DOCSLIB.ORG

RLB Letterhead

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

6-25-14 White Paper in support of the Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff’s June 25, 2014 appeal of the June 2, 2014 President Reagan Library FOIA denial decision of the plaintiff’s July 27, 2010 NARA MDR FOIA request re the NARA “Perot”, the NARA “Peter Keisler Collection”, and the NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File” documents. This is a White Paper (WP) in support of the Robert II v CIA and DOJ, cv 02-6788 (Seybert, J), plaintiff’s June 25, 2014 appeal of the June 2, 2014 President Reagan Library FOIA denial decision of the plaintiff’s July 27, 2010 NARA MDR FOIA request. The plaintiff sought the release of the NARA “Perot”, the NARA “Peter Keisler Collection”, and the NARA “Robert v National Archives ‘Bulky Evidence File” documents by application of President Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526, Classified National Security Information, 75 F.R. 707 (January 5, 2010), § 3.5 Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR). On June 2, 2014, President Reagan Library Archivist/FOIA Coordinator Shelly Williams rendered a Case #M-425 denial decision with an attached Worksheet: This is in further response to your request for your Mandatory Review request for release of information under the provisions of Section 3.5 of Executive Order 13526, to Reagan Presidential records pertaining to Ross Perot doc re report see email. These records were processed in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2207. Id. Emphasis added. The Worksheet attachment to the decision lists three sets of Keisler, Peter: Files with Doc ## 27191, 27192, and 27193 notations. There was no worksheet for NARA “Perot” documents or the NARA “Robert v National Archives “Bulky Evidence File” documents. The Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff has never received the universe of these FOIA requested documents or Worksheets. He appealed the decision not to release the universe of these two sets of documents. Because of the complexity of this appeal, the Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff requested the President Ronald Reagan Library NARA Deputy Archivist Debra Wall include in the Appeal Record this 6-25-14 White Paper (WP) in support of the June 25, 2014 appeal. This 6-25-14 WP supplements the other WPs cited in the FOIA Record for these sets of NARA MDR documents. See 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP. http://snowflake5391.net/5_9_11_WP_NARA_MDR.pdf, 5-9-11 NARA ADR WP, http://snowflake5391.net/5_9_11_WP_NARA_ADR.pdf, 5-9-11 CIA MDR WP, http://snowflake5391.net/5_9_11_MDR_CIA.pdf, and 1-23-12 NARA OGIS WP http://snowflake5391.net/1_23_12_OGIS_NARA_WP.pdf This is also a complicated President Ronald Reagan Library Appeal because these three sets of NARA documents are connect-the-dots documents with the Robert II v CIA and DOJ, Robert v National Archives, 1 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001), Robert v DOJ, 2001 WL 34077473 (EDNY), 26 Fed. Appx. 87 (2d Cir. 2002), Robert VII v DOJ, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39616, 193 Fed. Appx. 8 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. den. 127 S.Ct. 1133 (2007). Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA, 439 Fed. Appx 32 (2d Cir. 2011), cert. den. 132 S. Ct. 1549 (2012) documents. The plaintiff placed NARA Deputy Archivist Wall on Notice that she has a duty to consult with NARA General Counsel Gary Stern (1998-). He knows the legal and historical significance of these three sets of NARA connect-the-dots documents. See 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP §§ B, H-L. 1 The plaintiff seeks the release of these three sets of NARA documents to prove to President Barak Obama that the Robert II v CIA and DOJ co-defendants CIA Director John Brennan and AG Holder are “defrauding” President Obama as did CIA Director William Casey and AG Meese “defraud” President Ronald Reagan in 1985 re the violation of the December 4, 1981 E.O. 12333 prohibition of CIA domestic “special activities. This is a timely “defrauding of Presidents Reagan and Obama” issue because SSIC Chairman Diane Feinstein filed a March 11, 2014 complaint with AG Holder that CIA Director Brennan has in 2014 violated the 1981 E.O. 12333 prohibition of CIA domestic activities. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § A below. The NARA “Perot” documents are the documents that President Reagan’s Diary reveals that Mr. Ross Perot handed to President Reagan on February 24, 1987. On February 25, 1987, President Reagan provided these documents to AG Meese (1985-1988) and FBI Director Judge Webster (1978-1987). See 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP § D and 6-25-14 NARA WP § B. The NARA “Peter Keisler Collection” documents are the NARA Box: Peter Keisler Collection OA 16033: Legal Analysis Contra Aid laws, Congress Notification, and Application States re: Contras. Upon information and belief, these documents state the legal authority for providing medical assistance and supplies to the Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment explicit limitations. See 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP § E and 6-25-14 NARA WP § C. The NARA “Robert v National Archives “Bulky Evidence File” documents had been in the custody of Independent Counsel (IC) Lawrence Walsh on March 29, 1989 when FBI Agent Allison interviewed plaintiff Robert in the Offices of IC Walsh. FBI Agent Allison knew the plaintiff alleged that these documents contained evidence that CIA Director Casey had conducted a CIA domestic “black operation” at International Medical Center, Inc. (IMC) without President Reagan’s knowledge. These are the IC Walsh “FBI Agent Allison” documents that were discussed in Robert v National Archives, 1 Fed. Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2001), that were in the “Bulky Evidence” file. See 5-9-11 NARA MDR WP § F and 6-25-14 NARA WP § D. The June 2, 2014 Worksheet indicates that 13 documents were withheld pursuant to President Obama’s December 29, 2009 E.O. 13526 § 3.5c. However, the decision does not state the specific statute upon which the documents were not released. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § E. The June 2, 2014 denial decision informed the plaintiff that the decision was subject to President George Bush’s November 1, 2001 E.O. 13233, Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act. However, on January 21, 2009, President Obama revoked E.O. 13233 when he issued E.O. 13489, Presidential Records. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § F. President Obama’s E.O. 13489 established a new process to review a denial of a request for the release of a former President’s archived documents. Pursuant to § 3 (c), if the AG and WH Counsel ratified President Reagan’s Estate’s assertion of executive privilege, then they were to present the issue directly to President Obama. Upon information and belief, during the 2011-2014 period prior to the June 2, 2014 NARA denial decision, AG Holder (2009-) and WH Counsel Kathyrn Ruemmler (2011-2014) made decisions to ratify President Reagan’s Estate’s representative’s executive privilege decision to withhold these NARA documents. If so, then President Obama’s new WH Counsel W. Neil Eggleston (May, 2014-) has a duty to review the executive privilege decision of former-WH Counsel Ruemmler. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § G. 2 The plaintiff asserts that if at this late date AG Holder has not presented to President Obama the fact that the representative of the Estate of President Reagan has asserted executive privilege re the release of these documents, then this is evidence of AG Holder “defrauding” President Obama. In the alternative, the plaintiff asserts that this is evidence of a DOJ “stovepipe” that bypasses AG Holder (2009-) in order to provide AG Holder with a “plausible deniability” defense to serial impeachable violations of federal laws and the 2009-2014 serial violation of E.O. 12333 prohibitions of CIA domestic activities. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § H. On December 7, 2011, NARA Deputy Archivist Wall informed the Robert II v CIA and DOJ plaintiff that his September 13, 2011 FOIA request for four classified “North Notebook” documents had been referred to CIA, DOD, and FBI FOIA Officers to process. She also graciously suggested that the NARA FOIA requester should consider using the NARA Office of Government Services (OGIS) mediation services. On January 23, 2012, the plaintiff filed a request for NARA OGIS mediation services with NARA OGIS Director Miriam Nesbit supported by a 80 page WP explaining the facts and legal issues. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § I. The Robert II v CIA and DOJ co-defendants’ attorneys CIA General Counsel Caroline Krass (2014-) and EDNY U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch (1999-2001, 2010-) know whether these three sets of NARA documents are connect-the-dots documents with the four one page CIA classified 1985 “North Notebook” documents. They know that if the plaintiff’s allegations are true re the content of the three sets of NARA documents, then have their own FRCP 11 duty to provide accurate facts to Judge Seybert in the co-defendants’ Robert II v CIA and DOJ FRCP 11 signed in camera ex parte Declarations filed in opposition to the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. They know that acceptance of the plaintiff’s quiet settlement offer would moot the plaintiff’s FOIA request for these three sets of NARA documents. See 6-25-14 NARA WP § J. If the NARA Deputy Archivist does not render a decision within 30 days, then the Robert VIII v DOJ, HHS, and SSA plaintiff may file a Motion with Judge Garaufis seeking a pre-clearance Order to file a FOIA complaint seeking these NARA documents.
Recommended publications
  • Lloyd Cutler

    Lloyd Cutler

    White House Interview Program DATE: July 8, 1999 INTERVIEWEE: LLOYD CUTLER INTERVIEWER: Martha Kumar With Nancy Kassop MK: May we tape? LC: Yes, but I’d like to have one understanding. I have been misquoted on more than one occasion. I’ll be happy to talk to you about what I think about the transition but I don’t want my name attached to any of it. MK: Okay. So we’ll come back to you for any quotes. We’re going to look at both aspects: the transition itself and then the operations of the office. Working on the theory that one of the things that would be important for people is to understand how an effective operation works, what should they be aiming toward? For example, what is a smooth-running counsel’s office? What are the kinds of relationships that should be established and that sort of thing? So, in addition to looking at the transition, we’re just hoping they’re looking toward effective governance. In your time in Washington, observing many administrations from various distances, you have a good sense of transitions, what works and what doesn’t work. One of the things we want to do is isolate what are the elements of success—just take a number, six elements, five elements—that you think are common to successful transitions. What makes them work? LC: Well, the most important thing to grasp first is how much a White House itself, especially as it starts off after a change in the party occupying the White House, resembles a city hall.
  • Reimbursing the Attorney's Fees of Current and Former Federal

    Reimbursing the Attorney's Fees of Current and Former Federal

    (Slip Opinion) Reimbursing the Attorney’s Fees of Current and Former Federal Employees Interviewed as Witnesses in the Mueller Investigation The Department of Justice Representation Guidelines authorize, on a case-by-case basis, the reimbursement of attorney’s fees incurred by a current or former federal govern- ment employee interviewed as a witness in the Mueller Investigation under threat of subpoena about information the person acquired in the course of his government du- ties. October 7, 2020 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION You have asked for our opinion on the scope of the Attorney General’s authority to reimburse the attorney’s fees of federal employees who were interviewed as witnesses in connection with the investigation by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III into possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election (“Mueller Investigation”). The Civil Division reviews requests for such reimbursement under long-standing Department of Justice (“Department”) regulations. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 50.15–50.16. You have asked specifically how certain elements of section 50.15 apply to the Mueller Investigation: (1) whether a person interviewed as a witness in the Mueller Investigation under threat of subpoena should be viewed as having been “subpoenaed,” id. § 50.15(a); (2) whether a witness inter- viewed about information acquired in the course of the witness’s federal employment appears in an “individual capacity,” id.; and (3) what factors should be considered in evaluating whether the reimbursement of the attorney’s fees of such a witness is “in the interest of the United States,” id.
  • White House Compliance with Committee Subpoenas Hearings

    White House Compliance with Committee Subpoenas Hearings

    WHITE HOUSE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 6 AND 7, 1997 Serial No. 105–61 Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 45–405 CC WASHINGTON : 1998 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Jan 31 2003 08:13 May 28, 2003 Jkt 085679 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HEARINGS\45405 45405 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas JOHN E.
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia

    United States District Court for the District of Columbia

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CARA LESLIE ALEXANDER, ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 96-2123 ) 97-1288 ) (RCL) FEDERAL BUREAU OF ) INVESTIGATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion [827] to Compel Answers to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to the Executive Office of the President Pursuant to Court Order of April 13, 1998. Upon consideration of this motion, and the opposition and reply thereto, the court will GRANT the plaintiffs’ motion. I. Background The underlying allegations in this case arise from what has become popularly known as “Filegate.” Plaintiffs allege that their privacy interests were violated when the FBI improperly handed over to the White House hundreds of FBI files of former political appointees and government employees from the Reagan and Bush Administrations. This particular dispute revolves around interrogatories pertaining to Mike McCurry, Ann Lewis, Rahm Emanuel, Sidney Blumenthal and Bruce Lindsey. Plaintiffs served these interrogatories pertaining to these five current or former officials on May 13, 1999. The EOP responded on July 16, 1999. Plaintiffs now seek to compel further answers to the following lines of questioning: 1. Any and all knowledge these officials have, including any meetings held or other communications made, about the obtaining of the FBI files of former White House Travel Office employees Billy Ray Dale, John Dreylinger, Barney Brasseux, Ralph Maughan, Robert Van Eimerren, and John McSweeney (Interrogatories 11, 35, 40 and 47). 2. Any and all knowledge these officials have, including any meetings held or other communications made, about the release or use of any documents between Kathleen Willey and President Clinton or his aides, or documents relating to telephone calls or visits 2 between Willey and the President or his aides (Interrogatories 15, 37, and 42).
  • Spring 2021 Spring 2021

    Spring 2021 Spring 2021

    SPRING 2021 SPRING 2021 INSIDE 42 Unscripted: How filmmakers Peter Berg ’80 and Jason Blum ’87 evolved during a year of COVID-19 By Neil Vigdor ’95 c 56 Confronting the Pandemic Dr. Paul Ehrlich ’62 and his work as a New York City allergist-immunologist By Bonnie Blackburn-Penhollow ’84 b OTHER DEPARTMENTS 3 On Main Hall 5 Social Scene 6 Belonging 24/7 Elena Echavarria ’21 8 Alumni Spotlight works on a project in 20 In Print Advanced Ceramics 26 Around the Pond class, where students 62 do hands-on learning Class Notes in the ceramics studio 103 Milestones with teacher Claudia 108 Looking Back Black. ROBERT FALCETTI 8 On MAIN HALL A WORD FROM HEAD Managing Stress in Trying Times OF SCHOOL WILLY MACMULLEN ’78 This is a column about a talk I gave and a talk I heard—and about how SPRING 2021 ON THE COVER schools need to help students in managing stress. Needless to say, this Volume 91, Number 2 Students enjoyed the warm spring year has provided ample reason for this to be a singularly important weather and the beautiful flowering EDITOR trees on the Jig Patio following focus for schools. Linda Hedman Beyus Community Time. ROBERT FALCETTI In September 2018, during my opening remarks to the faculty, I spoke about student stress, and how I thought we needed to think about DIRECTOR OF MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS Kaitlin Thomas Orfitelli it in new ways. I gave that talk because it was clear to me that adolescents today were ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS experiencing stress and managing stress in different ways than when I Debra Meyers began teaching and even when I began as head of school just 20 years PHOTOGRAPHY ago.
  • The Keep Eastern Illinois University

    The Keep Eastern Illinois University

    Eastern Illinois University The Keep 1996 Press Releases 4-4-1996 04/04/1996 - Zeifman To Offer New Theories About Watergate Scandal.pdf University Marketing and Communications Follow this and additional works at: http://thekeep.eiu.edu/press_releases_1996 Recommended Citation University Marketing and Communications, "04/04/1996 - Zeifman To Offer New Theories About Watergate Scandal.pdf" (1996). 1996. 93. http://thekeep.eiu.edu/press_releases_1996/93 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Press Releases at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1996 by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 96-100 April 4, 1996 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: ZEIFMAN TO OFFER NEW THEORIES ABOUT WATERGATE SCANDAL CHARLESTON -- Theories and observations about what really took place in Washington during the Richard Nixon impeachment proceedings will be the topic of a public presentation by former House Judiciary Committee chief counsel Jerry Zeifman at 3 p.m. Monday in Eastern Illinois University's Coleman Hall Auditorium. During his talk, Zeifman will share information from his recently published book, "Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot," which gives a personal account of the judiciary process using first-hand material from November 1973 through August 1974 to show how the historic impeachment inquiry was tainted. Zeifman's book is based primarily on an 800-page diary he kept at the time, describing the actions, ethical and otherwise, of key impeachment figures such as Nixon; John Doar, special counsel to the inquiry and formerly a key figure in Robert Kennedy's Justice Department; and Doar aide Hillary Rod ham (now the First Lady) and her fellow staffer Bernard Nussbaum, who recently resigned as President Clinton's -more- ADD 1/1/1/1 ZEIFMAN chief White House counsel.
  • The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School College of The

    The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School College of The

    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts CITIES AT WAR: UNION ARMY MOBILIZATION IN THE URBAN NORTHEAST, 1861-1865 A Dissertation in History by Timothy Justin Orr © 2010 Timothy Justin Orr Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2010 The dissertation of Timothy Justin Orr was reviewed and approved* by the following: Carol Reardon Professor of Military History Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Director of Graduate Studies in History Mark E. Neely, Jr. McCabe-Greer Professor in the American Civil War Era Matthew J. Restall Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Colonial Latin American History, Anthropology, and Women‘s Studies Carla J. Mulford Associate Professor of English *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School ii ABSTRACT During the four years of the American Civil War, the twenty-three states that comprised the Union initiated one of the most unprecedented social transformations in U.S. History, mobilizing the Union Army. Strangely, scholars have yet to explore Civil War mobilization in a comprehensive way. Mobilization was a multi-tiered process whereby local communities organized, officered, armed, equipped, and fed soldiers before sending them to the front. It was a four-year progression that required the simultaneous participation of legislative action, military administration, benevolent voluntarism, and industrial productivity to function properly. Perhaps more than any other area of the North, cities most dramatically felt the affects of this transition to war. Generally, scholars have given areas of the urban North low marks. Statistics refute pessimistic conclusions; northern cities appeared to provide a higher percentage than the North as a whole.
  • The Clinton Administration and the Erosion of Executive Privilege Jonathan Turley

    The Clinton Administration and the Erosion of Executive Privilege Jonathan Turley

    Maryland Law Review Volume 60 | Issue 1 Article 11 Paradise Losts: the Clinton Administration and the Erosion of Executive Privilege Jonathan Turley Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan Turley, Paradise Losts: the Clinton Administration and the Erosion of Executive Privilege, 60 Md. L. Rev. 205 (2001) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol60/iss1/11 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PARADISE LOST: THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND THE EROSION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE JONATHAN TuRLEY* INTRODUCTION In Paradise Lost, Milton once described a "Serbonian Bog ... [w]here Armies whole have sunk."' This illusion could have easily been taken from the immediate aftermath of the Clinton crisis. On a myriad of different fronts, the Clinton defense teams advanced sweep- ing executive privilege arguments, only to be defeated in a series of judicial opinions. This "Serbonian Bog" ultimately proved to be the greatest factor in undoing efforts to combat inquiries into the Presi- dent's conduct in the Lewinsky affair and the collateral scandals.2 More importantly, it proved to be the undoing of years of effort to protect executive privilege from risky assertions or judicial tests.' In the course of the Clinton litigation, courts imposed a series of new * J.B. & Maurice C.
  • Presidential Files; Folder: 10/26/77; Container 48

    Presidential Files; Folder: 10/26/77; Container 48

    10/26/77 Folder Citation: Collection: Office of Staff Secretary; Series: Presidential Files; Folder: 10/26/77; Container 48 To See Complete Finding Aid: http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Staff_Secretary.pdf THE PRESIDENT 1 S SCHEDU;LE Wednesday - October 26, 1977 • 8:15 Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski - The Oval Office. 8:45 Mr. Frank Moore The Oval Office. 10:30 Mr. Jody Powell The oval Office. 11:00 Senator Gaylord Nelson. (Mr. Frank Moore). (30 min.) The oval Oftice. 12:30 Drop-by Octoberfest - The South Grounds. (10. min.) 1:30 Secretary Juanita Kreps~ (Mr. Jack Watson). (15 min.) The Oval Office. 2:00 Congressman Toby Moffett et al. (30 min.) · (l-1r. Frank Moore) - The Cabinet Room. ; •.. ... :'•,' October 26, 1977 ,. I •I . ,'.,..... - ' .. ~ ~ ~- · ., ' I. ~ (,' J, . .. .; . ' • -~ I I i ; :· . To ·sena'tor .Charles.. l'1athias ' I, II • j j I : ~ o ; t '1 .t ; • i ' . , . , ' I I '• ' ', t ~. ~ I apprecla ~~, _;y(~~r ,1 ;ie,t te7 concerning Camp David, and ,ag;t;"ee , Wl. th. your comnien ts about the b~atitt~oi'~he Catoctin Mountains. The years you"hav~·~pent in this area certainly have been exciting and good. I am intt~rosted in learning more about Camp David~ and ·look, fonvard to hearing of your cxperien'ces in Frederick County. Sincerelyi IJ' '. ' t '. I .·~ . 'J~he Honorable Charles ;l'-~'?R~. Na~hias, Jr.· United States Senate ,... r Washington, D.C. 20510. ;· '_,; '··.' ,. ·I ' I ~ )·. ''\' ,. JC/sc . ,;, ' ;I } .. ~' .~.' . CJmADLJI!IIl!l xcc. MA.TEnrAS, J:a. UN:I'Il'BD 18T.A'll"ll!!I!S §BN.ATJBI October 14, 1977 ~~~.,., CONGRESSIONA~ LIAISON Dear Mr.
  • The Politics of the Clinton Impeachment and the Death of the Independent Counsel Statute: Toward Depoliticization

    The Politics of the Clinton Impeachment and the Death of the Independent Counsel Statute: Toward Depoliticization

    Volume 102 Issue 1 Article 5 September 1999 The Politics of the Clinton Impeachment and the Death of the Independent Counsel Statute: Toward Depoliticization Marjorie Cohn Thomas Jefferson School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr Part of the Courts Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Marjorie Cohn, The Politics of the Clinton Impeachment and the Death of the Independent Counsel Statute: Toward Depoliticization, 102 W. Va. L. Rev. (1999). Available at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol102/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the WVU College of Law at The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Virginia Law Review by an authorized editor of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cohn: The Politics of the Clinton Impeachment and the Death of the Inde THE POLITICS OF THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND THE DEATH OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE: TOWARD DEPOLITICIZATION Marjorie Cohn I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................59 II. THE ANDREW JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT ..................................60 III. TE LEGACY OF WATERGATE .................................................60 IV. THE POLITICAL APPOINTMENT OF AN "INDEPENDENT COUNSEL"... ..............................................................................................63 V. STARR'S W AR ..........................................................................66
  • The Specially Investigated President

    The Specially Investigated President

    University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 1998 The pS ecially Investigated President Charles Tiefer University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac Part of the National Security Law Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation The peS cially Investigated President, 5 U. Chi. L. Sch. Roundtable 143 (1998) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES The Specially Investigated President CHARLES TIEFER t 1. Introduction For the past decade a series of long-term investigations by Independent Counselsl occurred in parallel with those of special congressional committees.2 These investigations have resulted in the imposition of a new legal status for the president. This new status re-orients the long-standing tension that exists between the bounds of presidential power and the president's vulnerability to legal suit.3 The parallel special inquiries into the subjects of Iran-Contra, t. Charles Tiefer is Associate Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law. He served as Solicitor and Deputy General Counsel for the House .of Represen­ tatives from 1984 to 1995. He received his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1977 and his B.A. from Columbia University in 1974.
  • Union Calendar No. 471 105Th Congress, 2D Session –––––––––– House Report 105–829

    Union Calendar No. 471 105Th Congress, 2D Session –––––––––– House Report 105–829

    Union Calendar No. 471 105th Congress, 2d Session ±±±±±±±±±± House Report 105±829 INVESTIGATION OF POLITICAL FUNDRAISING IMPROPRIETIES AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW INTERIM REPORT SIXTH REPORT BY THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS Volume 1 of 4 NOVEMBER 5, 1998.ÐCommitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed INVESTIGATION OF POLITICAL FUND-RAISING IMPROPRIETIES AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAWÐ VOLUME 1 OF 4 1 Union Calendar No. 471 105th Congress, 2d Session ±±±±±±±±±± House Report 105±829 INVESTIGATION OF POLITICAL FUNDRAISING IMPROPRIETIES AND POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF LAW INTERIM REPORT SIXTH REPORT BY THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS Volume 1 of 4 NOVEMBER 5, 1998.ÐCommitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 51±332 WASHINGTON : 1998 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York CHRISTOPHER COX, California EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York GARY A. CONDIT, California STEPHEN HORN, California CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana DC MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida ELIJAH E.