DOCSLIB.ORG

10/3/14 Robert II V CIA and DOJ White Paper 1 of 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
10/3/14 Robert II V CIA and DOJ White Paper 1 of 2 Charles Robert 441 B. West Broadway Long Beach, New York 11561 516-889-2251 10-3-14- White Paper (WP) of the Robert II v CIA and DOJ, cv 02-6788 (Seybert, J) plaintiff reporting his last failed quiet settlement offer, facts that occurred after he filed his August 12, 2014 status letter, and his intent to file his Individual Motion Practice Rule F (2) letter request on October 7, 2014 for a Summary Judgment Motion conference This is the Robert I v CIA, cv 00-4325 (Seybert, J), and Robert II v CIA and DOJ, cv 02-6788 (Seybert, J), plaintiff’s final monthly status report that informs the Court of his last failed attempt for a quiet settlement. The plaintiff reports facts that he learned occurred after he had filed his last August 12, 2014 status letter to the Court re his quiet settlement attempts. See the plaintiff’s monthly status letters that were filed after the plaintiff had filed his Court ordered 12-14-11 Robert II v CIA and DOJ Status Affidavit, http://snowflake5391.net/12-14- 11_RIIvCIAandDOJStatusAffidavit%20.pdf, and his 8-15-12 Robert II v CIA and DOJ Status Affidavit, http://snowflake5391.net/8-15-12_RobertIIvCIA_Status_Affidavit.pdf. On October 3, 2014, the plaintiff informed Judge Seybert of his last failed attempt to secure a quiet settlement. He also informed the Court that the co-defendants’ attorneys CIA General Counsel Caroline Krass and EDNY U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch had not served the plaintiff with co-defendants’ Counter Statement to the plaintiff’s July 28, 2014 “Plaintiff’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts of Motion For Summary Judgment.” Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, the co-defendants had 14 days to serve the co-defendants’ Counter Statement. The co- defendants’ attorneys did not request an adjournment date. The plaintiff informed the Court that pursuant to the Court’s Individual Motion Practice Rule F (2), the plaintiff will on October 7, 2014 file his three page letter requesting a Summary Judgment Pre-Motion Conference. The co-defendants are to file their opposition to that Motion within seven days. The Court then schedules a Summary Judgment Pre-Motion Conference. The plaintiff informed the Court he would make an arithmetic Summary Judgment argument that President Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526, § 3.3 Automatic Declassification 25 year rule, applies to the release of the four 1985 CIA classified documents: 1. 4-22-85 “IMC” Top Secret Working Paper CIA Exemption 3 http://www.snowflake5391.net/NorthNotebook.pdf. 2. 9/6/85 North-CIA-FBI Exemptions 1, 3 with 9/10/85 NHAO notation http://www.snowflake5391.net/9-6-85NorthCIA.pdf. 3. 9/16/85 North-Call to Perot CIA Exemptions 1 and 3 http://snowflake5391.net/perot.pdf. 4. 10/1/85 CIA-DOD FOIA Exemption 1 and 3 and medivac helos http://www.snowflake5391.net/medivachelos.pdf. 1 The plaintiff will also argue that the Court should draw an inference from the fact that the co-defendants CIA Director John Brennan and AG Eric Holder decided not to serve the plaintiff with a Local Rule 56.1 Counter Statement. The plaintiff will argue that the Court should consider this fact an admission that the co-defendants agree to the plaintiff’s July 28, 2014 “Plaintiff’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts of Motion For Summary Judgment.” The plaintiff’s Statement identified the four one-page 1985 CIA classified redacted documents and applied the E.O. 13526, § 3.3 Automatic Declassification 25 year rule: 1985+25=2010. On September 25, 2014, AG Holder announced his resignation that would be effective after President Obama’s new AG is confirmed and takes his/her AG’s Oath to defend the Constitution. The plaintiff anticipates that AG Holder may possibly have as long as the end of 2014 to reconsider the plaintiff’s heretofore rejected quiet settlement offer. See § B below. The plaintiff informed Judge Seybert that he filed this White Paper (WP) with the Clerk of the Court as a deterrent to CIA General Counsel Krass filing an October, 2014 in camera ex parte Declaration with half-truth CIA assertions. The plaintiff has alleged that the Robert II v CIA and DOJ case file notes and e-mails reveal whether the CIA General Counsels had filed in camera ex parte Declarations with the intent to make Magistrate Judge Arlene Lindsay the “handmaiden” of the 2002-2014 CIA Directors. “Under no circumstances should the Judiciary become the handmaiden of the Executive.” Doe, et. al. v Mukasey, Mueller, and Caproni, 549 F 3d 861, 870 (2d Cir. 2008). This 10-3-14 WP is intended to be a deterrent to CIA General Counsel Krass filing an in camera ex parte Declaration opposing the plaintiff’s Motion for a Summary Judgment that withholds material CIA “sources and methods” facts from the Court. The plaintiff has asserted that the Robert II v CIA and DOJ FOIA requested “North Notebook” documents reveal a policy and practice of 1982-2014 AGs’ delegatees approving CIA Directors serial violations of the December 4, 1981 E.O. 12333 prohibition of CIA Directors conducting CIA domestic “special activities.” He alleges that CIA Director Brennan knows that AG Meese knew that CIA Director Casey was conducting CIA domestic “special activities” 1) at the Florida HMO International Medical Center, Inc. (IMC) and 2) at the NSA where CIA Director Casey’s analysts had conducted “back door” warrantless searches of the 1982-1985 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP “haystacks” of U.S. citizens’ comingled stored content data that included Top Secret “FISC Robert” documents that were withheld pursuant to the CIA’s use of FOIA exemption 1 and the “Glomar Response” defense. The plaintiff filed his first FOIA action, Robert v Holz, cv-85-4205 (Wexler, J), on November 18, 1985. He sought documents that reveal why HHS General Counsel del Real (1981-1985) had initiated a December, 1984 “Fraud Against the Government” investigation of Robert. He made the allegation that HHS General Counsel del Real was CIA Director Casey’s illegal CIA domestic agent who was tasked to eliminate the Ruppert v Schweiker lead counsel who was challenging HHS General Counsel del Real’s 1982-1985 Jackson v. Schweiker, 683 F. 2d 1076 (7th Cir. 1982), “nonacquiescence” policy. The plaintiff alleged that HHS General Counsel del Real was illegally diverting unaudited HHS funds to pay for the illegal CIA domestic “special activities” that could not be funded with OMB classified funds because AG Smith had not complied with the § 413 (a) of the National Security Act “Gang of Eight” Notification duty. He makes the same “Past is Prologue” allegations in this October 3, 2014 White Paper because he believes that a mosaic of FOIA requested documents prove true his grave 1985 allegations. 2 The plaintiff informs the Court of the drumbeat of the following facts that he learned have occurred after he filed his August 12, 2014 status letter with the Clerk of the Court: The September 30, 2014 decision of Acting Associate AG Delery, the 2012-2014 AAG of the Civil Division supervising attorney of Robert II v CIA and DOJ, not to reverse the rejection of the plaintiff’s post-Snowden renewed request for a quiet settlement. See § A below. AG Holder’s September 25, 2014 resignation announcement provides an opportunity for Acting Associate AG Delery to recommend that AG Holder accept the quiet settlement offer and end the DOJ policy of withholding material facts from Article III Judges to protect CIA sources and methods of conducting illegal CIA domestic “special activities.” § B. CIA General Counsel Krass’ August 11, 2014 decision not to file a Robert II v CIA and DOJ Counter Statement was a decision to defend the E.O. 12333 CIA domestic “sources and methods” of implementing a Marbury v Madison “nonacquiescence” policy based on the Top Secret Article II “secret law” not known to Article III Judges. § C. DNI Director Clapper’s August 11, 2014 posting on the DNI website of newly declassified documents re the metadata program that reveal to the public that the FISC was not informed of the “FISA secret law” of the 1982-2014 E.O. 12333 Top Secret “FISA exempt” NSA TSP that is based on the May 24, 1984 Top Secret “OLC Olson FISA Memo.” § D. The August 11, 2014, Second Circuit NY Times v DOJ decision re redacted OLC FOIA opinions and the procedure for District Court in camera ex parte review. § E below. The August 14, 2014 State Department “whistleblower” complaint re the NSA TSP. § F. The August 15, 2014 NY Times v DOJ Notice of Lodging of Classified documents. § G. The August 16, 2014 declassified Top Secret OLC drone killing memo. § H. The August 17, 2014 Dowd article re AG Holder’s decision whether to indict NY Times investigative reporter James Risen re a classified document leak and AG Holder’s knowledge of the accuracy AG Gonzales’ 2005 Motion to secure the December 9, 2005 Robert VII v DOJ injunction re Robert filing new FOIA requests without a pre-clearance Order. § I. The August 18, 2014 Statement of DNI CLPO Officer Joel re “minimization” procedures. § J. The August 18, 2014, Second Circuit NY Times v DOJ denial of AG Holder’s petition for a panel and en banc rehearing re the release of a Top Secret FOIA requested document. § K. The August 21, 2004 GAO Report re the Congressional Notification duty of the President. § L. The August 22, 2014 DNI Clapper declassified 2004 Declaration of CIA Director Tenet.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Schuchardt V. Obama
    Case 2:14-cv-00705-CB Document 19 Filed 11/24/14 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ELLIOTT J. SCHUCHARDT, CIVIL DIVISION individually and doing business as the Schuchardt Law Firm, on behalf Case No. 2:14-cv-00705-CB of himself and all others similarly situated, COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION Plaintiffs, v. CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY BARACK H. OBAMA, in his capacity as President of the United States; JAMES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED R. CLAPPER, in his official capacity as Director of National Intelligence; ADM. MICHAEL S. ROGERS, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service; and JAMES B. COMEY, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT The Plaintiff, Elliott J. Schuchardt, individually and doing business as the Schuchardt Law Firm, files this Amended Complaint against the above-captioned Defendants, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated. Parties 1. The Plaintiff, Elliott J. Schuchardt, is an attorney having an office located at United States Steel Building, Suite 660, 600 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. 2. Defendant Barack H. Obama is President of the United States. As such, he has ultimate authority over the actions of the United States federal government. President Obama maintains an address at The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20500. Case 2:14-cv-00705-CB Document 19 Filed 11/24/14 Page 2 of 30 3. Defendant James R. Clapper is the Director of National Intelligence (“DNI”).
    [Show full text]
  • Aaron Shull, Counsel & Corporate Secretary, the Centre For
    Aaron Shull, Counsel & Corporate Secretary, The Centre for International Governance Innovation Adam Fisk, President, Lanter Adam Hochschild, Author "King Leopold's Ghost", United States Aditya Vashistha, PhD Student, University of Washington aestetix, NymRights, Co-Founder Alberto Cerda, Founding Member, ONG Derechos Digitales Alejandro Pisanty, National Autonomous University of Mexico and ISOC Mexico Alex Fowler, Global Privacy and Public Policy Leader, Mozilla Alexa Koenig, Executive Director, Human Rights Center, UC Berkeley Alexei Rodriguez, VP Operations, Evernote Ali Akbar Mousavi, Advisor, International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran Ali Kazemi, Associate General Counsel, Tumblr Alix Dunn, Creative Lead, The Engine Room Allen Gunn, Executive Director, Aspiration Allon Bar, Research and Advocacy Coordinator, Ranking Digital Rights Amalia Deloney, Associate Director, Center for Media Justice Amie Stepanovich, Senior Policy Counsel, Access, Amol Mehra, Esq., Director, International Corporate Accountability Roundtable Amr Gharbeia, Researcher, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Egypt Andre Banks, Executive Director, AllOut Andrew Bridges, Fenwick & West LLP Andrew Puddephatt, Director, Global Partners Digital Angela Okune, Research Lead, iHub Research, Anita Ramasastry, Expert, International Corporate Accountability Roundtable Anja Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project Anna Keshelashvili, PhD Student, School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of South Carolina Annie Wilkinson, Human Rights Project
    [Show full text]
  • The Whistleno. 101, January 2020
    “All that is needed for evil to prosper is for people of good will to do nothing”—Edmund Burke The Whistle No. 101, January 2020 Newsletter of Whistleblowers Australia ( ISSN 2205-0299) Reviews and articles BOOK REVIEW $9 more than the standard charges of were hell bent on protecting the Catho- surrounding state schools, like Eliza- lic Church’s good name at the expense Walking towards thunder beth Grove Primary and Elizabeth of the “little ones,” the innocent chil- A review of Peter Fox’s book South Primary which charge $241 a dren, who were sexually abused by year. paedophile priests. The safety and well- Reviewed by Maggie Dawkins The Catholic Church continues to being of children in schools and in find other reasons to justify why parents churches were of little consequence for are keeping away from choosing a decades, until good people like Peter POLICE OFFICER PETER FOX worked in the Hunter region of NSW for 36 years, Catholic Education for their kids. The refused to be silenced. rising to Detective Chief Inspector. latest reason, according to the media Walking Towards Thunder docu- Frustrated with decades of cover-ups by report, is to give families access to ments the cover-ups of the behaviour of the Catholic Church of the sexual abuse affordable Catholic education, as the multiple priests by Church luminaries of children by paedophile priests, Peter driving factor for this initiative. There such as Phillip Wilson and George Pell. took the unusual step of publicly is no mention of the devastating impact It shows how the tentacles of each speaking out in support of victims and the revelations from the Royal Com- branch of our civil society failed our their families.
    [Show full text]
  • Different Motivators for Whistleblowers and Leakers
    ! DIFFERENT MOTIVATORS FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS AND LEAKERS by Andrew Ghalili A research study submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Global Security Studies Baltimore, Maryland August 2020 "!2020 Andrew Ghalili All Rights Reserved ! ! ABSTRACT What are the motivating factors for U.S. Intelligence Community whistleblowers, and how do they compare to those of leakers? This study seeks to determine the motivators for an individual within U.S. national security, and more specifically within the IC, to whistleblow. Interviews with 12 whistleblowers or leakers were analyzed to determine the factors that motivate whistleblowers and whether they differ from those that motivate leakers. The factors that were coded for include Intention, Education on Whistleblowing, Perceived Personal Cost (PPC), Public Service Motivation (PSM), and Loyalty. The current study adds to the field of whistleblowing research by filling a gap in the existing research, especially as related specifically to U.S. national security. The study finds that whistleblowers express higher levels of PPC, loyalty to institution, and loyalty to law than leakers, while leakers express higher levels of PSM, loyalty to public, and loyalty to self. The implications of these findings on policy within U.S. national security and Intelligence Community organizations are discussed and analyzed, resulting in multiple policy recommendations. This study was read and reviewed by Michael Warner and Anthony Lang. ##! ! ! TABLE OF
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Freedom and Political Space / Olesya Tkacheva, Lowell H
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Support RAND Purchase this document TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Browse Reports & Bookstore Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND National Defense Research Institute View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This report is part of the RAND Corporation research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for re- search quality and objectivity. Internet &Freedom Political Space Olesya Tkacheva, Lowell H. Schwartz, Martin C. Libicki, Julie E.
    [Show full text]
  • It's Official—NSA Did Keep Its E-Mail Metadata
    It’s official—NSA did keep its e-mail metadata program after it “ended” in 2011 ArsTechnica Related article: Farivar, C. (Aug. 27, 2014). The executive order that led to mass spying as told by NSA alumni. ArsTechnica. LAW & DISORDER / CIVILIZATION & DISCONTENTS It’s official—NSA did keep its e-mail metadata program after it “ended” in 2011 The New York Times gets a new NSA doc confirming what some had long suspected. by Cyrus Farivar - Nov 20, 2015 6:30pm EST Trevor Pagjen Though it was revealed by Edward Snowden in June 2013, the National Security Agency's (NSA) infamous secret program to domestically collect Americans’ e-mail metadata in bulk technically ended in December 2011. Or so we thought. A new document obtained through a lawsuit filed by The New York Times confirms http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/nsa-replaced-secret-e-mail-metadata-program-with-more- expansive-tools/ Page 1 It’s official—NSA did keep its e-mail metadata program after it “ended” in 2011 ArsTechnica that this program effectively continued under the authority of different government programs with less scrutiny from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The bulk electronic communications metadata program was initially authorized by the government under the Pen Register and Trap and Trace (PRTT) provision, also known as Section 402 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Times’ document, a previously-top secret National Security Agency Inspector General (NSA IG) report from January 2007, contains a lot of intelligence jargon but crucially notes: "Other authorities can satisfy certain foreign intelligence requirements that the PRTT program was designed to meet." The bulk electronic communications metadata program was initially authorized by the government under the Pen Register and Trap and Trace (PRTT) provision, also known as Section 402 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Confrontation Or Collaboration? | Congress and the Intelligence Community Intelligence Basics
    Confrontation or Collaboration? Congress and the Intelligence Community Eric Rosenbach and Aki J. Peritz Confrontation or Collaboration? Congress and the Intelligence Community Eric Rosenbach and Aki J. Peritz With contributions from Hope LeBeau, Cynthia Lobosky, Ya’ara Barnoon, Susan Sypko, David Tohn, Jessica Reitz, Tamara Klajn, Sarah Miller and JP Schnapper-Casteras. The Intelligence and Policy Project Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Fax: (617)495-8963 Email: [email protected] Website: http://belfercenter.org Copyright 2009 President and Fellows of Harvard College Printed in the United States of America Design: Tim Duffy The co-sponsors of this report invite liberal use of the information provided in it for educational purposes, requiring only that the reproduced material clearly state: Reproduced from Eric Rosenbach and Aki J. Peritz, Confrontation or Collaboration? Congress and the Intelligence Community (Cambridge, Mass: The Belfer Center, Harvard University, June 2009). With contributions from Hope LeBeau, Cynthia Lobosky, Ya’ara Barnoon, Susan Sypko, David Tohn, Jessica Reitz, Tamara Klajn, Sarah Miller and JP Schnapper-Casteras. Satellite image by GeoEye. Dear Friend, Your work as a lawmaker is one of the toughest and most rewarding jobs in the country. During the course of your service on Capitol Hill, you will undoubtedly need to consider legislation and issues relevant to national security and the Intelligence Community. Your responsibility to oversee the Intelligence Community will not be easy, but I am confident that you will find extraordinary opportunities to protect and pursue America’s interests around the globe.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Essays on Culture and Whistleblowing: a Multimethod Comparative Study of the United States and Japan
    THREE ESSAYS ON CULTURE AND WHISTLEBLOWING: A MULTIMETHOD COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‗I AT MᾹNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT APRIL 2015 By Masahisa K. Yamaguchi Dissertation Committee: Dharm P.S. Bhawuk, Chairperson H. David Bess Kiyohiko Ito O. Nicholas Ordway Kentaro Hayashi, Outside Member i Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ v ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ vii GENERAL INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 Essay 1: Whistleblowing in the Lifeworld I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5 II. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 5 III. Historical Development of Whistleblowing in the United States ......................................................... 7 IV. Historical Development of Whistleblowing in Japan ......................................................................... 24 V. Discussion ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Synergy of Privacy and Speech
    THE SYNERGY OF PRIVACY AND SPEECH Nicole B. Cásarez* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 814 I. UNDERSTANDING THE USA FREEDOM ACT AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 12333 ......................................................................... 822 A. The USA Freedom Act ..................................................... 823 B. Executive Order 12333 ................................................... 827 II. COMMUNICATIONS METADATA AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT .......................................................................... 836 A. Mail Privacy and the Fourth Amendment Path ................... 836 B. Electronic Eavesdropping and False Friends ........................ 838 C. Communications Metadata and the Third Party Doctrine ..... 840 D. The Future of the Third Party Doctrine .............................. 844 III. COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT .... 847 A. The Content/Metadata Distinction and the First Amendment ................................................................. 850 B. Is the Chilling Effect Real? ............................................... 853 C. If a Chilling Effect Exists, Is It Legally Cognizable under the First Amendment? ......................................................... 859 D. The Problem of Standing ................................................. 865 IV. AT THE CONVERGENCE OF PRIVACY AND SPEECH ................... 870 A. “Scrupulous Exactitude” ................................................. 872 B. The Keith Case ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Notes Secrecy, Standing, and Executive Order 12,333
    NOTES SECRECY, STANDING, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 12,333 CHARLOTTE J. WEN* If my experience serves any purpose, it is to illustrate what most already know: courts must not be allowed to consider matters of great importance under the shroud of secrecy, lest we find ourselves summarily deprived of meaningful due process. If we allow our government to continue operating in secret, it is only a matter of time before you or a loved one find yourself in a position like I did - standing in a secret courtroom, alone, and without any of the meaningful protections that were always supposed to be the people’s defense against an abuse of the state’s power. 1 —Ladar Levison, founder of Lavabit * J.D. 2016, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law. With thanks to my friends and family for their unwavering support through law school, and to Professor David Cruz for his invaluable advice and guidance. 1. Ladar Levison, Secrets, Lies and Snowden’s Email: Why I Was Forced to Shut Down Lavabit, GUARDIAN (May 20, 2014, 7:30 PM), http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may /20/why-did-lavabit-shut-down-snowden-email. Ladar Levison is the creator of Lavabit, an email service designed to subvert surveillance through the use of public-key encryption. Id. When the FBI became aware that Edward Snowden was using Lavabit to correspond with journalists, the FBI served Levison with a court order demanding that he turn over Lavabit’s private encryption keys. Id. Levison fought the order in a top-secret proceeding and lost.
    [Show full text]
  • Amid the Coronavirus Pandemic, the Trump Administration Targets Government Watchdogs by William Roberts June 1, 2020
    Amid the Coronavirus Pandemic, the Trump Administration Targets Government Watchdogs By William Roberts June 1, 2020 The Trump administration has undermined government oversight bodies since the president’s first days in office, flouting established norms and practices and blatantly violating ethics laws. Now, even in the middle of fighting the “invisible enemy” that is the COVID-19 pandemic1, the Trump administration has launched an unprecedented attack against inspectors general (IGs)—the individuals and institutions designed to hold the executive branch accountable. Despite being the first president in history to have a bipartisan vote for his removal from office, President Donald Trump celebrated his acquittal following the impeach- ment trial in February by delivering a bellicose victory speech2 in the East Room of the White House. In his hourslong remarks, he attacked both congressional Democrats who brought against him articles of impeachment based on the overwhelming evi- dence corroborating a whistleblower complaint in the Ukraine scandal as well as the oversight process and infrastructure that allowed the whistleblower complaint to be raised in the first place. Since his acquittal, the president has engaged in what many ethics experts3 and mem- bers of Congress on both sides of the aisle see as retribution4 against the persons and institutions that he blames for making him only the third president in U.S. history to be impeached. President Trump’s recent decision to fire Michael Atkinson, the IG for the U.S. Intelligence Community, in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic only validates the concern that Trump and his administration have now trained their sights on the government’s independent watchdogs.
    [Show full text]