Roger Stone's 'Extreme' Sentencing Recommendation: Official
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Philanthropic Landscape
SNAPSHOT OF TODAY’S PHILANTHROPIC LANDSCAPE A Guide to Philanthropy in the U.S. 8th Edition, 2019 Letter// INTRODUCTION: from the Reflections Chairman on the Latest Data In 2018, charitable giving in the United States reached a record-breaking $427 billion reported in contributions from individuals, companies, foundations, and charitable bequests. Despite this extraordinary number, there are some underlying trends which raise concerns about the participation of American households in charitable giving. Annual surveys, such as the Philanthropy Panel Study by the IUPUI Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, indicate that the percentage of American households that report making charitable gifts has declined. The most significant dip was during the financial crisis in 2009 with an estimated 14 million fewer U.S. households reporting charitable gifts. Evidence of this trend can be seen in decreasing support in the religious sector, declining alumni participation rates at many educational institutions, and lower engagement in several leading corporate matching gift programs. In contrast, the philanthropic activity of American households with an income of $200,000 or more is growing in significance as evidenced by large publicly reported charitable gifts, institutional fundraising success stories, and an influx of personal assets into donor-advised funds. Those who do give are giving considerably more. There are more than one million registered nonprofit organizations in the United States. How these institutions respond to these trends will affect their revenue streams well into the future. With this in mind, we have endeavored to consolidate many insightful reports on giving and volunteering into this Snapshot of Today’s Philanthropic Landscape. -
The Potential of Leaks: Mediation, Materiality, and Incontinent Domains
THE POTENTIAL OF LEAKS: MEDIATION, MATERIALITY, AND INCONTINENT DOMAINS ALYSSE VERONA KUSHINSKI A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO AUGUST 2019 © Alysse Kushinski, 2019 ABSTRACT Leaks appear within and in between disciplines. While the vernacular implications of leaking tend to connote either the release of texts or, in a more literal sense, the escape of a fluid, the leak also embodies more poetic tendencies: rupture, release, and disclosure. Through the contours of mediation, materiality, and politics this dissertation traces the notion of “the leak” as both material and figurative actor. The leak is a difficult subject to account for—it eludes a specific discipline, its meaning is fluid, and its significance, always circumstantial, ranges from the entirely banal to matters of life and death. Considering the prevalence of leakiness in late modernity, I assert that the leak is a dynamic agent that allows us to trace the ways that actors are entangled. To these ends, I explore several instantiations of “leaking” in the realms of media, ecology, and politics to draw connections between seemingly disparate subjects. Despite leaks’ threatening consequences, they always mark a change, a transformation, a revelation. The leak becomes a means through which we can challenge ourselves to reconsider the (non)functionality of boundaries—an opening through which new possibilities occur, and imposed divisions are contested. However, the leak operates simultaneously as opportunity and threat—it is always a virtual agent, at once stagnant and free flowing. -
The Impact of Organizational Characteristics on Super PAC
The Impact of Organizational Characteristics on Super PAC Financing and Independent Expenditures Paul S. Herrnson University of Connecticut [email protected] Presented at the Meeting of the Campaign Finance Task Force, Bipartisan Policy Center, Washington, DC, April 21, 2017 (revised June 2017). 1 Exe cutive Summa ry Super PACs have grown in number, wealth, and influence since the Supreme Court laid the foundation for their formation in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and the decisions reached by other courts and the FEC clarified the boundaries of their political participation. Their objectives and activities also have evolved. Super PACs are not nearly as monolithic as they have been portrayed by the media. While it is inaccurate to characterize them as representative of American society, it is important to recognize that they vary in wealth, mission, structure, affiliation, political perspective, financial transparency, and how and where they participate in political campaigns. Organizational characteristics influence super PAC financing, including the sums they raise. Organizational characteristics also affect super PAC independent expenditures, including the amounts spent, the elections in which they are made, the candidates targeted, and the tone of the messages delivered. The super PAC community is not static. It is likely to continue to evolve in response to legal challenges; regulatory decisions; the objectives of those who create, administer, and finance them; and changes in the broader political environment. 2 Contents I. Introduction 3 II. Data and Methods 4 III. Emergence and Development 7 IV. Organizational Characteristics 11 A. Finances 11 B. Mission 14 C. Affiliation 17 D. Financial Transparency 19 E. -
Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty's Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism
Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center Occasional Papers Series Series Editor Tony Saich Deputy Editor Jessica Engelman The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion. By training the very best leaders, developing powerful new ideas, and disseminating innovative solutions and institutional reforms, the Center’s goal is to meet the profound challenges facing the world’s citizens. The Ford Foundation is a founding donor of the Center. Additional information about the Ash Center is available at ash.harvard.edu. This research paper is one in a series funded by the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. The views expressed in the Ash Center Occasional Papers Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard University. The papers in this series are intended to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. This paper is copyrighted by the author(s). It cannot be reproduced or reused without permission. Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Letter from the Editor The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion. -
Defending 2020
© 2021 The Alliance for Securing Democracy Please direct inquiries to The Alliance for Securing Democracy at The German Marshall Fund of the United States 1700 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 T 1 202 683 2650 E [email protected] This publication can be downloaded for free at https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/defending-2020/. The views expressed in GMF publications and commentary are the views of the authors alone. Cover design by Katya Sankow Alliance for Securing Democracy The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), a nonpartisan initiative housed at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, develops comprehensive strategies to deter, defend against, and raise the costs on autocratic efforts to undermine and interfere in democratic institutions. ASD has staff in Washington, D.C., and Brussels, bringing together experts on disinformation, malign finance, emerging technologies, elections integrity, economic coer- cion, and cybersecurity, as well as Russia, China, and the Middle East, to collaborate across traditional stovepipes and develop cross-cutting frameworks. About the Authors Jessica Brandt is head of policy and research for the Alliance for Securing Democracy and a fellow at the Ger- man Marshall Fund of the United States. She was previously a fellow in the Foreign Policy program at the Brook- ings Institution, where her research focused on multilateral institutions and geopolitics, and where she led a cross-program initiative on Democracy at Risk. Jessica previously served as special adviser to the president of the Brookings Institution, as an International and Global Affairs fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and Inter- national Affairs at Harvard University, and as the director of Foreign Relations for the Geneva Accord. -
UNITED STATES of AMERICA, ) ) V
Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 362 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 81 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Crim. Action No. 19-0018 (ABJ) ) ROGER J. STONE, JR., ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUMOPINION INTRODUCTION On November 15, 2019, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in the case of United States v. Roger J. Stone. It found the defendant guilty of seven crimes: one count of obstructing a Congressional investigation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505; five separate counts of making a false statement to the government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; and tampering with a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). Once the verdict had been returned,the jurors were officially released from the prohibition against discussing the case that had beenin effect during the trial. A week later, one of the jurors published a column in the Washington Post describing his experience. Likejurors everywhere,none of us asked for thisresponsibilitybut each of usacceptedit willingly. We served the propositionthat everyoneisentitled to a fair trial and that everyoneis innocentuntilprovenguilty. * * * The evidence in this case was substantialand almost entirely uncontested. We listened carefully to the testimony of a series of witnesses and carefullyexaminedevery element of every charge and its defense,and we unanimouslyagreedthat each had been provedbeyonda reasonabledoubt. * * * 1 Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 362 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 81 I am proud of our democratic institutions; their value was reaffirmed for me because of the process we went through and the respect we accorded it. -
May 8, 2020 the Honorable Michael E. Horowitz Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General
May 8, 2020 The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Dear Inspector General Horowitz: Like many Americans, we are deeply concerned by the Department’s decision to move to dismiss the criminal case against Michael Flynn, who briefly served as President Trump’s National Security Advisor. Under a generous plea deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Mr. Flynn was allowed to plead guilty to a single charge of making false statements to federal investigators and avoid prosecution for other serious alleged crimes.1 In measuring the impact of the decision to dismiss these charges, it is important to observe the divide between Attorney General William Barr and the career staff at the Department of Justice. Hours before the government moved to dismiss the case, Brandon Van Grack—an experienced prosecutor who had worked the Flynn case from its inception—abruptly withdrew from the matter. On the merits, the government’s argument for dismissing the case appears to be inaccurate, politically biased, and inconsistent with the Department’s own guidelines.2 The government’s brief is signed only by Timothy Shea—the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, promoted from the Attorney General’s personal staff to his current post earlier this year—and not by a single career prosecutor.3 1 Michael D. Shear and Adam Goldman, Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying to the F.B.I. and Will Cooperate with Russia Inquiry, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 1, 2017; see also James V. -
Contempt of Courts? President Trump's
CONTEMPT OF COURTS? PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TRANSFORMATION OF THE JUDICIARY Brendan Williams* Faced with a letter from the American Bar Association (ABA) assessing him as “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice,” Lawrence VanDyke, nominated by President Trump to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, cried during an October 2019 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.1 Republican senators dutifully attacked the ABA as liberally-biased.2 In a Wall Street Journal column, a defender of VanDyke assailed what he called a “smear campaign” and wrote that “[t]he ABA’s aggressive politicization is especially frustrating for someone like me, an active member of the ABA[.]”3 VanDyke was confirmed anyway.4 Contrary to Republican protestations, the ABA has deemed 97% of President Trump’s nominees to be “well qualified” or “qualified.”5 Indeed, in the most polarizing judicial nomination of the Trump Administration, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh’s defenders pointed to the ABA having rated him “well qualified” despite the association having once, in 2006, dropped his rating to “qualified” due to concerns about his temperament.6 *Attorney Brendan Williams is the author of over 30 law review articles, predominantly on civil rights and health care issues. A former Washington Supreme Court judicial clerk, Brendan is a New Hampshire long-term care advocate. This article is dedicated to his father Wayne Williams, admitted to the Washington bar in 1970. 1Hannah Knowles, Trump Judicial Nominee Cries over Scathing Letter from the American Bar Association, WASH. POST (Oct. 30, 2015). 2Id. -
Election Spending 2016: Just Three Interests Dominate, Shadow Parties Continue to Rise
Election Spending 2016: Just Three Interests Dominate, Shadow Parties Continue to Rise Ian Vandewalker *Research provided by Alexis Farmer Outside spending — expenditures by groups other than candidates themselves — is pouring into the races that will determine control of the U.S. Senate. As part of our series on money in key Senate races, the Brennan Center has examined the outside spending in 10 close contests.1 New data will become available in the next week that will allow us to paint a full picture of spending trends in 2016’s most competitive Senate races. In the meantime, our preliminary analysis reveals two important trends: The courts’ deregulation of outside money is not allowing a wider array of voices to fund elections. On the contrary, just a handful of partisan and ideological interests with vast resources, especially the major parties, are using the looser rules to increasingly monopolize election funding. The parties are shifting their resources outside the official committees, which raise money subject to contribution limits and required disclosure of donors, to super PACs and nonprofits controlled by party operatives but able to take unlimited and often secret donations. Spending Is Dominated by Just Three Interests More than half of the outside spending in key Senate races comes from just three interests: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the political network founded by the industrialist Koch brothers. Counting expenditures from FEC data, media reports, and press releases, we found $321 million spent by entities other than the candidates in the 10 closest Senate races (Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). -
What Is Addiction?
Methadone and Buprenorphine Maintenance: Effective Treatments for Opiate Addiction Mary Jeanne Kreek, M.D. Patrick E. and Beatrice M. Haggerty Professor Head of Laboratory The Laboratory of the Biology of Addictive Diseases The Rockefeller University Senior Physician The Rockefeller University Hospital June 11, 2019 International Conference on Opioids Boston, MA funded primarily by NIH-NIDA, NIH-NCRR and the Adelson Medical Research Foundation What is Addiction? Compulsive drug seeking behavior and drug self-administration, without regard to negative consequences to self or others. (adapted from WHO) “drug” = nicotine, alcohol – legal drugs prescription opiates, marijuana (cannabis) – medicines (?) heroin, cocaine – illegal drugs 2019 Natural History of Drug and Alcohol Abuse and Addictions relapse to addiction without pharmacotherapy 90% - opiate; Primary Possible Utility of Vaccines Medications Useful 60% - cocaine, alcohol Prevention and Selected Medications and Needed Initial Sporadic Regular Addiction Early Protracted Self-Administration Intermittent Use Withdrawal Abstinence of Drug of Abuse Use (abstinence) Progression sustain abstinence with no specific medications ADDICTION: Compulsive drug seeking behavior 10% - opiate; and drug self-administration, without regard to 40% - cocaine, alcohol negative consequences to self or others (adapted from WHO). Adapted from Kreek et al., Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 1:710, 2002; 2019 1 Prevalence of Specific Drug Abuse and Vulnerability to Develop Addictions – 2019 National Household Survey -
Report on Possible Misconduct by Department of Justice in Dropping the Prosecution of Gen
Report on Possible Misconduct by Department of Justice in Dropping the Prosecution of Gen. Michael Flynn Background: The Flynn Case Michael Flynn was the first senior Trump Administration official who pleaded guilty and pledged to cooperate with the Special Counsel investigation into Russian election interference. As the former National Security Advisor to President Trump, his cooperation was viewed as a critical point of vulnerability to President Trump and other Trump campaign officials targeted by the Special Counsel investigation. However, Flynn’s degree of cooperation varied over time. After a federal judge expressed skepticism over Flynn’s conduct and the fulsomeness of his cooperation, Flynn changed course and decided to challenge his prosecution. The judge rejected his claims of prosecutorial misconduct. He then attempted to withdraw his guilty plea. When the judge expressed reluctance to accept his withdrawal, too, the Department of Justice—in an unprecedented move—filed a motion to withdraw Flynn’s prosecution by Special Counsel Mueller. Did officials at the Department of Justice violate the law when they moved to undo the guilty plea entered by Flynn? What possible charges could be investigated? What did Flynn do? Before his tenure in the Trump Administration, Lt. General Michael Flynn held a senior position at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) during the Obama Administration.1 Obama nominated Flynn to become the 18th Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in April 2012.2 During his service, Flynn became the first U.S. officer to be allowed inside the Russia military intelligence (GRU) unit headquarters.3 He later expressed a desire to invite high-ranking GRU officials to the U.S. -
12-05-20 Roger Stone Interim
DuCharme, Se·th (ODAG) From: DuCharme, Seth (ODAG) Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10: 17 PM To: Hovakimian, Patrick (ODAG) Cc: Rosen, Jeffrey A. (ODAG) Subject: Re: Stone sentencing I am tracking. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 4, 2020, at 9:03 PM, Hovakimian, Patrick {ODAG) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Papers a re due from the United States on Friday, according to Metcalf. > > Patrick Hovakimian > (b) (6) 0106 Document ID: 0.7.4262.5159 Zelinsky, Aaron (USAMD) From: Zelinsky, Aaron (USAMO} Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 1:59 PM To: Metcalf, David {OOAG) Subject: Re: I'm back in my office Meeting with my trial team. Will let you know when done. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 10, 2020, at 1:56 PM, Metcalf, David (ODAG} <[email protected]> wrote: I just stopped by. Where are you? Sent from my iPhone On Feb 10, 2020, at 1:43 PM, Zelinsky, Aaron (USAMD) (b)(6) per EOUSA wrote: (b) (6) Sent from my iPhone On Feb 10, 2020, at 1:37 PM, Zelinsky, Aaron {USAMD) (b)(6) per EOUSA wrote: Dave, (b)(6) Best, Aaron 0117 Document ID: 0.7.4262.7445 Metcalf, David (USADC) From : Metcalf, David (USADC) Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:28 AM To: Metcalf, David {OOAG) Subject: Fwd: Stone's Sentencing Memo Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Eva ngelista, Alessio {USADC)" (b)(6) per EOUSA Date: February 11, 2020 at 10:20:49 AM EST To: "Cooney, Joseph (USADC)" (b)(6) per EOUSA , "Crabb, John 0. (USADC)" (b)(6) per EOUSA Cc: "Metcalf, David (USADC)" (b )(6) per EOUSA Subject: Stone's Sentencing Memo 0124 Document ID: 0.7.4262.7444 Metcalf, David (USADC) From : Metcalf, David (USADC) Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:28 AM To: Metcalf, David {OOAG) Subject: Fwd: Stone sentencing memo Attachments: stone sentencing memo 2-10-20.docx; ATT0OOOl.htm Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Cooney, Joseph (USADC)" (b )(6) per EOUSA Date: February 10, 2020 at 4:25:40 PM EST To: "Metcalf, David (USAOC)" , "Evangelista, Alessio {USAOC)" (b)(6) per EOUSA , "Crabb, John D.