was AWFUL during her previous day’s testimony. She looked like an angry black woman with poor grammar. Spin!! Also, I’ve listened to Wittes praise Fani for being such a great litigator. I doubt this as well now based on watching her awful testimony. She can’t even string a proper sentence together. She says “Me and him” as opposed to “He and I” as the “subject” of a sentence. I expect my DA to know the English language! Her inability to communicate intelligently and her inability to compose herself during examination by the opposing counsel scares me that the Georgia case is in serious trouble. But Wittes continues to praise her?! Now I doubt the integrity of your podcast.

The Lawfare Podcast is my favorite one out of all that I’ve listened to and explored. I return to THIS one when I want the ground truth on what’s going on. Ben Wittes, Quinta, Roger Parloff and Anna Bower are earthy and knowledgeable— I learn so much from their reporting, insights, and discussions of the Trump trials and tribulations. Frankly, Lawfare is one of the best!

Rely on this pod for detailed, nuanced coverage of SCOTUS, Congress & Executive & other govt & NatSec processes & procedures. The questions to the guests are always thoughtful & prompt the guests give us great insights, even when (f/ex Goldsmith’s naive POV on espionage on Dark Mirror) I strongly disagree with the host’s point of view. Except for guest Yale Law Prof Sam Moyn he’s a complete idiot.

First heard of Brookings listening to Nixon tapes sizzle reel. Heard them brainstorming sabotage of offices. Lawfare keeps the tradition alive; “afflicting the comfortable” with original analysis

Criticism of original text not withstanding, I note the position of the “living constitutionalists” insurrection means 3 hour riots et al. What is avoided is section 5 which places definitions of section 3 and punishments therein in the purview of Congress. We are a federal government, not to be ruled by State law for election of the President.

The auto ads have made this podcast unlistenable. After years of listening I’ve just unsubscribed. I’m baffled why anyone who puts such hard work into their content to allow it to be completely ruined with auto ads.

On the TikTok ban episode they went for 50 mins talking about free speech for social media but somehow never mentioned why or why it might not be good to have an app that’s directly connected to the CCP…data privacy is one issue but it also matters where that data is going.

It’s wonderful to hear your interview of Dan here. Especially he has a different view about our involvement in Ukraine vs Russia war. Always enjoyed diverse views are expressed. Q

Typically well reasoned legal arguments, but like the legal profession as a whole, leans left and promotes activism over constitutional letter of the law.

Roger Parloff has (imho) been such a great addition to the already incredibly dedicated and insightful lawfare editorial team. His takes in the legal developments in DC have consistently surprised me; like all lawfare commentators, he raises points and potential issues that I don’t hear anywhere else, it’s great having such a legal reporting legend “on the case.” I recently wowed (I mean, as much as this topic can wow anyone) a group of friends over lunch by noting points Parloff had written about; I impressed friends! I credited lawfare and told everyone to check it out. 🙂

The guest alleged an Israeli attack on Al Shifa, host did not challenge that it was proven by multiple sources to be an errant Hamas rocket.

Big Stuart Seldowitz energy

Excellent episode. Though I knew that the big lie entailed trying to make it hard to vote in 2020 and attacking election workers, I had no idea about these lawsuits and this specific disinformation campaign. So thankful for these efforts and workers.

You had me until you featured thoroughly debunked Warren Report apologist (and CIA asset) author Gerald Posner. You lost my trust.

Josh provides very little analysis in his convoluted rambling. He seems to not know what point he is trying to make. I skip over his sections now, having found he needs minutes and minutes and minutes before a kernel might be found. Sorry to be so direct— not fun to leave these comments.

Please tell the man to shut up. He goes on and on talking to promote himself. I come to this pod to hear Ben and Roger and Anna on Co. explain and make clear the important points of law. Josh is just boring, self important, and can’t explain in a way that Lawfare listeners have come to expect. And what a dull voice! Yuck!

I love the insight you all gave during this pod, but the obvious elephant in the room was that he was there on Jan 6th at the Capital. Would have loved to hear their defense of such an obvious overt act.

Molly please work with a vocal coach to eliminate the remnants of voice affectations reminiscent of “valley” speech sprinkled with a bit of vocal fry. Very distracting. Many young women (rarely men) fall into this bad habit. It’s becoming epidemic.

I really enjoy this podcast and all the on-air contributors. Listening to these folks cackle and joke around more lightheartedly on Rat-Sec really broke the ice for me on listening to their more serious discussions on all their pods. However, after a few years I just have to call out Alan. On certain topics he does the conservative legal analysis that is not that different from a Bill Barr type legal mind. Do we really need that? (No.) A typical Alan comment is 'Oh trust me, I dislike Trump as much as the rest of you, but because [insert some argument that basically exploits the fact that the statutory language isn't absolutely elegant and flawless], I am not sure that violations of the Hatch Act mean that Trump and Meadows were not under the color of the tint of the shade of the painting of the color of the colorful crayola color of the office door color.' It's tiresome to sit through because sometimes it just seems argumentative/contrarian, but more importantly it is very dangerous. Dangerous because it legitimizes conduct that blatantly undermines the rule of law in favor of the powerful and at the expense of the powerless. It's Samuel Alito. And it gets a little awful when he justifies by dropping the "...because one day there will be a different President/congressperson/whatever and this would set a precedent..." 😒. It's somewhat dishonest and a bit gas-light-y. 🤔 Is this harsh? Maybe I'm not being fair.

Quinta is far and away the best and most competent person on this podcast. I wish she were on every episode.

Ben’s interviews were always riveting. It appears he doesn’t do them as often. I’m sure he has competing priorities, but I find the interviews not conducted by him to be dry and stilted. I used to listed to 80% of all episodes, and now I listen to about one every couple months. I also pay more attention to the opinions of those with practical experience and subject-matter expertise than those of young academics.

I highly recommend all of Lawfare’s podcasts. They are so informative and add a bit of humor into this dark period.

Lots of good things to say about this crew and their podcasts, but Lawfare should vet their sponsors.

I’m a long time Lawfare supporter and member. Over the past five years, I have listened to 90–95% of Lawfare’s podcasts, and I always add them to my feed as “play next“ as soon as they appear. In other words, I’m a big fan. However, I couldn’t make myself finish listening to the August 18 episode featuring Molly Reynolds. Ms. Reynolds is extremely knowledgeable on the issue of congressional oversight of the executive branch, and I found the information she gave us to be very interesting. Unfortunately, Ms Reynolds has the distracting habit of ending her sentences with an upward inflection … so they sound like questions (or *very uncertain* pronouncements) rather than statements of a confident, experienced expert). It drove me crazy, to the point where I turned off the episode about halfway through. I just could not spend another minute listening to her. That’s never happened before with Lawfare. Ms. Reynolds either needs to develop some self-confidence, or she needs to practice her method of speaking so that she doesn’t sound so uncertain about the information she is conveying. I am a female attorney who has been practicing for several decades, and I had to make a conscious effort to practice my speaking style (in court, with clients, and in my personal life) so that my statements did not come across as those of a nervous, insecure child. Lawfare and Ms. Reynolds can both do better.

Anna Bower is terrific! More of her reporting, please!

It was great to get an update on the charges in Michigan fake electors. A new bit of information was that 3 more people have been indicted by the Special Council assigned to investigating tampering with voting machines. We have seen almost nil press on this and you have to dig to find an article on The Hill and the AP. It was barely a blip on the radar screen unless you are followinig this closely. It made me wonder if there was a relationship between this and the White House meeting with Trump regarding his 'stolen election.' The two GOP legislator that went to meet with Trump were not part of either indictment. But it begs the question - where did all this furor in Michigan and other states begin? John Eastman and Guilliani, as well as Powell all played key parts. It all begs a diagram and a timeline and maybe a big ball of red string to map the connections. Thank you for keeping us on top, of what we know of the legal facts. Review From Jul 18, 2019 Excellent topics, guests and contributors. You always finish a podcast learning something or acquiring a different perspective in critial constitutional matters, legal rulings and case history. Substantive and well done. p.s. What would we do without you?

This podcast is about as nonpartisan and extraordinarily well informed as one could ask for - their reporting is truly a service to the nation.

I find this podcast a refreshing glass of water in the desert of stupidity. Keep up the good work Lawfare!!!!

I've noticed a lot of departments believe that hiring racially diverse departments, think that will cure all their issues. I've seen that black officers hired can be racially biased towards blacks the same or more than past white males hired because they try to prove, more that they belong. Departments are currently cutting corners doing quick hires because all LE is having hiring issues. I think that equity and social justice should be taught across the board to all races in policing instead of focusing on just one group in a department and not creating them and us within a department, and currently, departments are calling any officer who isn't a minority a person who isn't racially diverse or sympathetic to diverse communities, where I'm white and gay, and I've always been very self-aware of fair treatment of those who are different. I'm from the Clinton-era hires in the early 90s, so I've seen a lot over the years. I also believe that women should take a more significant role in policing. Most of the videos I see are the adrenaline of the moment and mistakes of any officer who is afraid and overreacts or doesn't rely on training and poor training—anger issues. Bad hiring practices, instead of hiring the best person, hire those who they think will look good in the community.

Happy to see you add some new guest commenters.

People who affect an agnostic view on Trump’s criminality are a little hard to take seriously.

With Kore Schake. Amazing woman.

It’s not always the most exciting or pleasant experience, but you have to do it if you want to be sharp and operate effectively

I loved listening to the history lesson and following along with the sequence of events made it easy to understand. Jack was a great host who let his guest summarize without interruption. Thank you!

Please stop saying “ya know” hundreds of times. It’s just a bad habit and distracting to your excellent information.

I enjoy this podcast and really appreciate in-depth explanations of the topics, but the introductory music playing while the person is speaking make that part unlistenable. It is very hard to comprehend “lyrics” that are completely divorced from the music. The brain can only listen to one at a time.

Why are you giggling about the former president committing crimes? This is a serious subject and I resent your childish playfulness.

Excellent show today! Per that facist italian facebook group that was removed from facebook. what they are saying & demanding isn’t even logical. they are using one side of their argument that a US company/facebook can’t impose IUS US standards on an Italian group chat because a US company has different standards than italian standards, basically they are saying you can’t judge us. then on the other hand it wants to flip their own argument for staying online/facebook to saying, oh yeah and btw, we insist you/facebbok allow our italian based chat group to be seen by US and the rest of the world, pretty much saying the US & the rest of the world standards be damned. Hey black shirts, you cannot have it both ways. blahhh

Why can’t texeira be court martialed

Informed discussion on relevant topics with enough background for those of us who aren’t paying a lot of attention when we should. Except - growling and chewing words in the misguided practice of following Paris Hilton - whom I’ve been informed was the originator of talking with the sound of a three-pack-a-day smoker who’s over 40. I’m hearing this confounding way of speaking in men as well as women. It hurts the vocal cords of listeners and garbles speech so it’s difficult to even understand what’s being said. I’m listening while pedaling my bike in traffic and even the audio playing through my 16 track hearing aids can’t make sense of words when they are garbled and the sound reduced at the end of sentences - where the important words are spoken.

Tremendous respect! Superb in all respects. Superb April 2 Chatter podcast with Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer

Informative, well researched, followable (I’m 15 but I think they do a good job laying these things out in an understandable fashion).