What are the possible warning signs of a modern global conflict and what geopolitical strategy is available to ensure the historical conditions for success? Is conventional warfare possible in the age of nuclear weapons? Do our current and future leaders possess the restraint to enter into “partial” warfare when it comes to global conflict? Hawk and Dove alike, each side gets some things right and some things wrong. We explore in this week's episode.

Jury verdicts are akin to sausages: you'd rather not see how they are made. We explore the lawyer's jury toolkit. Though lacking the espionage-esque flair of John Grisham, the law as used by lawyers to construct a jury and juries to reach a verdict may surprise you.

The claim that only 9% of the population voted for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton has become popular. The number is misleading, but a reality is still made clear: an investigation of the numbers show that mathematically there is room for more than two major parties in the American political landscape. Casually dismissing a presidential candidate as completely unfit for office has become a hallmark of the 2016 campaign. Is this politics as usual? Or is there a danger to playing the “unfit” card.

Is campaign dialogue different now compared to elections past? We argue in the affirmative. Some positions in previous elections have been considered misguided or "unbecoming" of a president. But the 2016 presidential race brings the phenomenon of labeling a competitor as entirely unfit for the presidency. The "unfit" card represents a dangerous shift in American political rhetoric.

What other federal statutes might apply to Hillary Clinton's email server investigation? Is this investigation peculiar or similar to investigations of other public officials' misconduct? We go in-depth on this issue in part 2 of this episode.