Strict Scrutiny is a podcast about the United States Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. Hosted by three badass constitutional law professors-- Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray-- Strict Scrutiny provides in-depth, accessible, and irreverent analysis of the Supreme Court and its cases, culture, and personalities. Each week, Leah, Kate, and Melissa break down the latest headlines and biggest legal questions facing our country, emphasizing what it all means for our dai...
Release date: 2023-02-27
1. Fried Disingenuity - Three different voices doubling down on vocal fry and eschewing and attempt at critical thought.
If you want undistilled Progressive ideology, you have found it.
If you are looking for objective analysis or even liberal legal thinking, such as it is, leavened with critical thinking, move along.
2. Get your woke take on law and the Supreme Court - I learned of this podcast from Akhil Amar’s Amarica’s Constitution podcast when Kate Shaw appeared on Amar’s episode which scrutinized Moore v. Harper. I’ve now listened to a handful of episodes of this podcast podcast and unfortunately it pretty much completely lacks the integrity and seriousness of Amarica’s Constitution. If you want to hear ad hominem attacks on Supreme Court justices this show is for you. If you want strawman arguments and bad faith interpretation of those with different views, this is your show. For serious analysis of the Constitution and related Supreme Court cases, this podcast is bankrupt.
3. Required listening - I really appreciate the in-depth analysis into cases, the court, and the sarcasm provided in this ludicrous era. Kate, Melissa, and Leah are experts in their profession. I am far more knowledgeable about our government and it’s systems because of them, and I am grateful for their willingness to do this work every week knowing not every outcome is positive. Thank you.
4. Fantastic (except audio mixing) - Amazing show- I’ve been able to bring my extended family along for this informative, educational, and often entertaining show!
I sometimes am annoyed by the audio mixing which leads me to have to adjust volume multiple times an episode. This makes a great show a bit annoying to listen to… SCOTUS clips are often far too soft, Melissa’s mic (especially when excited) is too loud. Hopefully this production can be smoothed in the future to make a good thing even better.
5. Speed Talking is Annoying - I absolutely love every aspect, every analysis, every critique, humor and wisdom these brilliant women share weekly. However, they all talk way too fast which causes me to rewind and replay too much to get all their insights. You’re worth the effort but try to slow down.
6. Missed Opportunity - I’ve been a listener since day one, and likely will continue to listen, as I like to get a variety of perspectives on major issues in the law. Yet, with so many okay-to-good Supreme Court podcasts now available, I’m lately finding it harder and harder to devote the time to this one. The hosts know their stuff, clearly. But they are also so deeply uncharitable to any perspectives but their own that it is often hard to get any real utility out of the podcast. Typically, any chance to reckon with an opposing point of view is instead treated as an opportunity for naked partisan electioneering or to repeat the same cringe-inducing wisecrack about “Ginny tonics” or “Sam Troll-lito” for the umpteenth time. If you only have the time for one Supreme Court podcast in your schedule, I suggest you look elsewhere.
7. Smart lawyers, terrible jokes and VOCAL FRY - I respect these women as lawyers. But during about a to week period of listening to each new episode, I heard constant “Ginny Tonics” jokes and “vibes … vibey …” inside jokes. Enough - just because something was amusing the first time you said it is not a reason to say it or times. Leah’s vocal fry is horrible. I’ve seen her interviewed on serious news programs, and it’s clear that she can control this. Does she speak this way in her classroom? It’s unlistenable.
8. Extremely informative - Love the legal analysis and discussion of how recent Court decisions and reasoning compare with previous decisions and reasoning. Can’t always hear Kate though, which is frustrating bc I love what she says. Also, there is an awful lot of referencing pop culture topics that are just kind of annoying and basic.
9. Informative - The hosts are hilarious and real when they talk about what’s going on in the highest court in the land. The don’t pull punches or censor themselves. Honestly, you should come to learn more in-depth about SCOTUS but you should stay to figure out how they’re going to incorporate Harry Potter into the episode. Seriously, this is an amazing podcast.
10. Appointment Listening - I am a non lawyer who has literally never missed one of your shows. You cover the law in a way that is both understandable and entertaining, and also explain why I should care. I only wished more of the country would listen and believe (Cassandra reference there). Bravo. Steve L.
11. Witty Banter and Pop Culture References - Hi! I really enjoy the Strict Scrutiny podcast. The hosts share their insights of SCOTUS in a way that is easy to grasp. Additionally their witty banter and pop culture references add a delightful layer of entertainment. I would definitely recommend Strict Scrutiny. In fact I have mentioned this podcast to a number of friends and family.
12. Informative discussions - I like listening to updates about current justice issues and comments by these bright knowledgeable women. One thing - If one of the hosts interrupts another, then not only is my train of thought interrupted (and probably the current speaker’s too), but I can’t hear either one of them. Aggravating. Another thing - cut the ironic statements. They are not helpful to “normies” even if it might seem obvious that they are said ironically. I’m going to keep listening anyway, especially in what looks like a dark period ahead for our Democracy. I need their company to get through it.
13. Makes Monday worth looking forward to! - Strict Scrutiny is my favorite podcast. Not just my favorite Supreme Court podcast (I listen to several), but favorite overall. My partner helped me to realize that I’m a Supreme Court fanboy, and this podcast has been my go-to for years. In fact, I first heard Leah Litman on another SCOTUS podcast—that no longer exists and shall not be named—and found her guest appearances refreshing, despite what I perceived as some mansplaining from at least one of the regular hosts of that one. The chemistry among Leah, Melissa, and Kate is fantastic! You can tell that they not only love talking law, but that they genuinely enjoy one another. Their collective depth of knowledge of the law and legal culture is astounding, and they sound like people you’d enjoy hanging out with too. I love all the digs at Alito—since he deserves it—but your mileage may vary on the humor. I love it, but I realize that it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. To those who comment on vocal fry: Get over it or move on. We know who you’re referring to, and it’s not okay. I use vocal fry all the time when I speak, but as a man, no one comments on it—I only realized I do it when my partner pointed it out. People’s voices sound different, and that’s just fine. Love these ladies of law!
14. Top notch - A great show by some incredibly intelligent women who have opinions. Progressives are constantly told to be neutral and less political, but if conservatives get to be overtly opinionated on their moral interpretation of the law, why shouldn’t progressives be allowed to have opinions as well? If you just want to hear oral arguments, go listen to them. If you enjoy a little levity and joy mixed in with your intelligent commentary and legal explanations, you’re in the right place.
15. I love Strict Scrutiny. Great information with humor. - I love listening to the Strict Scrutiny podcast bringing us the most up to date information from the Supreme Court with humor and ethical grounding, while also injecting a woman’s perspective. I’m a black male attorney. I just mention this because at the end of the latest podcast you mentioned some misogynistic backlash you all have received and I want to emphasize that there are men out there who support you and appreciate your work. To say that it’s unfortunate that you all have been subjected to misogyny and criticism based upon being women is a massive understatement. Despite the negativity, I know you guys clearly can handle it, embrace the challenge, and you will continue to bring us such good and important information, with humor, through your great work on the podcast. Disagreement with some of your views may be fine, but the misogyny is not. I just want to say that I truly appreciate the information, your viewpoints, your banter, your humor, the insight that you provide, and I appreciate receiving it from the woman’s perspective as well. Please keep up the great work. Listening to Strict Scrutiny is my favorite way of keeping up with the court and I share your podcast with my lawyer and non-lawyer friends.
16. Lame - If it were just a Kate Shaw podcast, I’d be happy, but the others should go home. The latest pod spent minutes discussing the wardrobe or potential wardrobe of SCOTUS. That is NOT serious, and worse it plays to female stereotypes of frivolous yapping. Too much giggling... same. And the “quelle surprise” refrain is over-used... just stop already.
Also, way too much advertising... MINUTES of it. Topics are fine, knowledge is fine, but presentation is too often truly annoying. I’m sticking with “Amicus” for a female take on SCOTUS issues.
17. Scotus Mean Girls - It’s gone downhill somewhat with too much sarcasm and attempts at wit. It’s become less informative over time as they attempt catchy slogans. The mean spiritedness has become off putting. Update: still boring and unbalanced. The sarcasm is cringier than ever. Very hostile towards religion. Very sarcastic all the time about everything. Insightful commentary when they leave out the mean spiritedness. They do a disservice to their listeners by not even attempting to present any alternative to their strong opinions. The hostility is palpable. Update: still always hysterical sarcastic and painful to listen to. More nuance can be found at Advisory Opinions. The vocal fry is just unbearable.
18. Annoying Snark - I’ve tried to like this, listened to quite a few hours, and have very high interest as I’m retired after years of work against the death penalty on state and federal levels. But I cannot abide the constant snarky “jokes” which are never funny, usually meant to highlight the insider knowledge of the joker and are so often delivered as interruptions to serious discourse I’d like to hear. There’s nothing funny about the threats to our democracy and constitution. I know you all have deep knowledge and insights to share if only the hyper irritating prattler would pipe down and let a discussion happen. Her interjections are also disrespectful to the guests. I’m really disappointed but have to give up and unsubscribe.
19. Losing the plot line - may eventually stop listening - I have been a loyal strict scrutiny fan for some time. Gripping commentary by brilliant minds & incredible guests. I enlisted a squad of five to tune in & we frequently discuss episodes together. Our admiration dropped several levels with “our dear friend and Strict Scrutiny invitee Meghan Markle” - plus the other biased opinions that followed. You introduced a polarizing figure (who has nothing to do with con law or legal issues) strictly because she’s your celeb crush. There are other podcasts for such a shallow, superficial guest invitation. You’re in a position to highlight so many other inspiring minds with greater impact. Instead you’ve alienated some loyal listeners by PR support for someone controversial, who already receives biased attention outside this podcast. In the end we’re listening for hope about the future and hanging on your advocacy. Don’t disappoint us. We need you.
20. One of the best legal podcasts - Strict Scrutiny is a superb legal podcast due not only to the knowledge, credentials, and experience of the hosts, but to the fact that their commentary makes the horror of recent decisions against privacy become personal to the listener. They also take a female perspective that other legal podcasts can gloss over. Bravo ladies!!!
21. Democrat propaganda disguised as impartial news - I’m not sure if the hosts realize they just regurgitate democrat party propaganda or if they’re willing participants, either way we get the same results. Just one example is in their podcast episode What the fight after Roe looks like, they mention that Fox News and republicans spin stories. Then seconds later they say there was a case in Nebraska where a teenager and her mom are being charged based on Facebook messenger messages. The implication is that the cops are surveilling social media messages and tracking period apps searching for people that had abortions and hunting them down now that Roe has been overturned. The Nebraska story doesn’t prove that at all. First the abortion happened in April, before Roe was overturned. Second, Nebraska hasn’t changed their abortion laws since Roe was overturned. Third, the cops didn’t just monitor their messages. They received a tip from someone that the illegal abortion, done well after the week gestational period that Nebraska sets as the cutoff, had been done. The cops obtained a warrant and FB complied with the legal warrant, the way any company would have, to turn over communications between two suspected criminals. Fourth, the messages clearly showed the two conspired to break the law and did so. Yet these hosts ignore the actual facts of the case and spin it so hard to fit their narrative that it can only be described as propaganda. Fox News is a propaganda network for republicans, I agree with that. But this podcast is the mirror image of a Fox News show. It is pure propaganda but for democrats. So if you despise Fox News but love this podcast, I have some bad news for you. You are what you despise. It’s worth a listen to hear what propaganda your friends and family are hearing. But that’s the only educational value it has.
22. Liberal Professors doing legal review - While the tone tends to be a bit different than some of the legal podcasts I listen to, I think the hosts usually give a fair breakdown of the issue at hand. I think they strike a decent balance of having a podcast that can be listened to be an interested nonlawyer. While I may not agree with all their conclusions is not as though they are trying to hide them. A lot of people are complaining about them being liberal or landing in different places than others as though that isn’t a common aspect of law. They do tend to rip into the justices quite a bit but that doesn’t bother me too much.
23. Entertaining, Illuminating, and Very Refreshing - Professors Litman, Murray, and Shaw offer listeners a consummate blend of insightful case breakdowns and commentary, scorching legal and political hot takes, witty repartee, brutal honesty, and—perhaps most crucial of all to their success with this podcast—an unyielding sense of conviction. I would highly recommend Strict Scrutiny to anyone with an interest in all things SCOTUS.
Inside the right’s push to retake power, from the conspiracy-slingers to the MAGA acolytes to the straight-up grifters. Thought the Trump era was crazy? Wait ’til you hear what they have planned next. Hosted by Kelly Weill and Will Sommer. New episodes every Wednesday. Subscribe on your favorite podcast app today. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Release date: 2023-02-22
1. Interesting but slow down! - Why does it seem like everyone is trying to speak fast like nervous- sounding Ben Shapiro? I think Shapiro talks fast because he thinks it makes him sound intelligent when it really betrays insecurity. I wouldn’t use him or any other fast talker as a model. Fast talkers generally sound like salesmen trying to scam or overwhelm you. Slower talkers emanate confidence as well as honest deliberation. Slow down!
2. Dragons Fly Together - This podcast is how I learned that “Baby Q” is literally one of my ex’s bffs from high school. He may be the most famous person from RRHS class of and I am FULLY embarrassed to have known him. What a world we live in. Anyways, thanks for the depressingly hilarious info Fever Dreams. Keep Austin weird… I guess.
3. Receipts and Testosterone - Many toxins, including BPA found in receipt paper, are endocrine disrupters. Plastics leach synthetic estrogens, which we discovered in the ’s while studying breast cancer (their control groups were growing as quickly as the experimental groups because the plastic petri/peach tree dishes were leaching estrogens). Heat increasing leaching. Happy to provide evidence, but it’s well studied. Try a PubMed search.
4. I like the glaze of angry - The mind bending crap coming from the right is hard to digest without emotion. As someone that has sacrificed for this country I can’t even express the anger I have with what’s going on. I know when I get angry I get stupid. Listening to someone else that gets where I’m coming from is nice. In a way, I appreciate the delivery of the show even more than the information.
5. Love it but room for improvement - Absolutely love Will Sommer’s work, and listen to every single podcast he appears on, and every single episode of this podcast with Will is great. Without Will tho, it doesn’t always stand-up to the quality I’ve come to expect, and it becomes a bit too much of a “dude” talk show. What we don’t need in this space is more male dominated podcasts being “bros.” The other primary host also isn’t as informed nor as Leftist as Will, so I’ve just resolved to only listening to episodes with Will. Really devastated he’s going on a month hiatus with the pod, but I’ll be here when he returns! Hopefully the other hosts can do better and push themselves to take this as seriously as the primary investigative journalist driving this podcast, does.
6. My morning commute is so much fun on Wednesdays - If a podcast about right-wing craziness is sharp and funny enough to inform me and to make me laugh out loud frequently, then it has truly got something amazing going on. I think the hosts are great - smart, hilarious, and thorough -though I worry about their mental health having to delve so perceptively and deeply into this ridiculous upside-down world. Are you guys ok? I hope so, because you are great at what you do. Thanks!
7. Perfection - Your podcast is one of the only political podcasts I can still listen to after the election. Love the new abnormal too. Listening to the episode on NRA. I thought they were GD broke!! They just sent my crazy still Trumpy brother a jacket!! Of course they asked him for a “donation” but he has already spent all his limited disposable income on trump swag. He’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he’s my baby brother none the less. I keep hoping once his brain tumor is removed he will wake up to how he has been grifted by Trump. I’m not kidding, he has a brain tumor.
8. Fun show! - I love all podcasts critical of the Qanon phenomenon. I look forward to it every week. The guitar intro doesn’t bother me like it seems to other reviewers on here. I wish the show was longer. It’s edited weirdly. The vocals almost overlap with themselves. I guess it needs to be condensed for the kids.
9. This jury member can’t decide - I am not sure whether I am more horrified about some of the things going on with the loony toons/fringe element now overwhelmingly in charge of the GOP brought to bright light on this podcast or the arrogant East coast views pervasive in ultra liberal views of some of the things said on this podcast remind me of HRC during the campaign. Both are…disturbing. Come to Ohio and sit in the diners with Biden voters for the next years. Until all media have major hubs in the middle of the country- we have lost America.
10. Two episodes later.. - This show was a great delight to me every time it popped up in my feed.. I believe that may be the case again one day, but as of now - I am at a loss for words. Swins anxiety over spending some time without his homie Will had me cut the first new episode short.. then the fall of Afghanistan took place. What followed was the most childish episode that could be imagined about one of biggest humanitarian catastrophes of our time, as it only begins to unfold. I have a thousand things to say.. but I'll leave it at that.
11. NSA watching frozen dinner boy - Wondering if Trump’s pick to oust Mark Sanford in SC, Katie Arrington, could be Tucker’s source. She won against Sanford, but lost to Cunningham, for which Trump rewarded her with a cyber position at the Pentagon. She is on leave currently and stripped of her security clearance for leaking some sort of intel.
12. Deceptively boring - skip half way ahead of episodes - I found this podcast on account of the Gaetz episode with the salacious headline. Recovering from my nd Moderna shot, it seemed like a reasonable way to waste some time. I had to pause the episode several times to go back and make sure I was listening to the correct one. Nearly the first minutes is consumed by the hosts talking about items to a level of minutia that I expect only their colleagues could appreciate. If I overheard this conversation at a bar, it simply would have been boring banter. For a podcast episode with a description that talks entirely about subject, as featured in the title, to then start out with minutes of rambling and not even a warning to “Skip half way if you’re hear for what we’re actually marketing” seems quite off the target. The amusing and ironic part is this: I literally just got to the part where Jose and Roger come on to actually discuss the entitled subject, and I paused it to simply write this review, unlikely to go back to it because this tabloid-like political gossip is largely a waste of time, and I already wasted minutes hearing these guys talk about Greg Kelly’s pants and other pointless drivel.
13. Silly - I thought this would be credible news. It’s just a show about making fun of the right wing conspiracy theorists. Not saying they don’t deserve it. But I was hoping for some quality factual information instead of entertainment. I’m an anthropology student and interested in these fringe groups.
14. What a great Podcast!! - Not only are the topics interesting but the two hosts are terrific. They make the madness of cultish conspiracy groups fun to track AND they have great chemistry. Unlike a lot of podcasts the dialogue seems natural and makes me imagine these are two friends discussing news over beers Thanks for making these crazy times more bearable and irreverent
5-4 is a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks. It's a progressive and occasionally profane take on the ideological battles at the heart of the Court's most important landmark cases; an irreverent tour of all the ways in which the law is shaped by politics. Subscribe to our access our premium episodes & much more at fivefourpod.com/support Listen each week as hosts Peter, Michael, and Rhiannon dismantle the Justices’ legal reasoning on hot-button issues like affirmative action, gun r...
Release date: 2023-02-21
1. Breaking it down - Good balance of potty-mouthed irreverence and thoughtful analysis that translates court jargon into plain language and explodes the mythology of the justices as rare and infallible geniuses. Would love to hear a serial format where they take on the majority & minority opinion in one significant decision and dissect it — undermine that FedSoc textualism with textualism, if you will.
2. Easy going and informative - - absolutely lives up to its description in a great way! You’re going to get information AND commentary from a progressive perspective— if that’s not your vibe then, yeah, it’s not for you. As someone with formal legal knowledge this show breaks things down in an understandable, meaningful way that I really appreciate. You feel like you're not just listening to to a conversation, but being included in it.
3. LOL - LOL’ing at the people in the comments acting like being more conservative somehow makes someone or something more “balanced.” No dude, it just makes you more wrong. Like the right answers to things are not just arbitrarily in the exact compromise point between two opinions. Like if someone says “Ted Bundy was a good guy,” and I say “no ne wasn’t he was an entire mass murderer,” the correct answer isn’t the exact middle point between the two. What’s right is what has the most verifiable detail to support it, what takes into account the surrounding context, and comes to the kindest and most just conclusion. And including “a conservative voice” would do absolutely none of that.
4. Good content but the hosts’ laughing is really inappropriate - The cases that the hosts discuss are really interesting and their analysis of them is thoughtful and well executed. I cannot handle the laughing at their own jokes constantly. It’s so insensitive and inappropriate given the topics they’re covering. I don’t think they’re insensitive people. I get that it’s hard to deal with this content on a regular basis without developing a sense of gallows humor, but keep your giddy laughter to a minimum when you’re hosting a podcast that deals with so much personal human tragedy. The lack of self awareness gives me secondhand embarrassment for them.
5. Patreon Question - Love your podcast. Huge fan. I had a Patreon membership and loved listening to the side episodes. However, since the unfortunate job departures, it seems like there have been far fewer Patreon exclusive episodes. Will you be ramping up that content again soon? Understand if it’s difficult given your personal situations.
6. The absolute best podcast! - This is the podcast that Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael knew we all needed. Their liberal critique of the Supreme Court is unmatched and much needed. Their work illuminates how SCOTUS — as a political-laden, bigoted, dogmatic, racist institution — continues to perpetuate inequitable, unjust outcomes for marginalized groups. Don’t listen to the lonely one-star reviews. Everyone knows the - pod is phenomenal. And for goodness sakes, how is Ginni still running amok?!
7. Entertainment - I listen to the podcast more as entertainment than actual fact. If they had a more conservative voice on it then the podcast would lend to more of a balanced opinion. In (I believe, can’t remember the actual episode) they talk of qualified immunity. Specifically stating that municipalities generally win most cases against individuals. While that may be true the more true fact (if that is the correct verbiage) is that municipalities in the majority of cases settle outside of court. Not because the defendant was right or wrong, but due to the high cost of going to trial. Qualified immunity is not entirely about police violating citizens rights it is more about protecting individual police officers from frivolous law suits. When a police officer arrives on a scene he/she is there to come to a solution to a problem. Often that solution is negotiated, and as the saying goes a good negotiation is when both parties do not feel satisfied. That dissatisfaction is what leads to the frivolousness.
8. A gift for those seeking perspective - This pod has helped me (and many around me) to understand the mechanics of our high court. As a sommelier by trade I find value in knowing why things are the way that they are. I feel like the gang at - does exactly that for those of us who don’t know about the industry that is law. Thank you to them if they see this! You all bring joy and knowledge to my life!
9. Enjoyable even for those without a law degree - I appreciate how the hosts break down the cases and the underlying assumptions (and obfuscations). Is it polarized? Yes, refreshingly so because so much discussion surrounding the Supreme Court is fundamentally dishonest—the attempt to present both sides has led to outright propaganda of this elite institution and a deliberate omission of the corruption underlying it. I admire the compassion and sense of justice that animates the hosts, particularly Rhiannon, and believe that their philosophy of legal realism is the antidote to the discriminatory and self-interested philosophies currently ruling the judiciary.
10. Funny and educational - I’m not a lawyer, but am interested in the law. I found this podcast through Peter’s “If Books Could Kill” which I also really enjoy. I love the dynamic of this group. Peter’s sense of humor rocks. Highly recommend, especially if you like obscenities in your legal analysis.
11. I Tried - Truth is this is half intelligent commentary and, sadly, half pathological malice —
toward anyone with a different opinion. Their explanation of Legal Realism is coherent and engaging.
Their presentation of historical cases illuminates the practical application of this perspective. The three are equally sharp, have great rapport and it COULD be an amazing podcast — but it is not They offer no intelligent argument against cases they disagree with. Instead, they become lame partisans:
laughing while making personal attacks and idiotic, puerile accusations.
The conversation becomes so shallow
and so . . . dumb
it’s hard to believe the same people are speaking. As a top grad from a top law school, I feel qualified to judge and do acknowledge
the eloquence and accuracy on display when offering their perspectives. But their inability and unwillingness
to reasonably articulate views of those they oppose quickly makes it a chore to listen That this inability and unwillingness
seems normal to the hosts is alarming
12. I love it but i’d rather be laughing as the world falls apart - I love the informative breakdowns and the side tangents with relevant anecdotes or completely random non sequiturs. I love the laughter and the drink clinking. When talking about ineffective cops or death penalty cases, sometimes the only way to get through these objectively horrific opinions is by cracking jokes. Morbid humor is a thing. Yes, they are very left but its also wild at how these Judges are amoral and/or prejudiced in their decisions. And so many people in these high offices of power blatantly lie but no one calls them out. This podcast does that.
13. Extremely clear explanations and very entertaining - Love this podcast! I learn so
much from every episode. They break it all down, clearly defining legal terms, history, precedent, the reasoning of the rulings, the constitutional basis. One thing I'd love would be if they were a bit more historical-tell us more about the precedents that were overturned, the prior reasoning of past justices, history of the court, etc. The nuts and bolts of who does the arguments before the court and how would also help the listener become up to speed if they want to debate and discuss the decisions...but they put a lot into each episode so perhaps that's putting too much on their plate. Highly recommend if you want to understand the power of the court over our lives.
14. Rhi’s laugh evr - Welcome to -, where listeners’ opinions on Rhi’s laughter are as hopelessly polarized as America’s garbage fire of a political system. As for me, I’m % in the “love it” camp. I will subscribe to the Patreon if there is tier that includes an hour’s worth of her laughter. Also really love the show overall, BTW. Wouldn’t change a thing.
15. Don’t be a lawyer - Thank god for this podcast. Every-time I get drunk I order a catalog from the law school I almost went to and think, yeah - I should do this! Then I remind myself that if I ever go to law school I swore I’d get the first amendment as a tramp stamp and by the time I consider the ramifications of that commitment I’ve usually sobered up and am listening to this pod again while I work as an accountant (equally unfulfilling)… so thanks for keeping me from ruining my life, shouldering myself with crushing debt I’d never recover from and a tattoo that’s way too complicated to explain to my usual hookups. FYI: this podcast is educational and thought provoking
16. I even subscribe on Patreon! - This show is so insightful, well researched, and entertaining that I actually pay to be a premium listener. I know, right? I've never done that before. These folks are just brilliant and hilarious. I'm a lawyer turned history teacher and I use their podcasts to augment lessons! Subscribe now!
17. Run Its Course - Used to love it, but now very stale. At inception had a rawer & more rowdy feel, but as another reviewer said, now mostly just boring & preachy & the Big Lie they think they are exposing is stuff. In the middle of a crowded & growing field of SCOTUS podcasts, & lacking the technical insight of better & more popular shows (Strict Scrutiny), hard to recommmend anymore. Probably a good time to let it die.
18. Circle-jerking self-righteousness - This podcast misses the mark in a lot of ways. It attributes the worse-possible ideas to its ideological opponents, and utilizes personal attacks on appearance, intelligence, etc, without spending much time tackling actual arguments. It’s easier to handwave away as stupid. The Fisher v. UT episode began and ended with attacks on Abigail Fisher’s personal appearance. Listening to the Know Your Enemy crossover episode helped me to understand where they are coming from as someone without legal training. I think it would be beneficial if they had an episode detailing their judicial philosophy (legal realism I think). At this point, I mostly hate-watch. I’m a liberal, probably not as far left as they are but still left, but it still feels pretty bad faith. Anyone that disagrees ideologically is a malicious operative instead of just having different, legitimate fundamental beliefs. They don’t make many coherent arguments other than laughing and saying something is obviously stupid.
19. A wasted opportunity - This show is interesting but really could’ve been a lot better. It’s made by people who obviously care a lot about the issues they’re discussing and have a lot of passion. Still, it’s completely biased and heavily one-sided. There’s literally zero attempt to see any issue from any other perspective, of which there are many. these are supposed to be intelligent people but they’re dangerously narrow minded. When they don’t have a good point to make they just swear a lot and laugh as if that somehow is an argument. It is not. Name calling is not a way to convince people of your arguments. Obviously, the topic of the show is incredibly important for the country and people have a broad range of opinions on it. They should’ve given voice to more than one view. Also, these guys are so woke they don’t realize that they sound ridiculous. history will not be kind to woke nonsense and one day this whole podcast will look about as relevant as bellbottom pants.
20. Favorite podcast :) - I just realized I haven’t left a review even though this is my all time favorite pod! I have listened to every episode and I am a Patreon subscriber as well. This podcast came into my life when I was coming into adulthood and has really helped to develop my leftist views. Im an undergrad but this podcast las inspired me to pursue law school. I love all the hosts, but Rhiannon in particular has deeply inspired me. She is everything I want to be-hilarious, empathetic, strong willed, and well spoken. So basically, yes give this pod a listen!
21. Excellent PROGRESSIVE podcast - Seems to be some people lost in the reviews here, this is a PROGRESSIVE podcast, I don’t know why you were expecting to come here and listen to these lawyers support overturning Roe v Wade. This is not a media organized podcast, it’s laid back, comedic, and happily biased so don’t expect a CNN production on the Supreme Court. It’s much better than they could ever
22. Really ? - Complain about the Supreme Court ?
In , Sanders voters complained that Clinton won the nomination…..still mad , they said “ Hillary will win “ but I’m not going to vote , or , they said , “ Hillary will win “ , but I’m going to vote for one of the fringe candidates….. the result …. Trump won.
If those Sanders voters had swallowed their pride and voted “ strategically “ in for Clinton despite their disappointment , the Supreme Court would be now - LIBERAL !
Republicans fall in line , Democrats have to fall in love Losing Roe V Wade ?……. You Sanders voters who didn’t back the Democratic nominee did it to yourselves
23. Mostly good - My only complaint is that they seem to think there is an idea that politicians/American politics/the government are universally loved that they need to debunk. There is a lot of like “but actually sheeple, here’s the reality” if I wanted that boring preachy “let ME tell you idiots how it really is” content I’d listen to chapo trap mediocre male entitlement. I do like the rest of the podcast a lot I just find that stuff so boring and there’s so much of it. Anyone who went to grade school should know the Supreme Court is rarely a force for good, it’s not new information and it doesn’t change anything. Reminds me of a history teacher i had in high school who really thought it would blow our minds to say some wars have been fought over oil like yeah… we know. Facebook/Instagram also are platforms owned and operated by a billionaire to benefit himself not a fun place to keep up with old friends. Ever heard of the Catholic Church? Is McDonald’s not healthy omg! I just find it kind of offensive that they think their audience is that stupid. In my lifetime I cannot remember a time when SCOTUS was universally respected and revered the way the hosts seem to claim. This is coming off very negative, it’s otherwise a good show.
24. Abortion is NOT a constitutional right - These children are the arrogant people who get a law degree and think they know something at a whopping years of age. They get affirmation by the bots on twitter and Reddit and think they have the law all figured out. You won’t be able to listen if you’re over . Grating.
The Lawfare Podcast features discussions with experts, policymakers, and opinion leaders at the nexus of national security, law, and policy. On issues from foreign policy, homeland security, intelligence, and cybersecurity to governance and law, we have doubled down on seriousness at a time when others are running away from it. Visit us at www.lawfareblog.com. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Release date: 2023-03-05
1. Insightful, concise, balanced & fact driven! - Consistently thought provoking and informative. The regulars as well as the guests bring keen intellects and broad knowledge to bear on discussions. I don’t always agree in whole with the positions taken, but I relish the rigor with which the positions are arrived at. Thanks!!!!!
2. Are you there? - Best episode title ever! I had to give a five star review just because I love that so much, but actually— this is a podcast that I didn’t expect to frequent, based on published works available from hosts, but you know? One day I realized I wanted to hear what they had to say in thinking through issues — a lot of people have gotten pretty lazy in their thinking— these folks are not lazy. They think. It is an under appreciated contribution these days maybe. But don’t forget to thank the great benefactor, Judy Blume, who took the time to raise a certain forgotten generation when their parents weren’t home.
3. Audio - Not a big fan of the opening music but, personal taste aside, I’d prefer to have it fade out completely before Ben begins the intro. As it is, he and the music are competing. Also, Ben sound like he’s talking into a bucket, hollow and echo-y. It’s unfortunate to have minor technical issues detract from the information the Lawfare folks are trying to present.
4. Chris Slobogin interview - Maybe you should study Washington's new traffic State laws. Police can no longer do a traffic stop on probable cause; this is the reading, to the best of my knowledge. Police can not pull over a stolen car; any person pulled over can leave or not pull over unless it's for a DUI stop, and even then, police aren't pulling over those drivers much. My point in asking you to look at this is that it's become wild west driving, and it seems to me not enforcing minor laws, say no license plate or stolen car, has created more danger for other law-abiding citizens. What professors and politicians need to think about next time is what repercussions can happen in changing laws. I hate to say this, but it's created a lawless atmosphere. Police in Seattle don't arrest personal use drug users, this change was about the same time as the traffic, and I can say violence has gone way up because of a couple of minor tweaks in laws. This year I have had five murders, and rapes, robberies, and assaults have increased in less than a -mile area from my home. I understand covid could have something to do with this, but it's become ridiculous and barely liveable in Seattle. Please take care when changing laws and look carefully at citizens' safety besides the criminal's safety, and study what changes might do to a community. I love your podcast and find it fascinating subjects. Can you also look at the correlation between homicides and early releases done from jails and prisons? I work in a Jail and have seen the murder rate skyrocket, especially around homeless encampments that may have been where the early releases may have gone. They've become more like a homeless gangs with lots of violence of, murders, rapes, and serious assaults. Shelters have been placed in minority areas, and they've had a massive increase in violence. It may correlate with legalizing all drugs, which not arresting personal use has accomplished. Crime in Seattle is terrible, and we need help with some studies done on violence and citizens feeling unsafe in our community. Thank you.
5. This Podcast Makes Me Feel Smart & Stupid - Just started listening recently, and I really enjoy this podcast even though I don’t have a legal background. Usually, I can make sense of everything said on the pod. That being said, I did recently have a hard time googling the legal term “En Banc” because I kept spelling it “On Bonk.” So listening is sometimes a humbling experience. I feel like I’m learning a lot, and I generally like podcasts where experts/total nerds engage in rigorous discussions of important topics. Ben Wittes is very funny, and I recently subscribed to his dog newsletter on Substack, which I highly recommend.
6. Reliable - Update: Scott R. Anderson frequently lets his voice trail off when he is talking, which makes big chunks of his comments indecipherable. :-/ Please, Scott, get a better microphone or maybe be more intentional about making sure you speak clearly throughout all your comments. Probably just be easier to do a little consumer research and buy a better mic. I'm not a lawyer, and I still like this podcast on the whole. I like a lot of the content and I learn a great deal from the discussions. Sometimes it gets in the weeds for me, but I think that's because I'm not a lawyer. One or two of the contributors always has an i'm smarter than you, finger-wagging, professorial tone/presence--but i SWEAR that I can hear a consequent eye-roll in the voice of some of the more down-to-earth hosts, and that makes up for it. LOL
7. Cass - Love your show…. I just wish y’all would check with Postal employees who actually do the work, on how ballots and political mail are handled . The political junk it treated like express mail but they only pay Pennie’s to mail it out.
The Ballots used to be Certified Return Receipt until counties got to cheap to pay the postage, now, while they are delivered with Express Mail processing even though they only pay First class rates.
8. The paradox of Democracy - The first part was interesting but in the end it just sounded like young guys in a dorm room
I am an almost year old retired nurse who has children, grandchildren land, soil, ground water and looks over a lake which is silting in. Wisconsin has lost its liberal democracy to really horrendous people who think our education, health, drinking water should be run in a private systems or even the profit center of private corporations who are science Deniers If you have any good ideas on how to save not just our democracy but the human race on this planet, step out of that dorm room and investigate what we are doing or trying to do every day. Point your angst and sarcasm on those science deniers who do policy by prevarication
9. Insightful and expert analysis, thought provoking discussion - Insightful and expert analysis on compelling issues. I particularly appreciate the civil dialogue and thought provoking discussion that occurs when hosts have different interpretations of a situation. The only very minor criticism I have is the sound quality of the recording by Twitter Spaces. Some of the dialogue is difficult to follow when it sounds a bit broken up, or when a speaker’s voice sounds muffled or distant. Thank you for this very informative and important podcast.
10. Good content - They recently had someone on who spoke so fast that I had to use the /x feature for the first time ever, I think Scott Anderson? I actually thought something was wrong with my phone and had to double check. Kind of weird to have to switch back and forth between speeds when listening but c’est la vie. But other than that, good show.
11. Lawfare Podcast - If I am writing a review after giving stars, obviously it means I love this. What I love is the deep academic dive into issues that concern all citizens without being boring! It’s intelligent and thought provoking. I always come away knowing little more about the issue discussed.
12. Bubble of Talking Points - It's scary to think that lawyers who are supposed to without feeling follow and apply the law to matters have being tainted & poisoned with their hate for Trump. They have lost a grip on what is right or wrong. The truth matters and they apparently don't know what it is anymore. Sad.
13. Brilliant and informative! - I always learn so much from these podcasts. Yesterday it was an interesting interview with a native speaker journalist in Ukraine; Today with a Finn about Finland’s problematic relationship with the Soviet Union during WW and Cold War. Never knew much about the latter, and the former was very precise about the Russian/ Ukrainian war. Thank you!
14. Excellent, thoughtful, serious - Today’s discussion with Andrea Chalupa covering Ukraine, the Soviet-manufactured famine inflicted on Ukrainians in the s, and the twisted mindset that intentionally and with extreme depravity dehumanizes an “other” and sells that view to ordinary people, prompted me to write this star review after listening for a few years. Wittes’ discussion with Chalupa was emblematic of the excellent, serious, apolitical work that Lawfare produces to benefit listeners. Lawfare exemplifies a commitment to thoughtful civil discussion based on facts and intelligent analysis rather than emotion or manipulative use of language.
15. Gitmo Fomer Chief Defense Counsel On - Astonishingly this daily podcast seems to get better as time passes. Who but Ben Wittes could interview (or even think to interview) the Gitmo Former Chief Defense Counsel. The interview was measured, interesting, informative and even after the interminable Gitmo process made one stop and think again, not just about the / defendants but about the uncharged people there deprived on even a sliver of due process. Lawfare Podcast, you’ve hit it out of the park once again.
16. Superb Podcast But Please Instruct Guests on Recording - Lawfare is one of my favorite podcasts. It consistently features the most astute experts in long-form analysis. However, on behalf of myself and other listeners, I request that you PLEASE give your guests (and remotely connecting hosts) the proper technical instructions to produce high quality recordings in a non-ISDN, non-studio setting. To ensure legibility of the recording, the chief concerns are: ) make sure they are using a microphone CLOSE to their mouth, not , , or inches away on a laptop; ) disable or minimize any noise-reduction processing on their end, which will often make the guest sound like he or she is underwater; and ) if at all possible, ensure that they connect via ethernet cable, not via WiFi. Any processing of the audio should be done by you, the producer, with high quality tools, not by the guest. If the guest is connecting via Zoom, for instance, in Audio Settings they should select “Music and Professional Audio - Show in-meeting option to enable ‘Original Sound,’” and then enable it. This will provide the highest fidelity and least amount of distortion. If Original Sound does not produce an acceptable recording, “Suppress Background Noise” should be set to "Low" — not “Auto” or anything else. The goal should NOT be the elimination of background noise; it should be the LEGIBILITY of the voice, and this can only be accomplished by not over-processing it, and making sure it is adequately miked in the first place. Thank you for your outstanding work.
17. I love this podcast! - I was introduced to the Lawfare website by my international politics professor. I started getting my news from the sight in early January . As a political science major with a minor in pre law I found website very informative and helpful. I recently decided to listen to the podcast and I am so happy I did. Not only is it a great way for me to get my information, but it is also a great way to save time. I know that I can get reliable information from this podcast without taking time out of my studies to read multiple articles and journals. I highly recommend this podcast!!!
18. Love this podcast - Not an attorney but have worked with and for them for thirty years. Love the law. Love that this podcast does not dumb anything down and provides thoughtful views and deep explanations and lively discussions. Listening in comforts me. There really ARE smart people out there trying to figure things out. And cable news personalities are not them! Thank you for being there. I know it’s not just for me but sometimes I think it is…..
19. First-Rate - I’ve been a quiet consumer of the redoubtable Lawfare blog and podcast since the earliest days. As someone with a strong interest in law and national security but is neither a lawyer nor an academic— I find their non-partisan and dispassionate discussions very enlightening and thought provoking.
20. Audio is at time atrocious. Please recruit anew sound engineer. - The topics are compelling, and the moderators are incredibly well informed. However, the audio is at times so clouded that it is difficult to comprehend the guests without turning to max volume. I am not hard of hearing by any means, but the quality in each episode varies wildly. For example, in the Peng Shuai episode, while the moderator and the female guest’s audio were clear and well balanced, the male guest’s audio was garbled and it sounded like he was just mumbling into a telephone. Not sure if it was vocal fry or what, but it sounded like he was trying to have a phone conversation during a funeral. For a podcast that is the arm of an incredibly well run legal research group, I am surprised at the poor quality of sound editing. I would HIGHLY recommend you recruit a new sound engineer, someone like Claire Bidigare-curtis who runs the podcast sound editing. This is an issue that is isolated not to a single episode but one that I found recurring over and over and over. It truly has gotten to the point where despite having subscribed to, listened to, and supported this podcast for several years now, I finally felt the need to leave a review so that you understand how to improve your operations. Thank you.
21. Whistleblowers - Speaking of whistle blowers in general, and the Panama Papers in particular: “The lack of remorse about taking information that is proprietary to a company, and using that for personal gain…what was Panama Papers? It was taking information from law firms and publishing it. There are more and more examples of that occurring, and I think that will continue to occur until such time as, whether it be the states or the feds, recognize that there is another side to the coin. I’m not advocating widespread prosecution, but there has to be an acknowledgment that corporations are entitled to protect their trade secrets, their assets, their information. And employees sign confidentiality provisions, and let’s not lose sight of the fact that many employees when they become whistle blowers could we’ll be violating those confidentiality provisions” And, uh, I’m not sure I need to spend an hour with a podcast only to hear a vigorous and indignant defense of the rights of Mossack Fonesca
22. A, quote, excellent, end quote, episode - An intriguing sampling this week from what sounds like a fascinating book on Trump and the presidency, marred only by Ben Wittes’s unfortunate insistence on didactically bracketing every single use of quotation marks with “quote....end quote” as if he were reading testimony into a court record rather than a book to an audience, thereby lending even his melifluous delivery the consistency of a mouthful of rock candy, and at times almost evoking Victor Borge’s Phonetic Punctuation routine. I hope he will have many occasions to read from this book in the future, and that he will learn to give his audiences credit for being able to understand when a three-word quotation ends, and read like a normal person reading fine prose aloud.
23. If only they could hear themselves. - The cognitive dissonance is comical to the objective listener. Listening to them try to convince each other of the consistency of their positions while repeating proven fallacies is hilarious. One tentatively points out an inconsistency, begging to be corrected. The other repeats the same failed argument at increased volume, and the first mumbles “I see, of course that makes sense.” These intellectuals have been broken by Trump.
Red Eye Radio is the pre-eminent syndicated overnight radio show hosted by radio vets Gary McNamara and Eric Harley airing Monday through Friday, Midnight to 5am Central. Targeted at long haul truckers, Red Eye Radio has broadened its mission to include virtually everyone living and working non-traditional hours. The audience includes shift workers, travelers, truck drivers and others who embrace the new 24/7 lifestyle, with many restaurants, retailers and other business establishments open roun...
Release date: 2023-03-06
1. Awe struck in Oregon! - Just listening to you is like arguing with my Dad, back when I was a Liberal teenager. He passed away back in . I eventually became a very conservative Democrat. My first vote was for Jimmy Carter. Haven’t voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since. The Balloon fiasco just makes you wonder if Biden has sold us out to the Chinese. Like he sold Afghanistan to the Taliban. He has been doing this since the ’s. The Democratic Party of today is not the Party it was years ago. Aside from liberal spending habits, most of their values followed mainstream America. Their only saving Grace has been the ineptitude of the Republicans to iterate an idea and hold to it. We seem to have become a country of enablers. Love the show, love listening to the subs. It is just not the same when there is only one host.
2. Entertaining - I like listening. Agree with them on just about everything. Unfortunately, they are misinformed on the Covid jabs. They pretend they are open to the data, but they are degrees out of phase on that one issue. It’s too bad. Once they recognize their error and misstatements regarding the jabs, and accept that they were wrong and admit it on air, they’ll get stars.
3. Long time listener - They are provocative and induce thought about a wide range of topics. Gary’s a bit offensive sometimes in my opinion. Eric is my favorite and is more my speed. It’s worth listening to in my humble opinion. Update: I quit listening. Gary is out of bounds on Trump and is seemingly an expert about everything in his own mind. Instead of questioning why it takes two weeks or more to count votes (many states do it in HOURS!) Gary blathers on about Trump endorsements. Eric is a saint for putting up with his arrogant blathering night in and night out. I’ve moved on to other podcasts. BYE!
4. Arrogant Old Men - I have listened to this show since Doug Macintire hosted. I am now unsubscribing. Gary Macnamara has become so arrogant, the program is unlistenable. And he is not nearly as smart and ‘fact based’ as he esteems himself to be. Once upon a time, Mark Levin may have praised these two men but I bet he takes that back now. When the ratings for this show tank—-and they will, these two should apply at Fox Always a treat when Dan Mandis is hosting. Maybe Gary could quit waxing on and learn a thing or two….
5. bobulinsky - wasn't it bobulinsky who after he heard pencil neck schiff going on & on & on about all the russian he saw , so bobulinski said if schiff will come out in public & apologized for the untruths he was telling about bobulinsky & defaming his family name & as usual no one came & schiff for brains didn't deny it at all!!"
6. Great stuff - I always look forward to this podcast. They slice and dice the subject at hand and, I believe, cover all sides of an issue. They have opened my mind on many occasions to consider all the facets of an issue. Balanced…thoughtful….well prepared…two normal guys facing the same issues that I am!
7. Found my source for informative political analysis - I found Red Eye Radio going to work at :am one morning. Scanning the AM airwaves in NH I stumbled upon the shows broadcast out of a Michigan radio station. Sometimes the signal isn’t the greatest but I listen intently to every word I can. Highly recommend tuning in wherever you are!!
8. Great show - This is the show I go to to get my review of the news for the day. Very factual. I saw in another review that there was a mild criticism of Gary cutting off guests. It’s been my experience that Gary and Eric will allow people to express their opinion but will stop somebody in their tracks when they start spouting off things that are not factual. Keep up the good work.
9. Good Show, however - I find Gary very rude and interrupting to callers who wait forever to get on, let them speak then give your opinion, sometimes like replacement hosts better taking more calls, than your possible calls in a half hour. Too many commercials, plus I really don’t care about your banana bread, but like to hear your view on the news.
Former acting Director of the CIA Michael Morell speaks with top leaders of the U.S. intelligence community as they reflect on their life, career and the critical roles they play in shaping national security policies. As a central figure in the most significant U.S. counter-terror efforts of the past two decades and a former CIA intelligence analyst, Morell is uniquely skilled at taking industry leading knowledge to make connections that provide deep insight into complex security events – help...
Release date: 2023-02-22
1. Tanks in Ukrainian War - I enjoy this podcast in almost all episodes. But would like to hear military experts explain why Russia won’t be able to take out the tanks donated to the Ukrainian army the way the Russian tanks were previously destroyed. As the saying goes armies tend to want to fight the previous wars until reality drags them into this one. Give Ukraine more javelin and stinger weapons and long range artillery plus anti aircraft weapons
2. Whitewashing makes for arduous listening - There is some genuinely useful info to be learned from these guests. But the bias towards explaining every aspect of the ICs GWOT policies for posterity is tiring. That era will go down in history as a failure and subsequent overreaction for the IC and US foreign policy. Deal with it. We are currently in a moment where global rules are being/should be rewritten ESPECIALLY regarding the internet and data policy. This podcast would do well to focus on the future because you know the IC is.
3. Level headed unbiased conversations that matter - It’s refreshing to hear intelligent long form conversations from experts in the world of politics and intelligence, in a non politically biased way. This is the sort of informed conversation that seems to be missing in the news cycles and online, that would help us all as Americans find common ground and get back to finding harmony together as Americans. It’s informative, sometimes entertaining, thought provoking, and reminds me what being a citizen and beneficiary of this country means from people who have devoted their lives to making sure these values are here for us.
4. Graham Allison missed question - With all of the indepth Taiwan discussion - there was no discussion of how we should help Taiwan avoid the fate of Hong Kong. All of the CCCP promises to keep HK’s political freedom was broken and replaced with brutal repression as soon as Xi was able. Did Michael avoid or just miss this question??
5. Great show. - After reading you’re one and two star reviews, it seems like all of the reviews are mad about Michael taking political sides. One review said Michael always sides with views that trump and the MAGA party hole. Then the next review was someone going off because Michael didn’t go down the rabbit hole of Hunter Biden’s laptop. Michael, I think the hard work you are putting into this podcast is a great service to our country and me personally. I think people should just take a step back and accept that you are a person like all the rest of us and your points come from life experiences. I really appreciate your points and I enjoy almost all of your guests. If I happen to dislike a guest on one of your shows I truly try to understand the point of view that person. I usually come to the conclusion that the person on your show definitely cares about the shows topic far more than I do. So I just listen and try to learn something. Keep it up Michael. I love the show. Alex from Seattle
6. Disappointed - I usually enjoy this podcast, however, this latest episode with Bob Page was disappointing. Bob definitely had an agenda and it was hard to listen to episode, I couldn’t stomach the last minutes and turned it off. Bob paints anyone who supported Donald Trump and White as possible violent terrorist. His data points don’t sound correct. He’s sounds like a woke academia, not surprisingly he teaches at UoC. He’s so far removed from the everyday American trying to survive and who love this country, that it made him sound tone deaf.
7. Dennis - Experienced and analytical yet not as good as could be provided. Perhaps the ingrained bias of diplomacy only for CBS is the cause of a too limited view of intelligence. For instance, on the issue of Iran no detail of “pressure”, “sanctions” or embargo, not even non kinetic or kinetic military action is considered. Furthermore, why is diplomacy for the sake of diplomacy in the Biden administration, to pursue any “deal” with Iran, not critically discussed. Nor was a strategy of the U.S. against Europe, China and Russia helping Iran to avoid the current, limited sanctions discussed in any detail. Finally, the language of interviews could be plainer; in this podcast the failure to use the term “terrorism” and the studied and willful world wide campaign of mass murder, assassination with drug trade in the Middle East, Africa, and South America by Iran and its subsidiaries and proxies (e. g. Hezbollah, Hamas and the cartels) is virtually ignored.
8. John - Mike, you put out an exceptional podcast filled with insightful questions and knowledgable guests. The last episode was even better the second time I listened to it. I appreciate you for your perspective and for putting out a product that helps me understand important details, discover the unknown, and generate further questions. I thought it was time I reached out. Again, thanks.
9. CIA as family? - Guests present general knowledge—most of which can be found & discerned from popular news & web sites if read carefully. Many guests have lots of praise for the CIA which gives the perception that the podcast is more of a marketing channel for the CIA. More interesting though would be the reason the podcast is connected to CBS. One of the guests views the CIA as family which I am sure is misrepresented. After all the CIA is an employer. Employees come into work, clock in, clock out, then go home. Nothing extraordinary really. You get hired & can get fired.
10. Morell Undermines Presidential Election - Morell was one of intelligence “officials” who signed a letter weeks before the election suggesting that E-mails from corrupt Hunter Biden’s laptop looked like a Russian disinformation op without any evidence to undermine the election. Corruption? Incompetence? Why would he do it? This “expert” is now at George Mason University. Another deep state propagandist…
11. Could’ve been good. - I’m pretty disappointed. It was a good show until Morrell seemed to get personally offended that people challenged his support of the Bush-era torture program. After that, instead of focusing on professional commentary, he seemed to develop a personal beef with the new administration and turned the show into plain old talk radio, taking on guests who quote Trump talking points without citing evidence, most recently re: Iran, repeating fact-free claims that things are better without the JCPOA in place without defending those arguments. I’m sad; the original concept was a good one. That said, I unsubscribed today; I liked that the show challenged my views but I absolutely don’t need right-wing propaganda in my life.
12. Is it a production of NPR? - Mr. Morrell has been overall more successful in his show than CIA. Here, at least he sincerely serves those who he has pledge to, Far Left, who want to topple completely this system. In his show, he has been doing his best to have his guests only confirm what he believes. If any of these guest expresses a slightly different opinion, Mr. Morrell will interrupt, CORRECT, and Educate them. Fortunately, there were some great guests who schooled this poor guy in his own show. This crap just like NPR isn’t worths my time.
13. Great Podcast - I’ve listened to the podcast from the very beginning and I’ve never missed an episode. I am not an intelligence professional and you don’t have to be. Mike and his team have an uncanny ability to break down what is important in a way that laymen like us can appreciate the enormous sacrifice and dedication of the intelligence professionals who are keeping us safe. To all the professionals who tirelessly and anonymously keep Americans safe, thank you for your service
14. Never forget betrayal - The country was betrayed and we should never for get that Mike Morrell’s signature counting Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation thus changing the election results. These men will pay no price unless Americans who love their country start to call them out. History will judge them in the end.
15. Needs a less corrupt host - It’s hard to listen to an “intelligence” podcast when the host signed on to a letter about Russian propaganda with zero factual evidence and the claim has since been debunked. Then again he was a big player in IC when we invaded Iraq. I guess he didn’t learn his lesson about false intel.
16. Great Podcast - Really amazing for those interested in current events. However I feel some topics like Russia and North Korea are covered again and again in multiple episodes. Would love to see more experts talk about other important parts of the world like India, Central and South America, Africa or Central Asia.
17. Totally biased - Apparently national security only matters from a liberal Democrat perspective. Try having some guests from sides that you don’t necessarily agree with, push back on conventional wisdom on the part of the your guests (many of whom happen to seem like personal friends), do something intelligent rather than sycophantic. The reason why DC is a mess is because there is too much groupthink. This podcast is a great example of that groupthink.
18. Great content, poor audio quality - I love this podcast a ton and have been listening to it since it’s first episode. It’s been an inspiration to me and is a good glimpse into how national security employees think and analyze problems facing the country. I can’t give it five stars because I’ve become pretty bothered by the audio quality, specifically of the guests. Other podcasts have started producing similar, albeit not quite as good, content but with a much higher audio quality. Sometimes I can’t understand what the guest is saying.
19. China’s Ambitions? - This discussion on China’s ambitions was completely fruitless. Mr. Brands knows nothing about war(cyber or kinetic) with China. It would be disastrous for both sides and should never be fought. The guests were far too polite about such things. Has anyone read about any conflict at all? Many leaders today are far too insulated and speak abstractly about absolutes. The consequences would end life as we now know it. The open source material on the West vs. China do not bode well for either side. We have innovation and improvisation while they have high attrition possibilities. Our reliance on tech alone won’t be adequate. Parades are great, but what happens when the show is over. What about Homer, Clausewitz, or Hsun Tzu? The Bible? Joshua, Judges?
20. Great podcast that clearly shows Afghanistan failures - This podcast clearly shows that Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad was one of the architects of our loss in Afghanistan. He advised multiple US presidents and comes off like a complete useful idiot. Michael Morel is a great interviewer. Highly recommend.
21. Revisionist - Each time he comes out with a new podcast I try to listen in hopes I’ll see some serious introspection. Unfortunately, Me Morrel is more interested in convincing his audience that he had all the answers and made no mistakes. Anyone who was in senior leadership over the last few years should be humble and apologetic with how they contributes to the debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan. That goes double for the softball interviews he does. Guess I’ll have to keep waiting for someone to take accountability…
22. Please stop with the history lessons - I would rate this podcast a over the spring and summer months. But beginning in September and your / history lessons it seems you are not providing much current content. The show last week was a replay of a show from I think last year. There is a lot going on with China, and I very much value your Podcasts.
23. Fantastic but - The best podcast on the topic I’ve found so far. Bar none. And then he reads an ad for an insurance company. The former acting director of CIA. On a podcast already bankrolled. How do you maintain reputation of objectivity after that?
I doubt objective professional opinion is impacted but the image is tarnished for me.
Twice a week, this podcast will take you on a smart, direct, sometimes scary, sometimes profane, sometimes hilarious tour of the inner workings of American power and of the impact of our leaders and their policies on our standing in the world. Hosted by noted author and commentator David Rothkopf and featuring regulars Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law School, Kori Schake of Stanford University and David Sanger of the New York Times, the program will be the lively, smart dinner table conversation on...
Release date: 2023-03-05
1. Nevermind - I have heard smart analysis here, but taking my leave after listening to shockingly facile analysis of the way that the”left” (by this they mean Greenwald apparently — Oy, Rosa —srsly?) has come to mimic the trumpist right on Russia - this is dangerously wrong — it is shockingly myopic as well, because many throughout the world are deeply concerned about escalating the war— not because we “love Russia and hate Murica” but because this war is being escalated by the same insulated and naive coalition of hawks and neocons that brought us into disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — and that coalition does not represent “America” any better than Trump does. And the Ukrainians are not the only peoples waging a valiant struggle, though their struggle is indeed our responsibility— we must handle that responsibly. The globe cannot be reduced to the views of people in UK, US, and those that we select as interlocutors because they say things that mirror our own fantasies or preoccupations. Other people matter and they do not fit your cookie cutter vision of the world — and there are other, better, podcasts to be found…
2. Monetized push ruins show - I appreciate DSR trying to make a buck, but there is the process of over monetizing your product. The last episode I listened to, they cut it off in mid sentence to play an ad. The show should be monetized because it is a fantastic product, but the middle ad needs better placement.
3. Awful sounding Text-to-Speech in Nov. episode. - As DSR listener from Day , I found the banter, personality and opinions of the participants percent of the podcast. With the info being the remaining %. Episode November , , was all (at least all of what I listened to) multiple computer voices of very flat affect Text-to-Speech. If I wanted to hear an A.I. read the news, I’d listen to my toaster go on and on about the differences between rye and wheat.
4. DSR reports - The podcast’s hosts Rosa Brooks of Georgetown University and David Rothkopf are excellent. They usually talk with Ed Luce of the Financial Times and David Sanger of the New York Times. The group discuss current topics in the world and United States, domestic affairs with the depth unavailable anywhere else. A topic cable news may spend minutes on they spend an hour.
Their knowledge and insights are something I look forward to listening to every week and never miss an episode.
5. Beware trying to pay for this - Interesting enough I thought I might chip in to become a “member” and get the additional content, and help the cause. Although the signup instructs to pay any amount you think appropriate, it changes a lesser amount entered back to the $ they first suggest. (Limited income here.) Did this several times; no warning, nothing. This is misleading at best and essentially dishonest. An organization that would do this suggests their substantive content be viewed with suspicion, too.
6. Once Great Show with Fatal Business Model Problem - This was once one of the best news and information shows anywhere. Then they started playing half of a conversation and holding the rest hostage behind a pay wall. Even that wouldn’t be so bad if it were possible simultaneously to consume podcasts the way you want to AND pay them. Instead, they expect you to stop what you are doing, open a browser, enter a password and listen to a podcast on a webpage! It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.
7. About ready to unsubscribe - So I’ve listened to this podcast since , according to my device, and have mostly found it quite interesting. Though at times horrific audio & production values. But no, I don’t buy lattes & can’t send everyone $ a month. My assumption was that you all use your pod work to show that you have a fan base & to get book & article deals & paid speaking gigs. The half podcast thing is just & tbh is starting to make me dislike you. Maybe try what Lawfare does — have ads & an ad free feed for Patreon fans? Consider asking for far less as a base & asking for far more from those that can afford it. Ask your well-paid friends. You all have sooooo much more money & income security than I do.
8. Omicron whinging - Good grief, stop whinging about the Democrats/administration/CDC as if that’s going to do any good. Are you working for the GOP? That’s what you sound like. If you want something to say about what they’re doing then go get a job in the administration. Otherwise shut up! Yelling because they aren’t doing what you think they should is stupid, not to mention a waste of my time.
9. Intelligent conversation - Smart people and great conversations. Highly recommend this!
//: this is an excellent podcast, but the recent announcement that only a portion of the episode will be available unless you subscribe is disappointing. Every day some company wants me to sign up for for exclusive newsletters, podcast content, streaming service for tv shows & movies.
If I signed up for only a few, I’d still end up spending $-/month for what is often news or commentary that’s irrelevant in a few days. As a retiree my funds are limited, so sorry, no subscription from me
10. Absolutely and Compellingly Superior! - In listening to my first DSR podcast, “America’s Yard Stare”, I was completely taken with the clarity —moral and intellectual clarity— of the conversation. I followed up immediately by listening to the Afghanistan Papers conversation, and with it one of the most knowledge-based interviews I’ve ever heard on any subject. I’d give Deep State Radio stars if Apple would let me!
11. Garbage - To the “experts”, small e, what we are seeing is the vaccinated are spreading the disease, according to your corrected science. Give my vaccine to someone who needs it, if it’s so good lol. I don’t want a “vaccine that enables me to spread the virus, get it??? Stop spreading garbage, my body my choice, let me die in peace fools. Again more garbage. Information spread to you by ignorant people.
12. Great original show diluted by B-grade spin-offs - This show is absolutely at its best with the original foreign policy-focused lineup on Mondays, when some combination of Kori Schake, Rosa Brooks, David Sanger and Ed Luce appears. The conversation flows and there is terrific chemistry between the participants. David Rothkopf has tried to expand from this original podcast to create the “DSR Network“ brand, with mixed results. There are one-off shows with one-on-one conversations foreign policy experts, which are interesting in parts, but this listener loses interest eventually if it goes on for minutes or more. Less successful is the “Spy Talk” show, which is shoehorned in on Thursdays. It doesn’t quite fit with the brand and feels forced and foisted on listeners. Rothkopf has a history of trying to force new shows on the network, whether it’s his sister’s cooking show, or that Hollywood politics show a couple of years ago. None of it has worked as well as the original, which was really lightning in a bottle, and devilishly difficult to replicate. Which brings me to the Friday national security/ coronavirus/ threat to democracy show. This show doesn’t hold up as well as the Monday show, and I fault the personalities involved. Kavita Patel is excellent and shines brightly. But Ryan Goodman is too dry of a presence to carry this show. He barely participates and says little that is memorable. I get that he is super smart, but perhaps this medium is not suited to his talents. In short, the Monday podcast rocks. The rest could benefit from some paring down. stars for Monday, two for the other shows.
13. Police - I’m currently listening to the conversation on police (btw, I’m a retired Lutheran pastor & a very white woman) this is the most disappointing show I’ve listened (actually my first disappointment) its glaringly & embarrassingly a white, privileged point of view (oh wait, maybe Caveta isn’t white) even so I was very uncomfortable.
14. // - As a retired RN I have been furious from day with trump’s total, intentional negligence r/t his decision to choose his re-election concerns over the health of U.S. citizens!! If in one shift with one decision, I ever chose to ignore a patient’s dire obvious needs which resulted in said patient’s death I would have paid with my job, my license and maybe my freedom. WHY HASN’T trump BEEN ARRESTED, CHARGED & TRIED WITH PRE-MEDITATED MURDER OF , AMERICANS???? I BELIEVE EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO START A COMBINED SUIT AGAINST trump!!! HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH THIS!!!
15. Fed up - I enjoy listening to this podcast. In honesty because of the title. I am a year old born and raised mid west republican and really want to ask a question as compared to a review because I think you’re all the best qualified. I did not vote in because there was nobody that I could bring myself to vote for. It all played out as I thought it would and politics went even further in the toilet then I thought it could. My question is that m people voted for unquestionably the worst president/politician ever and am wondering if there is any way to find out what he did for them? I did buckle and as a registered republican vote for Biden but really don’t believe he can change where American politics has been heading. Just really wondering where we as Americans are heading?
16. Review - I love listening to your podcast & following you on Twitter. I sent out a tweet asking for more coverage on something that is happening to my people & included you on it. I bought your book too. It's a shame that you felt the need to block me. You could have just ignored the tweet. It's so disappointing.
Ever get the feeling that your government is out to get you? They are, and we set about to uncover the century's long plan for world domination by the psychopaths that are running the planet. We laugh at how insane it all is and interview prominent guests that might have ideas on how to foil their plans on Macroaggressions with Charlie Robinson.
Release date: 2023-03-05
1. Charlie is the grownup in the room - Alex Jones…Bill Cooper….they both used fear tactics to explain the matrix. Charlie is clear, well spoken and has unmatched class when speaking about how the global elite are clapping our cheeks.
Charlie also hits on subjects that nobody is discussing yet is vital to our survival. Charlie can sleep with my wife anytime
2. Venomous Snakes - This Clown never ceases to crack me up! Said Clown would have you believe that he has some sort of noble intent however..... Charlie Robinson either fails to recognize that Corporations are the death of humanity or he knows and continues in corporate structures full well knowing this. Why ? You ask? How's the corporate structure treating you? FYI us government is a corporation (United States Corporation) state,county,city all corporations. All countries are corporations. All these Corporations need to be replaced with private membership associations to save the planet and stop the corporate destruction of the planet acting in best interests of the members. Charlie Robinson is one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever seen having his fingers into Realestate Corporations, Media Corporations, Advertising Corporations and Sporting Corporate interests. Affiliate Marketing His sole purpose is to exploit this niche audience here to make money. Think I am wrong? The to minutes of ads before and after this podcast says otherwise. I have heard ads for stuff that can only be classified as health destruction aides. There are many podcasts with no ads because these folks are not in it for money. I don't generally disagree with the content here however I don't think anyone should be profiting from the destruction of the planet and this is what all Corporations are doing for the most part. Charlie Robinson should have his picture in a dictionary next to the term two faced. This Bald headed clown should be eliminated from the eco system in my opinion. There are plenty of alternative news folks that are not in it solely for $$$$. Some episodes are solely designed to you you stuff lik gold and silver (Affiliate marketing).
3. The ultimate conspiracy reference! - If you have ever tried to “red pill” anyone, you understand that it is a tough job. Thankfully, I can now send a link to one of Charlie’s Macroaaggression podcasts. The amount of research that goes into each topic is unparalleled. The writing is professional, thoughtful and thorough. Most of all, Charlie’s work is easily fact checked. He seems to omit details from dubious sources. Thank you, Charlie. In a world where people were paid by their value to society, you would be part of the elite class! Keep up the good work.
4. Gods work - Believer, atheist or indifferent Charlie Robinson and producer Tony Merkle are doing gods work here. Contrary to the current cultural environment words are not violence. We should be freely exchanging ideas and information and making a determination on what we believe from there. That’s the way a free society works. That’s the way society makes a determination about the social structure. The thought police definitely don’t want you to hear this and that’s the best indication there is that you should be examining it in close detail. Stop outsourcing your critical thinking, stop blindly listening and accepting authority figures. If the past three years have taught us anything it should at a minimum be clear these people are incompetent and unfit to lead us in any capacity, and I’m sorry to inform you that it’s much much worse than that.
5. entertaining - very informative insight into nefarious events happening behind the scenes. Charlie Robinson has a style of investigative reporting which sneaks in humorous sarcasm. I often crack up laughing right about the time my blood is starting to boil over the topic he is discussing. Well researched, great guests, I anxiously anticipate the next episode. cheers
6. Hard hard listen - I want to like the show, but I’ve never heard host say anything interesting. Of course, after minutes of listening to dude whine, I’m usually out. And my threshold is pretty high, I used to watch Cspan for hours. This isn’t just boring, it’s uniquely irritating. People like dude. That’s fine. I want to gouge out my eye, however. Pain.
7. The octopus of global control chance my life - Charlie Robinson is one of the greatest podcast hosts in history. Systematically he is untangling web of generational crime families and political corruption. He is also Prolific writer his two books changed the way I view the world. All hail this wonderful man.
8. For those with eyes but still don't see. - This show has quickly become my favorite. I originally found this on banned.video and would recommend everyone check that site out. Charlie Robinson is a master of his craft. He is an intelligent and well spoken truth speaker. He brings up some topics that some people may shy away from talking about. He is well researched and well-informed and it shows in his great work. He has a great delivery and makes things very interesting and easy to understand. I highly recommend this show. It will appeal to the most seasoned of intellectuals all the way down to liberals, progressives, socialist, marxist, communists, and Democrats. I look forward to each new episode. Enjoy, I certainly do. Thank you Charlie Robinson, thank you.
9. My favorite - Macroaggressions very quickly turned into my essential listening podcast. I appreciate how Charlie always leaves breadcrumbs as to what else or who else one should be researching (for example, the interview with Ronald Bernard, wow... I can’t believe that hasn’t gotten more exposure!). In addition, regardless of how deeply dark and infuriating the subject matter may be, he manages to get a laugh out of me (such as when he admits that visiting Walmart almost makes him believe that depopulation might not be such a bad idea, and of course, it may be said in jest but we all agree!).
Anyway, I’m always taking snippets from the podcast and sharing them on twitter and other places hoping to plant the “wake up” seed in others. If anyone can do it, it’s Charlie with his incisive observations and the connections he manages to show us.
10. Greatness - Charlie is at the tops of the list of knowledge holders out there. He is very good at clearly explaining things in detail leaving, with intelligent personal insight. For real though I’ve been following along with Charlie’s content for a few years now. His books octopus of global control and controlled demolition are just soaked in so much revealing information, im like how did he get all this. Check it out for sure!
11. Great stuff - I love this podcast. Charlie is knowledgeable and makes complicated topics easy to follow. Great stuff for me and my family to take into consideration as we move forward with future plans. We will be viewing things differently thanks to the formation shared here. Found this podcast listening to The Confessionals. Thanks Charlie! Thanks Tony!
12. An informative and interesting podcast delivered with clever commentary - Discovered this podcast in the last six months or so and it has easily become one of my top five favorites! I appreciate that every episode is full of well-researched information and the opinions/thoughts that are shared are based on what I would describe as logical thinking, common sense, and a wealth of previous knowledge.
13. - Mr. Robinson, I feel your pain regarding facts & feelings. I have a saying: I don’t argue with stupid - I don’t like to hurt myself that way. I love your snark honesty & I laugh in agreement with you all the time! The Union of the Unwanted is also terrific! Yours, Kim Sobieski
Newport News Virginia
14. The best type of truth - This show has cracked open my world, exposing me to some pretty gnarly truths. I find the stories fascinating, disturbing (but that’s our current world) and delivered in such an engaging and eloquent way. The solocasts are especially fun and always leave me in awe at the end - a testament to Charlie’s amazing storytelling. I’ve discovered some cool people and products through this show and am hoping to build more
community around sharing of these truths.
15. Spot on truth - Around the world people are starting to question the narratives and teachings that have been carved out for us to follow. Charlie breaks down the lies and propaganda we as a society have been force fed and have had pushed into our psyche since birth. Dare to unplug from the matrix of manipulation? We need everyone to wake up and realize we aren’t able to live to the best of our capabilities because we are being weighted down by corruption at every corner of our lives.