It is Friday, the 29th of May, 2006. It is 4 o'clock p.m. in Washington, D.C.

And you are watching Lawfare Live the trials and tribulations of the Trump

administration. And folks, the trials they have been trialing, the tribulations they have been

tribulating. And I am here with not one, not two, not three, but four Lawfare Senior Editors.

In alphabetical order, Anna Bauer, Eric Columbus, Roger Parloff, and Molly Roberts, and I'm Ben Wittes,

editor-in-chief of Lawfare, last in alphabetical order, as usual.

And folks, we got a lot to talk about this week. It's been a big week for anti-weaponization, litigation. Getting started. Last week, it was all about whether anybody had

standing. But this week, there's already an injunction, Anna. So, or sorry, Eric, how did we go from

nobody has standing to Judge Brinkuma has already enjoined

while they brief the question of whether there should be an injunction?

Well, basically because Judge Brinkham was convinced by the plaintiffs in her case that the status quo was at risk of being altered irrevocably by if she didn't act very quickly.

And the top latch was supposed to name people to the fund board by June 15th.

And in theory, they could start giving out money very quickly.

So she said, let's just call a halt for the time being and brief this really quickly,

have a hearing on June 12th. That just does not

necessarily mean at all that she has accepted the theory that anyone has standing. There

are now a total of four suits. And which one does Judge Brankham I have? The one that she has

involves, it's brought by democracy forward,

and it's probably the strongest of the four. It has kind of a grab bag of plaintiffs and

theories, which I think is smart, because it's difficult to know in such a case as unusual as this,

what theory is most likely to prevail?

So they've got a fired January 6th prosecutor, a guy who protested against ICE and was unfairly arrested in jailed and indicted, eventually acquitted.

...