Jack Goldsmith

...for more than two weeks, President Donald Trump and his top White House aides have been obsessed with highlighting a threat that does not exist: jihadist refugees and immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It’s true that both worldwide terrorist attacks and terrorism-related cases against plotters in the United States have spiked since 2013, an increase largely attributed to the fallout from the Syrian civil war and the rise of the Islamic State...Jack Goldsmith, a former senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush Administration, who helped design the post-9/11 anti-terror legal architecture, recently suggested that Trump might actually want his travel ban to be overturned. That way, in the wake of an attack, he can use the judiciary as a bogeyman and justify any new efforts to push through more extreme measures. I asked Goldsmith and others what the menu of options might be for a President Trump empowered by the justifiable fears Americans would have in the aftermath of a serious attack. “If it is a large and grim attack, he might ask for more surveillance powers inside the U.S. (including fewer restrictions on data mingling and storage and queries), more immigration control power at the border, an exception to Posse Comitatus (which prohibits the military from law enforcement in the homeland), and perhaps more immigration-related detention powers,” Goldsmith wrote in an e-mail. “In the extreme scenario Trump could ask Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which would cut off the kind of access to courts you are seeing right now for everyone (or for every class of persons for which the writ is suspended).”

Even before Donald Trump entered the White House, many were predicting federal courts would serve as an important check on his use of presidential power, particularly given his aggressive style and a GOP-led Congress that has so far been loath to confront him. But few expected the first constitutional clash would occur in Trump’s third week on the job...Jack Goldsmith, a national security lawyer in the Bush administration and professor at Harvard Law School, predicted Trump’s tweets “will certainly backfire” against him. “The tweets will make it very, very hard for courts in the short term to read immigration and constitutional law, as they normally would, with significant deference to the president’s broad delegated powers from Congress and to the president’s broad discretion in foreign relations,” Goldsmith wrote Monday on the Lawfare blog.

...The 45th president, Donald Trump, might pose the gravest threat to the constitutional order since the 37th. Of course, he might not...“Civil society had a huge and unprecedented impact during the Bush administration,” [Jack] Goldsmith told me. The networks that constrained Bush are still there, and Trump has put them on red alert. “Every single thing he does will be scrutinized with an uncharitable eye,” Goldsmith said. “That’s true of most presidents, but it’s true to an even greater degree with Trump.”

President Donald Trump's personal attack on the federal judge who blocked his controversial travel executive order could undermine public confidence in an institution capable checking his power, say legal experts...Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith said on his blog that Trump's order actually has a "surprisingly strong basis in law but was issued in haste, without proper inter agency coordination, without proper notice, without adequate consideration of its implications." But, Goldsmith added, Trump's aggressive tweets "will certainly backfire." "The tweets will make it very, very hard for courts in the short term to read immigration and constitutional law, as they normally would, with the significant deference to the President's broad delegated powers," he wrote. And yet, having a judge strike down the executive order might have been exactly what Trump was aiming for, Goldsmith wrote — "assuming that he is acting with knowledge and purpose." "The only reason I can think of is that Trump is setting the scene to blame judges after an attack that has any conceivable connection to immigration," Goldsmith wrote.

President Trump is barreling into a confrontation with the courts barely two weeks after taking office, foreshadowing years of legal battles as an administration determined to disrupt the existing order presses the boundaries of executive power....Charles Fried, solicitor general under Ronald Reagan, said the ruling by a Federal District Court in Washington State blocking Mr. Trump’s order resembled a ruling by a Texas district court stopping Mr. Obama from proceeding with his own immigration order. But rarely, if ever, has a president this early in his tenure, and with such personal invective, battled the courts. Mr. Trump, Mr. Fried said, is turning everything into “a soap opera” with overheated attacks on the judge. “There are no lines for him,” said Mr. Fried, who teaches at Harvard Law School and voted against Mr. Trump. “There is no notion of, this is inappropriate, this is indecent, this is unpresidential.”...Jack Goldsmith, who as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under Mr. Bush argued that some of the initial orders went too far and forced them to be rolled back, said on Sunday that there were similarities. “But Bush’s legal directives were not as sloppy as Trump’s,” he said. “And Trump’s serial attacks on judges and the judiciary take us into new territory. The sloppiness and aggressiveness of the directives, combined with the attacks on judges, put extra pressure on judges to rule against Trump.”

Donald Trump has had a fixation on Iraq’s oil—and America’s right to seize it—for at least six years...But the legal scholars I consulted challenged this interpretation. “The issue is complicated in its details, but basically what Trump has in mind—pillaging during occupation—is prohibited,” Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who served in the Bush Administration’s Justice Department, told me.

A day after firing his acting attorney general for refusing to defend his new immigration order, President Trump mocked his Democratic congressional critics Tuesday and demanded that the Senate confirm his pick to lead the Department of Justice, Jeff Sessions...Legal analysts such as Jack Goldsmith — a Harvard Law School professor and Justice Department official during the George W. Bush administration — said Yates should have resigned rather than force Trump's hand.

An executive order apparently drafted by the Trump administration calls for a policy review that could authorize the CIA to reopen “black site” prisons overseas and potentially restart an interrogation program that was dismantled in 2009 after using methods widely condemned as torture...“The president would get a huge symbolic boost with his base while not violating the law and while changing nothing of substance,’’ Jack Goldsmith, a former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and a Harvard Law School professor, said in an interview. “He would get maximum symbolic value while doing nothing. Trump’s a genius at this.” But Goldsmith, who as the OLC chief rescinded some of the Bush administration’s torture memos, also predicted that Trump would “regret” this executive order, if it is issued, and that the “symbolic bang that Trump sought would backfire” on the administration.

The Trump administration is looking into bringing back torture, according to a draft order published by the The New York Times and the The Washington Post on Wednesday. ...Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor and former Bush Justice Department official, wrote on the legal blog Lawfare: “I am confident that the report that Trump gets from his top intelligence officials will advise him that a return to the bad old days is not legally available,” adding that “I am also confident that if President Trump ordered waterboarding, neither the CIA Director nor the Secretary of Defense would carry out the order.”

It didn’t take long after BuzzFeed leaked an intelligence dossier detailing shocking allegations of collusion between Russian officials and the Trump campaign (as well as claims that Russia has sexual blackmail against Donald Trump himself) for critics of the president-elect to start dropping the “t” word...But when I asked a few lawyers specializing in national security about the BuzzFeed memorandum, they mentioned that its contents — if true, which is a very big “if” indeed — could bring other laws into play. It’s much too early to speculate about actual indictments, but if the dossier is confirmed, there are a few statutes that would be worth examining. One, according to Harvard law professor and Lawfare co-founder Jack Goldsmith, is the Logan Act, an obscure 1799 law that prohibits citizens of the United States from negotiating with foreign governments and trying to influence their policies vis-a-vis a dispute with the United States...Many legal observers don’t take the Logan Act particularly seriously, however, given that it seems to rather clearly violate the First Amendment and would stand a good chance of being struck down should it even actually lead to a prosecution, according to Goldsmith and other legal observers

Twelve days before the presidential election, FBI Director James B. Comey dispatched a senior aide to deliver a startling message to the Justice Department. Comey wanted to send a letter to Congress alerting them that his agents had discovered more emails potentially relevant to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server...Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said that the controversy shines a light on Lynch’s compromised position and failed leadership as attorney general. “If she thought [the letter] violated department policy or was otherwise a bad idea, she could have ordered him not to send the letter,” said Goldsmith, who noted that soon after the letter was released, Justice officials proceeded to criticize Comey when Lynch had the power all along to stop him. “It was an astonishing failure of leadership and eschewal of responsibility, especially if Lynch really thought what Comey did was wrong.”

As he does with considerable regularity, Donald Trump has elevated the eyebrows of the foreign policy establishment with his practice of undergoing intelligence briefings only once a week on average, instead of daily. Now his team says that he is getting the President's Daily Brief three times a week, along with daily briefings from his appointee for national security adviser...Jack Goldsmith, an avid consumer of the process when he was in the Bush administration, stresses that, "It is hard to overstate the impact that the incessant waves of threat reports have on the judgment of people inside the executive branch." Former CIA Director George Tenet says that, "Virtually every day you would hear something about a possible impending threat that would scare you to death." This, writes Goldsmith, captures "the attitude of every person I knew who regularly read the threat matrix." Every person.

Time spoke with Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and former Assistant Attorney General in the George W. Bush Administration, about the role of executive power in a Donald Trump presidency. What checks will there be on a Donald Trump presidency? The potential checks are many, including Congress and the Courts, the free press and many internal Executive branch watchdogs like inspectors generals, lawyers and the permanent bureaucracy. And of course the people in the next election.

Until this past weekend, it was easy to construe FBI Director James Comey’s extraordinary intrusions into the presidential campaign this year as consistent with a career defined by bureaucratic turf protection, and defensiveness of the institutions he’s served. These aren’t always the most high-minded or important principles, but they’ve helped distinguish him from scores of unprincipled opportunists who’ve held and hold positions of high power in our government...As his former Justice Department colleague Jack Goldsmith explains, Comey hasn’t really “reopened” the Clinton email investigation. “[T]he language Comey used in his letter suggests something less than a full reinvigoration of the investigation…something more like a preliminary inquiry to figure out what, if any, aspects of the earlier investigative conclusions might require revisiting.”

An op-ed by Jack Goldsmith. Three years ago, the Guardian published the first story based on the huge archive of documents Edward Snowden stole from the National Security Agency while working as an NSA contractor. Then–attorney general Eric Holder’s Justice Department quickly charged Snowden with felonies for theft of government property and mishandling classified information. This May, however, Holder praised Snowden. “I think that he actually performed a public service by raising the debate that we engaged in and by the changes that we made,” Holder said. This seems like an improbable claim. Snowden compromised scores of surveillance techniques, representing billions of dollars of investments over many years. U.S. firms that secretly cooperated with government intelligence agencies stopped doing so to the extent they could, and public defiance became the business-compelled norm.

The Senate and the House are expected to vote this week on whether to override President Obama’s veto of a bill that would allow families of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role it had in the terrorist operations. The lawmakers should let the veto stand. The legislation, called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, would expand an exception to sovereign immunity, the legal principle that protects foreign countries and their diplomats from lawsuits in the American legal system. While the aim — to give the families their day in court — is compassionate, the bill complicates the United States’ relationship with Saudi Arabia and could expose the American government, citizens and corporations to lawsuits abroad. Moreover, legal experts like Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law and Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School doubt that the legislation would actually achieve its goal.

Even if the Russian government was behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and various other political organizations and figures, the US government's options under international law are extremely limited, according to Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor and former US assistant attorney general. Goldsmith, who served at the Justice Department during the administration of George W. Bush and resigned after a dispute over the legal justifications for "enhanced interrogation" techniques, spoke on Tuesday about the DNC hack during a Yale University panel. "Assuming that the attribution is accurate," Goldsmith said, "the US has very little basis for a principled objection." In regard to the theft of data from the DNC and others, Goldsmith said that "it's hard to say that it violates international law, and the US acknowledges that it engages in the theft of foreign political data all the time."

An op-ed by Jack Goldsmith. A “pardon Snowden” campaign was launched Wednesday in conjunction with the Snowden film. Snowden himself made the “moral case” for why he should be pardoned, and Tim Edgar made a much more powerful case. I remain unconvinced. I don’t think the president will, or should, pardon Snowden...But to say that the intelligence community benefited from the Snowden leaks is not to say that the president should pardon Snowden, for the price of the benefits was enormously high in terms of lost intelligence and lost investments in intelligence mechanisms and operations, among other things. Many Snowden supporters pretend that these costs are zero because the government, understandably, has not documented them. But it is naïve or disingenuous to think that the damage to US intelligence operations was anything but enormous.

An op-ed by Jack Goldsmith & Stephen I. Vladeck. President Obama has said he will veto the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, a bill that purports to make it easier for 9/11 victims and their families to sue Saudi Arabia in US federal court for its alleged role in indirectly financing the attacks. He would be absolutely right to do so. Reasonable people can disagree over whether giving the 9/11 victims their day in court justifies the diplomatic and foreign relations problems this law would provoke. (In fact, the two of us have disagreed on this issue in the past.) What should be clear to everyone, though, is that the bill Congress actually enacted last week provides virtually no benefits to justify its substantial costs.

The House on Friday approved a bill to allow families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the terrorist plot, setting up a rare bipartisan showdown with the White House...The bill “is a politically cost-free way for Congress to send a signal of seeming seriousness about terrorism on the dawn of the 15th anniversary of 9/11,” said Jack Goldsmith, a professor of law at Harvard who served in the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush. “Congress itself could have investigated lingering questions about 9/11, but instead is delegating those tasks to the unelected judiciary. The costs of the law will be borne by courts, which are an awkward place to ascertain Saudi responsibility for 9/11, and especially the president, who will have to deal with the diplomatic fallout with Saudi Arabia and other nations.”