DOCSLIB.ORG

Big Government Lawsuits: Are Policy-Driven Lawsuits in the Public Interest?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Big Government Lawsuits: Are Policy-Driven Lawsuits in the Public Interest? S. HRG. 106–979 BIG GOVERNMENT LAWSUITS: ARE POLICY-DRIVEN LAWSUITS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST? HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON EXAMINING THE SPATE OF CERTAIN GOVERNMENT LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Serial No. J–106–58 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 71–867 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Apr 25, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 NOV2.TXT SJUD2 PsN: SJUD2 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DEWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BOB SMITH, New Hampshire MANUS COONEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Apr 25, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 NOV2.TXT SJUD2 PsN: SJUD2 C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ................................ 1 Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ...... 3, 5 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 4 Schumer, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from the State of New York ............... 18 CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES Statement of Hon. Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senator from the State of Ken- tucky ...................................................................................................................... 7 Statement of Hon. Jack Reed, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ..... 11 Statement of Hon. Richard J. Durbin, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .. 15 Panel consisting of Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Law, George Washington University, Washington, DC; Don Ryan, executive director, Alliance To End Childhood Lead Poisoning, Washington, DC; Matthew L. Myers, executive vice president and general counsel, National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids, Washington, DC; Victor E. Schwartz, Crowell and Moring LLP, Washington, DC; William M. Keys, chief executive officer, New Colt’s Holding Company, Hartford, CT; and R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC ......................... 21 ALPHABETICAL LIST AND MATERIALS SUBMITTED Durbin, Hon. Richard J.: Testimony ...................................................................... 15 Josten, R. Bruce: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 55 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 Kennedy, Hon. Edward M.: Conversation with Attorney General Janet Reno, dated April 30, 1997 ............................................................................................ 14 Keys William M.: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 51 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 McConnell, Hon. Mitch: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 Myers, Matthew L.: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 39 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 Reed, Hon. Jack: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 Ryan, Don: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 34 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 Schwartz, Victor E.: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 43 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 Turley, Jonathan: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 21 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 (III) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Apr 25, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 NOV2.TXT SJUD2 PsN: SJUD2 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Apr 25, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 NOV2.TXT SJUD2 PsN: SJUD2 BIG GOVERNMENT LAWSUITS: ARE POLICY- DRIVEN LAWSUITS IN THE PUBLIC INTER- EST? TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1999 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:25 a.m., in room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch (chairman of the committee) presiding. Also present: Senators Sessions, Kennedy, and Schumer. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH The CHAIRMAN. I apologize to everybody for having to start this hearing so late. Let’s allow as many people into the hearing room as we possibly can from those standing in the hallway. Allow peo- ple to stand if they have to. Today’s hearing is entitled ‘‘Big Government Lawsuits: Are Pol- icy–Driven Lawsuits in the Public Interest?’’ The purpose of the hearing is to examine the spate of government lawsuits filed against different industries. The aim of these lawsuits is clearly to establish and enforce social policy preferences. Many of the social goals of the lawsuits appear to be worthwhile, but to me, these lawsuits raise the issue of whether the courts and the trial attorneys, or the democratically-elected legislatures of this country, should set policy for the American people. I believe that our Constitution has already provided an answer to this question. In a democratic republic, the people, through their elected rep- resentatives, must set fundamental policy. The scope of these lawsuits happens to be immense, and the American public is taking notice. A Federal suit was filed against the tobacco industry on September 22 of this year, ostensibly to re- coup Medicaid and Medicare costs for treating tobacco-related ill- nesses. In a recent Kaiser/Harvard report, the Federal Govern- ment’s civil lawsuit against the tobacco industry was rated Ameri- ca’s top health news story in September of this year, followed by 62 percent of the public. Besides the Federal tobacco suit, the Housing and Urban Devel- opment Agency, HUD, has recommended to the Department of Jus- tice that a Federal suit be filed against the firearms industry to re- coup the costs to public housing of illegal firearm use. (1) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Apr 25, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 NOV2.TXT SJUD2 PsN: SJUD2 2 Twenty-nine cities and counties have filed suits against gun manufacturers, claiming that the manufacturers have negligently marketed and distributed firearms, resulting in increased criminal use of guns. State actions have also been filed against the lead paint manufacturers. It has been reported that other suits may be brought against the alcohol and beverage industry, the automobile industry, the fast-food industry, and the pharmaceutical industry. The latter is not at all far-fetched, given the recent announcement by President Clinton that the Government will investigate the pharmaceutical industry, although no violation of law was stated to justify such an investigation. Certainly, the social goals of reducing cigarette smoking and de- creasing firearm injuries and crimes are worthwhile. Let me say up front that I am no friend of tobacco use, nor an apologist for the tobacco industry. Indeed, I have never used tobacco products in my life and I am opposed to tobacco use. I have never inhaled or chewed tobacco, although I have wondered from time to time. Along with my cosponsor, Senator Feinstein, I worked hard last Congress to pass legislation that would have gone a long way in helping Americans kick the habit in reducing teen smoking. The legislation required the tobacco companies to pay $429 billion to settle existing lawsuits. In return for the settlement of those law- suits, the companies would have stopped targeting children, and they would also have funded anti-smoking cessation efforts. While this measure has yet to pass, I strongly believe that the fairest and most efficient solution to the use of tobacco is omnibus legislation such as the Hatch–Feinstein bill, rather than relying on dubious legal lawsuits. Litigation cannot effectively deal with im- portant public policy problems such as what measures the industry must take to reduce youth smoking or to what effect will rising prices have on the black market for cigarettes. The courts indeed have never been considered the proper institu- tion to determine such policy. The
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison Jonathan Turley
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 28 | Issue 2 Article 6 1999 Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison Jonathan Turley Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Turley, Jonathan (1999) "Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 28: Iss. 2, Article 6. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol28/iss2/6 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Turley: Reflections on Murder, Misdemeanors, and Madison REFLECTIONS ON MURDER, MISDEMEANORS, AND MADISON Jonathan Turley* I. INTRODUCTION Few crimes seem to concentrate the mind more than simple mur- der. Certainly, murder was on the minds of many of the academics testi- fying in the Clinton impeachment hearing While this offense was never seriously alleged during the scandal, it was very much a concern for academics advocating the "executive function theory. 2 Under this theory, a President could only be impeached for acts related to his of- fice, as opposed to purely personal acts.' Since the impeachment of President Clinton raised matters arguably related to his personal mis- conduct, various academics insisted that the allegations fell outside of * J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University of Law School. 1. See Background and History of Impeachment: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitutionof the House Comm.
    [Show full text]
  • Interrogation's Law
    THEYAEAW JOUNA WILLIAM RANNEY LEVI Interrogation's Law ABSTRACT. Conventional wisdom states that recent U.S. authorization of coercive interrogation techniques, and the legal decisions that sanctioned them, constitute a dramatic break with the past. This is false. U.S. interrogation policy well prior to 9/11 has allowed a great deal more flexibility than the high-minded legal prohibitions of coercive tactics would suggest: all interrogation methods allegedly authorized since 9/11, with the possible exception of waterboarding, have been authorized before. The conventional wisdom thus elides an intrinsic characteristic of all former and current laws on interrogation: they are vague and contestable, and thus, when context so demands, manipulable. A U TH O R. Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2oo; Stanford University, B.A. 2006. Three individuals were central to the development of this project. Jack L. Goldsmith offered invaluable guidance from the beginning; I could not ask for a better mentor. Owen M. Fiss graciously supported this project, providing thoughtful comments and helpful criticism. Harold H. Koh consulted and advised throughout; I am immensely grateful for his encouragement. I am thankful to Mariano-Florentino Cullar, Jeremy M. Licht, Martin S. Lederman, David F. Levi, and Benjamin Wittes. This Note was completed before the Justice Department released four additional memoranda on April 16, 2009. 1434 NOTE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1436 1. THE LAW'S LATITUDE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 TO THE PRESENT 1442 A. Law and Interrogation: The Central Intelligence Agency 1443 1. The Torture Statute 1444 2. The Fifth Amendment 1448 3. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and the Military Commissions Act 1452 B.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Emergencies Act of 1976 Hearing Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives
    THE NATIONAL EMERGENCIES ACT OF 1976 HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FEBRUARY 28, 2019 Serial No. 116–5 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( Available http://judiciary.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 37–840 WASHINGTON : 2019 VerDate Sep 11 2014 04:06 Oct 12, 2019 Jkt 037840 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HR\OC\B840.XXX B840 dlhill on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with HEARING COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Ranking Member STEVE COHEN, Tennessee F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia Wisconsin THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida STEVE CHABOT, Ohio KAREN BASS, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana JIM JORDAN, Ohio HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York KEN BUCK, Colorado DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California MARTHA ROBY, Alabama TED LIEU, California MATT GAETZ, Florida JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington ANDY BIGGS, Arizona VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida TOM MCCLINTOCK, California J. LUIS CORREA, California DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania Vice-Chair BEN CLINE, Virginia SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota JOE NEGUSE, Colorado W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida LUCY MCBATH, Georgia GREG STANTON, Arizona MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel BRENDAN BELAIR, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chair JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, ERIC SWALWELL, California Ranking Member MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania JIM JORDAN, Ohio SYLVIA R.
    [Show full text]
  • National Security and Statutory Interpretation
    SMU Law Review Volume 53 Issue 1 Article 9 2000 Through a Looking Glass Darkly: National Security and Statutory Interpretation Jonathan Turley Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Jonathan Turley, Through a Looking Glass Darkly: National Security and Statutory Interpretation, 53 SMU L. REV. 205 (2000) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol53/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THROUGH A LOOKING GLASS DARKLY: NATIONAL SECURITY AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Jonathan Turley* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 206 II. AREA 51: A CASE STUDY OF THE GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT OF THE COMMON LAW ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY AREA ......................... 210 A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................. 210 B. RELEVANT LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND JUDICIAL R ULINGS .............................................. 214 C. THE GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT OF THE COMMON LAW PRIVILEGE ON THE ANALYSIS IN KASZA AND FRosT ................................................. 219 III. THE INTERPLAY OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND THE COMMON LAW IN THE AREA 51 LITIGATION ............................ 221 A. THEORIES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN THE COMPANY OF THE COMMON LAW ..................... 222 B. PREEMPTION AND JUDICIAL CHOICE: THE USE OF COMMON LAW AS AN OUTCOME-DETERMINATIVE ELEMENT IN THE FROST CASE ........................ 228 C. THE ADOPTION OF AN ABSOLUTE STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE IN THE AREA 51 LITIGATION .............. 231 IV. THE LEGISPRUDENCE OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE COMMON LAW ............................. 237 A. THE DIALOGIC EFFECT OF THE COMMON LAW IN THE AREA OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ..............
    [Show full text]
  • Written Statement Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest
    Written Statement Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law George Washington University "The President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws" Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives 2141 Rayburn House Office Building December 3, 2013 Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Jonathan Turley and I am a law professor at George Washington University where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law. It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the constitutional concerns raised by recent nonenforcement polices and the President’s duty to faithfully execute the law of the United States. The issue before the Committee is clearly a difficult one. It is often difficult to separate the merits of the underlying policies from the means used to achieve them. It so happens that I agree with many of the goals of the Administration in the various areas where the President has circumvented Congress. However, in the Madisonian system, it is often more important how you do things than what you do. We have long benefited from a system designed to channel and transform factional interests in the political system. When any branch encroaches upon the authority of another, it not only introduces instability into the system but leaves political issues raw and unresolved. However, to paraphrase one of Benjamin Franklin’s favorite sayings, the Constitution helps those branches that help themselves. Each branch is given the tools to defend itself and the Framers assumed that they would have the ambition and institutional self-interest to use them.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Trials and Factional Disputes: Impeachment As a Madisonian Device
    TURLEY TO PRINTER 11/30/99 3:15 PM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 49 OCTOBER 1999 NUMBER 1 SENATE TRIALS AND FACTIONAL DISPUTES: IMPEACHMENT AS A MADISONIAN DEVICE JONATHAN TURLEY† ABSTRACT In this Article, Professor Turley addresses the use of impeachment, specifically the Senate trial, as a method of resolving factional disputes about an impeached official’s legitimacy to remain in office. While the Madisonian democracy was designed to regulate factional pressures, academics and legislators often discuss impeachments as relatively static events focused solely on removal. Alternatively, impeachment is sometimes viewed as an extreme countermajoritarian measure used to “reverse” or “nullify” the popular election of a President. This Article advances a more dynamic view of the Senate trial as a Madisonian device to resolve factional disputes. This Article first discusses the history of impeachment and demon- strates that it is largely a history of factional or partisan disputes over legitimacy. The Article then explores how impeachment was used historically as a check on the authority of the Crown and tended to be used most heavily during periods of political instability. English and colonial impeachments proved to be highly destabilizing in the ab- sence of an integrated political system. The postcolonial impeachment process was modified to convert it from a tool of factional dissension to a vehicle of factional resolution. This use of Senate trials as a Madisonian device allows for the public consideration of the full rec- † J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. For Benjamin John Turley, who was born during the research and writing of this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • Anonymity, Obscurity, and Technology: Reconsidering Privacy in the Age of Biometrics
    ANONYMITY, OBSCURITY, AND TECHNOLOGY: RECONSIDERING PRIVACY IN THE AGE OF BIOMETRICS JONATHAN TURLEY ABSTRACT For decades, cinematic and literary works have explored worlds without privacy: fishbowl societies with continual, omnipresent surveillance. For those worried about a post-privacy world, facial recognition technology and other biometric technology could well be the expanding portal to that dystopia. These technologies are rapidly transforming a society predicated on privacy into a diaphanous society where identity and transparency are defining elements. Biometric technology is perfectly suited to evade current privacy protections and doctrines because it presents new challenges to the existing legal framework protecting privacy. The greatest threat of this technological shift is to democratic activities—the very reason that countries such as China have invested so heavily into biometric surveillance systems. This Article explores how our traditional privacy notions fit into a new age of biometrics. It seeks to frame the debate on what values society’s notions of privacy protect, and how to protect them. After exploring prior approaches and definitions to privacy, it proposes a shift from an emphasis on anonymity to a focus on obscurity. The truth is that we now live in a “nonymous” world where our movements and associations will be made increasingly transparent. This Article concludes by recommending a comprehensive approach to biometric technology that would obscure increasingly available images and data while recasting privacy protections to fit a new and unfolding biometric reality. This obscurity will allow participation in society to continue unimpeded by the chilling effects created by the new technology. Without it, our democratic society will never be the same.
    [Show full text]
  • Jonathan Turley on Trump Emolument Clause
    Jonathan Turley On Trump Emolument Clause Transferrable Stafford machinates some hugeousness and incurvate his doolies so bilingually! Inexpressive and knurliest Garcia grow her streps carpogoniums tours and chastens classically. Waine is gneissic and subsidizes collectively while tubbiest Dion overbuilding and reeving. Throughout both parties, turley on trump but we will be chaired this body would have Other hypos can be raised. Does this seems more information technology that remedy for business records obtained and consistently found, jonathan turley on trump emolument clause of jonathan turley told to! The investigations to the president trump, llp and tom paine said before the courts recognize such an impeachment inquiry, some of the. How on emoluments clause, emolument as a number of the ones. We on these funds to jonathan elliot, jonathan turley on trump emolument clause of law professor? In trump emoluments clause inspection of jonathan turley argued that the ones that it is not good of care act and his particular. Ambassador to external sites are monstrously evil cabal of jonathan turley on trump emolument clause and then went on biden always two primary allegations make scotus reject earlier following the ransom is nothing. Deposition on emoluments clause does turley about raising their liberty protected rights page features some good doctor degree to! Circuit court struck them the tire Air Interstate Rule that implemented a flutter and trade written for pollutants. Live on one! Supreme Court agreed to review cases presenting gay marriage issues. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, Ambassador Taylor asked to resemble with him privately. Dem candidate trump had with meaning and the financial services are provided sufficient reason, but it was explicit that body of state! Uk on trump executive branch from jonathan turley argued against trump extended an emolument clause would be our criminal.
    [Show full text]
  • The Clinton Administration and the Erosion of Executive Privilege Jonathan Turley
    Maryland Law Review Volume 60 | Issue 1 Article 11 Paradise Losts: the Clinton Administration and the Erosion of Executive Privilege Jonathan Turley Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan Turley, Paradise Losts: the Clinton Administration and the Erosion of Executive Privilege, 60 Md. L. Rev. 205 (2001) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol60/iss1/11 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PARADISE LOST: THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND THE EROSION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE JONATHAN TuRLEY* INTRODUCTION In Paradise Lost, Milton once described a "Serbonian Bog ... [w]here Armies whole have sunk."' This illusion could have easily been taken from the immediate aftermath of the Clinton crisis. On a myriad of different fronts, the Clinton defense teams advanced sweep- ing executive privilege arguments, only to be defeated in a series of judicial opinions. This "Serbonian Bog" ultimately proved to be the greatest factor in undoing efforts to combat inquiries into the Presi- dent's conduct in the Lewinsky affair and the collateral scandals.2 More importantly, it proved to be the undoing of years of effort to protect executive privilege from risky assertions or judicial tests.' In the course of the Clinton litigation, courts imposed a series of new * J.B. & Maurice C.
    [Show full text]
  • In Re IMPEACHMENT of PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Sitting as a Court of Impeachment In re IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP United States House of Representatives Jamie Raskin Diana DeGette David Cicilline Joaquin Castro Eric Swalwell Ted Lieu Stacey Plaskett Madeleine Dean Joe Neguse U.S. House of Representatives Managers TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................................... 5 A. President Trump Refuses to Accept the Results of the 2020 Election ................................ 5 B. President Trump Encourages His Followers to Come to Washington on January 6, 2021 and “Fight” to Overturn the Election Results ............................................................. 12 C. Vice President Pence Refuses to Overturn the Election Results ....................................... 18 D. President Trump Incites Insurrectionists to Attack the Capitol ........................................ 20 E. Insurrectionists Incited by President Trump Attack the Capitol ....................................... 22 F. President Trump’s Dereliction of Duty During the Attack ................................................ 29 G. The House Approves An Article of Impeachment with Bipartisan Support
    [Show full text]
  • Professor Jonathan Turley Is a Nationally Recognized Legal Scholar Who Has Written Extensively in Areas Ranging from Constitutional Law to Legal Theory to Tort Law
    Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools. One of this current projects if the new case book on Torts for exploring common law, constitutional, and statutory issues of civil liability. After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law — leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation. In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Statement Jonathan Turley, Shapiro
    Written Statement Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law The George Washington University Law School “The Impeachment Inquiry Into President Donald J. Trump: The Constitutional Basis For Presidential Impeachment” 1100 House Office Building United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary December 4, 2019 I.INTRODUCTION Chairman Nadler, ranking member Collins, members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Jonathan Turley, and I am a law professor at George Washington University where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law.1It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss one of the most solemn and important constitutional functions bestowed on this House by the Framers of our Constitution: the impeachment of the President of the United States. Twenty-one years ago, I sat here before you, Chairman Nadler, and other members of the Judiciary Committee to testify on the history and meaning of the constitutional impeachment standard as part of the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. I never thought that I would have to appear a second time to address the same question with regard to another sitting president. Yet, here we are. Some elements are strikingly similar. The intense rancor and rage of the public debate is the same. It was an atmosphere that the Framers anticipated. Alexander Hamilton warned that charges of impeachable conduct “will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.”2 As with the Clinton impeachment, the Trump impeachment has again proven Hamilton’s words to be prophetic.
    [Show full text]