DOCSLIB.ORG

Presidential Obstruction of Justice: the Case of Donald Trump

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Presidential Obstruction of Justice: the Case of Donald Trump PRESIDENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: THE CASE OF DONALD J. TRUMP OCTOBER 10, 2017 BARRY H. BERKE, NOAH BOOKBINDER, AND NORMAN L. EISEN* * Barry H. Berke is co-chair of the litigation department at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Kramer Levin) and a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He has represented public officials, professionals and other clients in matters involving all aspects of white-collar crime, including obstruction of justice. Noah Bookbinder is the Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Previously, Noah has served as Chief Counsel for Criminal Justice for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee and as a corruption prosecutor in the United States Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section. Ambassador (ret.) Norman L. Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2009 to 2011 and before that, defended obstruction and other criminal cases for almost two decades in a D.C. law firm specializing in white-collar matters. He is the chair and co-founder of CREW. We are grateful to Jeff Dunlap, Sam Koch, and Conor Shaw for their invaluable assistance in preparing this paper. The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and policy solutions. Its mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclusions and recommendations of any Brookings publication are solely those of its author(s), and do not reflect the views of the Institution, its management, or its other scholars. CREW is a party (and is providing representation to other parties) in active litigation involving President Trump and the administration. More details can be found at https://www.citizensforethics.org/. Barry Berke and Kramer Levin are outside pro bono counsel to CREW. The authors have no other relevant interests to disclose. ii Executive Summary There are significant questions as to whether President Trump obstructed justice. We do not yet know all the relevant facts, and any final determination must await further investigation, including by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But the public record contains substantial evidence that President Trump attempted to impede the investigations of Michael Flynn and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including by firing FBI The public record Director James Comey. There is also a question as to whether President Trump conspired to obstruct justice contains substantial with senior members of his administration although the evidence that President public facts regarding conspiracy are less well- Trump attempted to developed. impede the Attempts to stop an investigation represent a investigations of common form of obstruction. Demanding the loyalty of Michael Flynn and an individual involved in an investigation, requesting that Russian interference in individual’s help to end the investigation, and then ultimately firing that person to accomplish that goal are the 2016 presidential the type of acts that have frequently resulted in election, including by obstruction convictions, as we detail. In addition, to the firing FBI Director extent conduct could be characterized as threatening, intimidating, or corruptly persuading witnesses, that too James Comey. may provide additional grounds for obstruction charges. While those defending the president may claim that expressing a “hope” that an investigation will end is too vague to constitute obstruction, we show that such language is sufficient to do so. In that regard, it is material that former FBI Director James Comey interpreted the president’s “hope” that he would drop the investigation into Flynn as an instruction to drop the case. That Comey ignored that instruction is beside the point under applicable law. We also note that potentially misleading conduct and possible cover-up attempts could serve as further evidence of obstruction. Here, such actions may include fabricating an initial justification for firing Comey, directing Donald Trump Jr.’s inaccurate statements about the purpose of his meeting with a Russian lawyer during the president’s campaign, tweeting that Comey “better hope The fact that the there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations,” despite having president has lawful “no idea” whether such tapes existed, and repeatedly denouncing the validity of the investigations. authority to take a particular course of The president’s legal authority to remove an FBI action does not director is a red herring—at least insofar as it has been used as a blanket justification for the president’s actions. immunize him if he takes The fact that the president has lawful authority to take a that action with the particular course of action does not immunize him if he unlawful intent of takes that action with the unlawful intent of obstructing a obstructing a proceeding for an improper purpose. The president will certainly argue that he did not have the requisite criminal proceeding for an intent to obstruct justice because he had valid reasons to improper purpose. exercise his authority to direct law enforcement resources or fire the FBI head. While we acknowledge iii that the precise motivation for President Trump’s actions remains unclear and must be the subject of further fact-finding, there is already evidence that his acts may have been done with an improper intent to prevent the investigation from uncovering damaging information about Trump, his campaign, his family, or his top aides. Special Counsel Mueller will have several options when his investigation is complete. He could refer the case to Congress, most likely by asking the grand jury and the court supervising it to transmit a report to the House Judiciary Committee. That is how the Watergate Special Prosecutor coordinated with Congress after the grand jury returned an indictment against President Nixon’s co-conspirators. Special Counsel Mueller could also obtain an indictment of President Trump and proceed with a prosecution. While the matter is not free from doubt, it is our view that neither the Constitution nor any other federal law grants the president immunity from prosecution. The structure of the Constitution, the fundamental democratic principle that no person is above the law, and past Supreme Court precedent holding that the president is amenable to other forms of legal process all weigh heavily in favor of that conclusion. While there can be debate as to whether a sitting president can be indicted, While the matter is not there is no doubt that a president can face indictment once he is no longer in office. Reserving prosecution for free from doubt, it is our that time, using a sealed indictment or otherwise, is view that neither the another option for the special counsel. Constitution nor any other federal law grants Congress also has actions that it can take, including continuing or expanding its own investigations, the president immunity issuing public reports, and referring matters for criminal from prosecution. or other proceedings to the Department of Justice or other executive branch agencies. In addition, there is the matter of impeachment. We describe the articles of impeachment drafted against Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, as well as those drafted against Judges Harry Claiborne and Samuel Kent to show that obstruction, conspiracy, and conviction of a federal crime have previously been considered by Congress to be valid reasons to remove a duly elected president from office. Nevertheless, the subject of impeachment on obstruction grounds remains premature pending the outcome of the special counsel’s investigation. iv Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................... v Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 6 I. What are the relevant facts?.................................................................................................. 8 A. Key players ......................................................................................................................... 8 B. The investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign and possible coordination with the Trump campaign ........................................ 9 C. Lt. Gen. (Ret) Michael Flynn ............................................................................................. 15 D. President Trump’s potential attempts to influence the investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election and of Flynn ................................................... 19 E. Subsequent developments ............................................................................................... 27 II. What is the case that President Trump obstructed justice? ........................................... 34 A. Potential violations of key federal obstruction of justice statutes – 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, and 1512 ...................................................................................... 34 B. Potential conspiracy to obstruct justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 371....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Officials Say Flynn Discussed Sanctions
    Officials say Flynn discussed sanctions The Washington Post February 10, 2017 Friday, Met 2 Edition Copyright 2017 The Washington Post All Rights Reserved Distribution: Every Zone Section: A-SECTION; Pg. A08 Length: 1971 words Byline: Greg Miller;Adam Entous;Ellen Nakashima Body Talks with Russia envoy said to have occurred before Trump took office National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country's ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said. Flynn's communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election. Flynn on Wednesday denied that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Asked in an interview whether he had ever done so, he twice said, "No." On Thursday, Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn "indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn't be certain that the topic never came up." Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn's communications with Kislyak. Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration. Flynn's contacts with the ambassador attracted attention within the Obama administration because of the timing.
    [Show full text]
  • ILRC | Selected Immigration Defenses for Selected California Crimes
    Defenses for California Crimes Immigrant Legal Resource Center August 2018 www.ilrc.org SELECTED IMMIGRATION DEFENSES FOR SELECTED CALIFORNIA CRIMES Immigrant Legal Resource Center August 2018 This article is an updated guide to selected California offenses that discusses precedent decisions and other information showing that the offenses avoid at least some adverse immigration consequences. This is not a complete analysis of each offense. It does not note adverse immigration consequence that may apply. How defense counsel can use this article. Criminal defense counsel who negotiate a plea that is discussed in this article should provide the noncitizen defendant with a copy of the relevant pages containing the immigration analysis. In the event that the noncitizen defendant ends up in removal proceedings, presenting that summary of the analysis may be their best access to an affirmative defense against deportation, because the vast majority of immigrants in deportation proceedings are unrepresented by counsel. Because ICE often confiscates documents from detainees, it is a good idea to give a second copy of the summary to the defendant’s immigration attorney (if any), or family or friend, for safekeeping. Again, this article does not show all immigration consequences of offenses. For further information and analysis of other offenses, defense counsel also should consult the California Quick Reference Chart; go to www.ilrc.org/chart. As always, advise noncitizen defendants not to discuss their place of birth or undocumented immigration status with ICE or any other law enforcement representative. See information at www.ilrc.org/red-cards. The fact that the person gives an immigration judge or officer this summary should not be taken as an admission of alienage.
    [Show full text]
  • The Leftist Case for War in Iraq •fi William Shawcross, Allies
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 27, Issue 6 2003 Article 6 Vengeance And Empire: The Leftist Case for War in Iraq – William Shawcross, Allies: The U.S., Britain, Europe, and the War in Iraq Hal Blanchard∗ ∗ Copyright c 2003 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj Vengeance And Empire: The Leftist Case for War in Iraq – William Shawcross, Allies: The U.S., Britain, Europe, and the War in Iraq Hal Blanchard Abstract Shawcross is superbly equipped to assess the impact of rogue States and terrorist organizations on global security. He is also well placed to comment on the risks of preemptive invasion for existing alliances and the future prospects for the international rule of law. An analysis of the ways in which the international community has “confronted evil,” Shawcross’ brief polemic argues that U.S. President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were right to go to war without UN clearance, and that the hypocrisy of Jacques Chirac was largely responsible for the collapse of international consensus over the war. His curious identification with Bush and his neoconservative allies as the most qualified to implement this humanitarian agenda, however, fails to recognize essential differences between the leftist case for war and the hard-line justification for regime change in Iraq. BOOK REVIEW VENGEANCE AND EMPIRE: THE LEFTIST CASE FOR WAR IN IRAQ WILLIAM SHAWCROSS, ALLIES: THE U.S., BRITAIN, EUROPE, AND THE WAR IN IRAQ* Hal Blanchard** INTRODUCTION In early 2002, as the war in Afghanistan came to an end and a new interim government took power in Kabul,1 Vice President Richard Cheney was discussing with President George W.
    [Show full text]
  • AMERICAN P VERSIGHT
    AMERICAN p VERSIGHT January11,2021 VIA ONLINE PORTAL DouglasHibbard Chief,InitialRequestStaff OfficeofInform ationPolicy DepartmentofJustice 441GStNW,6thFloor Washington,DC20530 ViaOnlinePortal Re: Expedited Freedom of Information Act Request DearFOIAOfficer: PursuanttotheFreedomof InformationAct(FOIA),5U.S.C.§552,andthe implem entingregulationsof youragency,Am ericanOversightmakesthefollowing requestforrecords. OnJanuary6,2021,PresidentTrumpinciteda mtoob attackCongresswhile mbers em werecertifyingtheelectionforPresident-electJoeBiden. 1 Theapparent insurrectionistsattackedtheCapitolBuilding,forcedtheirwaypastreportedly understaffedCapitolPolice,andultim atelydelayedtheCongressionalsessionbyforcing lawmakersandtheirstaffstoflee. 2 Fourpeoplediedduringthisassaultandafifth person,aCapitolPoliceofficer,diedthefollowingdayfrominjuriesincurredwhile engagingwithrioters. 3 Whilem ilitia mbers em roamedthehallsofCongress,Trum preportedlyfoughtagainst deployingtheD.C.NationalGuard, 4 andtheDefenseDepartm entreportedlyinitially 1 PressRelease,OfficeofSen.MittRom ney,Rom neyCondemInsurrectionatU.S. ns Capitol, Jan.6,2021, https://www.romney.senate.gov/rom ney-condem ns-insurrection- us-capitol. 2 RebeccaTan,etal., TrumpSupportersStormU.S.Capitol,WithOneWomanKilledand TearGasFired, Wash.Post(Jan.7,2021,12:30AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trum p-supporters-storm -capitol- dc/2021/01/06/58afc0b8-504b-11eb-83e3-322644d82356 story.html. 3 EricLevenson, WhatWeKnowAboutthe5DeathsinthePro-TrumpMobthatStormedthe Capitol, CNN(Jan.8,2021,5:29PM),
    [Show full text]
  • First Amended Complaint Exhibit 1 Donald J
    Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 18-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 3 First Amended Complaint Exhibit 1 Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration | Donald J Trump for Pre... Page 1 of 2 Case 2:17-cv-00141-JLR Document 18-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 3 INSTAGRAM FACEBOOK TWITTER NEWS GET INVOLVED GALLERY ABOUT US SHOP CONTRIBUTE - DECEMBER 07, 2015 - CATEGORIES DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON VIEW ALL PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION STATEMENTS (New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's ANNOUNCEMENTS representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, ENDORSEMENTS among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security ADS Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts ARCHIVE that pose great harm to Americans, especially women. Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to NOVEMBER 2016 anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and OCTOBER 2016 why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of SEPTEMBER 2016 horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Transcript
    WORKERS-2021/03/18 1 THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION WEBINAR ESSENTIAL WORKERS: ONE YEAR INTO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC Washington, D.C. Thursday, March 18, 2021 PARTICIPANTS: Keynote Remarks: JARED BERNSTEIN Member, Council of Economic Advisers, The White House Former Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Moderated Discussion: MOLLY KINDER, Moderator David M. Rubenstein Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program The Brookings Institution THE HONORABLE TERESA MOSQUEDA Councilmember Seattle City Council THE HONORABLE TOM WOLF Governor Commonwealth of Pennsylvania * * * * * ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 WORKERS-2021/03/18 2 P R O C E E D I N G S MS. KINDER: Good morning and welcome to today’s event, “Essential Workers: One Year Into the COVID-19 Pandemic.” I’m Molly Kinder, a Rubenstein fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program here at the Brookings Institution. Over the next hour we will honor the country’s 50 million essential workers who’ve been on the COVID-19 frontline over the past year at great risk to themselves and to their families. They’re the grocery clerks, hospital workers, first responders, transit workers, home health aides, and so many more. Since the start of the pandemic we’ve expressed our gratitude to them for keeping us safe and fed and protected in a harrowing year. But, of course, essential workers need far more than just our praise. In a new Brookings Metro report published today, my colleague Laura Stateler and I write that a year into the pandemic much more needs to be done to ensure that essential workers receive decent pay, that they have the lifesaving protections that they need, and that they have the power to shape their work conditions and stay safe.
    [Show full text]
  • I:\28947 Ind Law Rev 47-1\47Masthead.Wpd
    CITIGROUP: A CASE STUDY IN MANAGERIAL AND REGULATORY FAILURES ARTHUR E. WILMARTH, JR.* “I don’t think [Citigroup is] too big to manage or govern at all . [W]hen you look at the results of what happened, you have to say it was a great success.” Sanford “Sandy” Weill, chairman of Citigroup, 1998-20061 “Our job is to set a tone at the top to incent people to do the right thing and to set up safety nets to catch people who make mistakes or do the wrong thing and correct those as quickly as possible. And it is working. It is working.” Charles O. “Chuck” Prince III, CEO of Citigroup, 2003-20072 “People know I was concerned about the markets. Clearly, there were things wrong. But I don’t know of anyone who foresaw a perfect storm, and that’s what we’ve had here.” Robert Rubin, chairman of Citigroup’s executive committee, 1999- 20093 “I do not think we did enough as [regulators] with the authority we had to help contain the risks that ultimately emerged in [Citigroup].” Timothy Geithner, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 2003-2009; Secretary of the Treasury, 2009-20134 * Professor of Law and Executive Director of the Center for Law, Economics & Finance, George Washington University Law School. I wish to thank GW Law School and Dean Greg Maggs for a summer research grant that supported my work on this Article. I am indebted to Eric Klein, a member of GW Law’s Class of 2015, and Germaine Leahy, Head of Reference in the Jacob Burns Law Library, for their superb research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Turning a Blind Eye: Why Washington Keeps Giving in to Wall Street
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2013 Turning a Blind Eye: Why Washington Keeps Giving In to Wall Street Arthur E. Wilmarth Jr. George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., Turning a Blind Eye: Why Washington Keeps Giving In to Wall Street, 81 University of Cincinnati Law Review 1283-1446 (2013). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GW Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Paper No. 2013‐117 GW Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013‐117 Turning a Blind Eye: Why Washington Keeps Giving In to Wall Street Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr. 2013 81 U. CIN. L. REV. 1283-1446 This paper can be downloaded free of charge from the Social Science Research Network: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2327872 TURNING A BLIND EYE: WHY WASHINGTON KEEPS GIVING IN TO WALL STREET Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr.* As the Dodd–Frank Act approaches its third anniversary in mid-2013, federal regulators have missed deadlines for more than 60% of the required implementing rules. The financial industry has undermined Dodd–Frank by lobbying regulators to delay or weaken rules, by suing to overturn completed rules, and by pushing for legislation to freeze agency budgets and repeal Dodd–Frank’s key mandates.
    [Show full text]
  • National Letter in Support of Federal All-Payer Claims Database
    National Letter in Support of Federal All-Payer Claims Database As health scholars, leaders of health organizations, and funders of health research, we are writing in support of establishing a federal all-payer claims database (APCD). APCDs regularly collect data on health insurance claims from all of the payers in a given area (typically a state). Because they include demographic and diagnostic data on patients as well as any treatment or drug paid for by insurance (private or public), APCDs can be immensely valuable for research. APCDs have been used by health scholars to study numerous issues about quality and cost, including the extent of long-term opioid use after surgery, the ability of Medicaid patients to access physicians, the amount of wasted medical spending ending on low-value care, the performance of new models to reduce health spending (such as patient-centered medical home programs), the rate of complications after routine surgeries, and the characteristics of the highest-cost Medicaid patients. In 2016, however, the Supreme Court rendered it all but impossible for states to establish comprehensive APCDs, on the grounds that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempted states from requiring reporting by self-insured health plans. As noted in the Journal of the American Medical Association, this Supreme Court decision has “far-reaching implications for the ability of states to access comprehensive health information to inform policy making.” In May 2019, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee released a draft of the Lower Health Care Costs Act. Among other things, that Act would amend ERISA to create a federal APCD whose data would be available to “researchers and policymakers.” While we are not all able to take a position on specific federal legislation, we can all agree that a national APCD would be an enormous leap forward for the ability of health researchers to study the cost and quality of medical care across the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • News and Documentary Emmy Winners 2020
    NEWS RELEASE WINNERS IN TELEVISION NEWS PROGRAMMING FOR THE 41ST ANNUAL NEWS & DOCUMENTARY EMMY® AWARDS ANNOUNCED Katy Tur, MSNBC Anchor & NBC News Correspondent and Tony Dokoupil, “CBS This Morning” Co-Host, Anchor the First of Two Ceremonies NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 21, 2020 – Winners in Television News Programming for the 41th Annual News and Documentary Emmy® Awards were announced today by The National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (NATAS). The News & Documentary Emmy® Awards are being presented as two individual ceremonies this year: categories honoring the Television News Programming were presented tonight. Tomorrow evening, Tuesday, September 22nd, 2020 at 8 p.m. categories honoring Documentaries will be presented. Both ceremonies are live-streamed on our dedicated platform powered by Vimeo. “Tonight, we proudly honored the outstanding professionals that make up the Television News Programming categories of the 41st Annual News & Documentary Emmy® Awards,” said Adam Sharp, President & CEO, NATAS. “As we continue to rise to the challenge of presenting a ‘live’ ceremony during Covid-19 with hosts, presenters and accepters all coming from their homes via the ‘virtual technology’ of the day, we continue to honor those that provide us with the necessary tools and information we need to make the crucial decisions that these challenging and unprecedented times call for.” All programming is available on the web at Watch.TheEmmys.TV and via The Emmys® apps for iOS, tvOS, Android, FireTV, and Roku (full list at apps.theemmys.tv). Tonight’s show and many other Emmy® Award events can be watched anytime, anywhere on this new platform. In addition to MSNBC Anchor and NBC.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Law Review
    Volume 224 Issue 2 2016 ACADEMIC JOURNAL 27-100-224-2 MILITARY LAW REVIEW ARTICLES THE SJA’S ARTICLE 34 VETO: A FORCE AWAKENING? MILITARY LAW REVIEW LAW MILITARY Captain Gary E. Felicetti, USCG A PERMANENT FRAMEWORK FOR CONDOLENCE PAYMENTS IN ARMED CONFLICT: A VITAL COMMANDER’S TOOL Major Katharine M. E. Adams THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION: SHOULD AGGRESSION BE PROSECUTED AS A CRIME IN THE ICC? Tal Ziskovich, Israel Defense Force WHAT COMPRISES A “LASCIVIOUS EXHIBITION OF THE GENITALS OR PUBIC AREA”? THE ANSWER, MY FRIEND, IS BLOUIN IN THE WIND Major Daniel M. Goldberg EX PARTE MERRYMAN: MYTH, HISTORY, AND SCHOLARSHIP Seth Barrett Tillman VOLUME 224 2016 PROPOSING A NEW STRATEGY FOR ARMY ETHICS TRAINING Major Jeniffer G. H. Cox BOOK REVIEW THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT Reviewed by Fred L. Borch III Academic Journal 27-100-224-2 Military Law Review Volume 224 Issue 2 2016 CONTENTS Articles The SJA’s Article 34 Veto: A Force Awakening? Captain Gary E. Felicetti, USCG 289 A Permanent Framework for Condolence Payments in Armed Conflict: A Vital Commander’s Tool Major Katharine M. E. Adams 314 The Crime of Aggression: Should Aggression be Prosecuted as a Crime in the ICC? Tal Ziskovich, Israel Defense Force 373 What Comprises a “Lascivious Exhibition of the Genitals or Pubic Area”? The Answer, My Friend, is Blouin in the Wind Major Daniel M. Goldberg 425 Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History, and Scholarship Seth Barrett Tillman 481 Proposing a New Strategy for Army Ethics Training Major Jeniffer G. H. Cox 541 Book Review The Law of Armed Conflict Reviewed by Fred L.
    [Show full text]
  • Impeachment of President Donald John Trump The
    1 116TH CONGRESS " ! DOCUMENT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 116–95 IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD PURSUANT TO H. RES. 798 VOLUME XI, PART 7 Historic Materials Printed at the direction of Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the House of Representatives, pursuant to H. Res. 798, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2020) JANUARY 23, 2020.—Ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 39–530 WASHINGTON : 2020 VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:15 Jan 24, 2020 Jkt 039530 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5012 Sfmt 5012 E:\HR\OC\HD095P29.XXX HD095P29 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS E:\Seals\Congress.#13 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking Member SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., STEVE COHEN, Tennessee Wisconsin HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas KAREN BASS, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana KEN BUCK, Colorado HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island MARTHA ROBY, Alabama ERIC SWALWELL, California MATT GAETZ, Florida TED LIEU, California MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland ANDY BIGGS, Arizona PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington TOM MCCLINTOCK, California VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona J. LUIS CORREA, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, BEN CLINE, Virginia Vice-Chair KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas W. GREGORY STEUBE,
    [Show full text]