Atlantic Lens

What happens if Democrats win control of Congress on November 3, and would it be enough to constrain Donald Trump?

In this episode of Atlantic Lens, I speak with Allan Lichtman, the historian and presidential election forecaster known for his unconventional approach to predicting American elections and often dubbed the ‘Nostradamus’ of U.S. elections.

Lichtman predicts that Democrats have more than a 90% chance of retaking the House of Representatives and roughly a two-thirds chance of winning the Senate. But there is an important caveat: his famous 13 Keys to the White House model is designed to predict presidential elections, not midterms. His forecast for this election draws instead on historical patterns, polling and decades of observing American politics.

We discuss what is driving the 2026 midterms, whether the election is primarily a referendum on Trump or a test of the Democratic Party’s ability to offer voters a compelling alternative, and what a Democratic victory could - and could not - change in Washington.

Lichtman argues that even if Democrats take back both chambers of Congress, Trump’s expansive view of presidential power may prove difficult to constrain. A new congressional majority could investigate the administration and intensify oversight, but it would not automatically halt the president’s agenda.

We discuss:• The midterm forecast: Why Lichtman expects Democrats to make major gains.• Trump and presidential power: Why winning Congress may not be enough to constrain the president's expansive view of executive authority.• American democracy: Why Lichtman believes the country is at a critical moment, and what a Democratic victory could change.• The Democratic Party: Whether the election is primarily a referendum on Trump or a test of the opposition's ability to offer voters a compelling alternative.• The road to 2028: What the midterms could signal about the next presidential election and the future of American politics.

READ THE ACCOMPANYING ARTICLE:

America’s Midterms: Can a Democratic Victory Actually Constrain Trump?

Three jurors from the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, including the jury foreperson, have spoken publicly about the deliberations that ended in an 11-1 deadlock and a mistrial.

According to the jurors, the lone holdout admitted he had “reasonable doubt” but still refused to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.

So what happened inside that jury room?

In this episode, journalist Marta Dhanis examines:

What the three jurors revealed about the deliberations

Why the holdout juror's alleged comments are so significant

The difference between a legal judgment and a moral one

How Massachusetts law handles lack of criminal responsibility

Why the prosecution - not the defense - had the burden of proof

What Clancy's lawyers tried to do while deliberations were underway

Why courts are reluctant to investigate or remove deliberating jurors

Whether these new revelations could have any legal consequences now that the jury has been discharged

The Lindsay Clancy trial raised one of the most difficult questions in criminal law: Can jurors separate the horror of a crime from the precise legal question they are required to answer?

Subscribe to Atlantic Lens for independent analysis of justice, power, media, and the stories behind the headlines.

When I first started following the Lindsay Clancy trial, I didn’t believe she could successfully argue that she was not criminally responsible for killing her three children.

The facts appeared, at least on the surface, to show an organized sequence of deliberate actions. How could someone plan, communicate normally, send her husband out of the house and then carry out such an unimaginable act without understanding what she was doing?

But after following five weeks of testimony and evidence, I changed my mind.

In this episode of Atlantic Lens, I examine the evidence that forced me to reconsider my initial reaction - and the difficult question now facing the jury: what does it actually mean to be criminally responsible for an act when severe mental illness may have fundamentally altered a person’s perception of reality?

I explore:

* Why the Lindsay Clancy case is not fundamentally about whether she killed her children

* The legal standard for criminal responsibility in Massachusetts

* The prosecution’s argument that depression and suicidality do not necessarily equal psychosis

* The psychiatric evidence presented by the defense

* Why psychosis does not necessarily look the way we imagine it does

* Whether a person can appear organized while experiencing a profoundly distorted reality

* The powerful testimony of Lindsay Clancy’s former husband, Patrick

* Why the jury asked to review prescription medication bottles and evidence connected to Clancy’s suicide attempt

* And the uncomfortable question at the heart of this case: Does organized behavior necessarily mean a person was sane?

This is an examination of how, and why, the evidence in this case changed my own mind.

As the jury deliberates, one thing has become increasingly clear to me: the most difficult question in this trial isn’t what Lindsay Clancy did, but rather whether any of us can truly reconstruct what was happening inside her mind at one precise and catastrophic moment in time.

A mind can appear organized from the outside while reality has already collapsed within it.

Atlantic Lens is an independent podcast and publication examining the stories behind the headlines, at the intersection of justice and power. Subscribe to Atlantic Lens for independent analysis that goes beyond the obvious.

The release of millions of pages of Epstein-related government records created an obvious expectation: somewhere in those files, there might be something explosive. Something capable of changing the story - perhaps even overturning Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction.

This week, a federal judge in New York said “no.”

In this episode of Atlantic Lens, I examine Judge Paul Engelmayer’s 67-page ruling rejecting Maxwell’s latest effort to overturn her conviction, and what the decision tells us about the difference between new information and legally meaningful new evidence.

Maxwell sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, pointing to material from the newly released Epstein records in an effort to reopen several issues, including:

* the controversy surrounding Juror 50 and his failure to disclose his history of childhood sexual abuse;

* Jeffrey Epstein’s 2007–08 Florida non-prosecution agreement and whether it protected alleged co-conspirators;

* alleged prosecutorial misconduct and discovery violations;

* and a newly surfaced 2006 Palm Beach grand jury transcript involving Detective Gregory Parkinson and a massage table seized from Epstein’s home.

The ruling is particularly interesting because the court did not simply ask whether information was newly public. It asked whether that information was actually new, legally usable, credible, and capable of changing the outcome.

And in several instances, the court concluded that material Maxwell presented as supporting her case actually pointed in the opposite direction.

There is also a personal connection for me.

In January 2022, after covering Ghislaine Maxwell’s New York trial for Fox News, I reported an exclusive about Juror 50, who had answered “no” and lied when asked during jury selection whether he had ever been the victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault or sexual harassment - only to acknowledge after the verdict that he had been sexually abused as a child.

That controversy led to a hearing, a judicial finding and an appeal. More than four years later, Maxwell tried to resurrect the issue using material that had subsequently become public.

The court rejected that effort. So what does this latest ruling actually tell us about the Epstein files?

And what happens when an enormous volume of newly released information collides with the much narrower legal standards governing a post-conviction challenge?

That’s what I examine in this episode.

Listen to the full episode of Atlantic Lens with Marta Dhanis.

You can also read the companion analysis on Substack.

Atlantic Lens by Marta Dhanis is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The war involving Iran is entering a more dangerous, and more unpredictable, phase. What may look like escalation is, in reality, something more complex: a test of endurance, strategy, and limits.

In this wide-ranging conversation episode of Atlantic Lens podcast, MIT’s nuclear weapons expert Jim Walsh - one of the few Westerners to sit across the table from Iranian leadership every single year for the last two decades - joins Marta Dhanis to pull back the curtain on the internal mechanics of Tehran’s decision-making.

In this episode:

* The “Ricochet” Effect: Why military strikes are reinforcing, rather than extinguishing, Iran’s drive for a nuclear deterrent.

* The Death of the Doves: How the current conflict has decimated the voices for diplomacy in Tehran and handed total power to the Revolutionary Guard.

* The “Amateur” Problem: Walsh’s blunt assessment of the current U.S. negotiating team and why a “fast resolution” is a “fever dream.”

* Persian Civilization vs. Global Pressure: Why threatening a “civilization” (rather than a regime) was the biggest strategic blunder of the year.

* What to watch now: negotiations, collapse, or something in between

* The Mystery of the Scientists: Jim weighs in on the series of disappearances and deaths currently rocking the nuclear physics community.

Key Quotes:

“You can blow up a bunch of buildings, but you can’t bomb the knowledge and experience of Iranian engineers out of their heads.”

“Once the horse is out of the barn, you have to persuade it to come back in, you can’t force it. Right now, we are reinforcing the exact reasons why they would want the bomb in the first place.”

Resources:

* Read the companion article here

* Watch the full interview and subscribe to the YouTube Channel

If you find this reporting valuable, please consider a paid subscription to Atlantic Lens to support independent, boots-on-the-ground journalism.

A 96-page police report obtained by Atlantic Lens reveals the final hours of MIT physicist Nuno Loureiro, a leading figure in nuclear fusion research, who was shot and killed outside his home in the outskirts of Boston.

In this episode of Atlantic Lens Podcast, journalist Marta Dhanis reconstructs the timeline of the attack - from hours of surveillance to the moment a man posing as a delivery worker rang the doorbell.

The report details how the suspect, Cláudio Valente, mapped the area, tracked the family’s routine, and carried out the shooting in seconds.

Loureiro was still conscious when first responders arrived.

The two men had known each other decades earlier as students in their native Portugal. Authorities now believe the attack was planned over several years.

This episode examines what the police files confirm - and what remains unresolved - in a case that has drawn federal attention and raised broader questions about the vulnerability of scientists working in critical fields like fusion energy.

Thanks for reading Atlantic Lens by Marta Dhanis! This post is public so feel free to share it.

A homicide case in Hollywood is about to test one of the most controversial doctrines in American law: the insanity defense.

Nick Reiner, the son of filmmaker Rob Reiner, is accused of killing his parents in Los Angeles. His case could hinge on whether severe mental illness can erase criminal responsibility under U.S. law - a legal standard that dates back to 19th-century England.

In this episode of Atlantic Lens, journalist Marta Dhanis examines how American courts evaluate insanity claims, why the legal threshold is so high, and how the U.S. approach contrasts with a recent verdict in Ireland where a jury accepted a psychiatric defense after a killing.

Drawing on courtroom experience covering major criminal trials in New York, this episode explores a deeper question: how should modern justice systems judge actions committed by a mind in psychosis?

Thanks for reading Atlantic Lens by Marta Dhanis! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Prefer to Read? 📖 Here

When ICE detained Brazilian immigrant Bruna Ferreira in Massachusetts, the case quickly became politically explosive.

In this episode of Atlantic Lens, journalist Marta Dhanis examines how Ferreira’s detention reveals deeper tensions inside the American immigration system - from aggressive ICE enforcement and internal whistleblower warnings to the political messaging surrounding deportation in Donald Trump’s second term.

Atlantic Lens by Marta Dhanis is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Ferreira was ultimately granted bond after the government itself acknowledged she was neither a danger nor a flight risk. Yet the Department of Homeland Security appealed the decision the very next day.

So what does this case reveal about the machinery of immigration enforcement in the United States today?

And what happens when someone with deep ties to American society suddenly becomes a symbol of a national political battle?

🔗 Prefer to Read? Full Article Here

The U.S. Supreme Court has stepped directly into the trade war. In February 2026, the Court issued a major ruling limiting presidential tariff authority, raising constitutional questions about executive power, congressional delegation, and the future of U.S. trade policy.

In this episode of Atlantic Lens (listen wherever you get your podcasts), I break down:

• What the Supreme Court actually decided• Why separation of powers matters in trade policy• Why President Trump reacted so forcefully, including criticism of justices he appointed• The confusion over 10% vs. 15% tariff enforcement• FedEx’s lawsuit seeking tariff refunds• The European Commission’s response and what it signals• What this means for consumers in the U.S. and Europe

This is a structural story about institutional limits under economic pressure, and why judicial decisions in Washington can ripple through Brussels, Lisbon, and global markets.

If trade wars are fought politically, they are paid for economically.

And this ruling may redefine who gets to fight them.

Atlantic Lens is my independent space to examine power and justice across the Atlantic. If this work matters to you, consider subscribing: free or paid.

In this episode of Atlantic Lens, we unpack why Greenland has suddenly re-entered U.S. political discourse, and why the security case behind it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Donald Trump framed Greenland as a critical national security asset, pointing to Russia, China, and a rapidly changing Arctic. But according to leading Arctic experts, the obsession with Greenland has far less to do with defense than with power, symbolism, and political disruption.

Featuring insights from former U.S. Arctic policymaker David Balton and Arctic security analyst Andreas Østhagen, this episode breaks down what Washington actually signals through its Arctic policy, why Greenland isn’t the strategic prize it’s often portrayed to be, and how exaggerated threat narratives are reshaping transatlantic relations.

In this episode:

* Why Greenland became a political fixation in Washington

* The weak security case behind Trump’s Greenland rhetoric

* What the U.S. National Security Strategy doesn’t say about the Arctic

* Russia, China, and the reality of Arctic military threats

* Why minerals and melting ice don’t equal strategic dominance

* How Greenland’s status inside Denmark and NATO complicates the narrative

* What this debate reveals about U.S. power, legacy, and disruption politics

Featured voices:

* David Balton, is a Senior Fellow with the Belfer Center's Arctic Initiative/Harvard Kennedy School and former senior U.S. official (Biden, G.W.Bush) and Arctic policy expert

* Andreas Østhagen, senior research fellow, Fridtjof Nansen Institute

Why it matters:

Greenland isn’t a strategic prize because of what lies beneath the ice, but because of the political disruption its pursuit creates above it. Understanding that distinction is essential to decoding today’s Arctic geopolitics and the future of the transatlantic alliance.