Jack Goldsmith

An article by Jack Goldsmith: Jan Crawford’s extraordinary CBS interview with Attorney General William Barr was released on Friday, May 31. In it Barr said some good things about why his investigation of the Trump campaign investigation is needed. He also said some bad things about his attitude toward his investigation that reveal the depressingly ugly state of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement institutions.

If a Supreme Court vacancy opens up during next year’s election cycle, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he would take a markedly different approach than he did in 2016. “Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell said on Tuesday at a lunch talk in Paducah, Kentucky, that was streamed online by WPSD. CNN first called attention to the remarks. In 2016, within hours of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, McConnell issued a statement saying that “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” McConnell went on to successfully block President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland from receiving a hearing. ... “The stakes are enormous because if you replace Scalia with an Obama appointee, then you probably have five justices on the court that are going to move the court in a much more progressive direction,” Jack Goldsmith, U.S. assistant attorney general during the George W. Bush administration, told FRONTLINE.

If and when journalists read the best analysis to date of the second part of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, they’ll be in for a shock. ... Enter Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, widely regarded as a leading expert — perhaps the leading expert working today — on national security law. Formerly the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel (where Justice’s brightest minds gather), Goldsmith now teaches at Harvard and writes for the website Lawfare, which he co-founded.Two weeks ago, Goldsmith issued an assessment of the second part of the special counsel’s report; on Thursday, he posted a follow-up to that assessment. In both pieces, with logic and detail, Goldsmith destroys claims of obstruction of justice by those unwilling to come to grips with the fact that the Mueller investigation is over. His analysis is tough, slogging through statutes, opinions and high principles of constitutional law, but at the end of the second essay, Goldsmith bluntly concludes that “the talented lawyers in the special counsel’s office ... include[d] at the center of the legal analysis in Volume II a transparently weak argument — so weak that it has no defenders.”

An article by Jack Goldsmith: I argued earlier this month that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report misapplied the presidential clear statement rule and improperly exposed many of President Trump’s actions in response to the Russia investigation to potential criminal liability. The argument drew disagreement from Benjamin Wittes, Andrew Kent and Marty Lederman, which in turn provoked a response by Josh Blackman, who holds views similar to mine. Here I offer my final thoughts on this issue. I am more convinced than ever that the Mueller report misapplied the governing clear statement rule.

President Trump’s escalating demands for investigations into his political opponents have intensified debate over whether his often-transparent calls for action by the Justice Department amount to abusing his power to bolster his re-election prospects. ... “It’s a terrible breach of norms for the president to publicly advocate prosecutions of his opponents,” said Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School who was an assistant attorney general during President George W. Bush’s first term. Mr. Goldsmith pointed out that this was not the first time Mr. Trump has intimated he might intervene in the functions of the criminal justice system. But Mr. Goldsmith said that, to date, “his White House and Justice Department subordinates have basically ignored him. Trump has violated norms, but his executive branch officials thus far have not.”

An article by Jack Goldsmith: Someone on Twitter recently asked: “What is your most [fire emoji] take that absolutely infuriates people and you know deep down in your heart is 100% true”? I was inclined to respond: “The statutory interpretation analysis in the Mueller report is one-sided and weak.” I instead decided to try to explain why I believe this, knowing full well that it will infuriate the vast majority of legal elites who are convinced that the only things preventing President Trump from going to trial today are the Office of Legal Counsel’s ruling that a sitting president cannot be indicted and Attorney General William Barr’s “lack of inner strength.”

An article by Jack Goldsmith: I’ve been in a cave for several weeks crashing to complete my new book and am only now emerging to read Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report and the commentary on it. I’ll hopefully have more to say on the report, especially on its legal analysis of criminal obstruction of justice as applied to the president. But for now I want to comment on the reaction to Attorney General William Barr’s handling of the report in his March 24 letter and his May 1 testimony. It seems over the top to me.

The last thing the world needs is more of Robert Mueller’s commentary, but Congress is determined to have him hold forth at a public hearing.  ... On obstruction, Mueller reached no such decision, and he didn’t write a confidential report, either — his report was clearly meant for public consumption. Besides that, he’s a stickler for the rules. “Mueller’s action,” Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes at the website Lawfare, “seems inconsistent with what the regulations tried to accomplish, which was to prevent extra-prosecutorial editorializing.”

A newly filed lawsuit is challenging a censorship system the government uses to ensure that millions of former military and intelligence officials spill no secrets if they decide to write articles and books after they move on from public service. ... The legality of the censorship system is “unsettled” in part because “the practice of prior restraint by the government has grown enormously” since that case was decided, said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former Bush administration Justice Department official who has cowritten several articles critical of the process. At the C.I.A. alone, the agency went from reviewing about 1,000 pages a year in the early 1970s to about 150,000 in 2014, the lawsuit said, citing documents the A.C.L.U. and Knight Institute obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. “This is a huge problem,” Mr. Goldsmith said. “The government’s system of prior restraint is wildly overbroad, undisciplined and subject to inconsistent standards. It results in lots of important information that doesn’t threaten national security not being made public. It chills people from writing things that would help people understand how the government works.”

On Sunday, Attorney General William Barr released a summary of the “principal conclusions” of a report by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. ... For some preliminary thoughts on Barr’s letter, I exchanged e-mails with Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School. ... What do you make of Mueller’s decision not to come to a judgment on obstruction of justice? I think it was prudent, in light of the deep uncertainties about the law in this area. Barr says Mueller thoroughly laid out the evidence for and against obstruction, but Mueller did not resolve what he viewed as “difficult issues” of both law and fact.

Time and again — when President Trump stood by Saudi Arabia after the killing of a Virginia-based journalist, when it looked as if he might intervene in the special counsel’s Russia investigation and when he threatened to declare a national emergency to pay for his border wall — lawmakers on Capitol Hill warned him not to push them too far. This week, in a remarkable series of bipartisan rebukes to the president, Congress pushed back. ... The rejection of Mr. Trump’s national emergency declaration could also give ammunition to a half-dozen legal cases challenging the president’s exercise of that power under the 1976 National Emergencies Act, said Jack L. Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush. “Some judges may count that as evidence of congressional intent,” Mr. Goldsmith said, though he added that he disagreed with that view.

... Co-founded in 2010 by Harvard Law School (HLS) Professor Jack Goldsmith; Robert Chesney, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law; and Brookings Institution fellow Benjamin Wittes, the national security website [Lawfare] has become a go-to source for timely expertise on a host of related legal issues, from surveillance and cybersecurity to interrogation and war powers. ... Though its masthead is stocked with seasoned legal firepower from across the country, two of Lawfare’s most widely discussed stories in the past few months — an exhaustive analysis of the so-called Steele dossier and a look at efforts to obstruct justice during Watergate — were co-authored by Sarah Grant, a highly accomplished yet stunningly modest third-year at HLS.

The United States responded weakly after Russian cyber operations disrupted the 2016 presidential election. US President Barack Obama had warned his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, of repercussions, but an effective reply became entangled in the domestic politics of Donald Trump’s election. That could be about to change. ... Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School has argued that the US needs to draw a principled line and defend it. That defense would acknowledge that the US has itself interfered in elections, renounce such behavior, and pledge not to engage in it again. The US should also acknowledge that it continues to engage in forms of computer network exploitation for purposes it deems legitimate. And officials should “state precisely the norm that the United States pledges to stand by and that the Russians have violated.”

Many legal analysts who watched Donald Trump declare a national emergency over immigration on Friday thought the president had weak legal grounds for doing so. In particular, many thought Trump hurt his own case by admitting, right there in the White House Rose Garden: “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.” ... “The legality of Trump’s decision will probably turn on highly technical provisions involving the use of funds for military construction projects,” wrote Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, a former White House official under Barack Obama. ... Jack Goldsmith, Sunstein’s colleague at Harvard and a veteran of the justice department under George W Bush, said presidents have broad leeway in declaring emergencies. “‘Emergency’ isn’t typically defined in relevant law, presidents have always had discretion to decide if there’s an emergency, and they’ve often declared emergencies under circumstances short of necessity, to address a real problem but not an emergency as understood in common parlance,” Goldsmith tweeted.

An article by Jack Goldsmith and Maddie McMahon '20: “I don’t think there’ll be a report,” President Trump’s former attorney, John Dowd, recently told ABC News. “I will be shocked if anything regarding the president is made public, other than ‘We’re done.’” Referring to a possible report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Dowd suggested Mueller won’t release a detailed public accounting of the results of the investigation because he has nothing on Trump. Another reason there might not be a public report—or, at least, not much of one—is because William Barr, who will likely be attorney general by the end of the week, might not release one.

In May 2014, then-Attorney General Eric Holder announced charges against five members of the Chinese military. They'd allegedly hacked the computer networks of American companies and stolen everything from intellectual property and trade secrets to the firms' litigation strategies. ..."They embarrass the people that they name and they show that the United States has the ability to find people who are hacking into our country," said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor and former DOJ official in the George W. Bush administration. "But by themselves, that's a very, very small cost compared to the billions of dollars in secrets that our government says the Chinese are stealing." Goldsmith says the indictments not only have failed to deter China from further hacking, they may even send a signal of weakness because so few of those who have been charged actually are prosecuted.

An article by Curtis Bradley and Jack Goldsmith: President Trump is making noises again about withdrawing the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, which established NATO. Last week the House of Representatives voted 357-22 in support of the NATO Support Act. The bill does three things. First, it states the “sense of Congress” that the president “shall not withdraw the United States from NATO,” and that “the case Goldwater v. Carter is not controlling legal precedent.” Second, it states that “the policy of the United States” is to remain in NATO, to reject efforts to withdraw from NATO, and to work with and support NATO. Third, and most importantly, it prohibits funds “to be appropriated, obligated, or expended to take any action to withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty.”

The 2020 presidential contest has already begun, with several Democratic candidates declaring their intention to challenge Donald Trump for the Oval Office and more on the way. Unlike in 2016, we now know what kinds of chaos America’s adversaries are capable of sowing, especially during campaign season. That means it’s time to contend with the threat of foreign intervention in our elections and in our democracy more broadly—before it’s too late. ...Let’s begin by acknowledging the voices of skepticism—those who question whether Russia’s behavior of today is really all that out of step with historical norms of great power behavior. Scott Shane raised these doubts last year in the New York Times, contrasting what he portrayed as most Americans’ shock at “what they view as an unprecedented attack on our political system” with the characterizations by a CIA veteran and two intelligence scholars of Moscow’s current campaign as “simply the cyber-age version of standard United States practice for decades, whenever American officials were worried about a foreign vote.” Next came Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, who, writing for Lawfare, provocatively asked, “Is there a principled basis on which the United States can object to the Russian interference?” Goldsmith continued, “U.S. interferences abroad raise the question: What is the U.S. objection in principle if others do to us as we do to them?”

Former Attorney General William Barr underwent his confirmation hearing on Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee under the new chairmanship of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and emerged without a scratch, scrape or bruise. He came across as a consummate professional and a deeply knowledgeable, capable, and very experienced attorney – someone former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has called “probably the best-qualified nominee for U.S. attorney general since Robert Jackson in 1940.” ... Barr did not back down during the hearing in explaining his view on this issue, which former Justice Department Assistant Attorney General and Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith says has “significant support in Supreme Court case law and executive branch precedent.”