DOCSLIB.ORG

The Future of the Independent Counsel Act Hearings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Future of the Independent Counsel Act Hearings S. Hrg. 106±131 THE FUTURE OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ACT HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FEBRUARY 24, MARCH 3, 17, 24, AND APRIL 14, 1999 Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs ( VerDate 11-SEP-98 12:50 Sep 10, 1999 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 56376.TXT SAFF2 PsN: SAFF2 S. Hrg. 106±131 THE FUTURE OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ACT HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FEBRUARY 24, MARCH 3, 17, 24, AND APRIL 14, 1999 Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 56±376 cc WASHINGTON : 1999 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 VerDate 11-SEP-98 12:50 Sep 10, 1999 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 56376.TXT SAFF2 PsN: SAFF2 THE FUTURE OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ACT VerDate 11-SEP-98 12:50 Sep 10, 1999 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 56376.TXT SAFF2 PsN: SAFF2 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut TED STEVENS, Alaska CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi MAX CLELAND, Georgia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HANNAH S. SISTARE, Staff Director and Counsel FRED ANSELL, Chief Counsel ASH JAIN, Counsel JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel LYNN L. BAKER, Chief Clerk (II) VerDate 11-SEP-98 12:50 Sep 10, 1999 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 56376.TXT SAFF2 PsN: SAFF2 C O N T E N T S Opening statements: Page Senator Thompson.................................................................... 1, 141, 237, 325, 413 Senator Lieberman................................................................... 6, 142, 241, 326, 416 Senator Stevens ................................................................................................ 10 Senator Levin .................................................................................................. 10, 346 Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 16 Senator Durbin................................................................................................ 17, 273 Senator Domenici ............................................................................................. 19 Senator Cleland ................................................................................................ 20 Senator Cochran ............................................................................................... 21 Senator Akaka ........................................................................................ 21, 270, 350 Senator Torricelli ............................................................................................ 23, 276 Senator Specter....................................................................................... 42, 266, 344 Senator Edwards............................................................................................. 44, 279 WITNESSES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1999 Hon. Howard H. Baker, Jr., Former Senate Majority Leader ............................. 26 Hon. Griffin B. Bell, Former U.S. Attorney General ............................................ 28 Joseph E. diGenova, Independent Counsel, Clinton Passport File Investiga- tion ........................................................................................................................ 56 Arthur H. Christy, Special Prosecutor, Hamilton Jordan Investigation ............. 64 Hon. Curtis Emery Von Kann, Independent Counsel, Eli Segal Investigation, Americorps Chief .................................................................................................. 73 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1999 Robert S. Bennett, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom ............................. 144 Nathan Lewin, Miller, Cassidy, Larroca and Lewin ............................................. 153 George Beall, Hogan and Hartson .......................................................................... 187 Henry Ruth, Former Special Prosecutor, Watergate Special Prosecution Force 194 Robert B. Fiske, Jr., Davis, Polk and Wardwell ................................................... 198 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1999 Hon. Janet Reno, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice ....................... 242 John Q. Barrett, Assistant Professor of Law, St. John's University, New York, New York, and Former Associate Independent Counsel, Iran-Contra Investigation ......................................................................................................... 283 Philip B. Heymann, James Barr Ames Professor of Law, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Former Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, and Former Watergate Special Prosecutor ................. 291 Charles G. La Bella, Former Supervising Attorney, Campaign Financing Task Force ...................................................................................................................... 294 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1999 Lawrence E. Walsh, Former Independent Counsel, Iran-Contra Investigation . 329 Samuel Dash, Former Chief Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee and Former Ethics Advisor to Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr ...................................................................................................................... 355 Julie Rose O'Sullivan, Former Assistant Prosecutor, Whitewater Investigation and Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center .......................... 364 Kenneth G. Gormley, Professor of Law, Duquesne University ............................ 371 (III) VerDate 11-SEP-98 12:50 Sep 10, 1999 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 56376.TXT SAFF2 PsN: SAFF2 IV Page WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999 Hon. Kenneth W. Starr, Independent Counsel ..................................................... 419 Hon. Richard D. Cudahy, Member, Special Division of the Court of Appeals .... 473 Hon. David B. Sentelle, Presiding Judge, Special Division of the Court of Appeals .................................................................................................................. 474 Hon. Peter T. Fay, Member, Special Division of the Court of Appeals ............... 481 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES Baker, Hon. Howard H. Jr.: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 26 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 Barrett, John Q.: ...................................................................................................... Testimony .......................................................................................................... 283 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 286 Beall, George: ........................................................................................................... Testimony .......................................................................................................... 187 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 189 Bell, Hon. Griffin B.: ............................................................................................... Testimony .......................................................................................................... 28 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 Bennett, Robert S.: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 144 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 149 Christy, Arthur H.: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 64 Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 65 Cudahy, Hon. Richard D.: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 473 Dash, Samuel: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 355 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 358 diGenova, Joseph E.: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 56 Georgetown Law Review Article submitted as prepared statement ............ 59 Fay, Hon. Peter T.: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 481 Fiske, Robert B. Jr.: Testimony .......................................................................................................... 198 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 205 Gormley, Kenneth
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Iqbal Brief: Barr Amicus Brief
    No. 07-1015 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States __________ JOHN D. ASHCROFT, former Attorney General of the United States, and ROBERT MUELLER, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Petitioners, v. JAVAID IQBAL, et al., Respondents. __________ On Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit __________ BRIEF OF WILLIAM P. BARR, GRIFFIN BELL, BENJAMIN R. CIVILETTI, EDWIN MEESE III, WILLIAM S. SESSIONS, RICHARD THORNBURGH, AND WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS __________ Paul J. Larkin, Jr. Daniel J. Popeo 1314 Cleveland St. Richard A. Samp Alexandria, VA 22302 (Counsel of Record) (703) 931-1704 Washington Legal Foundation 2009 Mass. Ave, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 588-0302 Date: September 5, 2008 QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Whether a conclusory allegation that a cabinet-level officer or high-ranking official knew of, condoned, or agreed to subject a plaintiff to allegedly unconstitutional acts purportedly committed by subordinate officials is sufficient to state individual- capacity claims against those officials under Bivens. 2. Whether a cabinet-level officer or other high- ranking official may be held personally liable for the allegedly unconstitutional acts of subordinate officials on the ground that, as high-level supervisors, they had constructive notice of the discrimination allegedly carried out by such subordinate officials. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................... iv INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ...............1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................5 ARGUMENT...............................11 I. THE DECISION BELOW IMPROPERLY PERMITS COMPLAINTS TO PROCEED TO DISCOVERY BASED ON MERE CONCLUSORY ASSERTIONS OF WRONGDOING.......................11 II.
    [Show full text]
  • Specious Poisons?: Reputation, Gender, and Democratic Politics (Under the Direction of Susan Bickford.)
    SPECIOUS POISONS?: REPUTATION, GENDER, AND DEMOCRATIC POLITICS Erin N. Taylor A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science. Chapel Hill 2006 Approved by Advisor: Susan Bickford Reader: Michael Lienesch Reader: John McGowan Reader: Jeff Spinner-Halev Reader: Marco Steenbergen ABSTRACT ERIN N. TAYLOR: Specious Poisons?: Reputation, Gender, and Democratic Politics (Under the direction of Susan Bickford.) Suggesting that reputation and gossip have been largely ignored by contemporary political theorists, I argue that both reputation and the gossip that helps to constitute it are important aspects of our communal and political lives. I begin with the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau as representative of a larger early modern discourse that identified the desire for reputation as one that is central to human beings. Arguing that this desire for reputation simultaneously poses great dangers and great power for political communities, Rousseau’s vision urges careful attention to political arrangements as a way of harnessing the positive effects of the desire for reputation. In my second chapter, I move to a focus on the relationship between reputation and gender, interrogating the necessity that women maintain spotless sexual reputations (a central feature to Rousseau’s political schema) in light of both Mary Wollstonecraft’s critique of Rousseau as well as my examination of the fate of Rousseau’s heroines. Turning to the work of Harriet Taylor and John Stuart Mill, I contend that their arguments about the stifling effects of reputational politics for individual liberty point to a nuanced understanding of the differential effects of reputation for individuals in various echelons of society.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impeachment of President Clinton: an Ugly Mix of Three Powerful Forces
    POPP_FMT.DOC 11/14/00 10:55 AM THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON: AN UGLY MIX OF THREE POWERFUL FORCES KAREN A. POPP* I INTRODUCTION President Clinton should not have been impeached by the House of Representatives and, once impeached, was properly acquitted by the Senate. Thus, it should come as no surprise that I agree with much of what Professor Susan Low Bloch has written in her article, A Report Card on the Impeachment: Judging the Institutions That Judged President Clinton.1 As Professor Bloch indicates, it is essential for us to assess how Congress arrived at the point of impeaching President Clinton, how the impeachment process itself worked, and what we can learn from it.2 Indeed, much has already been written and said on these topics, and these issues will no doubt continue to be debated and analyzed for years to come. So, how do I rate the impeachment process of President Clinton? I would give it a failing grade. Although the Senate reached the right result by acquitting the President, the fact that the Senate voted as it did is cold comfort. The impeachment process should have never gone that far. In effect, the second parachute finally opened, just before the impeachment process hit the ground. One nevertheless wonders, “Why did the first parachute fail?” As the events were unfolding, it appeared that the 1998-99 impeachment debacle resulted in large part from an ugly mix of three extremely powerful forces: an independent counsel who abused his virtually unlimited power; extreme congressional partisanship that was motivated by the desire to gain control of the government; and media outlets that continuously sought to profit from the sensationalism of it all and consistently flouted standards of professional journalism along the way.
    [Show full text]
  • Fewer Hands, More Mercy: a Plea for a Better Federal Clemency System
    FEWER HANDS, MORE MERCY: A PLEA FOR A BETTER FEDERAL CLEMENCY SYSTEM Mark Osler*† INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 465 I. A SWAMP OF UNNECESSARY PROCESS .................................................. 470 A. From Simplicity to Complexity ....................................................... 470 B. The Clemency System Today .......................................................... 477 1. The Basic Process ......................................................................... 477 a. The Pardon Attorney’s Staff ..................................................... 478 b. The Pardon Attorney ................................................................ 479 c. The Staff of the Deputy Attorney General ................................. 481 d. The Deputy Attorney General ................................................... 481 e. The White House Counsel Staff ................................................ 483 f. The White House Counsel ......................................................... 484 g. The President ............................................................................ 484 2. Clemency Project 2014 ................................................................ 485 C. The Effect of a Bias in Favor of Negative Decisions ...................... 489 II. BETTER EXAMPLES: STATE AND FEDERAL .......................................... 491 A. State Systems ................................................................................... 491 1. A Diversity
    [Show full text]
  • Clinton Presidential Records in Response to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests Listed in Attachment A
    VIA EMAIL (LM 2019-030) February 5, 2019 The Honorable Pat A. Cipollone Counsel to the President The White House Washington, D.C. 20502 Dear Mr. Cipollone: In accordance with the requirements of the Presidential Records Act (PRA), as amended, 44 U.S.C. §§2201-2209, this letter constitutes a formal notice from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to the incumbent President of our intent to open Clinton Presidential records in response to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests listed in Attachment A. These records, consisting of 19,503 pages, have been reviewed for all applicable FOIA exemptions, resulting in 2,274 pages restricted in whole or in part. NARA is proposing to open the remaining 17,229 pages. A copy of any records proposed for release under this notice will be provided to you upon your request. We are also concurrently informing former President Clinton’s representative, Bruce Lindsey, of our intent to release these records. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2208(a), NARA will release the records 60 working days from the date of this letter, which is May 1, 2019, unless the former or incumbent President requests a one-time extension of an additional 30 working days or asserts a constitutionally based privilege, in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 2208(b)-(d). Please let us know if you are able to complete your review before the expiration of the 60 working day period. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2208(a)(1)(B), we will make this notice available to the public on the NARA website.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Is the Attorney General's Client?
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\87-3\NDL305.txt unknown Seq: 1 20-APR-12 11:03 WHO IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CLIENT? William R. Dailey, CSC* Two consecutive presidential administrations have been beset with controversies surrounding decision making in the Department of Justice, frequently arising from issues relating to the war on terrorism, but generally giving rise to accusations that the work of the Department is being unduly politicized. Much recent academic commentary has been devoted to analyzing and, typically, defending various more or less robust versions of “independence” in the Department generally and in the Attorney General in particular. This Article builds from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board, in which the Court set forth key principles relating to the role of the President in seeing to it that the laws are faithfully executed. This Article draws upon these principles to construct a model for understanding the Attorney General’s role. Focusing on the question, “Who is the Attorney General’s client?”, the Article presumes that in the most important sense the American people are the Attorney General’s client. The Article argues, however, that that client relationship is necessarily a mediated one, with the most important mediat- ing force being the elected head of the executive branch, the President. The argument invokes historical considerations, epistemic concerns, and constitutional structure. Against a trend in recent commentary defending a robustly independent model of execu- tive branch lawyering rooted in the putative ability and obligation of executive branch lawyers to alight upon a “best view” of the law thought to have binding force even over plausible alternatives, the Article defends as legitimate and necessary a greater degree of presidential direction in the setting of legal policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana Political Corruption-2018
    Defending Political Corruption and Abuse of Power Prosecutions in Louisiana Typical Types of Federal Prosecutions of Public Officials • 18 U.S.C. § 201- Public Bribery • 18 U.S.C. § 666- Theft or Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving FeDeral FunDs • 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343- Mail and Wire fraud (honest services frauD) • 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242- Deprivation of Rights anD Conspiracy Against Rights 18 U.S.C. 201- Public Bribery • Offering or promising something of value to a “public official,” or • A “public official” demanding, seeking, receiving, or accepting something of value • Corruptly with the intent to influence or be influenced in the performance of an “official act” (ie. bribery) • Or as a reward for an official act already done, or which is promised to be done in the future (ie. a ”gratuity”) 18 U.S.C. 201 • Who is a “public official”? • Per § 201(a)(1), “The term public official means Member of Congress, Delegate, or ResiDent Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualifieD, or an officer or employee of or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency, or branch of Government thereof, incluDing the District of Columbia, in any official function, unDer or by authority of any such Department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror.” • IncluDes any feDeral employee or anyone who holds ”a position of public trust with official federal responsibilities” and who possesses “some degree of official responsibility for carrying out a federal program or policy.” Dixson v. UniteD States, 465 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Starr Report Clinton Pdf
    The Starr Report Clinton Pdf Is Rudie intermontane or bareheaded after protractile Rodd categorised so kinda? Jean-Luc never rebaptized any harpoon wiggle inconclusively, is Dwaine sweetmeal and phoniest enough? Allopathic Hank fubs temporisingly or pillage stiltedly when Frederico is simon-pure. Currie testified that Ms. Alternatively transfixed and starr. 2 Referral from Independent Counsel Kenneth W Starr in Conformity with the Requirements. Lewinsky, she advance the President resumed their sexual contact. That I study the biological son and former President William Jefferson Clinton I having many. Starr Report Wikipedia. Constitution set because as impeachable offenses. What kinds of activities? Make your investment into the leaders of tomorrow through the Bill of Rights Institute today! This income that learn will keep emitting events with dry old property forever. American firms knew what they all those facts in the senate watergate episode. Links to documents about Whitewater investigation President Clinton's impeachment and Jones v Clinton. Starr has been accused of leaking prejudicial grand jury material in an plate to ship opinion said the Lewinsky case. Lewinsky would be debates about. Report new york post vince foster murder hillary clinton starr report the starr. Lee is the gifts he testified that a pdf ebooks without help from the park hyatt hotel that the independent counsel regarding the disclosures in the decade. PDF Twenty years later Bill Clinton's impeachment in. Howey INgov. Moody handled the report contained at that. Clinton could thus slide down impeachment and trial involve the Senate. To print the document click on Original Document link process open an original PDF.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel and the Alien Tort Statute
    Summer 2014 No.54 JTheUSTICE magazine of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists In this issue The International Court of Justice Adjudicating the Arab-Israel Disputes? Boycotts, Divestment, Sanctions and the Law Israel and the Alien Tort Statute Corporations and Human Rights Zivotofsky v. Kerry - A Historical Constitutional Battle Preachers of Hate and Freedom of Expression UNRWA Panel at UN IAJLJ Activities The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists Honorary President: Hadassa Ben-Itto, Judge (Ret.) (Israel) Life time Member: Irwin Cotler, Prof. (Canada) Honorary Vice Presidents: Joseph Roubache (France) Oreste Bisazza Terracini, Dr. (Italy) Executive Committee: Board of Governors: President: Irit Kohn (Israel) Irit Kohn (Israel) Haim Klugman (Israel) Avraham (Avi) D. Doron (Israel) Deputy President: Meir Rosenne, Dr. (Israel) Haim Klugman (Israel) Mirella M. Bamberger (Israel) Alyza D. Lewin (USA) Vice President and Treasurer: Marcos Arnoldo Grabivker, Judge (Argentina) Avraham (Avi) D. Doron (Israel) Maurizio Ruben (Italy) Alex Hertman (Israel) Vice President and Coordinator with Amos Shapira, Prof. (Israel) International Organizations: Avishai Sapir (Israel) Meir Rosenne, Dr. (Israel) David Pardes (Belgium) Dov Shefi, Brig. (Ret.) (Israel) Vice President and Secretary General: Edna Bekenstein, Judge (Ret.) (Israel) Mirella M. Bamberger (Israel) Edna Kaplan-Hagler, Judge (Ret.) Dr. (Israel) Efraim (Efi) Chalamish, Dr. (USA) Vice Presidents: Ethia Simha (Israel) Alyza D. Lewin (USA) Jeremy D. Margolis (USA) Marcos Arnoldo Grabivker, Judge (Argentina) Jimena Bronfman (Chile) Maurizio Ruben (Italy) Jonathan Lux (UK) Lipa Meir, Dr. (Israel) Academic Adviser: Mala Tabory, Dr. (Israel) Yaffa Zilbershats, Prof. (Israel) Maria Canals De-Cediel, Dr. (Switzerland) Meir Linzen (Israel) Representatives to the U.N.
    [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]
  • Edwin Meese Papers, 1941-1991
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt358035d1 Online items available Inventory of the Edwin Meese papers, 1941-1991 Finding aid prepared by Aparna Mukherjee, revised by Hoover Institution Library and Archives Staff and Beth Goder Hoover Institution Library and Archives © 1991, 2013 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6003 [email protected] URL: http://www.hoover.org/library-and-archives Inventory of the Edwin Meese 91005 1 papers, 1941-1991 Title: Edwin Meese papers Date (inclusive): 1941-1991 Collection Number: 91005 Contributing Institution: Hoover Institution Library and Archives Language of Material: English Physical Description: 772 manuscript boxes, 2 oversize boxes, 1 envelope, 5 sound cassettes, 2 motion picture film reels(325.0 Linear Feet) Abstract: Speeches, correspondence, memoranda, reports, schedules, press releases, legal documents, printed matter, photographs, and sound recordings related to California politics and administration of the California state government during the governorship of Ronald Reagan; and to American domestic policy, Republican Party politics, and federal administration of justice during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Digital copies of select records also available at https://digitalcollections.hoover.org. Creator: Meese, Edwin Hoover Institution Library & Archives Access The collection is open for research; materials must be requested at least two business days in advance of intended use. Publication Rights For copyright status, please contact the Hoover Institution Library & Archives. Acquisition Information Materials were acquired by the Hoover Institution Library & Archives in 1991, with increments received in subsequent years. Preferred Citation [Identification of item], Edwin Meese papers, [Box no., Folder no. or title], Hoover Institution Library & Archives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Calculus of Public Corruption Cases: Hidden Decisions in Investigations and Prosecutions
    Article The Calculus of Public Corruption Cases: Journal of Criminal Justice and Law: Official Journal of the Law and Public Policy Section Hidden Decisions in Investigations and of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Volume 3, Issue 1, pp. 21‐36 (2019) Prosecutions ©University of Houston‐Downtown Kristine Artello and Jay S. Albanese I Abstract Acts of public corruption can undermine the rule of law and the legitimacy of the state. Holding public officials to the rule of law through the threat of prosecution is a crucial mechanism to give the law meaning in practice. In the United States, nearly all prosecutions for public corruption occur at the federal level, although many defendants in these cases are officials at the state and local levels of government. When corruption cases are brought, they usually result in a conviction via a guilty plea. However, making these cases is difficult, with only about a third of investigations resulting in actual criminal prosecutions, an outcome much different from those seen in white collar or organized crime cases. In this study, we seek to elicit the decision‐making processes that occur in corruption investigation and prosecution. On the basis of 40 interviews with former investigators and former prosecutors, it has been found that experience, access, resources, and institutional barriers are all challenges to successful investigations. At the prosecution stage, prosecutors face a somewhat different set of barriers, including implied legitimacy concerns, thresholds, and potential long‐term repercussions. Implications of these findings for policy and resources are discussed. Keywords Corruption, investigation, prosecution, decision making ___________________________________________________________________________ I L.
    [Show full text]