Document Requests
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
WILS Connect a Publication of the Women in Law Section of the New York State Bar Association
2021 | VOL. 2 | NO. 1 WILS Connect A publication of the Women in Law Section of the New York State Bar Association WILS PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE: WOMEN IN LAW: ALWAYS WORKING, REFLECTIONS ON RUTH BADER Q & A with Terri Mazur and GAPPED ATTORNEYS ARE RETURNING GINSBURG Sheryl Galler TO LAWYERING FOR CASH CLE All Access Pass Maximize Your Time and Earn CLE Credits with On-Demand Learning Now Includes Access hundreds of programs Annual Meeting 2021 online and satisfy your MCLE Programs! requirement for one low price. > Gain access to all CLE Online video programs and course materials for one year > New programs added each month $495 for > Monthly billing option NYSBA Members For more information visit NYSBA.ORG/ALLACCESSPASS Online only. Does not include live programs, CD or DVD products. All Access Pass requires member login and cannot be transferred. Annual subscription required. Contents Features WILS Past, Present and Future: Q & A with Terri A. Mazur 7 and Sheryl Galler Linda Redlisky WILS Members Contribute to a First-of-Its- 14 Kind NYSBA Publication: Virtual Lawyering WILS Connect Fa La La La La and the Practice of Law in the COVID-19 Age 2021 | Vol. 2 | No. 1 16 Leona Krasner Regulars Women in Law: Always Working, Gapped Attorneys Are 17 Returning to Lawyering for Cash Message From the Chair Neva D. Strom 3 Terri A. Mazur Sharing a Coffee, Zoom-Style Message From the Editors 18 Leona Krasner Terri A. Mazur and 4 Laura Sulem Celebrating and Remembering Trailblazing Women Message From 19 Monumental Women Unveil Historic Women’s Rights the President Pioneers Monument in Central Park 5 Scott M. -
The Case Study of Crossfire Hurricane
TIMELINE: Congressional Oversight in the Face of Executive Branch and Media Suppression: The Case Study of Crossfire Hurricane 2009 FBI opens a counterintelligence investigation of the individual who would become Christopher Steele’s primary sub-source because of his ties to Russian intelligence officers.1 June 2009: FBI New York Field Office (NYFO) interviews Carter Page, who “immediately advised [them] that due to his work and overseas experiences, he has been questioned by and provides information to representatives of [another U.S. government agency] on an ongoing basis.”2 2011 February 2011: CBS News investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson begins reporting on “Operation Fast and Furious.” Later in the year, Attkisson notices “anomalies” with several of her work and personal electronic devices that persist into 2012.3 2012 September 11, 2012: Attack on U.S. installations in Benghazi, Libya.4 2013 March 2013: The existence of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server becomes publicly known.5 May 2013: o News reports reveal Obama’s Justice Department investigating leaks of classified information and targeting reporters, including secretly seizing “two months of phone records for reporters and editors of The Associated Press,”6 labeling Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “co-conspirator,” and obtaining a search warrant for Rosen’s personal emails.7 May 10, 2013: Reports reveal that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeted and unfairly scrutinized conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status.8 -
Counterintelligence Implications of Volume 1
1 RPTR DEAN EDTR SECKMAN LESSONS FROM THE MUELLER REPORT: COUNTERINTELLIGENCE IMPLICATIONS OF VOLUME 1 Wednesday, June 12, 2019 U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 210, Cannon House Office Building, the Honorable Adam Schiff (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Schiff, Himes, Sewell, Carson, Speier, Quigley, Castro, Heck, Welch, Maloney, Demings, Krishnamoorthi, Nunes, Conaway, Turner, Wenstrup, Stewart, Crawford, Stefanik, Hurd, and Ratcliffe. 2 The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is permitted to declare a recess at any time. In April of 2016, as the U.S. Presidential race was getting underway, an individual with links to the Russian Government reached out to the Trump campaign to telegraph the Kremlin's preference for Mr. Trump. Joseph Mifsud, a London-based Maltese professor, told George Papadopoulos, a member of Trump's foreign policy team, that he recently met with high-level Russian officials who told him that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton, including thousands of emails. Papadopoulos was also informed that the Russian Government could assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of stolen material. At the time, Mr. Papadopoulos was given this extraordinary information, the American public was unaware that the DNC and Clinton campaign had even been hacked, let alone that Russia was behind the attack and planned to weaponize the data that it stole. In July of 2016, the Russian Government began dumping the stolen emails in precisely the same fashion it had previewed for Mr. -
Nontraditional Criminal Prosecutions in Federal Court
Nontraditional Criminal Prosecutions in Federal Court Jonathan Remy Nash* ABSTRACT Who, besides the U.S. Department of Justice, can prosecute criminal actions in federal court? This Article considers this question, which has arisen recently in various contexts—the DOJ’s attempt to abort the prosecution of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, the contempt prosecution of former Sheriff Joseph Arpaio (who received a presidential pardon), the confrontation over the court-appointed interim U.S. Attorney in New York, and a local District Attorney’s threats to prosecute lawbreaking federal law enforcement officials. Consider first nontraditional, trial-level federal prosecutions. The Constitution’s Take Care and Appointments Clauses, as well as standing doctrine, preclude private prosecutions and prosecutions by states and Houses of Congress. Court-appointed interim U.S. Attorneys may oversee federal prosecutions, and court-appointed special prosecutors may prosecute criminal contempt cases. However, court-appointed attorneys likely cannot undertake broader responsibilities. Consider next criminal appeals. While the Supreme Court has acknowledged the possibility of a state’s appellate standing where the DOJ declines to appeal a federal criminal decision holding a state statute unconstitutional, that precedent is dubious. Moreover, even if a state’s standing is sometimes proper, the case for appellate standing of a House of Congress is weaker. Finally, consider state prosecutions in federal court. A state should have standing to appeal criminal cases to the Supreme Court and to pursue properly removed state criminal prosecutions in the lower federal courts, as should any properly designated state governmental entity. To the extent a * Robert Howell Hall Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research, Emory University School of Law; Director, Emory University Center for Law and Social Science; Director, Emory Center on Federalism and Intersystemic Governance. -
Political Interference and the Challenges Facing the US
THE YALE LAW JOURNAL FORUM JANUARY 15, 2021 Treat Every Defendant Equally and Fairly: Political Interference and the Challenges Facing the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices as the Justice Department Turns 150 Years Old Joyce White Vance abstract. The US Attorneys’ Offices are the flagships of the federal government’s law-en- forcement work. But as the Department of Justice (DOJ) approaches its 150th anniversary, there are deep concerns for their future. The four years of the Trump Administration have shaken public confidence in DOJ, and during his tenure, Attorney General William Barr all too ofen took on the role of the President’s lawyer rather than upholding the integrity and credibility of line prosecutors to work free from political interference. This Essay, written in the weeks leading up to the 2020 presidential election,1 argues that, in a new administration, there must be a hardcore realignment of cultural values inside of the Justice Department that supports its independence and permits line prosecutors to effectively resist and reject political interference in criminal matters. The past four years have revealed frailty in the Department that requires more than the new laws and new poli- cies that will be designed to shore up some of the weaknesses that have been revealed. Ultimately, even with those new laws and policies, there must be a culture restoration that guarantees they will be implemented effectively so that the independence of prosecutions from political influence, which is critical to our criminal-justice system, is firmly in place. introduction The moment when Aaron Zelinsky, an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the District of Maryland, refused to silently stand by while Attorney 1. -
United States District Court District of Columbia
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BUZZFEED, INC. and BEN SMITH, Plaintiffs, Case No. v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC 20530 MOTION TO COMPEL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION LAW Office of General Counsel 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20535-0001 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE Office of General Counsel 1500 Tysons McLean Drive McLean, VA 22102 JAMES COMEY c/o FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Office of General Counsel 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20535-0001 and JAMES CLAPPER c/o OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE Office of General Counsel 1500 Tysons McLean Drive McLean, VA 22102 Defendants. 4831-3301-6910v.8 0100812-000009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................2 I. THE DOSSIER AND THE FLORIDA LITIGATION ................................2 A. The Dossier ........................................................................................2 B. The Publication of Buzzfeed’s Article with the Dossier ...................3 C. The Official Briefings ........................................................................4 D. Official Investigations of the Dossier and its Contents .....................7 E. The Florida Litigation ........................................................................9 II. MOVANTS’ -
Attorney General Barr Says Trump Fires Top Manhattan Prosecutor, at His Request
For news and information consider- If you would like to share news or news organization events, and school Oil in the age of corona- ation, please send to If information with our readers, please news to us includinig your name and [email protected] virus: a U.S. shale bust send the unique stories, business phone number in case more informa- like no other tion is needed. or contact John Robbins 832-280-5815 Jun Gai 281-498-4310 Publisher: Wea H. Lee President: Catherine Lee Editor: John Robbins, Jun Gai Address: 11122 Bellaire Blvd., Houston, TX 77072 E-mail: [email protected] Southern Daily News is published by Southern News Group Daily Inside C2 Sunday, June 21 2020 | www.today-america.com | Southern News Group Attorney General Barr says Trump fires top Manhattan prosecutor, at his request FILE PHOTO: U.S. Attorney General William Barr speaks during a roundtable discussion on “Amer- ica’s seniors” hosted by U.S. President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room at the White House in Washington, U.S., June 15, 2020. REU- TERS/Leah Millis “Attorney General Barr is working on that. That’s his depart- Giuliani has not formally been accused of any wrongdo- WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney ment, not my department... that’s really up to him. I’m not ing. General William Barr said on Saturday that President involved,” Trump said. Donald Trump had fired Geoffrey Berman, the top feder- BOLTON’S BOOK al prosecutor in Manhattan whose office is investigating Berman’s termination marks another remarkable development John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, Trump’s attorney Rudolph Giuliani, after Berman publicly in an escalating crisis at the Justice Department that started on also alleges in a new book the president once promised refused to step down from his post. -
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 322 Filed 06/12/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Crim. No. 17-201-1 (ABJ) PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., Defendant. GOVERNMENT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REVOKE OR REVISE DEFENDANT PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR.’S CURRENT ORDER OF PRETRIAL RELEASE The United States of America, by and through Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, replies to defendant Paul J. Manafort, Jr.’s response (Doc. 319) to the government’s motion to revoke or revise the Court’s order of pretrial release. See Doc. 315. A. On June 8, 2018, a grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia returned a Superseding Indictment charging Manafort and his longtime associate, Konstantin Kilimnik, with attempted witness tampering and conspiracy to commit witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(1) and (k). See Doc. 318 ¶¶ 48-51. Counts Six and Seven of that Superseding Indictment “‘conclusively determine[] the existence of probable cause’ to believe the defendant” committed a federal crime while on pretrial release. Kaley v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1090, 1097 (2014) (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 117 n.19 (1975)); see also United States v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1208, 1210 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“[T]he indictment alone would have been enough to raise the rebuttable presumption that no condition would reasonably assure the safety of the community.”). Probable cause to believe that Manafort committed a crime, in turn, triggers a rebuttable presumption “that no condition or combination of conditions will assure that [Manafort] will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community.” 18 U.S.C. -
The Chronology Is Drawn from a Variety of Sources Including
Chronology and Background to the Horowitz Report The chronology is drawn from a variety of sources including, principally, The Russia investigation and Donald Trump: a timeline from on-the-record sources (updated), John Kruzel, (Politifact, July 16, 2018). Spring 2014: A company, the Internet Research Agency, linked to the Kremlin and specializing in influence operations devises a strategy to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election by sowing distrust in both individual candidates and the American political structure. June 16, 2015: Donald Trump announces his candidacy for president. July 2015: Computer hackers supported by the Russian government penetrate the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) computer network. Summer and Fall of 2015: Thousands of social media accounts created by Russian surrogates initiate a propaganda and disinformation campaign reflecting a decided preference for the Trump candidacy. March 19, 2016: Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta, falls victim to an email phishing scam. March 2016: George Papadopoulos joins the Trump campaign as an adviser. While traveling in mid-March, Papadopoulos meets a London-based professor, Josef Mifsud, who Papadopoulos understands to have “substantial connections to Russian government officials.” March 21, 2016: Trump identifies Papadopoulos and Carter Page as members of his foreign policy team, in an interview with the Washington Post. March 29, 2016: Trump appointed Paul Manafort to manage the Republican National Convention for the Trump campaign. March 31, 2016: Following a meeting with Josef Mifsud in Italy, Papadopoulos tells Trump, Jeff Sessions, Carter Page and other campaign members that he can use his Russian connections to arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin. -
Download Report
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON 1 The case for the impeachment of Attorney General Bill Barr Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has previously called on the United States House of Representatives to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry into Attorney General William Barr. Today, CREW outlines the contours of that inquiry, which should assess whether Attorney General Barr abused the powers of his office by engaging in a course of conduct that impaired the Special Counsel investigation of President Trump, the conduct of lawful inquiries by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the purpose of that agency, and the oversight and impeachment powers of the United States House of Representatives. These actions violate DOJ’s founding principal to maintain the independence and impartiality of federal prosecutions from political intervention. The inquiry should also assess whether Barr directed federal law enforcement officers to violate the First and Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens who gathered to engage in peaceful protest outside of the White House and across the United States. Article I of the U.S. Constitution vests the House of Representatives with the power to impeach a federal official for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” and the Senate with the power to try all impeachments and convict if it deems that individual’s removal from office both merited and wise. The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” refers to serious abuses of official power (Sunstein at 36-37). As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 65, impeachment proceedings are reserved for “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Cabinet officials have faced impeachment proceedings for such abuses of power, including the 1876 impeachment of Secretary of War William Bellknap and the impeachment inquiry of Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, which was abandoned after his resignation in 1932. -
Feds Investigate Trump Advisors-Meeting Russian Officials
Feds investigating Trump advisor’s meeting with Russian officials seeking to influence U.S. 9/27/16, 2:52 PM Feds investigating Trump advisor’s meeting with Russian officials seeking to influence U.S. 9/27/16, 2:52 PM U.S. law enforcement is looking into Donald Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page’s meetings with high-ranking Russian ofcials this summer, Aaron Rupar Follow Yahoo’s Michael Isikof reports. Associate editor, ThinkProgress. Twitter: @atrupar. Email: [email protected] 4 days ago · 4 min read Page, who Trump said was one of his five foreign policy advisors last March, is suspected of communicating with “senior Russian ofcials” about “the Feds investigating Trump advisor’s meeting with possible lifting of economic sanctions” if Trump becomes president, Yahoo Russian ofcials seeking to infuence reports, citing “multiple sources who have been briefed on the issue.” U.S. election One of the ofcials Page allegedly met with, Igor Diveykin, is “believed by Harry Reid wrote the FBI, demanding action. U.S. ofcials to have responsibility for intelligence collected by Russian agencies about the U.S. election.” Russia is widely believed to be behind high- profile computer hacks that appear timed to influence the presidential election. ThinkProgress obtained a letter from Sen. Harry Reid to the FBI, dated August 27, demanding an investigation into Page’s contacts with the Russians. Reid’s letter refers to Page as a “Trump advisor” with “investments in Russian energy conglomerate Gazprom.” Carter Page, an adviser to U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, speaks at the graduation ceremony for the New Economic School in Moscow, Russia, Friday, July 8, 2016. -
Possible Trump Administration Misconduct in the Firing of Geoffrey S
Possible Trump Administration Misconduct in the Firing of Geoffrey S. Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Potential Misconduct Over a weekend in June of 2020, then-U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman was publicly ousted from his position by Attorney General William P. Barr. The unusual circumstances surrounding Berman’s termination raise two possible questions of misconduct: (1) whether Berman’s termination constitutes obstruction of justice; and (2) whether Berman’s removal was proper in accordance with the statutory framework of 28 U.S.C. § 541 and § 546. Facts The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York “encompasses the boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx in New York City, along with Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, and Westchester counties.”1 The Office represents the United States government in both civil matters and criminal matters involving violations of federal laws,2 and is led by a U.S. Attorney who has been appointed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 541 or § 546.3 Section 541 states that “the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district” to serve a four-year term.4 Upon the expiration of that term, the U.S. Attorney is to continue performing the duties of the office until a qualified successor is appointed.5 However, § 541(c) specifies that “each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.”6 Section 546 states that “the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.”7 Persons appointed by the Attorney General under this section may serve until a new U.S.