Opened my email just now and saw this arresting image, sent by the always-compelling @JohnQBarrett.
It included this annotation: "In this historic indictment, and in the Nuremberg trial that followed, Russia was part of prosecuting Nazis for specific crimes in Ukraine—the same criminal acts that Russia today is committing in Ukraine.
"I recount the horrific details of these Russian-charged crimes in Ukraine in an essay, 'Remember the Nuremberg Indictment,' that will be published tomorrow in the New York Law Journal."
"Tomorrow" was a few days ago. The article remains excellent. law.com/newyorklawjour…
On today’s episode of the @lawfareblog Podcast, I spoke with @AndreaChalupa about the film “Mr. Jones,” which she wrote. It’s the story of Gareth Jones’s effort to tell the world of the Ukrainian genocide at the hands of Stalin in the early 1930s. shows.acast.com/lawfare/episod…
It’s also a story about the attempted—and very nearly successful—deletion of history, about the Left’s cult of Stalin and its weird echos over time. We talked about Andrea’s grandfather, who left her a memoir of the Holodomor typed on a Ukrainian typewriter
in his old age. We talked about why the Pulitzer Board and the @nytimes still won’t deal honestly with Walter Duranty 20 years after a coalition of Ukrainian activists, along with my then-Washington Post editorial board colleagues @dongrahamdc1 and @anneapplebaum pushed them
Just listened to oral argument before Judge Cooper on the Michael Sussman motion to dismiss on materiality. The judge played his cards close to the vest and promised to rule sooner, rather than later. He clearly thinks that dismissal on this basis presents a serious question.
I would guess there's about a 60-70 percent chance he lets the matter go to the jury, but I'm not at all certain of it. Keep your eye on this issue.
A further thought on my I think there's a high percent chance Judge Cooper let's this go to trial even though there is a serious question as a matter of law as to whether the alleged false statement can be material.
For those who are wondering why the #BeastOfTheDay has been, uh, less than daily these things, the reason is that I am shut out of my Facebook and Instagram accounts, both of which are mainly used to discovering beasts. I have a conflict of interest here. I am really enjoying...
...not being on Facebook, and am seriously considering using my lack of access to the account to, well, just not use Facebook any more. That said, this approach to life requires a certain rebuilding of beastly material. All of which makes your nominations all the more...
...important. Remember the rules for submissions, please: (1) The beast must be a member of Kingdom Animalia. No plants, ice-breaking boats, machines, or people. (2) The beast of the day is an honorific status, not a criticism. (3) No domestic dogs or cats ...
Very proud to announce the addition of @scottjshapiro to @lawfareblog's masthead. We normally do these things on an unconditional basis, but with Scott, we added one non-negotiable condition to his accession, which is that he shitpost ironically on the subject.
For all of you who don't know this from his Twitter feed, Scott is actually a genuine authority on legal philosophy and, believe it or not given his evident technical incompetence on @inlieuoffunshow, a cybersecurity expert with a forthcoming book on the subject.
He is also, with his frequent coauthor on the subject @oonahathaway, one of the most interesting theorists of the development of the modern international rules-based international system.
And yeah, he's funny. Really funny. And he doesn't take himself too seriously.
It’s really maddening when Westerners speak about a “negotiated” solution to the Ukraine war. Let me translate that lingo into plain English for you. The subject of the “negotiation” they speak of is how much of Russia’s conquest Ukraine should have to accept. If you are not a 👇
Ukrainian, you have exactly zero standing to engage this subject. Our role is to support the Ukrainians to the maximum extent we can without triggering a wider conflict. It is emphatically not to tell them how much of their country to give up or what limitations on their 👇
sovereignty they need to swallow. I’m sorry if you don’t like war. I don’t either. But this one is not your war or mine to end. Asking people to negotiate when their army is starting to turn the tide is presumptuous in the extreme. It’s up to them whether to take risks to take 👇