DOCSLIB.ORG

The Problematic Presidential Pardon: a Proposal for Reforming Federal Clemency

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Problematic Presidential Pardon: a Proposal for Reforming Federal Clemency \\server05\productn\H\HLP\3-2\HLP206.txt unknown Seq: 1 24-AUG-09 10:15 The Problematic Presidential Pardon: A Proposal for Reforming Federal Clemency Jonathan T. Menitove* I. INTRODUCTION Shortly after 9:30 a.m. on January 15, 2009, Senator Patrick Leahy gav- eled the Senate Judiciary Committee to order.1 Seated before the Committee was Eric Holder, then President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee to become the eighty-second Attorney General of the United States. As Senator Leahy used his opening statement to sing the nominee’s praises, the senator seated to Leahy’s right—ranking member Senator Arlen Specter—had only one name on his mind: Marc Rich. Senator Specter’s initial round of questioning focused entirely on Holder’s role in the controversial, last-minute pardon President Clinton granted to the wealthy financier and Democratic fundraiser during his final hours in office.2 Undoubtedly, Specter was not the only one with questions, as many Americans questioned whether Holder truly repre- sented the change for which the nation had voted. The reemergence of the Marc Rich story during the Holder confirmation hearings once again cast the limelight on the current presidential pardoning structure’s vulnerability to abuse. This article seeks to explore the pardoning process and—consistent with the Obama Administration’s focus on making government more trans- parent—to propose a solution by which the unchecked power of the Presi- dent to pardon might be reformed. Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution grants the President of the United States the “Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Of- fenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”3 The Framers’ vesting of this broad authority, coupled with Supreme Court deci- sions affirming the near-limitless nature of this power,4 has imbued the Of- fice of the President with tremendous discretion to grant federal offenders pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, remissions of fines, * J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School, 2010; M.A., Yale University, 2007; B.A., Yale University, 2007. The author would like to thank Alex Whiting for his support, guidance, and helpful comments. 1 See Attorney General Nomination Hearings Before the S. Judiciary Comm., 111 Cong. (2009) (statement of Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman, S. Judiciary Comm.), available at http:// judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3610&wit_id=2629 (on file with the Harvard Law School library). 2 See Eric Lichtblau & David Johnston, Pardon Is Back in Focus for the Justice Nominee, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 1, 2008, at A1; see also Eric Lichtblau, Nominee Wants Some Detainees Tried in the U.S., N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 16, 2009, at A1. 3 U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 1. 4 See infra text accompanying notes 22–31. \\server05\productn\H\HLP\3-2\HLP206.txt unknown Seq: 2 24-AUG-09 10:15 448 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol. 3 reprieves, and amnesties.5 While clemency power is by no means unique to the American system of government,6 the seemingly unchecked nature of this power establishes executive clemency as somewhat of a constitutional anomaly outside the system of checks and balances.7 Eric Holder’s confirmation hearings revived the public’s memory of President Clinton’s notorious Marc Rich pardon. Other recent controversial pardons include President George H.W. Bush’s pardon of six White House officials involved in the Iran-Contra scandal8 and the commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s sentence by President George W. Bush.9 Addi- tional criticism of executive clemency has highlighted the declining use of the presidential pardon, despite the Framers’ intent for clemency to serve a vital role in the criminal justice system.10 In an effort to address the problems of the current executive clemency structure, this paper probes the various state pardoning models for solutions. Drawing on the structure common to many state reform systems while rec- ognizing the unique attributes of federal clemency, this paper proposes the creation of a small, partisan Presidential Clemency Board to review and ap- prove all presidential pardons. The hope is that the creation of such a Board would establish a system that is agile enough to respond to those situations where the public interest demands a pardon, responsive enough to allow de- serving offenders the opportunity to receive clemency, and accountable enough to the electorate to deter corruption. To illustrate the necessity and potential benefits of a Presidential Clem- ency Board, this paper tracks the following path. The next section provides 5 See Daniel T. Kobil, The Quality of Mercy Strained: Wresting the Pardoning Power from the King, 69 TEX. L. REV. 569, 575–78 (1991). The terms “pardon” and “clemency” are sometimes used to describe different things, with “pardon provid[ing] the most sweeping remission of the consequences that normally attend violation of the law” and “clemency” being the broader umbrella term capturing pardons, commutations, remissions of fines, re- prieves, and amnesties. For the purposes of this paper, the term “pardon” is used interchange- ably with “clemency” to refer to what Kobil describes as the “general power to remit punishment.” Id. at 576. 6 Id. at 575 (“The clemency power is something of a living fossil, a relic from the days when an all-powerful monarch possessed the power to punish and remit punishment as an act of mercy. It is the oldest form of release procedure, and survives in some form in every state in the union and in every country of the world except China.”). 7 James N. Jorgensen, Federal Executive Clemency Power: The President’s Prerogative to Escape Accountability, 27 U. RICH. L. REV. 345, 353 (1993) (“Although the delegates recog- nized the potential breadth of the clemency power, all of the proposed limitations on the exer- cise of that power were ultimately defeated at the Convention. Thus, the executive’s clemency power, a privilege uncharacteristic of the constitutional framework of checks and balances and limited democracy, was incorporated into the Constitution.”). 8 Id. at 362–68. 9 Margaret Colgate Love, Reinventing the President’s Pardon Power, 20 FED. SENT’G REP. 5, 5 (2007). 10 See, e.g., Brian M. Hoffstadt, Normalizing the Federal Clemency Power, 79 TEX. L. REV. 561, 582–83 (2001); Elizabeth Rapaport, Retribution and Redemption in the Operation of Executive Clemency, 74 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 1501, 1508 (2000); Margaret Colgate Love, Of Pardons, Politics and Collar Buttons: Reflections on the President’s Duty to be Merciful, 27 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 1483, 1491 (2000); Kobil, supra note 5, at 602. R \\server05\productn\H\HLP\3-2\HLP206.txt unknown Seq: 3 24-AUG-09 10:15 2009] Short Essays 449 a brief constitutional history of executive clemency and Supreme Court deci- sions that have expansively interpreted this presidential power. Following that, the paper presents both the strengths and faults of the current regime, noting situations of national emergency in which the President’s ability to pardon swiftly has served the public interest, but also highlighting faults of the current system, including the declining use of the pardon and the poten- tial for corruption. The subsequent section provides a discussion of state pardoning procedures, noting how states have deviated from the federal model by promoting executive accountability and distributing at least part of the pardoning power to an external clemency board. The argument then culminates in a plan for reforming federal clemency, considering the states’ approaches and the unique attributes of the federal clemency system. The proposed creation of a small, partisan Presidential Clemency Board main- tains the current clemency model’s ability to respond swiftly during mo- ments of national crisis, while simultaneously improving the pardoning process by increasing the availability of clemency to deserving offenders and decreasing the potential for corruption. II. CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF PARDONING POWER AND THE SUPREME COURT’S INTERPRETATION Executive clemency in the United States has its roots in the pardoning power of the British monarchs in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.11 Rather than perceive it as a failsafe in the criminal justice system, the British viewed executive clemency as a power vested in the monarch in accordance with his divine right to rule. Pardons were thought of as personal gifts from the monarch that required no justification and were not subject to criticism.12 Naturally, monarchs began to abuse the pardon, employing this power for monetary and political gain.13 Upon colonizing the New World, the British Crown delegated clemency power to the colonies’ royal governors. The American Revolution toppled this existing order, and, in accordance with the Revolution’s spirit of distrust in executive authority, the states placed clemency power in the hands “of the legislature and governor jointly or in the legislature alone.”14 This trend toward empowering the legislature shifted in 1787 when the Framers, de- spite their wariness of concentrating power in the executive and their full 11 Kathleen Dean Moore, Pardon for Good and Sufficient Reasons, 27 U. RICH. L. REV. 281, 282 (1993). 12 Id.; see also Jorgensen, supra note 7, at 350. R 13 P.S. Ruckman, Jr., Executive Clemency in the United States: Origins, Development, and Analysis (1900-1993), 27 PRESIDENTIAL STUD. Q. 251, 252 (1997) (citing the work of David Gary Adler and his discussion of the pardoning power’s history). 14 Ashley M. Steiner, Remission of Guilt or Removal of Punishment? The Effects of a Presidential Pardon, 46 EMORY L.J. 959, 965 (1997); W. HUMBERT, THE PARDONING POWER OF THE PRESIDENT 13–14 (1941). \\server05\productn\H\HLP\3-2\HLP206.txt unknown Seq: 4 24-AUG-09 10:15 450 Harvard Law & Policy Review [Vol.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Profitable and Untethered March to Global Resource Dominance!
    Athens Journal of Business and Economics X Y GlencoreXstrata… The Profitable and Untethered March to Global Resource Dominance! By Nina Aversano Titos Ritsatos† Motivated by the economic causes and effects of their merger in 2013, we study the expansion strategy deployment of Glencore International plc. and Xstrata plc., before and after their merger. While both companies went through a series of international acquisitions during the last decade, their merger is strengthening effective vertical integration in critical resource and commodity markets, following Hymer’s theory of internationalization and Dunning’s theory of Eclectic Paradigm. Private existence of global dominant positioning in vital resource markets, posits economic sustainability and social fairness questions on an international scale. Glencore is alleged to have used unethical business tactics, increasing corruption, tax evasion and money laundering, while attracting the attention of human rights organizations. Since the announcement of their intended merger, the company’s market performance has been lower than its benchmark index. Glencore’s and Xstrata’s economic success came from operating effectively and efficiently in markets that scare off risk-averse companies. The new GlencoreXstrata is not the same company anymore. The Company’s new capital structure is characterized by controlling presence of institutional investors, creating adherence to corporate governance and increased monitoring and transparency. Furthermore, when multinational corporations like GlencoreXstrata increase in size attracting the attention of global regulation, they are forced by institutional monitoring to increase social consciousness. When ensuring full commitment to social consciousness acting with utmost concern with regard to their commitment by upholding rules and regulations of their home or host country, they have but to become “quasi-utilities” for the global industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreignpolicyleopold
    Foreign Policy VOICE The 750 Million Dollar Man How a Swiss commodities giant used shell companies to make an Angolan general three-quarters of a billion dollars richer. BY Michael Weiss FEBRUARY 13, 2014 Revolutionary communist regimes have a strange habit of transforming themselves into corrupt crony capitalist ones and Angola -- with its massive oil reserves and budding crop of billionaires -- has proved no exception. In 2010, Trafigura, the world’s third-largest private oil and metals trader based in Switzerland, sold an 18.75-percent stake in one of its major energy subsidiaries to a high-ranking and influential Angolan general, Foreign Policy has discovered. The sale, which amounted to $213 million, appears on the 2012 audit of the annual financial statements of a Singapore-registered company, which is wholly owned by Gen. Leopoldino Fragoso do Nascimento. Details of the sale and purchaser are also buried within a prospectus document of the sold company which was uploaded to the Luxembourg Stock Exchange within the last week. “General Dino,” as he’s more commonly called in Angola, purchased the 18.75 percent stake not in any minor bauble, but in a $5 billion multinational oil company called Puma Energy International. By 2011, his shares were diluted to 15 percent; but that’s still quite a hefty prize: his stake in the company is today valued at around $750 million. The sale illuminates not only a growing and little-scrutinized relationship between Trafigura, which earned nearly $1 billion in profits in 2012, and the autocratic regime of 71-year-old Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, who has been in power since 1979 -- but also the role that Western enterprise continues to play in the Third World.
    [Show full text]
  • GLENCORE: a Guide to the 'Biggest Company You've Never Heard
    GLENCORE: a guide to the ‘biggest company you’ve never heard of’ WHO IS GLENCORE? Glencore is the world’s biggest commodities trading company and 16th largest company in the world according to Fortune 500. When it went public, it controlled 60% of the zinc market, 50% of the trade in copper, 45% of lead and a third of traded aluminium and thermal coal. On top of that, Glencore also trades oil, gas and basic foodstuffs like grain, rice and sugar. Sometimes refered to as ‘the biggest company you’ve never heard of’, Glencore’s reach is so vast that almost every person on the planet will come into contact with products traded by Glencore, via the minerals in cell phones, computers, cars, trains, planes and even the grains in meals or the sugar in drinks. It’s not just a trader: Glencore also produces and extracts these commodities. It owns significant mining interests, and in Democratic Republic of Congo it has two of the country’s biggest copper and cobalt operations, called KCC and MUMI. Glencore listed on the London Stock Exchange in 2011 in what is still the biggest ever Initial Public Offering (IPO) in the stock exchange’s history, with a valuation of £36bn. Glencore started life as Marc Rich & Co AG, set up by the eponymous and notorious commodities trader in 1974. In 1983 Rich was charged in the US with massive tax evasion and trading with Iran. He fled to Switzerland and lived in exile while on the FBI's most-wanted list for nearly two decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 48 – Creative Destructor
    Chapter 48 Creative destructor Starting in the late 19th century, when the Hall-Heroult electrolytic reduction process made it possible for aluminum to be produced as a commodity, aluminum companies began to consolidate and secure raw material sources. Alcoa led the way, acquiring and building hydroelectric facilities, bauxite mines, alumina refineries, aluminum smelters, fabricating plants and even advanced research laboratories to develop more efficient processing technologies and new products. The vertical integration model was similar to the organizing system used by petroleum companies, which explored and drilled for oil, built pipelines and ships to transport oil, owned refineries that turned oil into gasoline and other products, and even set up retail outlets around the world to sell their products. The global economy dramatically changed after World War II, as former colonies with raw materials needed by developed countries began to ask for a piece of the action. At the same time, more corporations with the financial and technical means to enter at least one phase of aluminum production began to compete in the marketplace. As the global Big 6 oligopoly became challenged on multiple fronts, a commodity broker with a Machiavellian philosophy and a natural instinct for deal- making smelled blood and started picking the system apart. Marc Rich began by taking advantage of the oil market, out-foxing the petroleum giants and making a killing during the energy crises of the 1970s. A long-time metals trader, Rich next eyed the weakened aluminum industry during the 1980s, when depressed demand and over-capacity collided with rising energy costs, according to Shawn Tully’s 1988 account in Fortune.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking How We Regulate Lawyer-Politicians, 57 Rutgers L
    UIC School of Law UIC Law Open Access Repository UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2005 The Politics of Misconduct: Rethinking How We Regulate Lawyer- Politicians, 57 Rutgers L. Rev. 839 (2005) Kevin Hopkins John Marshall Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/facpubs Part of the Law and Politics Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Kevin Hopkins, The Politics of Misconduct: Rethinking How We Regulate Lawyer-Politicians, 57 Rutgers L. Rev. 839 (2005). https://repository.law.uic.edu/facpubs/108 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RUTGERS LAW REVIEW VOLUME 57 Spring 2005 NUMBER 3 THE POLITICS OF MISCONDUCT: RETHINKING How WE REGULATE LAWYER-POLITICIANS Kevin Hopkins* INTRODU CTION .................................................................................... 840 I. THE RISE AND FALL OF THE LAWYER-STATESMAN .......................... 849 A. The Lawyer in Colonial America ............................................ 850 B. The Decline of the Lawyer-Statesman.................................... 855 II. THE REGULATION OF PRACTICING LAWYERS .................................. 859 A. The Powers of the Court and Bar ........................................... 861 B. The Exercise of Self-Regulation .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Metal Men Metal Men Marc Rich and the $10 Billion Scam A
    Metal Men Metal Men Marc Rich and the $10 Billion Scam A. Craig Copetas No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, scanning or any information storage retrieval system, without explicit permission in writing from the Author. © Copyright 1985 by A. Craig Copetas First e-reads publication 1999 www.e-reads.com ISBN 0-7592-3859-6 for B.D. Don Erickson & Margaret Sagan Acknowledgments [ e - reads] Acknowledgments o those individual traders around the world who allowed me to con- duct deals under their supervision so that I could better grasp the trader’s life, I thank you for trusting me to handle your business Tactivities with discretion. Many of those traders who helped me most have no desire to be thanked. They were usually the most helpful. So thank you anyway. You know who you are. Among those both inside and outside the international commodity trad- ing profession who did help, my sincere gratitude goes to Robert Karl Manoff, Lee Mason, James Horwitz, Grainne James, Constance Sayre, Gerry Joe Goldstein, Christine Goldstein, David Noonan, Susan Faiola, Gary Redmore, Ellen Hume, Terry O’Neil, Calliope, Alan Flacks, Hank Fisher, Ernie Torriero, Gordon “Mr. Rhodium” Davidson, Steve Bronis, Jan Bronis, Steve Shipman, Henry Rothschild, David Tendler, John Leese, Dan Baum, Bert Rubin, Ernie Byle, Steven English and the Cobalt Cartel, Michael Buchter, Peter Marshall, Herve Kelecom, Misha, Mark Heutlinger, Bonnie Cutler, John and Galina Mariani, Bennie (Bollag) and his Jets, Fredy Haemmerli, Wil Oosterhout, Christopher Dark, Eddie de Werk, Hubert Hutton, Fred Schwartz, Ira Sloan, Frank Wolstencroft, Congressman James Santini, John Culkin, Urs Aeby, Lynn Grebstad, Intertech Resources, the Kaypro Corporation, Harper’s magazine, Cambridge Metals, Redco v Acknowledgments [ e - reads] Resources, the Swire Group, ITR International, Philipp Brothers, the Heavy Metal Kids, and .
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright OUP 2013
    AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM VOLUME I: STRUCTURES OF GOVERNMENT Howard Gillman • Mark A. Graber • Keith E. Whittington Supplementary Material Chapter 9: Liberalism Divided – Separation of Powers Congressional Hearings on the Pardon of Richard Nixon (1974)1 On August 9, 1974, in the face of impeachment inquiries, President Richard Nixon resigned from office. Although Nixon had won reelection by a landslide in the fall of 1972, his administration was dogged by the Watergate scandal.. In June 1972, several individuals associated with Nixon’s reelection campaign were caught attempting to wiretap the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. In the spring of 1973, federal prosecutors determined that the Watergate burglars were encouraged to commit perjury to hide the extent of White House involvement in the plan to spy on the Democratic campaign, leading to the resignation of senior White House aides. By the fall of 1973, the White House was under siege from investigating congressional committees and special prosecutors. When several aides were indicted for obstruction of justice and the courts gained access to White House audiotapes indicating the extent of the president’s involvement with the cover-up, Nixon’s position became untenable. The president was potentially liable to criminal charges for obstruction of justice, and the special prosecutor contemplated a number of possible charges against Nixon. Gerald Ford, a Republican from Michigan, served as the minority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives during the Johnson and Nixon administrations. In October 1973, Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned from office in the midst of a criminal investigation for bribery.
    [Show full text]
  • Glencore: Notorious Crimes and Failures
    Glencore: Notorious crimes and failures Mining giant Glencore has made aggressive use Presence: 50+ countries of complex corporate structure and tax havens Number of employees: 155.000 (2016)5 to deprive developing nations of tax revenues, while frequently being accused of human and Company activity environmental rights violations in the course of Main activities: production, sourcing, processing, refining, its business. transporting, storage, financing and supply of metals and minerals, energy products and agricultural products. Problem Analysis Country and location in which Swiss mining giant Glencore has made extensive efforts to exploit corporate power for its own advantage, often the violation occurred at the expense of human and environmental rights. It has As Glencore owns over 150 mining & metallurgical, oil made use of Investor–State dispute mechanisms when production and agricultural assets around the world, there governments have restricted its activity. It has adopted are many different countries involved and affected. a complex international structure to minimise its tax Ghana, Chad, Zambia, Bolivia, Colombia, Philippines, exposure and so deprived a number of developing nations Argentina etc.7 of tax revenues, including Zambia and Burkina Faso. It has been accused of causing human rights violations and Summary of the case environmental damage at mining operations as far afield as Response of Glencore to several of these issues http:// Peru and Australia. www.glencore.com/assets/public-positions/doc/ Company Glencores-response-to-the-2015-Public-Eye-Nomination. pdf & http://www.glencore.com/public-positions Main Company: Glencore plc. 1. ISDS cases Head office: Baar, Switzerland In 2016, Glencore initiated two ISDS (Investor State Registered office: Saint Helier, Jersey Dispute Settlement) cases.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 and 2018 Source File from IQ
    Office of the Pardon Attorney FOIA Log - 2017 DRAFT Request No. Received Date Closed Date Status Outcome Exemptions Request 2017-001 11/8/2016 11/25/2016 CLOSED Improper FOIA requests commutation Request/Unperfected 2017-002 11/8/2016 11/25/2016 CLOSED Full Denial b6, b5 Attorney request for information regarding the Pardon request sought by Bernard Donald Miskiv and denied by President George W. Bush on March 20, 2002 2017-003 10/4/2016 12/8/2016 CLOSED Improper FOIA the clemency case file of Damon Burkhalter Request/Unperfected 2017-004 10/18/2016 12/8/2016 CLOSED Improper FOIA advice on immigration issue as a result of ineffective counsel and police misconduct Request/Unperfected 2017-006 10/18/2016 12/8/2016 CLOSED No Record the race and gender of these individuals granted commutation 2017-007 10/20/2016 12/8/2016 CLOSED Full Grant copies of the public elements of the executive clemency file and any related documents for Danielle Metz, whose life sentence was commuted by President Barack Obama earlier this year 2017-008 10/28/2016 12/8/2016 CLOSED Full Grant list of people who have had their sentences commuted by the President 2017-009 10/28/2016 12/8/2016 CLOSED No Record list of pardon and commutation recipients in Excel format 2017-010 11/11/2016 12/8/2016 CLOSED No Record requesting to know if Robert Gallo received a pardon 2017-011 11/14/2016 12/9/2016 CLOSED Full Grant b6 any and all correspondence between the Office of the Pardon Attorney and Senator Jeff Sessions between January 2010 to November 14, 2016 2017-012 11/14/2016 12/9/2016 CLOSED No Record all correspondence to or from Rudy Giuliani or correspondence written on his behalf between January 1, 2001 to November 14, 2016 2017-013 11/21/2016 12/9/2016 CLOSED No Record correspondence logs documenting letters and other communication between your agency and Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate the Senate Met at 9:30 A.M
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 109 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 152 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2006 No. 76 Senate The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was under the control of the minority and serving for 47 years in this institution called to order by the President pro the final 15 minutes under the control is certainly remarkable, what he has tempore (Mr. STEVENS). of the majority. Following morning done during those 47 years is what is business, we will resume consideration truly remarkable. His contribution to PRAYER of the emergency supplemental appro- the public discourse and debate of our The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- priations conference report. Under the country throughout that time has been fered the following prayer: time agreement that was reached yes- truly exemplary. Let us pray. terday, we have a little over an hour I noted the other day, in fact, that Lord of truth and love, source and and a half of debate this morning. The when Senator BYRD was first elected to end of our believing and loving, You vote on the adoption of the conference the House, there was a wonderful pic- alone are worthy of our praise and we report is set for tomorrow at 10 a.m. ture taken that appeared with Senator celebrate Your great Name. Thank You Today we will continue work on the BYRD and several other Members of for the gift of Your dynamic presence Department of Defense authorization newly minted Congressmen who had in our lives and for the power we re- bill.
    [Show full text]
  • THE BIGGEST COMPANY YOU NEVER HEARD of a Powerful and Secretive Swiss Trader Is Likely to List This Year
    REUTERS/ CHRIstIAN HArtMANN THE BIGGEST COMPANY YOU NEVER HEARD OF A powerful and secretive Swiss trader is likely to list this year. Can the Goldman Sachs of commodity trading survive going public? BY ERIC ONstAD, LAURA MACINNIS AND six months and was running out of cash. months, and Congo -- still struggling to QUENTIN WEBB Needing to finance its mining projects in the recover from a civil war that killed some BAAR, SWITZERLAND, FEB. 25 Democratic Republic of Congo -- a country five million people – was the last place an which has some of the world’s richest investor wanted to be. n Christmas Eve 2008, in the depths reserves of copper and cobalt -- Katanga’s One company, though, was interested. of the global financial crisis, Katanga executives had sounded the alarm and made Executives in the wealthy Swiss village MiningO accepted a lifeline it could not refuse. a string of calls for help. of Baar, working in the wood-panelled The Toronto-listed company had lost 97 Global credit was drying up, the copper conference rooms in Glencore International’s percent of its market value over the previous market had fallen 70 percent in just five white metallic headquarters, did their sums FEBRUARY 2011 GLENcore FebruARY 2011 and were prepared to make a deal. Their often brilliant, its staff dominate their market. and Royal Dutch Shell and from there into the terms were simple. The firm’s top executives have forged alliances pension funds and investment portfolios of They wanted control. with Russian oligarchs and well-connected millions of people who know virtually nothing For about $500 million in a convertible African mining magnates.
    [Show full text]
  • United States History
    UNITED STATES HISTORY For each multiple choice question, fill in the appropriate location on the scantron 1. Which impact did Title IX had on educational institutions 8. The Watergate Scandal is appropriately described by in the United States? which statement? A. use of quotas for enrollment A. It concerned the Nixon’s’ administration attempt to B. creation of standardized testing goals cover up a burglary at the Democratic National C. equal funding of men’s and women’s athletics Committee headquarters D. government-funded school vouchers B. It involved the illegal establishment of government agencies to set and enforce campaign standards 2. What event during the 1970s resulted in the United C. It involved the choice of the Reagan Administration States increasing its regulation of nuclear power plants? to secretly supply aid to the Contra rebels in A. the signing of the SALT treaty Nicaragua B. North Korea’s announcement that it had nuclear D. It concerned the secret leasing of federally-owned weapons oil rigs to western ranches C. the incident at Three Mile Island D. restrictions created by the UN Atomic Energy 9. Nixon’s name for the many Americans who supported the Commission government and longed for an end to the violence & turmoil of the 1960s was the 3. Which US president regarded universal health care as a A. counterculture major issue for the federal government to resolve? B. hippies A. Jimmy Carter C. silent majority B. Ronald Reagan D. détente C. George H.W. Bush D. Bill Clinton 10. President Jimmy Carter was instrumental in creating a peace accord known as the 4.
    [Show full text]