DOCSLIB.ORG

(DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), 2017-2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), 2017-2019 Description of document: Freedom of Information Request log for the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), 2017-2019 Requested date: 16-February-2019 Release date: 30-September-2019 Posted date: 09-December-2019 Source of document: FOIA Request Office of Legal Counsel Room 5511, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530-0001 Email: [email protected] The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is a First Amendment free speech web site, and is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in question. GovernmentAttic.org is not responsible for the contents of documents published on the website. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Washington, D.C. 20530 September 30, 2019 Re: FOIA Tracking No. FY19-095 This letter responds to your February 16, 2019 Freedom oflnformation Act ("FOIA") request to the Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC"), in which you sought "the FOIA Log for DOJ [OLC] for the time period January 1, 2018 to the present." Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(b), your request was processed in the simple track. We have completed our search of OLC files and have identified one document that is responsive to your request. The document is enclosed. The record was processed in response to several FOIA requests seeking various portions of OLC's FOIA log, and therefore includes a broader date range than you requested, and has the "Notes" column redacted per an agreement with another requester. Material, the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, also has been redacted pursuant to Exemption Six, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Please let us know if you are not satisfied with the document as produced and we will re-open your request and further process the "Notes" column. For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist. For any further assistance and to discuss any aspect of your request, you may contact Melissa Golden, OLC's FOIA Public Liaison, at [email protected], (202) 514-2053, or at Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Room 5511, Washington, DC 20530. Additionally, you may contact the Office of Government Information Services ("OGIS") at the National Archives and Records Administration to inquire about the FOIA mediation services they offer. The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, Room 2510, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, e-mail at [email protected]; telephone at 202-741- 5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769. You have the right to an administrative appeal. You may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy ("OIP"), United States Department of Justice, 441 G Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20530, or you may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIAonline portal by creating an account on the following website: https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted within 90 days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal." Sincerely, /4//~ Paul P. Colborn Special Counsel Enclosure 2 No. Date Rcvd 20 days Requester Contact Request Track Expedite Coordinator AA Status Notes Date Closed Exemptions 18-001 2017/10/02 2017/10/30 Revolving Door Jeff Hauser (a) requests to the Department for Justice for funds for Complex Denied Redacted Per Agreement Project at the counsel under 28 CFR 50.15 or 28 CFR 50.16. Center for (b) All records pertaining to decisions about requests for (b) (6) Economic Policy funds for counsel under 28 CFR 50.15 or 28 CFR 50.16. and Research (c) all memos prelied upon to guide Justice Department decisions within the time frame of January 20, 2017 to September 25, 2017. The request includes, but is not limited to, all communication between the Office of Legal Counsel and any of the following: (1) The White House; (2) The Office of the Vice President; and (3) the Office of the Attorney General. 18-002 2017/10/03 2017/10/31 CNN David Shortell requests access to and copies of all records relating to OLC Closed 2017/10/04 memos issued to previous White House administrations regarding the hiring of relatives to White House staff, presidential commission, or other equally official positions, specifically including, but not limited to, opinions issued on the topic dating back to the 70s. 18-003 2017/10/03 2017/10/31 Mojave Desert Shaun Gonzales any final legal opinions provided by the Department of Simple Blog Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to the White House regarding interpretation or implementation of the President's authorities under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (Pub. L. 59-209) as it pertains to the creation, management or modification of national monuments 18-004 2017/10/04 2017/11/01 (b) (6) (b) (6) files from his criminal case Closed 2017/10/10 18-005 2017/10/06 2017/11/03 Jerry Ostry Jerry Ostry documents pertaining to kinetcs advice, Robert William Closed 2017/10/13 Lambert, Deloiite, Pictet, Barry Manson, etc 18-006 2017/10/10 2017/11/07 Institute for Grant F. Smith List of OLC emmployees by surname, given name, initial, Simple Closed 2017/11/21 4,6 Research: Middle department, component, and title. Eastern Policy 18-007 2017/10/11 2017/11/08 USA Today Gregory Korte 1. Memorandum for Harold Judson, Assistant Solicitor Simple General, from William H. Rose, Re: Statement of Policy Regarding Certain Strategic Materials (Aug. 28, 1945) 2. Memorandum for Michael J. Egan, Associate Attorney General, from John M. Harmon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Proposed Amendments to 28 CFR 16, Subpart B (Apr. 21, 1977) 18-008 2017/10/12 2017/11/09 The Knight First Carrie DeCell records concerning restrictions on government Complex Denied Closed 2018/07/31 Amendment Alex Abdo surveillance targeting members of the news media or Institute and the Trevor Timm otherwise implicating the First Amendment Freedom of the Press Foundation 18-009 2017/09/20 2017/10/18 ACLU Brigitte Amiri records relating to potential religious exemptions from Complex Closed 2018/09/12 nondiscrimination requirements in federally funded programs 18-010 2017/10/16 2017/11/13 E&E News Maxine Joselow communication from Stephen Cox, a lawyer in the Office of Closed 2017/10/20 reporter Legal Counsel, that contains any of the following terms: “monument,” “monuments,” and “Antiquities Act.” The timetable for the search is January 1, 2017 to the present. Page 1 No. Date Rcvd 20 days Requester Contact Request Track Expedite Coordinator AA Status Notes Date Closed Exemptions 18-011 2017/10/16 2017/11/13 ProPublica Isaac Arnsdorf OLC advice as to whether the permanent appropriation for Simple Denied Redacted Per Agreement "refunding internal revenue collections," 31 USC 1324, is available to fund the cost-sharing reduction (CSR) (b) (6) payments authorized by section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act, 42 USC 18071. date range would be Jan. 20, 2017, to Oct. 11, 2017. 18-012 2017/10/18 2017/11/15 Russ Kick Russ Kick Regarding the 2017 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Simple Closed 2017/10/20 (FEVS), I hereby request the following reports: "1st Level Subagency Report" for the Office of Legal Counsel (the main report for OLC) "2nd Level Subagency Comparison Report" for the Office of Legal Counsel (compares results of each subdivision within OLC) 18-013 2017/10/17 2017/11/14 Butler Snow Robert Frey all records that support the allegations made in paragraphs Simple Closed 2017/11/17 3, 4, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and/or 30 of the complaint 18-014 2017/10/19 2017/11/16 USA Today Nick Penzenstadler Any and all memos or opinions issued regarding Simple Closed 2018/02/16 Department of Justice staff assigned to “emoluments” cases from 1/20/2017 to the present. 18-015 2017/10/19 2017/11/16 Kent Gubrud Kent Gubrud OLC Memo on President's amenability to subpoena Simple Closed 2018/06/06 (6/25/73) and Memo dated 12/26/73 re: Watergate special prosecution force 18-016 2017/10/20 2017/11/17 Radley Balko Radley Balko Any emails, memoranda, or policy statements issued Complex between January 21, 2017 and October 19, 2017 that mention the National Commission on Forensic Science, or the acroynym NCFS; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, or the acronym P-Cast; the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) working groups on forensic science; the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for forensic science, or the acronym OSAC or OSACs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MEMORANDUM FROM: Victoria Bassetti, Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice TO: Interested Parties DATE: April 11, 2018 RE
    Brennan Center for Justice At New York University School of Law Washington, D.C. Office 1140 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1150 Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone 202.249.7190 Fax 202.223.2683 MEMORANDUM FROM: Victoria Bassetti, Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice TO: Interested Parties DATE: April 11, 2018 RE: DOJ ORDER OF SUCCESSION If President Donald Trump wanted to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller he would have to get the Attorney General to do so. By law, only the Attorney General can fire Mueller. The President himself cannot do so. In the wake of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal from the matter, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has been the Acting Attorney General regarding Russian interference with the 2016 election and related matters. Rosenstein appointed Mueller as Special Counsel on May 17, 2017.1 He did so under his statutory authority to “specially appoint[]” an attorney to “conduct any kind of legal proceeding.” In addition, he indicated that Mueller would be bound by regulations governing Special Counsels. 2 Those regulations provide that only the Attorney General can only fire the Special Counsel for cause and must do so in writing. They provide: The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.3 In addition, since Mueller was appointed pursuant to a statutory provision, Supreme Court precedent holds that he can only be removed by the department head (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Personality Disruption As Mental Torture: the CIA, Interrogational Abuse, and the U.S
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2019 Personality Disruption as Mental Torture: The CIA, Interrogational Abuse, and the U.S. Torture Act David Luban Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Katherine S. Newell Military Commissions Defense Organization This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2214 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3516088 Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 108, Issue 2, 333. This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, and the National Security Law Commons Personality Disruption as Mental Torture: The CIA, Interrogational Abuse, and the U.S. Torture Act DAVID LUBAN* & KATHERINE S. NEWELL** TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: THE ªTORTURE DEBATEº AGAIN? WHY NOW? .......... 334 I. A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY .................................. 343 II. THE ARGUMENT IN BRIEF ...................................... 349 III. TWO NARRATIVES OF CIA ªENHANCED INTERROGATIONº. 352 IV. SOME CIA HISTORY........................................... 365 V. THE TORTURE ACT............................................ 372 VI. APPLYING THE STATUTE ........................................ 375 A. DISRUPTION AND MENTAL HARM............................. 377 B. ªPROLONGEDº ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee
    Stanford Law Review Volume 73 June 2021 NOTE Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee William S. Janover* Abstract. As arbiter of the constitutionality of executive actions, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) possesses vast authority over the operation of the federal government and is one of the primary vessels for the articulation of executive power. It therefore is not surprising that the OLC has found itself at the center of controversy across Democratic and Republican administrations. OLC opinions have justified the obstruction of valid congressional investigations, the targeted killing of an American citizen overseas, repeated military incursions without congressional approval, and, most infamously, torture. These episodes have generated a significant body of proposals to reform, constrain, or altogether eliminate the OLC. All of these proposals can be categorized as either direct or indirect constraints on how the OLC operates. Direct constraints target how the OLC actually creates its legal work product. Indirect constraints instead focus on the OLC’s personnel or the public scrutiny the Office’s opinions will face. This Note expands on this existing body of research, focusing on how one institution unstudied in this context, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, can operationalize meaningful indirect constraints on the OLC. Unlike the other actors that scholars have examined, the Committee’s position outside the executive branch allows it to sidestep the President’s ever-expanding reach within the federal bureaucracy. At the same time, the Committee’s oversight powers and its central role in the nomination of both the OLC’s leader and Article III judges give it important constitutional and statutory authority to constrain the Office.
    [Show full text]
  • AFJ NOMINEE SNAPSHOT U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
    AFJ NOMINEE SNAPSHOT Howard Nielson U.S. District Court for the District of Utah WWW.AFJ.ORG CONTENTS Introduction, 1 Biography, 2 Legal and Other VIews, 2 Nielson fought against equality for LGBTQ Americans and argued that a judge should be recused from a case because he is gay, 2 Nielson was on a committee that politicized the Justice Department, 4 Nielson led the effort against common-sense gun reform, 5 Nielson’s involvement with issues of torture and executive power must be fully disclosed, 6 Nielson supported a ban on affirmative action in higher education, 7 Nielson has fought efforts to protect the environment, 7 Nielson opposed reproductive rights for women, 8 Nielson fought healthcare for all Americans, 8 Conclusion, 8 WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 1 is reflected in his nomination of Nielson. The NRA broke its own spending records INTRODUCTION in support of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, and spent one million dollars on an advertising campaign to support On September 29, 2017, President Trump Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. nominated Howard C. Nielson to the United In return, Trump told the NRA, “You came States District Court for the District of Utah. through for me, I am going to come Nielson’s nomination continues Trump’s trend through for you.” In nominating Nielson, of offering lifetime appointments to ideological Trump has kept his word. Nielson has been attorneys and judges. one of the NRA’s go-to attorneys, fighting to eliminate restrictions on guns in public Alarmingly, Nielson shares with Trump a places and limits on assault weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • A Very Stable Genius at That!” Trump Invoked the “Stable Genius” Phrase at Least Four Additional Times
    PENGUIN PRESS An imprint of Penguin Random House LLC penguinrandomhouse.com Copyright © 2020 by Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig Penguin supports copyright. Copyright fuels creativity, encourages diverse voices, promotes free speech, and creates a vibrant culture. Thank you for buying an authorized edition of this book and for complying with copyright laws by not reproducing, scanning, or distributing any part of it in any form without permission. You are supporting writers and allowing Penguin to continue to publish books for every reader. Library of Congress Control Number: 2019952799 ISBN 9781984877499 (hardcover) ISBN 9781984877505 (ebook) Cover design by Darren Haggar Cover photograph: Pool / Getty Images btb_ppg_c0_r2 To John, Elise, and Molly—you are my everything. To Naomi and Clara Rucker CONTENTS Title Page Copyright Dedication Authors’ Note Prologue PART ONE One. BUILDING BLOCKS Two. PARANOIA AND PANDEMONIUM Three. THE ROAD TO OBSTRUCTION Four. A FATEFUL FIRING Five. THE G-MAN COMETH PART TWO Six. SUITING UP FOR BATTLE Seven. IMPEDING JUSTICE Eight. A COVER-UP Nine. SHOCKING THE CONSCIENCE Ten. UNHINGED Eleven. WINGING IT PART THREE Twelve. SPYGATE Thirteen. BREAKDOWN Fourteen. ONE-MAN FIRING SQUAD Fifteen. CONGRATULATING PUTIN Sixteen. A CHILLING RAID PART FOUR Seventeen. HAND GRENADE DIPLOMACY Eighteen. THE RESISTANCE WITHIN Nineteen. SCARE-A-THON Twenty. AN ORNERY DIPLOMAT Twenty-one. GUT OVER BRAINS PART FIVE Twenty-two. AXIS OF ENABLERS Twenty-three. LOYALTY AND TRUTH Twenty-four. THE REPORT Twenty-five. THE SHOW GOES ON EPILOGUE Acknowledgments Notes Index About the Authors AUTHORS’ NOTE eporting on Donald Trump’s presidency has been a dizzying R journey. Stories fly by every hour, every day.
    [Show full text]
  • The Swamp Nominees Nearly 70% of Trump’S Picks for Top Administration Jobs Have Corporate Ties
    The Swamp Nominees Nearly 70% of Trump’s Picks for Top Administration Jobs Have Corporate Ties Lobbyists, Lawyers and Corporate Executives Thrive in Trump’s D.C. Swamp Despite Pledge to Clean up Washington, Analysis Finds “Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American people.” Donald J. Trump campaign ad, November 2016. “I am not beholden to any political or financial interest. I don’t care. I'm here to do a job. I'm doing a job for the American worker. I really don’t care. I'm not thinking about my business or anybody's business,” President Trump, March 31, 2017 By Alan Zibel, Research Director, Public Citizen’s Corporate Presidency Project, with research and writing from Public Citizen interns Nico Alliaga, George Kronlage and Micah Rosen. June 21, 2017 – With each passing day, Donald Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington and root out special interests feels about as valid as a degree from Trump University. A Public Citizen analysis of 115 sub-Cabinet officials nominated or announced by the White House reveals extensive ties to corporate America. The analysis includes all of Trump’s nominees for sub-Cabinet roles such as deputy secretary and general counsel at federal agencies. It excludes ambassadors due to their lack of involvement in domestic policy. Only 15 of the sub-Cabinet nominees analyzed have been confirmed, according to the Partnership for Public Service.1 Of the White House’s nominees for these jobs, 80 people, or nearly 70 percent of sub-Cabinet officials, had a clear corporate connection, having worked in a corporate job, done corporate legal work or corporate consulting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethical Dilemmas of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Wake of A
    The Ethical Dilemmas of the Of®ce of Legal Counsel in the Wake of a Whistleblower Complaint ABIGAIL M. REECER* INTRODUCTION In the fall of 2019, nearly three years into the Trump presidency, an unnamed intelligence of®cial ®led a whistleblower complaint with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG).1 The complaint detailed allegations of President Trump soliciting interference from a foreign country in the 2020 presi- dential election.2 The unknown intelligence of®cial ®led the complaint in accord- ance with the procedures speci®ed in the federal law protecting whistleblowers.3 Despite taking the proper course of action, senior members of the Trump Administration initially refused to disclose the complaint to Congress, and instead consulted with the Justice Department's Of®ce of Legal Counsel (OLC) for an assessment of the complaint's credibility.4 This instance of withholding the complaint from Congress in the 2019 investigation was the ®rst time such an issue was raised since the enactment of the Federal Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), which requires the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to disclose the complaint to Congress.5 The question arises whether the government lawyers in the OLC had the proper authority under the ICWPA to challenge the determination of the ICIG. Answering this question requires a broader look at the functions and duties of the OLC and the ethical con- cerns raised by an attorney's appointment within this of®ce. In order to do so, this Note will ®rst detail the OLC's most recent response to a signi®cant Intelligence Community whistleblower complaint.
    [Show full text]
  • Bill Barr Is Not Dick Cheney
    BILL BARR IS NOT DICK CHENEY Imagine if David Addington had co-signed the torture memos written by John Yoo? I wanted to comment on a Quinta Jurecic column about the Barr Memo that Merrick Garland’s DOJ chose to withhold parts of, as well as this thread from Kel McClanahan responding to Jurecic. Their exchange focuses on how judges may have responded to Donald Trump’s Administration, and what kind of the traditional deference we should expect Garland’s DOJ to get. I’d like to add a few points that may show one possible angle for accountability for Bill Barr moving forward. Those points start in the difference between Dick Cheney and Bill Barr. Bill Barr is not Dick Cheney. Both men were the masterminds of horrible policy under their respective (most recent) president. Both, in different ways, badly politicized the government. But Dick Cheney was, in my opinion, the most accomplished master of bureaucracy that DC had seen in a very long time. Barr, by contrast, either didn’t have Cheney’s bureaucratic finesse or just didn’t fucking care to hide his power plays. And the difference may provide means for accountability where it didn’t under Obama. The worst Bush policies that Cheney implemented were torture and Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, and the Iraq War. The first two implemented illegal policies by using Office of Legal Counsel to sanction them in advance. And, significantly (but not entirely) because of that, Obama never found the political means to fully excise those earlier policies. Obama only ever got paper prohibitions on torture, he never closed Gitmo, and one of the last things Loretta Lynch did was finalize an effort to legalize the last bits of Stellar Wind by approving EO 12333 sharing rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Difficulties in the Age of Trump Fall 2019
    Princeton University Department of Politics POL 326 – Constitutional Difficulties in the Age of Trump Fall 2019 Keith E. Whittington MW 10:00-10:50am 113 Fisher Hall, 258-3453 McDonnell A02 [email protected] office hours: by appointment via online scheduler (https://wase.princeton.edu/) A smorgasbord of constitutional law and politics. The unexpected election of Donald Trump in the fall of 2016 has ushered in a host of debates about less familiar features of the U.S. Constitution. A political outsider and populist, President Trump has pushed on inherited constitutional practices and assumptions. In an era of highly polarized politics, his opponents have likewise made innovative use of constitutional institutions and powers. The Trump presidency has generated unusual concerns about the stability and robustness of the American constitutional system. This course will try to make sense of those concerns and the constitutional debates of the past three years. This course complements rather than repeats or directly relies upon what you would study elsewhere (e.g., POL 314, POL 315 and POL 316). It is designed to survey the waterfront of constitutional debates surrounding the Trump presidency, rather than take a deep dive into any particular areas of constitutional law. As a consequence, the class will move at a rapid pace in skipping from topic to topic. The course aims to provide a basic background to current constitutional debates to set students up to be intelligent consumers of the news and responsible citizens in politically contentious times. This semester will give particular attention to questions of presidential power and the actions of the Trump administration and its opponents.
    [Show full text]
  • Personality Disruption As Mental Torture: the CIA, Interrogational Abuse, and the U.S
    Personality Disruption as Mental Torture: The CIA, Interrogational Abuse, and the U.S. Torture Act DAVID LUBAN* & KATHERINE S. NEWELL** TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: THE ªTORTURE DEBATEº AGAIN? WHY NOW? .......... 334 I. A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY .................................. 343 II. THE ARGUMENT IN BRIEF ...................................... 349 III. TWO NARRATIVES OF CIA ªENHANCED INTERROGATIONº. 352 IV. SOME CIA HISTORY........................................... 365 V. THE TORTURE ACT............................................ 372 VI. APPLYING THE STATUTE ........................................ 375 A. DISRUPTION AND MENTAL HARM............................. 377 B. ªPROLONGEDº ........................................... 378 C. ªRESULTING FROMº ....................................... 380 D. CALCULATION AS SPECIFIC INTENT ........................... 380 E. SPECIFIC INTENT VS. KNOWLEDGE............................ 381 F. PROFOUND .............................................. 382 CONCLUSION: FROM ACT TO CRIME.................................... 385 * University Professor in Law and Philosophy at Georgetown University Law Center and Class of 1965 Distinguished Chair in Ethics at the Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership, United States Naval Academy. © 2019, David Luban & Katherine S. Newell. ** Resource Counsel, Detention and Interrogation Issues, Military Commissions Defense Organization. Katherine S. Newell formerly served as the Counterterrorism Counsel for the U.S. Program of Human Rights Watch and as an of®cer in the U.S. Air
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Department of Justice and the Rule of Law
    Report on the Department of Justice and the Rule of Law Under the Tenure of Attorney General William Barr Issue date: October 12, 2020 By Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law Ad Hoc Working Group in partnership with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Contents I. Description of Project, Methodology, and Working Group Members ............................. 3 II. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 6 III. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 16 IV. Historical Background ........................................................................................................ 20 1. The Department of Justice and the Levi-Bell Reforms................................................ 20 2. William Barr’s Authoritarian Vision of Executive Power .......................................... 24 V. Issues in Barr’s Department of Justice .............................................................................. 28 1. DOJ’s Handling of the End of Special Counsel Mueller’s Investigation ................ 28 a. Barr’s Role in Oversight of Special Counsel Mueller’s Investigation ...................... 29 b. Barr’s Mischaracterization of the Mueller Report .................................................... 30 c. Excessive Redactions in the Released Version of the Mueller Report ..................... 31 2. DOJ’s Handling of the Ukraine Investigations
    [Show full text]
  • 546-4400 • Heritage.Org LEGISLATIVE TESTIMONY
    214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE • Washington DC 20002 • (202) 546-4400 • heritage.org LEGISLATIVE TESTIMONY Lessons from the Mueller Report: Presidential Obstruction and Other Crimes Testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives June 10, 2019 John G. Malcolm Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government Director and the Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies The Heritage Foundation Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and distinguished Members of Congress: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about Volume II of the Mueller Report. My name is John Malcolm. I am the Vice President of the Institute for Constitutional Government and the Director and the Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.1 I have also spent a good deal of my career involved in the criminal justice system—as an Assistant United States Attorney, an Associate Independent Counsel, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division at the U.S. Justice Department, and a criminal defense attorney. Special Counsel Mueller deserves a lot of credit for conducting a thorough investigation. As stated in his Report, he “employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff.” His office “issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communications records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.” This should, of course, come as no surprise to anyone who is at all acquainted with Robert Mueller.
    [Show full text]