DOCSLIB.ORG

94098NCJRS.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
94098NCJRS.Pdf If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ,:~J ~ 3' " "0 ~... ". \J " ........ ' I:> " 0 ~ 0 ,,~~ .. (J '~ Ii (,; I' '0 c )I Q -5'" ~ \. 0 ~~f ,~. ]',? ~\ 1/ II l 0" 0 / II 0 flli ~ " Ii 98th Congress COMMITTEE PRINT S. Plt.T. 0~' .) !i 1st Session } '~ { 98-134 ti 11.7 ~ rI ) t ;~ ~:, '. \'\. II c: I q,. , I (( <;."-." iy\ 0 \.) ,~ t o:t"~. (7 0 t " " IMPACT OF ~TORN$.~GENERAL'S GUIDELINES FOR DOME TIC SEOtmITY jINYf£!'IGATIONS I c (THE LEVI GUIDELINES) fJ f) n " I .- (] 0 t ':? , 1 ::;',- l' 0 1 0 Q " '. u 'c:::::o I c· REPORT t 'JJ '/- (~l' ~ OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON '--':::: SECURITY AND \:' TERRORISM II co ~ :FOR THE USE OF THE 0 ~J (' '~ 0 d COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 0 ;, I UNITED STATES SENATE ,:,,\ c ::::: " 0 '" ;:> I 0 0 t, a 0 Ir t 0 I' e " 0 'D l W f 1~1 ". NQYllJl\ffiER 1983 r c.Q <l '" 'V ,'1:;" d ~ !f\ .c.. .~ '-?? ;.::, I11 I ~ i 'i a , ~ <:) Q ! \ u.s. 90VERNMENT PRINTING OFll;ICE 1( " 1 !: \ 1 G~ ~ WASHINGTON: 1984 I .£I ~ t; () , ~ " \ >dl \') " !~l, :;;-, c7' () " " po j " ~ i ' " IF"" 1 0 " S ') h' IP I ,\ r I::" o - i" . -'''' •• , .~. ,_ •. ,... ,.. .• ..,.~, >-"~ '-•• ~. <, ' .. - . ~ " " tl (' 1 r ~" [', ,~ II .tTl / fG, \1 .J, J (/ { \ 11 I o LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL j U.S. SENATE, II SUBCOMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND TERRORISM, Washington,D.O.,No1Jemoe'l'30,1983. II lIon. STROM THURMOND, r!\ Ohairman, Oommittee on the Jwliaiary, ~ Washington, D.O. 0 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As you mow, the Subcommittee on Security OOMMITTEE ON THE JUDIOIARY , and Terrorism completed its inquiry into FBI operations undertaken Ohairman . ,,' STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, " pursuant to the Attorney General's" Guidelines' for Domestic Security 1 R. I CHARLES. McC. MATHIAS, JR.," M aryan d .TOSEPHEDWARD M.BIDEN, KENNEDY, JR., Delaware Massachusetts r Investigations (Levi guidelines). The transcript8 of these 'hearings PAUL LAXALt', Nevada ROBERT C. BYRD,West VirglnljL were published in late 1982, and a subsequent followup hearing on At­ ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah HOWARD 1>1. METZENBAUM, Ohio torney General Smith's revisions to the guidelines was held on March ROBERT DOLE, Kansas DENNIS DECONCINJ., Arlz0It.a , ALAN K. SIMPSON,,,Wyoming (I PATRICK J. LEAHY, ~~rmoiit 25, 1983. The transcript of this hearing was published OIl September 6, JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina MAX BAUCUS Montana 1983. c E. GRASSLEY. Iowa HOWELL HEFLIN Alabama ~CHARLES''JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama" ,,' To augment the first series of hearings, I believe it will prove to be ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania useful to have a report pn the history of the FBI's involvement in ~I VINTON DEVANE LIDlil, Ohie! OounBe~ and, Staff Director n issues of domestic security and subversion as well as an analysis of DEBORAH K. OWE~, GeneraZ Oou1lBel practices in effect prior to the "Smith" revisions. This aIlalysis al~o SHIRLEY J. FANNING, OMe! OZerTv . covers the subcommittee hearings held on June 24, 25, August 11 arid MARK H. GITENSTEIN, Minority Qhie! Oounsel 1~,1982. 0 I . It is with pleasure tl1at I transmit to you this report. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Samuel T. Francis, of Senator John East's staff, for . " l JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama, Ohairman his assistance in its preparation. ., PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont • ". v Sincerely, ORRIN"G. HATCH, Utah HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina . II JEREMIAH DE~TON, JOEL S. LISKER, OMe! Oou~BeZ atUZ Staff D~rector 1 Ohairmslff; Suo,committee om FR.1N WERMUTH, OMe! OZerTv j jjeClu/rity',ainit Te'l"l'oTi81n. (II) 1 o j 1 1 o U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice J (J This document 'has been reproduced exactly ~s recei~e.d from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opInions stat~d I I" in this document are those of the authors and do. not flec~ssanly () represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of "Justice. '" c' Permi~sion to reproduce thisl'tSJl5 dglTted material has been gra~'b"ic Danam /' united States Senate to the National Crimin~Jo1ustice Reference Service (NCJRS). I i ; Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires perm is- " sion of the c~t owner. ~ I1 ., II 1/) CONTENTS f,:. FOREWORD Page ) Letter ot TransInittal ______ ...,,.. ____________ ..: ________________________ ---- m Forevvord ______________________________________________________ ----- v Impact of Attorney General's guidelines for domestic secllrity investiga- This report has been prepared to accompany nve hearings held on tions (the Levi guidelines) _______________ :.. _______ .::l _________________ _ 1 the domestic. security guidelines by the Subcommittee on Security and History(A) oflIistory and authority____________________________________________________ fDr·,FBI domestic security investigations_______ _ 2 Terrorism during the 97th and 98th Congresses. Testimony received 2' (B) Authority__________________________________________________ _ 3 examined not only the language of the 1976 guidelines, but, more im­ (C) Decline in number of domestic security investigations _________ _ 5 portitntly, how that language was interpreted by FBI officials and how Impact of the Levi guidelines on domestic intelligence __________________ _ 7 the policy derived from those interpretations affected the Bureau's Need for domestic intelligence by Federal agencies ________ "'- ____________ _ 10 ability to collect intelligence on domestic groups, some of which had Need for domestic intelligence by State and local agencies ______________ _ 17 ·Significance of the "Brinks robbery" for domestic security ______________ _ 19 potential for violent activity. In hif.. testimony on June 24, 1982, Di­ Criticisms by Director Webster________________________________________ _ 21 rector Webster acknowledged that some modifications of the domestic Criticisms by former agents __________________________________________ _ 22 security guidelines might be in order and stated that, to that end, a Investigation of advocacy ____________________________________________ _ 24 ConclusionExceptions to_________________________________________________________ the Privacy Act_______________________________ ---------- _ 27 " review of the guiaelines by the FBI and the Department of Justice 29 was underway. After the subcommittee hear:ngs were completed and Domesticgence ________________________________________________________ security investigations: Lavv enforcement versus intelli- _ \) the results studied py the Department of Justice, revised guidelines 30 The nature of subversion---____________ ,-___________________;:.._..,. ___ _ 32 were prepared and submitted to the subcommittee in advance of their llecommendations ________________ ~ ___ ~~T ________________________ _ promulgation. The \~evised guidelines became effect~ve on Monday, 34 ( March 21, 1983. " '0 (VII) In an effort to summarize relevant portions of the hearings of the 'subcommittee on the guidelines, and to make this summary available in permanent form, the JUdiciary Committee has chosen to publish a committee print on the "Impact of the Attorney General's Guidelines f~r Demestic Se?urity Investigations". I am convinced that this print, WIll serve as ,an nnportant document which not only outlines the con­ cerns about the domestic security guidelines, but also makes recommen­ dations for revisions to the guidelines, which address those concerns. " STROM THURMOND, Ohairman, Oommittee on the Judiciary. i t. { 1.1 (V) II II '\ ~ I \\ J; II .0 in '. a e lalank Preceding page blank ,--- - ----;r. -- ---~ --- ----------- .--~-. \1 '() (r r c '" { ",," I .', I~ .. IMPACT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL'S GUIDELINES FOR \\P~Q~ESTIC SEOURITY INVESTIGATIONS (THE LEVI u I GUIDELINES) . II ,~; ~ ) • r~TROD~CTION ': 0. II In a~jFBI OverSIght Hearlllg before the SubcommIttee on SecurIty ili! and Terrorism on February 4, 1982, Senator John P. East suggested q tl).at the chairman schedule hearings on the"Attorney' General's GuiclB­ !I lines for Domestic Security Investigations by the FBl-the so-called 1 Levi guidelines. Judge William Webster, Director of the FBI, had stated in response to questionmg by Senator East that the FBI and 1r.t, the Department of Justice (DOJ) were currently reviewing and eval­ I'd uating the guidelines for the purpose of revising them. The chairman, as well as Senator Biden, agreed that there is a continuing' need to r evaluate the guidelines, and, the subcommittee, pursuant to its over­ t sight resPQnsibility for the FBI and its authority to investigate mat­ I ters pertinent to the internal security of the United States, scheduled l hearings on the subject ,of the Levi ¥uidelines~ The hearings were held of? on el une 24 and 25 and August 11 and 12, 1982. l' The chairman, in his introductory remarks on June 24, 1982, eJ(? o o l?lai~ed the concerns of the' sp,bcommittee and- the purpose of the ,0 hearmgs: "', i Of primary \\interest to the subcommittee will be the enect that these guidelines l}ave had on the ability of the FBI and other agencies to gatHer information or intelligence and to 1 ; "discharge their domestic security and other responsibilities.1 While praising the record OI, the FBI in the investigation or cri.'11e, 0, foreign counterintelligence, and counterterrorist activities, the chair- man noted a gap in the investigative activities of the F~I: . What seems to be missing, hOW8ver,is atterrl;ion' toorga:Jiiza..;:- ~~­ = tionsand individuals that cannot. be shdwn"to he (,pntrolled bya£oreign power, and which have not yet co:mmitted a tel'''' rorist or subversive ~ct, but which. nevertheless in re.ality may o .represent a substantIal threat to the safety of AmerIcans and, ultimately, to th~e security of this country. * * * Recogniz- ing the limitatio~s that have been imposed on the FBI, they \ t) would understand~bly attempt to hide themselves among other groups in area~ well1?rotected by the first amendment ~nd thereby escape the scrutIny of the Bureau.2 o l.'lJomestic Securlty (Levi) Guidelines, hearings before the -Subcommittee, on SecurIty and Terrorism of the Committee on the Judiciary, United Statetl Senate, 97tb Cong., 2d o sess., on the Domestic Security Investigation Quidelines, June 24, 25 : Aug. :11 and 12, 1982 o (hereInafter cited as Hearing8), p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Advice and Dissent: Due Process of the Senate
    DePaul Law Review Volume 23 Issue 2 Winter 1974 Article 5 Advice and Dissent: Due Process of the Senate Luis Kutner Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Luis Kutner, Advice and Dissent: Due Process of the Senate, 23 DePaul L. Rev. 658 (1974) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol23/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ADVICE AND DISSENT: DUE PROCESS OF THE SENATE Luis Kutner* The Watergate affair demonstrates the need for a general resurgence of the Senate's proper role in the appointive process. In order to understand the true nature and functioning of this theoretical check on the exercise of unlimited Executive appointment power, the author proceeds through an analysis of the Senate confirmation process. Through a concurrent study of the Senate's constitutionally prescribed function of advice and consent and the historicalprecedent for Senatorial scrutiny in the appointive process, the author graphically describes the scope of this Senatorialpower. Further, the author attempts to place the exercise of the power in perspective, sug- gesting that it is relative to the nature of the position sought, and to the na- ture of the branch of government to be served. In arguing for stricter scrutiny, the author places the Senatorial responsibility for confirmation of Executive appointments on a continuum-the presumption in favor of Ex- ecutive choice is greater when the appointment involves the Executive branch, to be reduced proportionally when the position is either quasi-legis- lative or judicial.
    [Show full text]
  • John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific Cgem Orge School of Law
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2010 The akM ing of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyarticles Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation 41 McGeorge L. Rev. 311 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Book Review Essay The Making of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan* I. INTRODUCTION Shortly after I resigned my position as General Counsel of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department in 1971, I was startled to receive a two-page letter from Attorney General John Mitchell. I was not a Department of Justice employee, and Mitchell's acquaintance with me was largely second-hand. The contents were surprising. Mitchell generously lauded my rather modest role "in developing an effective and professional law enforcement program for the District of Columbia." Beyond this, he added, "Your thoughtful suggestions have been of considerable help to me and my colleagues at the Department of Justice." The salutation was, "Dear Jerry," and the signature, "John." I was elated. I framed the letter and hung it in my office.
    [Show full text]
  • June 1-15, 1972
    RICHARD NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD DOCUMENT DOCUMENT SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS DATE RESTRICTION NUMBER TYPE 1 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 6/2/1972 A Appendix “B” 2 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 6/5/1972 A Appendix “A” 3 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 6/6/1972 A Appendix “A” 4 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 6/9/1972 A Appendix “A” 5 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 6/12/1972 A Appendix “B” COLLECTION TITLE BOX NUMBER WHCF: SMOF: Office of Presidential Papers and Archives RC-10 FOLDER TITLE President Richard Nixon’s Daily Diary June 1, 1972 – June 15, 1972 PRMPA RESTRICTION CODES: A. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy. E. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or B. National security classified information. financial information. C. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual’s F. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law rights. enforcement purposes. D. Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy G. Withdrawn and return private and personal material. or a libel of a living person. H. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material. DEED OF GIFT RESTRICTION CODES: D-DOG Personal privacy under deed of gift -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION *U.S. GPO; 1989-235-084/00024 NA 14021 (4-85) THF WHITE ,'OUSE PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON'S DAILY DIARY (Sec Travel Record for Travel AnivilY) f PLACE DAY BEGAN DATE (Mo., Day. Yr.) _u.p.-1:N_E I, 1972 WILANOW PALACE TIME DAY WARSAW, POLi\ND 7;28 a.m. THURSDAY PHONE TIME P=Pl.ccd R=Received ACTIVITY 1----.,------­ ----,----j In Out 1.0 to 7:28 P The President requested that his Personal Physician, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • JUNE 10, 2019 Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, the Last
    STATEMENT OF JOHN W. DEAN U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARINGS: “LESSONS FROM THE MUELLER REPORT: PRESIDENTIAL OBSTRUCTION AND OTHER CRIMES.” JUNE 10, 2019 Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, the last time I appeared before your committee was July 11, 1974, during the impeachment inquiry of President Richard Nixon. Clearly, I am not here as a fact witness. Rather I accepted the invitation to appear today because I hope I can give a bit of historical context to the Mueller Report. In many ways the Mueller Report is to President Trump what the so-called Watergate “Road Map” (officially titled “Grand Jury Report and Recommendation Concerning Transmission of Evidence to the House of Representatives”) was to President Richard Nixon. Stated a bit differently, Special Counsel Mueller has provided this committee a road map. The Mueller Report, like the Watergate Road Map, conveys findings, with supporting evidence, of potential criminal activity based on the work of federal prosecutors, FBI investigators, and witness testimony before a federal grand jury. The Mueller Report explains – in Vol. II, p. 1 – that one of the reasons the Special Counsel did not make charging decisions relating to obstruction of justice was because he did not want to “potentially preempt [the] constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.” The report then cites at footnote 2: “See U.S. CONST. ART. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf. OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President).” Today, you are focusing on Volume II of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • 653 Richard Brookhiser, Richard Kleindienst
    The copyright laws of the United States (Title 17, U.S. Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. If a user makes a request for, or later uses a photocopy or reproduction (including handwritten copies) for purposes in excess of fair use, that user may be liable for copyright infringement. Users are advised to obtain permission from the copyright owner before any re-use of this material. Use of this material is for private, non-comercial, and educational purposes; additional reprints and further distribution is prohibited. Copies are not for resale. All other rights reserved. For further information, contact Director, Hoover Institution Library and Archives, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6010 © Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. o FIRinG Line GUESTS: RICHARD BROOKHISER, RICHARD KLEINDIENST SUBJECT: "A LOOK BACK AT WATERGATE" #653 SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIA TlON SECA PRESENTS ® FIRinG Line HOST: WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. GUES'rs: RICHARD BROOKHISER, RICHARD KLEINDIENST SUB.JEC'r: "A LOOK BACK AT WATERGATE" The FIRING LINE television series is a production of the Southern Educational Communications Association, 928 Woodrow St., P 0, Box 5966, Columbia, S,C" 29250 and is transmitted through the facilities of the Public Broadcasting Service, FIRING L1NEcan be FIRING LINE is produced and directed by WARREN STEIBEL seen and heard each week through public television and radio stations throughout the country, Check your local newspapers for channel and time in your area, This is a transcript of the Firing Line program taped in New York City on July 10, 1985, and telecast later by PBS.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the U.S. Attorneys
    Bicentennial Celebration of the United States Attorneys 1789 - 1989 "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor– indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." QUOTED FROM STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295 U. S. 88 (1935) Note: The information in this document was compiled from historical records maintained by the Offices of the United States Attorneys and by the Department of Justice. Every effort has been made to prepare accurate information. In some instances, this document mentions officials without the “United States Attorney” title, who nevertheless served under federal appointment to enforce the laws of the United States in federal territories prior to statehood and the creation of a federal judicial district. INTRODUCTION In this, the Bicentennial Year of the United States Constitution, the people of America find cause to celebrate the principles formulated at the inception of the nation Alexis de Tocqueville called, “The Great Experiment.” The experiment has worked, and the survival of the Constitution is proof of that.
    [Show full text]
  • President Richard Nixon's Daily Diary, April 1-15, 1973
    RICHARD NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD DOCUMENT DOCUMENT SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS DATE RESTRICTION NUMBER TYPE 1 Manifest Passenger Manifest – Spirit of ’76 – 4/8/1973 A Appendix “C” 2 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 4/8/1973 A Appendix “A” 3 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 4/11/1973 A Appendix “B” 4 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 4/12/1973 A Appendix “A” COLLECTION TITLE BOX NUMBER WHCF: SMOF: Office of Presidential Papers and Archives RC-12 FOLDER TITLE President Richard Nixon’s Daily Diary April 1, 1973 – April 15, 1973 PRMPA RESTRICTION CODES: A. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy. E. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or B. National security classified information. financial information. C. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual’s F. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law rights. enforcement purposes. D. Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy G. Withdrawn and return private and personal material. or a libel of a living person. H. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material. DEED OF GIFT RESTRICTION CODES: D-DOG Personal privacy under deed of gift -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION *U.S. GPO; 1989-235-084/00024 NA 14021 (4-85) THE WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON'S DAILY DIARY (~e Travel Record (or Ttavel Activity) PUel ~lt.Y BEvAN DATE (Mo.• Day, Yr.) APRIL 1, 1973 THE WESTERN WHITE HOUSE TIME DAY SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA 8:15 a.m. SUNDAY PHONE TIME P-Placed Il-Ileceived ACTIVITY In Out Lo to 8:15 The President had breakfast.
    [Show full text]
  • F:\Nixon -- Move to Former Staff on 9.2\Declarations
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE PETITION OF STANLEY KUTLER, ) AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, ) AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR LEGAL HISTORY, ) Miscellaneous Action No. ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS, ) and SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS. ) ___________________________________________) DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR ORDER DIRECTING RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPT OF RICHARD M. NIXON’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OF JUNE 23-24, 1975, AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS OF THE WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE Allison M. Zieve (D.C. Bar No. 424786) Michael T. Kirkpatrick (D.C. Bar No. 486293 Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 20th Street NW Washington, DC 20009 (202) 588-1000 Counsel for Petitioners TABLE OF CONTENTS Tab Declaration of Stanley Kutler.................................................... A Declaration of Julian Helisek (including exhibits) ................................... B Declaration of Richard J. Davis .................................................. C Declaration of John W. Dean III ................................................. D Declaration of David M. Dorsen ................................................. E Declaration of Mark Feldstein ................................................... F Declaration of Don Fulsom ..................................................... G Declaration of David Greenberg ................................................. H Declaration of Kenneth J. Hughes, Jr. .............................................. I Declaration of Thomas Long ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Grand Juries V. Attorney Independence and the Attorney-Client Privilege Matthew Wez Rling
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 27 | Issue 6 Article 2 7-1976 Federal Grand Juries v. Attorney Independence and the Attorney-Client Privilege Matthew weZ rling Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew Zwerling, Federal Grand Juries v. Attorney Independence and the Attorney-Client Privilege, 27 Hastings L.J. 1263 (1976). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol27/iss6/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Federal Grand Juries v. Attorney Independence and the Attorney-Client Privilege By MATTHEW ZWERLING* Over the past four years . .we have witnessed the birth of a new breed of political animal-the kangaroo grand jury -spawned in a dark corner of the Department of Justice, nourished by an administrationbent on twisting law enforce- ment to serve its own political ends, a dangerous modern form of star chamber secret inquisition that is trampling the rightsof American citizens from coast to coast.1 Introduction ON April 16, 1975, an attorney in New York received a call from an FBI agent; the agent asked for the address of one of the attorney's clients. Upon the attorney's refusal to furnish the address, the agent stated that in order to get the information, he would have the attorney subpoenaed before a federal grand jury.
    [Show full text]
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower Library Audiovisual Department Brownell, Herbert Jr
    Dwight D. Eisenhower Library Audiovisual Department Brownell, Herbert Jr. Photographs 96-14-1: Portrait of Herbert Brownell, Jr., taken his senior year of high school, 1919-1920. Same as 96- 14-675. Credit: Dole Studio, Lincoln, NE. Two 2 ¼ x 3 ¾ b/w prints. 96-14-2: Portrait of Herbert Brownell, Jr.; this was his high school graduation picture, taken in 1920. Same as 96-14-733 and 96-14-892. Credit: Townsend Studio, Lincoln, NE. Two 3 x 4 b/w prints. 96-14-3: Portrait of Herbert Brownell, Jr., taken when he was a junior at the University of Nebraska, 1922-23. Same as 96-14-673 and 96-14-893. Credit: unknown. One 3 x 4 b/w print. 96-14-4: “Herbert Brownell Jr., Peru, Neb., 17 months old.” Baby picture of Herbert Brownell, Jr. Same as 96-14-903. Credit: Lewis, Utica, NY. One 2 x 2 ¾ oval b/w print on 4 x 5 ½” card. 96-14-5: Photo of Herbert Brownell, Jr., as a young man; face in profile. Credit: unknown. One 5 x 7 b/w print. 96-14-6: Photo of Herbert Brownell, Jr., probably in late 1940s. Credit: unknown. One 4 x 5 b/w print. 96-14-7: Photo of Herbert Brownell, Jr., outside of a brick building; probably 1ate 1920s or early 1930s. Credit: unknown. One 7 x 8 b/w print. 96-14-8: Photo of Herbert Brownell standing in front of a bookcase, reading a book; 1940s. Credit: Acme Newspictures, Inc., NYC. One 7 x 9 b/w print.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of GEORGE BEALL United States Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
    Testimony of GEORGE BEALL United States Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs March 3, 1999 Mr. Chairman and Senators: As the son of one former U. S. Senator from Maryland and brother of another it is a personal privilege for me to appear today. My contribution to your deliberations will be more anecdotal than analytical since I am here as a former federal prosecutor and not one who has served as an independent counsel. The threshold premise for the independent counsel statute in 1977 was that the Department of Justice could not impartially investigate and, if necessary, prosecute highly placed officials in the Executive Branch who commit federal crimes.1/ The investigation of former Vice President Spiro T. Agnew in 1973 is a noteworthy case study of how the Department of Justice--and not a special or independent prosecutor--can discharge its law enforcement responsibility in the context of a politically sensitive criminal matter. As United States Attorney for Maryland I was the prosecutor responsible for initiating and then conducting this investigation. I was a Republican appointee of a Republican President and Vice President, the latter who was from my home state. In short, I worked for the same Executive Branch as they and our Attorney General. Consequently, when Vice President Agnew entered a plea of no contest to tax felony charges and received a monetary fine, probation and no term of imprisonment in return for resignation from his office and we placed on the court record a 40-page summary of the proof of his criminal misconduct, the country was shown that our Executive Branch could prosecute its own officials without the necessity for enlistment of an independent counsel.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Steadfastness and Courage of Government Lawyers, 23 J
    UIC Law Review Volume 23 Issue 2 Article 2 Winter 1990 On the Steadfastness and Courage of Government Lawyers, 23 J. Marshall L. Rev. 165 (1990) Roger C. Cramton Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Jurisprudence Commons, Legal History Commons, Legal Profession Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Roger C. Cramton, On the Steadfastness and Courage of Government Lawyers, 23 J. Marshall L. Rev. 165 (1990) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol23/iss2/2 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 Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ON THE STEADFASTNESS AND COURAGE OF GOVERNMENT LAWYERS ROGER C. CRAMTON* Some years ago, during my relatively short period of service in the United States Department of Justice, a feeling of pride would overwhelm me as I passed before the inscription on its massive walls: "The United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts." Lawyers in general are partisans serving the often selfish desires of their clients. As one recent commentator strongly stated, "Lawyers don't give a damn about justice, [they just want to win for their clients]."' But I was part of an institution that had "justice" in its name; and the stream of lawyers who shaped its traditions and culture took that designation seriously.2 The culture of the Department, to be sure, included a body of traditional doctrines that tended to favor the United States over other parties in litigation.
    [Show full text]