12-05-20 Roger Stone Interim
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty's Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism
Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center Occasional Papers Series Series Editor Tony Saich Deputy Editor Jessica Engelman The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion. By training the very best leaders, developing powerful new ideas, and disseminating innovative solutions and institutional reforms, the Center’s goal is to meet the profound challenges facing the world’s citizens. The Ford Foundation is a founding donor of the Center. Additional information about the Ash Center is available at ash.harvard.edu. This research paper is one in a series funded by the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. The views expressed in the Ash Center Occasional Papers Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard University. The papers in this series are intended to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. This paper is copyrighted by the author(s). It cannot be reproduced or reused without permission. Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Letter from the Editor The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion. -
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse, 333 Constitution Avenue, NW., 20001 Room 2002, phone (202) 354–3320, fax 354–3412 BERYL A. HOWELL, chief judge; born in Fort Benning, GA; daughter of Col. (Ret.) Leamon and Ruth Howell; Killeen High School, Killeen, TX, 1974; B.A. with honors in philosophy, Bryn Mawr College (President and Member, Honor Board, 1976–78); J.D., Colum- bia University School of Law, 1983 (Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, 1981–82; International Fellows Program, 1982–83, Transnational Law Journal, Notes Editor); law clerk to Hon. Dickinson R. Debevoise, District of New Jersey, 1983–84; litigation associate, Schulte, Roth and Zabel, 1985–87; Assistant United States Attorney, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 1987–93; Deputy Chief, Narcotics Section, 1990–93; Senior Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and the Law, 1993–94; Senior Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition, 1995–96; General Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1997–2003; Executive Managing Director and General Counsel, Stroz Friedberg, 2003–09; Commissioner, United States Sentencing Commission, 2004–11; Member, Commission on Cyber Security for the 44th Presidency, 2008; Adjunct Professor of Law, American University’s Washington College of Law, 2010; appointed judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by President Obama on December 27, 2010, took oath of office on January 21, 2011; appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve on the Judicial Conference of the U.S. -
UNITED STATES of AMERICA, ) ) V
Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 362 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 81 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Crim. Action No. 19-0018 (ABJ) ) ROGER J. STONE, JR., ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUMOPINION INTRODUCTION On November 15, 2019, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in the case of United States v. Roger J. Stone. It found the defendant guilty of seven crimes: one count of obstructing a Congressional investigation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505; five separate counts of making a false statement to the government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; and tampering with a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). Once the verdict had been returned,the jurors were officially released from the prohibition against discussing the case that had beenin effect during the trial. A week later, one of the jurors published a column in the Washington Post describing his experience. Likejurors everywhere,none of us asked for thisresponsibilitybut each of usacceptedit willingly. We served the propositionthat everyoneisentitled to a fair trial and that everyoneis innocentuntilprovenguilty. * * * The evidence in this case was substantialand almost entirely uncontested. We listened carefully to the testimony of a series of witnesses and carefullyexaminedevery element of every charge and its defense,and we unanimouslyagreedthat each had been provedbeyonda reasonabledoubt. * * * 1 Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 362 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 81 I am proud of our democratic institutions; their value was reaffirmed for me because of the process we went through and the respect we accorded it. -
May 8, 2020 the Honorable Michael E. Horowitz Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General
May 8, 2020 The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Dear Inspector General Horowitz: Like many Americans, we are deeply concerned by the Department’s decision to move to dismiss the criminal case against Michael Flynn, who briefly served as President Trump’s National Security Advisor. Under a generous plea deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Mr. Flynn was allowed to plead guilty to a single charge of making false statements to federal investigators and avoid prosecution for other serious alleged crimes.1 In measuring the impact of the decision to dismiss these charges, it is important to observe the divide between Attorney General William Barr and the career staff at the Department of Justice. Hours before the government moved to dismiss the case, Brandon Van Grack—an experienced prosecutor who had worked the Flynn case from its inception—abruptly withdrew from the matter. On the merits, the government’s argument for dismissing the case appears to be inaccurate, politically biased, and inconsistent with the Department’s own guidelines.2 The government’s brief is signed only by Timothy Shea—the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, promoted from the Attorney General’s personal staff to his current post earlier this year—and not by a single career prosecutor.3 1 Michael D. Shear and Adam Goldman, Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying to the F.B.I. and Will Cooperate with Russia Inquiry, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 1, 2017; see also James V. -
Contempt of Courts? President Trump's
CONTEMPT OF COURTS? PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TRANSFORMATION OF THE JUDICIARY Brendan Williams* Faced with a letter from the American Bar Association (ABA) assessing him as “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice,” Lawrence VanDyke, nominated by President Trump to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, cried during an October 2019 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.1 Republican senators dutifully attacked the ABA as liberally-biased.2 In a Wall Street Journal column, a defender of VanDyke assailed what he called a “smear campaign” and wrote that “[t]he ABA’s aggressive politicization is especially frustrating for someone like me, an active member of the ABA[.]”3 VanDyke was confirmed anyway.4 Contrary to Republican protestations, the ABA has deemed 97% of President Trump’s nominees to be “well qualified” or “qualified.”5 Indeed, in the most polarizing judicial nomination of the Trump Administration, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh’s defenders pointed to the ABA having rated him “well qualified” despite the association having once, in 2006, dropped his rating to “qualified” due to concerns about his temperament.6 *Attorney Brendan Williams is the author of over 30 law review articles, predominantly on civil rights and health care issues. A former Washington Supreme Court judicial clerk, Brendan is a New Hampshire long-term care advocate. This article is dedicated to his father Wayne Williams, admitted to the Washington bar in 1970. 1Hannah Knowles, Trump Judicial Nominee Cries over Scathing Letter from the American Bar Association, WASH. POST (Oct. 30, 2015). 2Id. -
Report on Possible Misconduct by Department of Justice in Dropping the Prosecution of Gen
Report on Possible Misconduct by Department of Justice in Dropping the Prosecution of Gen. Michael Flynn Background: The Flynn Case Michael Flynn was the first senior Trump Administration official who pleaded guilty and pledged to cooperate with the Special Counsel investigation into Russian election interference. As the former National Security Advisor to President Trump, his cooperation was viewed as a critical point of vulnerability to President Trump and other Trump campaign officials targeted by the Special Counsel investigation. However, Flynn’s degree of cooperation varied over time. After a federal judge expressed skepticism over Flynn’s conduct and the fulsomeness of his cooperation, Flynn changed course and decided to challenge his prosecution. The judge rejected his claims of prosecutorial misconduct. He then attempted to withdraw his guilty plea. When the judge expressed reluctance to accept his withdrawal, too, the Department of Justice—in an unprecedented move—filed a motion to withdraw Flynn’s prosecution by Special Counsel Mueller. Did officials at the Department of Justice violate the law when they moved to undo the guilty plea entered by Flynn? What possible charges could be investigated? What did Flynn do? Before his tenure in the Trump Administration, Lt. General Michael Flynn held a senior position at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) during the Obama Administration.1 Obama nominated Flynn to become the 18th Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in April 2012.2 During his service, Flynn became the first U.S. officer to be allowed inside the Russia military intelligence (GRU) unit headquarters.3 He later expressed a desire to invite high-ranking GRU officials to the U.S. -
Some Means of Compulsion Are Essential To
ªSome Means of Compulsion are Essential to Obtain What is Neededº: Reviving Congress's Oversight Authority of the Executive Branch by Imposing Fines for Non-Compliance with Congressional Subpoenas MAX G. LESSER* INTRODUCTION Congressional oversight has played a critical role in uncovering wrongdoing in the executive branch, from the historic corruption of the Teapot Dome Scandal to the presidential abuses of power in Watergate. Underpinning these investigations has been the Supreme Court's long-standing recognition of the broad oversight authority possessed by Congress, which empowers the body to compel testimony and documentation.1 Possessing investigative power allows Congress to ful®ll several critical responsibilities. First, Congress can oversee whether the laws it passes are being faithfully executed, in terms of how ªeffectively, ef®ciently, and frugally the executive branch is carrying out congressional mandates.º2 Second, Congress can identify any executive misconduct, such as ªpoor administration, arbitrary and capricious behavior, abuse, waste, dishonesty, and fraud.º3 Third, Congress can utilize the information gained from investigative oversight to address issues through appropriate legislation, the body's core constitutional function. For these reasons, the Supreme Court has described congressional over- sight as ªessentialº4 for the Article I branch of our government. When congressional oversight faces resistance, the contempt power provides Congress a tool for coercing compliance and punishing those who obstruct its investigations.5 The power has generally been utilized to address non-compliance with a congressionally issued subpoena, and has historically been enforced by the * J.D., Georgetown University Law Center (expected May 2022); M.S.Ed., Hunter College of The City University of New York - Graduate School of Education (2016); B.A., The George Washington University (2014). -
The Fascist Theory Behind Mark Penn
Click here for Full Issue of EIR Volume 35, Number 16, April 18, 2008 perfected the manipulation of mass psychology, or “group dy- told Clinton that he must become a “fiscal conservative,” and namics,” in affiliation with the British Royal Family’s Tavis- move against the “entitlements” such as Social Security, or he tock Institute. Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf, among others, would not be re-elected. drew upon the Bernays and le Bon work for much of the fas- On April 4, 2008, Penn apologized for “an error in judg- cist theory of crowd control. ment,” after being publicly exposed for working, as CEO of It was David Ogilvy’s WPP, through its subsidiary Hill & WPP’s Burson-Marsteller, on contract with the Colombian Knowlton, that in 1991 ran the “Iraqis kill Kuwaiti babies” government to promote George Bush’s Colombia-U.S.A. free campaign of deceit, to soften opposition to the invasion of Iraq trade treaty. Hillary Clinton was then in the closing weeks of that Thatcher had urged on President George H.W. Bush. the crucial Pennsylvania primary race, in which her stand In 2003, it was WPP, through its subsidiary BKSH—Rog- against free trade had become the central issue. er Stone’s old firm—that managed the Iraqi National Con- Two days later, on April 6, 2008, the London Daily Mail gress/Ahmed Chalabi campaign of lies behind British Prime disclosed that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown “is secret- Minister Tony Blair’s push for a new Iraq war. ly planning to headhunt the world’s most expensive polling ex- By this time, Mark Penn was chief executive of WPP’s pert in an attempt to revive his political fortunes.” The Daily worldwide subsidiary Burson-Marsteller, of which the old Mail commented that “Mr. -
July 13, 2020 the Honorable William P. Barr Attorney General U.S
July 13, 2020 The Honorable William P. Barr Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Attorney General Barr: President Trump’s commutation of Roger Stone’s prison sentence for obstructing a bipartisan congressional investigation raises serious questions about whether this extraordinary intervention was provided in exchange for Mr. Stone’s silence about incriminating acts by the President. During your confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2019, I asked whether you “believe a President could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient’s promise not to incriminate him.”1 Without hesitation or caveat – and under oath – you responded: “No, that would be a crime.”2 Given recently surfaced information indicating that President Trump may have commuted Mr. Stone’s sentence in exchange for his refusal to incriminate the President, pursuant to your own standard, an inquiry by the Justice Department into Mr. Stone’s commutation is clearly warranted. Thanks to recent Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, newly unredacted portions of Special Counsel Mueller’s report reveal that multiple witnesses confirmed then-candidate Trump’s direct knowledge and encouragement of Roger Stone’s efforts to release damaging information about Hillary Clinton stolen by Russian hackers.3 These witnesses’ observations flatly contradict President Trump’s repeated denials of having such knowledge of Mr. Stone’s activities in his written responses to Special Counsel Mueller’s questions.4 After submitting these suspect answers to the Special Counsel, President Trump took to twitter and praised Mr. Stone for being “brave” and having “guts” for refusing to cooperate with investigators and provide incriminating testimony against him.5 Special Counsel Mueller observed that the President’s tweets about 1 Meg Wagner, Veronica Rocha, & Amanda Wills, Trump’s Attorney General Pick Faces Senate Hearing, CNN (last updated Jan. -
Amy Berman Jackson
MUELLER'S WENCH AMY BERMAN JACKSON Amy Berman Jackson is a judge you need to know about. She is a deep state swamp bottomfeeder who does the bidding of her master Robert Mueller. Get the word out to your social media. This is the judge that keeps Paul Manafort a political prisoner and is now ruling on Roger Stone. They need our help. Feb. 04, 2019? Judge Amy Berman Jackson has been assigned to most, if not all, of the Mueller prosecutions. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to recuse if their involvement raises even the appearance of impropriety. Jackson has layers of conflicts of interest in violation of multiple Canons in matters related to Robert Mueller and Hillary Clinton: 1. Judge Amy Berman Jackson has permitted her long-time former law partners from Trout Cacheris LLP, Robert Trout and Gloria B. Solomon, to represent parties in the Mueller matters. The appearance of impropriety and conspiracy with Mueller?s political agenda is evident. 2. Judge Amy Berman Jackson holds direct financial interests in at least two institutions who are notoriously-known donors to The Clinton Foundation (four Fidelity funds and two Capital one funds). This is actual impropriety requiring recusal. 3. Judge Amy Berman Jackson concealed about 85 holdings in corporate stocks in 2009 by shifting them into 44 mutual funds that hold those (and more Clintonistas) stocks in 2012. While she may have relied upon the highly dubious ?safe harbor? ?concept? (it is not a rule, policy or procedure, and certainly is not law since Mar. -
Political Interference and the Challenges Facing the US
THE YALE LAW JOURNAL FORUM JANUARY 15, 2021 Treat Every Defendant Equally and Fairly: Political Interference and the Challenges Facing the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices as the Justice Department Turns 150 Years Old Joyce White Vance abstract. The US Attorneys’ Offices are the flagships of the federal government’s law-en- forcement work. But as the Department of Justice (DOJ) approaches its 150th anniversary, there are deep concerns for their future. The four years of the Trump Administration have shaken public confidence in DOJ, and during his tenure, Attorney General William Barr all too ofen took on the role of the President’s lawyer rather than upholding the integrity and credibility of line prosecutors to work free from political interference. This Essay, written in the weeks leading up to the 2020 presidential election,1 argues that, in a new administration, there must be a hardcore realignment of cultural values inside of the Justice Department that supports its independence and permits line prosecutors to effectively resist and reject political interference in criminal matters. The past four years have revealed frailty in the Department that requires more than the new laws and new poli- cies that will be designed to shore up some of the weaknesses that have been revealed. Ultimately, even with those new laws and policies, there must be a culture restoration that guarantees they will be implemented effectively so that the independence of prosecutions from political influence, which is critical to our criminal-justice system, is firmly in place. introduction The moment when Aaron Zelinsky, an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the District of Maryland, refused to silently stand by while Attorney 1. -
1:19-CR-00018-ABJ UNITED STATES of AMERICA, V. ROGER
Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 141 Filed 06/27/19 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case No.: 1:19-CR-00018-ABJ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ROGER J. STONE, JR., Defendant. ______________________________/ RESPONSE TO MINUTE ORDER ALLOWING RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR A HEARING (DKT. 136) Justice Breyer, concurring in part and dissenting in part in Iancu v. Brunetti, -- S.Ct. ---, 2019 WL 2570622 (June 24, 2019), wrote: “I would appeal more often and more directly to the values the First Amendment seeks to protect. As I have previously written, I would ask whether the regulation at issue ‘works speech-related harm that is out of proportion to its justifications.’ United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 730 (2012).” See, Opinion of Breyer, J., at *8. In Alvarez, Justice Breyer’s concurrence in the decision relating to the Stolen Valor Act concluded that “the statute as presently drafted works disproportionate constitutional harm.” Alvarez, 567, U.S. at 739 (Breyer, J. concurring). The government’s June 20, 2019 Motion For An Order To Show Cause And For A Hearing (Dkt. 136), is a disproportionate response to Roger Stone’s exercise of his First Amendment rights within the confines of this Court’s Order. The government, presenting several Instagram posts, writes: These posts are not the first statements that appear to have run afoul of the Court’s order. The government is bringing this matter to the Court’s attention now because Stone’s most recent posts 1 Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 141 Filed 06/27/19 Page 2 of 11 represent a direct attempt to appeal to major media outlets to publish information that is not relevant to, but may prejudice, this case.